Smithsonian Institution: Much Work Still Needed to Identify and Repatriate Indian Human Remains and Objects
Published: 2011-05-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The National Museum of the American Indian Act of 1989 (NMAI Act), as amended in 1996, generally requires the Smithsonian Institution to inventory and identify the origins of its Indian human remains and objects placed with them (funerary objects) and repatriate them to culturally affiliated Indian tribes upon request. It also creates a special committee to oversee this process. According to the Smithsonian, two of its museums--the American Indian and the Natural History Museums-- have items that are subject to the act. GAO was asked to determine (1) the extent to which the Smithsonian has fulfilled its repatriation requirements, (2) how the special committee provisions have been implemented, and (3) the number of human remains and objects that have been repatriated and reasons for any that have not. GAO reviewed museum records, including 171 repatriation case reports, and interviewed Smithsonian, Repatriation Review Committee, and tribal officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Since the NMAI Act was enacted, in 1989, more than 21 years ago, the Smithsonian has offered to repatriate over 5,000 human remains, which account for approximately one-third of the total estimated human remains in its collections. The Smithsonian has also offered to repatriate over 212,000 funerary objects, but the extent of progress is unknown because the Smithsonian has no reliable estimate of the total number of such objects in its collections. The Smithsonian generally makes repatriation decisions based on detailed case reports, and had completed 171 case reports as of December 31, 2010. Developing these case reports is a lengthy and resource-intensive process, in part because the NMAI Act generally requires the Smithsonian to use the best available scientific and historical documentation to identify the origins of its Indian human remains and funerary objects. The Smithsonian originally estimated that the repatriation process would take about 5 years; however, at the pace that it is progressing, GAO believes it could take several more decades to complete this process. In response to the special committee requirements of the NMAI Act, the Smithsonian established a Repatriation Review Committee to monitor and review the Natural History Museum's repatriation activities. Although the Smithsonian believes Congress intended to limit the committee's jurisdiction to the Natural History Museum, the statutory language and its legislative history do not support that view. Since it was established, the committee has provided no oversight over the repatriation activities of the American Indian Museum. In addition, GAO found that neither the Smithsonian nor the committee has provided regular information to Congress on the repatriation progress at the Smithsonian. Although this reporting is not required by the act, given the length of time this process has taken and is expected to take in the future, policymakers do not have information that would keep them apprised of the Smithsonian's repatriation efforts. The committee also hears disputes concerning decisions over the return of human remains and objects, but it does not make binding decisions. Moreover, the Smithsonian has no independent administrative appeals process by which tribes who would like to challenge a repatriation decision can seek recourse, and judicial review of the Smithsonian's repatriation decisions may not be practical. Through December 31, 2010, the Smithsonian estimates that, of the items it has offered for repatriation, about three-quarters of the Indian human remains (4,330 out of 5,980) and about half of the funerary objects (99,550 out of 212,220) have been repatriated. The remaining items have not been repatriated for various reasons, including tribes' lack of resources and cultural beliefs. Resources needed include staff to work on repatriations and appropriate locations to rebury or house the items. In addition, the Smithsonian has not repatriated approximately 340 human remains and 310 funerary objects because it has determined that they cannot be culturally affiliated with a tribe, and it does not have a policy on the disposition of these items. The lack of such a policy limits the transparency of the Smithsonian's actions in handling culturally unidentifiable items for both tribes and policymakers. GAO suggests that Congress may wish to consider ways to expedite the Smithsonian's repatriation process, and recommends that the Smithsonian take actions to expand the oversight and reporting role of the special committee, establish an administrative appeals process, and develop a policy for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable items. The Smithsonian agreed with GAO's findings and recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Smithsonian Institution holds a large number of Indian human  remains and culturally significant objects as part of its museum  collections. These human remains and objects have long been a concern  for many Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian communities, who have been  determined to provide an appropriate resting place for their ancestors. In  1989, the National Museum of the American Indian Act (NMAI Act) was  enacted, in part to address these concerns. Sections 11 and 13 of the act  generally require the Smithsonian to (1) inventory the Indian and Native  Hawaiian human remains and funerary objects in its possession or control,  (2) identify the origins of the Indian and Native Hawaiian human remains  and funerary objects using the “best available scientific and historical  documentation,” and (3) upon request repatriate them to lineal  descendants or culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian  organizations. The Smithsonian is to carry out the inventory and  identification requirements in consultation and cooperation with  traditional Indian religious leaders and government officials of Indian  tribes. As originally written, the act did not set a deadline for the  completion of these tasks. In addition, section 12 of the act requires the  Smithsonian to establish a special committee, which the Smithsonian  refers to as the Repatriation Review Committee, to monitor and review  the inventory, identification, and return of Indian human remains and  funerary objects. In addition to these repatriation provisions, the act also  establishes a new Smithsonian museum known as the National Museum of  the American Indian under a Board of Trustees. The act provides the  Board of Trustees with sole authority to, among other things, dispose of  any part of the American Indian Museum’s collections, subject to the  general policies of the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents, the overall  governing body of the Smithsonian.
In 1990, about a year after enactment of the NMAI Act, the Native  American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was enacted,  and it established repatriation requirements for federal agencies and  museums that receive federal funding, other than the Smithsonian. The  repatriation requirements in NAGPRA were more comprehensive than  those in the NMAI Act as originally enacted in 1989. NAGPRA covers  additional objects—known as sacred objects and objects of cultural  patrimony—and establishes specific deadlines for, among other things,  completing inventories. NAGPRA also requires the establishment of a  review committee to monitor and review the implementation of the  inventory and identification process and repatriation activities. We  reported on federal agency compliance with NAGPRA in July 2010. In that  report, we found that key federal agencies had not fully complied with  NAGPRA because they had not identified all of their NAGPRA items or  made cultural affiliations in accordance with the act and its deadlines. We  recommended, among other things, that the agencies develop plans to  complete their required inventories and summaries and submit such plans  to Congress; the agencies generally agreed with our recommendations.
On October 9, 1996, the NMAI Act was amended to expand the types of  objects covered by the act and establish deadlines for completing certain  activities. In particular, the 1996 amendments add a June 1, 1998, deadline  for the completion of inventories required under the original act. The  amendments also define the term inventory as “a simple, itemized list that,  to the extent practicable, identifies, based upon available information held  by the Smithsonian Institution, the geographic and cultural affiliation of  the remains and objects.” The amendments, however, do not alter the  original 1989 requirement to use the “best available scientific and  historical documentation” to identify the origins of such remains and  objects. The amendments also add a new requirement that the  Smithsonian prepare summaries for unassociated funerary objects, sacred  objects, and objects of cultural patrimony by December 31, 1996. The  summaries are to include, at a minimum, a description of the scope of the  collection, kinds of objects included, reference to geographical location,  means and period of acquisition, and cultural affiliation, where readily  ascertainable. Also, upon request the Smithsonian is to return such objects  where cultural affiliation has been established in the summary or where a  requesting Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization can show cultural  affiliation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Table 1 includes the definitions of the five types of Indian items covered  by the NMAI Act.
The Smithsonian has identified two museums that hold collections subject  to the NMAI Act: the American Indian Museum and the National Museum  of Natural History. Final repatriation decisions for the American Indian  Museum are made by its Board of Trustees; the Secretary of the  Smithsonian has delegated responsibility for making final repatriation  decisions for the Natural History Museum to the Smithsonian’s Under  Secretary for Science.
You asked us to review the status of the Smithsonian’s implementation of  the NMAI Act’s repatriation provisions. This report addresses (1) the  extent to which the Smithsonian has fulfilled its repatriation requirements  and what challenges it faces, if any, in fulfilling its requirements; (2) how  the special committee provisions in the NMAI Act have been implemented  and the challenges the committee faces, if any, in fulfilling its  requirements; and (3) the number of human remains and objects that have  been repatriated and the reasons for any that have not.
To determine the extent to which the Smithsonian has fulfilled its  repatriation requirements and what challenges it faces, if any, we  examined inventories and summaries prepared by the American Indian  and the Natural History Museums. We also analyzed repatriation case  reports completed by the two museums to compile key information,  including the names of the requesting tribes, time frames for completing  the reports, and the repatriation recommendations. We interviewed  officials from the museums’ respective repatriation offices and the  Smithsonian’s Office of General Counsel on the repatriation process. We  interviewed these officials as well as tribal officials to determine any  challenges the Smithsonian faces in implementing the NMAI Act’s  repatriation requirements. We also obtained in writing the Smithsonian’s  legal views on how it interprets the NMAI Act and an additional  memorandum regarding its legal views.
To determine how the Smithsonian has implemented the requirement to  establish a special committee and what challenges the committee faces, if  any, we examined the NMAI Act’s requirements as well as the Review  Committee’s charter and bylaws. We examined the comments made by  Review Committee members on repatriation case reports; attended  portions of two Review Committee meetings in Washington, D.C.; and  interviewed six of the seven Review Committee members. Because the  Board of Trustees has performed oversight of the American Indian  Museum’s collections, we interviewed 5 of the 23 board members who  were available to meet in between sessions of a board meeting, 4 of the 8  who make up the American Indian Museum Board of Trustees’  Repatriation Committee, and received written comments from the full  board. For the first and second objectives we also reviewed (1) the  American Indian and the Natural History Museums’ Repatriation Office  progress reports to the Board of Trustees and Review Committee,  respectively, and (2) Review Committee annual reports to the Secretary of  the Smithsonian, meeting minutes, and other documents to obtain  information on implementation.
To determine how many Indian human remains and objects have been  repatriated and reasons for any that have not been repatriated, we  analyzed museum data as well as specific lists prepared by the museums  of the human remains and objects in their collection that were offered for  repatriation but not yet repatriated. We contacted 14 of the 68 tribes to  which these human remains and objects were culturally affiliated—8 for  the American Indian Museum and 6 for the Natural History Museum—and  interviewed 5 of them to determine why the items offered had not been  repatriated. The other 9 tribes that we contacted did not respond to our  inquiries. We chose these tribes based on their geographic location and the  number of items offered for repatriation. A more detailed description of  our scope and methodology is presented in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2010 to May 2011 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  based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Smithsonian Institution was founded in 1846 and is the world’s largest  museum and research complex, consisting of 19 museums and galleries,  the National Zoological Park, and nine research facilities. Of the  137 million artifacts, works of art, and specimens in the Smithsonian’s  collections, about 126 million are held by the Natural History Museum and  about 825,000 are held by the American Indian Museum. Pursuant to the  NMAI Act, the American Indian Museum’s collection was transferred to  the Smithsonian from the former Museum of the American Indian in New  York City, founded by George Gustav Heye, and contains items from North  America, South America, Central America, and the Caribbean. After the  NMAI Act was enacted, in 1989, the American Indian Museum officially  assumed control of the Heye collection in June 1990, and the collection  was physically moved from New York to a newly constructed cultural  resources center near Washington, D.C., from 1999 to 2004. The new  American Indian Museum in Washington, D.C., opened its doors to the  public in 2004.
The Smithsonian has acquired a large number of Indian human remains  and culturally significant objects through a variety of means. For example,  in the late 1800s, the Surgeon General of the Army requested U.S. military  forces to send thousands of Indian human remains from battlefields and  burial sites for the purposes of conducting a cranial study. As a result,  thousands of sets of human remains were sent to the Army Medical  Museum and then later were transferred to the Smithsonian. Other  human remains and many more objects have been collected through  archaeological excavations and donations.
According to museum officials, when new collections are acquired, the  Smithsonian assigns an identification number—referred to as a catalog  number—to each item or set of items at the time of the acquisition or, in  some cases, many years later. A single catalog number may include one or  more human bones, bone fragments, or objects, and it may include the  remains of one or more individuals. All of this information is stored in the  museums’ electronic catalog system, which is partly based on historical  paper card catalogs. Generally, each catalog number in the electronic  catalog system includes basic information on the item or set of items, such  as a brief description of the item, where the item was collected, and when  it was taken into the museum’s collection.
Since the NMAI Act was enacted, the Smithsonian has identified  approximately 19,780 catalog numbers that potentially include Indian  human remains (about 19,150 within the Natural History Museum  collections and about 630 within the American Indian Museum  collections). This number has changed over time as the museums have  either cataloged more human remains or identified additional catalog  numbers that contain human remains. According to museum officials,  Indian human remains, funerary objects, and other objects potentially  subject to repatriation are generally organized within the following  museum collections:    Physical anthropology (Natural History Museum only): This collection  consists mostly of human remains but, in rare instances, also some  funerary objects.
Archaeology: This collection consists of a wide variety of objects,  including funerary objects, some human remains, and some potential  sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony.
Ethnology: This collection consists of a wide variety of objects, including  potential sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony, and some  human remains and funerary objects.
subsections: section_title: Museum Missions and Repatriation Offices
paragraphs: The Smithsonian’s overall mission is the increase and diffusion of  knowledge, and the American Indian and Natural History Museums  implement this overall mission in different ways. The American Indian  Museum’s mission is advancing knowledge and understanding of the  Native cultures of the Western Hemisphere, past, present, and future,  through partnership with Native people and others. The Natural History  Museum’s mission is to inspire curiosity, discovery, and learning about  nature and culture through outstanding research, collections, exhibitions,  and education, but does not specifically refer to partnership with Native  people.
Both museums have established repatriation offices to carry out their  repatriation activities (see fig. 1); the American Indian Museum  established an office in November 1993 and the Natural History Museum  established an office in September 1991. The repatriation offices within  the two museums are independent of each other and have separate staffs  and budgets. For fiscal year 2010, the American Indian Museum’s  Repatriation Office had a budget of approximately $580,000 and consisted  of five staff—a program manager, repatriation coordinator, and three case  officers. In the same fiscal year, the Natural History Museum’s  Repatriation Office had a budget of approximately $1.7 million (including  funding for the Review Committee) and consisted of 11 staff—including a  program manager, three case officers, and a lab director with six technical  staff.
section_title: NAGPRA Requirements and How They Differ from Those of the NMAI Act
paragraphs: One of the purposes of the 1996 amendments to the NMAI Act was to  ensure that the requirements for the inventory, identification, and  repatriation of human remain and objects in the Smithsonian’s possession  are being carried out in a manner consistent with NAGPRA. NAGPRA  requires each federal agency and museum with NAGPRA items in its  collections to (1) compile an inventory of Native American human remains  and associated funerary objects; (2) compile a summary of Native  American unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of  cultural patrimony; and (3) repatriate culturally affiliated human remains  and objects identified through the inventory or summary processes if the  terms and conditions prescribed in the act are met. NAGPRA required that  the inventories be completed no later than 5 years after its enactment—by  November 16, 1995—and that the summaries be completed no later than  3 years after its enactment—by November 16, 1993. NAGPRA included a  provision that allows museums that made a good faith effort to carry out  an inventory and identification to apply for an extension of the inventory  completion deadline.
With respect to inventories, NAGPRA requires that they be completed in  consultation with tribal government officials, Native Hawaiian  organization officials, and traditional religious leaders. Furthermore, in the  inventory, federal agencies and museums are required to identify  geographic and cultural affiliation to the extent possible based on  information in their possession. If a federal agency or museum determined  cultural affiliation for human remains and associated funerary objects to a  tribe(s) in an inventory, the act requires it to notify the affected tribe(s) no  later than 6 months after the completion of the inventory. The agency or  museum is also required to provide a copy of each notice to the Secretary  of the Interior for publication in the Federal Register. NAGPRA and its  implementing regulations generally require that, upon the request of an  Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, all culturally affiliated  NAGPRA items be returned to the applicable Indian tribe or Native  Hawaiian organization expeditiously—within 90 days of receiving the  repatriation request but no sooner than 30 days after publication of the  notice. However, as we reported in 2010, we found examples where  agency officials treated inventories like summaries in that the consultation  occurred and cultural affiliation determinations were made after the  preparation of the inventory.
One of the purposes of the 1996 amendments to the NMAI Act was to  ensure that the requirements for the inventory, identification, and  repatriation of human remains and objects in the Smithsonian’s possession  are being carried out in a manner consistent with NAGPRA, but there  remain some differences between the two laws. For example, the 1996  amendments to the NMAI Act adopt NAGPRA’s definition of inventory, but  they do not alter the original 1989 requirement to use the “best available  scientific and historical documentation” in identifying the origins of the  Indian human remains and funerary objects. In addition, the NMAI Act  does not contain specific deadlines for notifying culturally affiliated tribes  or returning culturally affiliated human remains. Instead, the NMAI Act  requires that culturally affiliated tribes be notified “at the earliest  opportunity” and that culturally affiliated items be returned  “expeditiously.” Some examples of differences between the two acts are  summarized in table 2.
section_title: Special Committee Requirements under the NMAI Act
paragraphs: Section 12 of the NMAI Act requires the Smithsonian to establish a special  committee, which the Smithsonian calls the Repatriation Review  Committee (referred to hereafter as the Review Committee), and tasks the  committee with, for example,    ensuring fair and objective consideration and assessment of all relevant  evidence with respect to the inventory and identification process; reviewing any finding relating to the origin or the return of remains or  objects, upon request; and  facilitating the resolution of any dispute with respect to the return of  remains or objects.
Section 12 lays out other requirements with respect to the Review  Committee. For example, it requires the Secretary of the Smithsonian to  certify by report to Congress at the conclusion of the work of the  committee. It also requires the Secretary to provide administrative support  for the committee.
The Smithsonian established a charter for the Review Committee, which  states that the purpose of the committee is to serve in an advisory capacity  to the Secretary of the Smithsonian in matters concerning the repatriation  of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural  patrimony. The charter also discusses the functions of the committee,  duties of its members, and rules of evidence, among other things.
section_title: Board of Trustees’ Authority Established by the NMAI Act
paragraphs: The NMAI Act provides the Board of Trustees of the American Indian  Museum with certain authority over the museum’s collections. For  example, the act states that the Board of Trustees has sole authority,  subject to the general policies of the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents, to  lend, exchange, sell, or otherwise dispose of any part of the collections of  the American Indian Museum. The act also states that nothing in section  11 of the act—which addresses inventories—shall be interpreted as  limiting the authority of the Smithsonian to return or repatriate Indian  human remains and funerary objects. Furthermore, the 1996 amendments  to the NMAI Act add that nothing in the summary section may be  construed to prevent the Smithsonian from making an inventory or  preparing a written summary or carrying out the repatriation of  unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural  patrimony in a manner that exceeds the requirements of the NMAI Act.
Based on the flexibilities provided by the NMAI Act, the American Indian  Museum established a repatriation policy that differs from the Natural  History Museum’s and the act’s basic repatriation requirements. Under the  policy, for example, the American Indian Museum will repatriate items if  there is sufficient evidence to establish a “reasonable belief” of cultural  affiliation—a lower threshold than the NMAI Act’s basic requirement to  repatriate items where cultural affiliation can be established by a  “preponderance of the evidence.” Also, the policy states that the  American Indian Museum will take into consideration repatriation  requests from non-federally recognized tribes, which are not covered by  the NMAI Act’s repatriation requirements.
section_title: Since 1989, the Smithsonian Has Prepared Required Summaries and Inventories and Has Offered to Repatriate about One-Third of Its Indian Human Remains
paragraphs: The American Indian and Natural History Museums generally prepared  summaries and inventories within the deadlines established in the NMAI  Act, but their inventories and the process they used to prepare them raise  questions about their compliance with some of the statutory requirements.  Since 1989, the Smithsonian estimates that it has offered to repatriate the  Indian human remains in about one-third of the catalog numbers identified  as possibly including human remains. Smithsonian officials that we spoke  with identified challenges that the museums face in carrying out their  repatriation requirements under the NMAI Act.
subsections: section_title: Both Museums Generally Prepared Required Documents on Time, but Inventories Raise Questions about Compliance with the NMAI Act
paragraphs: The American Indian and Natural History Museums generally prepared  required documents by the deadlines established in the NMAI Act. The  American Indian Museum prepared its first set of inventories in 1993. In an  effort to voluntarily follow NAGPRA’s more comprehensive requirements,  it included its entire collection in these inventories—not just the human  remains and funerary objects it was required to inventory at the time.  Museum officials later found that the 1993 inventory did not include an  additional 5,000 catalog numbers containing objects. These catalog  numbers had never been entered into the museum’s electronic catalog,  which was the primary source for the 1993 inventories. As a result, the  museum prepared additional inventories in 1995 covering these  5,000 catalog numbers. The museum provided all federally recognized  tribes with inventories of the collections that could be affiliated to them.  After the enactment of the 1996 amendments, the museum did not revise  its inventories or prepare separate summaries because officials believed  that the museum had already complied with the new requirements.
The Natural History Museum also generally prepared its summary and  inventory documents by the statutory deadlines.
The museum prepared 171 summaries of its ethnological collection from  the United States based on information in its electronic catalog—170 by  tribal grouping and 1 for items that could not be associated with any tribal  group. Of these 171 summaries, 116 were prepared by the December 31,  1996, deadline established by the 1996 amendments, 50 were completed  within 2 months of the deadline, and 5 were completed still later. Some of  these summaries were prepared prior to the 1996 amendments’ enactment,  since the museum had prepared summaries upon request from tribes in an  effort to voluntarily follow NAGPRA’s requirement to prepare summaries.  After the 1996 amendments were enacted, the museum provided all  federally recognized tribes with summaries of the collections that could be  affiliated to them.
The museum also prepared 64 inventories of its physical anthropology and  archaeology collections from the United States—13 for Alaska regions,  1 for each additional state and the District of Columbia, and 1 for items  that could not be associated with a particular state. These inventories  identified about 16,000 catalog numbers as possibly including human  remains and, according to the museum’s Repatriation Office, about  3,000 catalog numbers as possibly including funerary objects. According  to museum officials, these inventories provided specific geographic  information for most human remains and, in some cases, specific  information about the possible cultural affiliations of the human remains  and funerary objects. The Natural History Museum prepared all of its  inventories by the June 1, 1998, deadline and provided all federally  recognized tribes with inventories of the collections that could be  affiliated to them. As with the American Indian Museum, the inventories  prepared by the Natural History Museum included potentially many more  items than the human remains and funerary objects required by the NMAI  Act enacted in 1989. For example, the inventories included the museum’s  entire archaeology collection from the United States, which consisted of  over 200,000 catalog numbers containing over 1 million objects.
Although both museums generally prepared their summaries and  inventories by the statutory deadlines, the process for preparing the  inventories raises questions about compliance with two of the NMAI Act’s  requirements. The first question is the extent to which the museums  prepared their inventories in consultation and cooperation with traditional  Indian religious leaders and government officials of Indian tribes, as  required by the NMAI Act. Section 11 directs the Secretary of the  Smithsonian, in consultation and cooperation with traditional Indian  religious leaders and government officials of Indian tribes, to inventory the  Indian human remains and funerary objects in the possession or control of  the Smithsonian and, using the best available scientific and historical  documentation, identify the origins of such remains and objects. The 1996  amendments did not alter this language, although they added a definition  of inventory. However, the Smithsonian generally began the consultation  process with Indian tribes after the inventories from both museums were  distributed. The second question is the extent to which the Natural History  Museum’s inventories—which were finalized after the 1996 amendments— identified geographic and cultural affiliations to the extent practicable  based on information held by the Smithsonian, as required by the  amendments. Its inventories generally identified geographic and cultural  affiliations only where such information was readily available in the  museum’s electronic catalog. In preparing its inventories, the museum did  not consult other information that the Smithsonian had in its possession to  attempt to identify geographic and cultural affiliations, such as records in  the National Anthropological Archives or the Smithsonian Institution  Archives, which may have included work papers of collectors and donors.  According to the Smithsonian’s legal views and Smithsonian documents,  this is one of the reasons why the cultural affiliations in the Natural  History Museum’s inventories were tentative.
In its legal views, however, the Smithsonian states that it has fully  complied with the statutory requirements for preparing inventories. First,  the Smithsonian states that the statutory language does not require that  consultation occur prior to the inventory being completed. The  Smithsonian points to the definition of inventory added by the 1996  amendments in support of its interpretation, noting that one could easily  construe the consultation requirement to apply with greater force to the  requirement to use the best available scientific and historical  documentation to identify the origins of the human remains and objects  rather than to the development of the inventories. Second, the  Smithsonian states that the law allows the Smithsonian to determine, for  itself, what was practicable in order to meet the statutory deadline for  completion of the inventories. The Smithsonian acknowledges that neither  the American Indian nor the Natural History Museum reviewed each and  every source maintained by the Smithsonian for preparing the  inventories—including the National Anthropological Archives or  individual staff files—because accessing those sources would not have  been practicable given the size and scope of the Smithsonian’s collection.
Furthermore, according to the Smithsonian’s legal views, the Smithsonian  does not interpret section 11 as necessarily requiring that the inventory  and identification process occur simultaneously, and therefore it has  adopted a two-step process to fulfill section 11’s requirements. The first  step is to prepare a detailed listing (the inventory) of the human remains  and funerary objects in each museum’s collection using information in the  electronic catalog. The Smithsonian stated that it does not believe that the  NMAI Act—either as originally enacted or after the 1996 amendments— requires cultural affiliations included in the inventories to necessarily be  conclusive and dispositive. The second step is to prepare repatriation case  reports (the identification). During the second step, the museums  generally consult with tribes and consider all relevant information,  including information held by the Smithsonian as well as other  information needed to meet the NMAI Act’s requirement that the  Smithsonian use the best available scientific and historic documentation  to identify the origins of remains and funerary objects, according to  officials. Generally, each case report prepared by the museums includes a  determination of cultural affiliation and a recommendation regarding  repatriation, according to officials. The officials told us that the museums  generally undertake the second step only after a tribe submits a  repatriation claim based on information in the inventories.
The legislative history of the 1996 amendments provides little clear  guidance concerning the meaning of section 11. The congressional  committee report accompanying the 1996 amendments notes that the  amendments were entirely consistent with the Smithsonian’s then-current  administrative practice and adopted the Smithsonian’s administrative  deadline of June 1, 1998, to complete an inventory of Indian human  remains and funerary objects in its possession. This suggests that the 1996  amendments ratified the Smithsonian’s two-step approach to inventory  and identification. The committee report, however, also notes that one  intent of the amendments was to ensure that the requirements for the  inventory, identification, and repatriation of human remains and funerary  objects in the possession of the Smithsonian was being carried out in a  manner consistent with NAGPRA, which suggests that the Smithsonian  should have included geographic and cultural affiliations in its inventory  to the extent practicable based on information held by the Smithsonian.
Had the Smithsonian implemented the latter interpretation, it would have  faced serious challenges in conducting the required consultations and  research necessary to make the required cultural affiliations within the  statutory deadlines, given the resources devoted to the task. Natural  History Museum staff told us that they could not have reviewed all  relevant information when preparing the inventories because they did not  have time to do so by the deadline. We recognize the dilemma that the  Smithsonian faced; it had to either prepare incomplete inventories by the  deadline or prepare complete inventories and miss the deadline. Either  approach would have resulted in questions about compliance with the  NMAI Act. In addition, Smithsonian officials believe that only the first step  of the two-step process was required to be completed within the deadline.  Therefore, under this interpretation, the Smithsonian does not have a  statutory deadline to complete the remaining consultations and make the  remaining cultural affiliation determinations. The congressional  committee reports accompanying the 1989 act indicate that the  Smithsonian estimated that the identification and inventory of Indian  human remains as well as notification of affected tribes and return of the  remains and funerary objects would take 5 years. However, more than  21 years later, these efforts are still under way.
section_title: Smithsonian’s Progress in Offering Human Remains and Objects for Repatriation Has Been Slow
paragraphs: From the passage of the NMAI Act in 1989 through December 2010, the  Smithsonian estimates that it has offered to repatriate the Indian human  remains in approximately one-third (about 5,280) of the estimated  19,780 catalog numbers identified as possibly including Indian human  remains since the act was passed. The American Indian Museum offered  to repatriate human remains in about 40 percent (about 250) of its  estimated 630 catalog numbers. The Natural History Museum has offered  to repatriate human remains in about 25 percent (about 5,040) of its  estimated 19,150 catalog numbers containing Indian human remains.
The Smithsonian has also offered to repatriate more than 212,000 funerary  objects from about 3,460 catalog numbers and about 1,240 sacred objects  and objects of cultural patrimony from about 1,050 catalog numbers  through 2010 (see table 3). We could not determine what share of the total  this represents because the Smithsonian cannot provide a reliable estimate  of the number of funerary objects in its collections and, for sacred objects  and objects of cultural patrimony, the Smithsonian relies on tribes to assist  in identifying such objects.
The Smithsonian generally makes repatriation decisions based on the case  reports prepared by case officers at each museum. At the Natural History  Museum, the Secretary of the Smithsonian has delegated authority for  making decisions to the Under Secretary for Science; at the American  Indian Museum the decision is made by the Board of Trustees. Through  December 31, 2010, case officers had completed 76 case reports at the  American Indian Museum and 95 at the Natural History Museum.
Case reports vary in scope and complexity, and therefore the length of  time necessary to complete them varies. Both museums’ Repatriation  Managers provided estimates for how long case reports should take to  complete (18 months for the American Indian Museum, on average, and at  least 1 year for the Natural History Museum), but added that time frames  can vary greatly depending on the circumstances. Also, they said that  these estimates are based on a starting point of when a case officer begins  to actively work on a case report. Therefore, their estimates do not include  the months or years during which claims may be pending awaiting active  consideration. We found that it took a median of 2.4 years for the  Smithsonian to complete a case report from the date of an official claim  letter to the date of a case report. This varied from 1 month to 18.3 years.  Appendix II provides details on the length of time taken by the museums  to respond to repatriation claims.
According to the Smithsonian’s legal views, case reports need to be  detailed in order to meet both the act’s statutory requirements and the  Smithsonian’s fiduciary duties. Under the Smithsonian’s legal views, the  Smithsonian has an affirmative obligation to prepare inventories and to  use the best available scientific and historical documentation to identify  the origins of such remains and funerary objects. Accordingly,  Smithsonian officials told us that once they had addressed all of the  pending requests, they would begin culturally affiliating the human  remains and objects still in their collections. In preparing case reports,  case officers generally review relevant documentation, including relevant  information held by the Smithsonian, and consult with tribes. While the  Smithsonian sometimes holds the best available information about its  collections, according to officials, case officers sometimes review sources  held outside of the Smithsonian as well, such as articles published in  journals, state site files, and relevant archival information. In some cases,  case officers have traveled to archives across the country to review  relevant information, such as notes taken by collectors in the field,  according to the Natural History Museum’s Repatriation Manager. The  slow progress can be attributed, in part, to the Smithsonian’s view that it  has a legal and fiduciary duty to use the best available scientific and  historical documentation to determine the cultural affiliation of human  remains and objects. The two museums have established internal goals  for the number of case reports they will complete in 2011—5 at the Natural  History Museum and 4 at the American Indian Museum. However,  Smithsonian officials could not estimate when they will complete this  process for human remains and funerary objects. At the pace the  Smithsonian has been going, it could take decades more to prepare case  reports for the remaining human remains and funerary objects in its  collections.
section_title: The Smithsonian Identified Challenges to Meeting Its Repatriation Requirements
paragraphs: Officials we spoke with from the Smithsonian, the Review Committee, and  the American Indian Museum’s Board of Trustees identified challenges the  museums face in carrying out the Smithsonian’s repatriation requirements  under the NMAI Act. These challenges fall into four main categories:    Limited staff and staff turnover: For example, the Board of Trustees told  us that the American Indian Museum’s Repatriation Office is small and has  suffered over the years from turnover and vacancies. The Natural History  Museum’s Repatriation Manager said that the museum had limited staff to  prepare repatriation case reports, which has contributed to the length of  time needed to address claims. According to the American Indian  Museum’s Repatriation Manager, in one instance the museum was not  permitted to fill an open position for a repatriation staff member because  of budgetary constraints, and this resulted in over a year of lost research  time.
Complex or limited information: Repatriation staff told us that complex  and sometimes limited records of the Smithsonian’s collections can pose a  challenge. For example, the Natural History Museum’s Repatriation  Manager told us that records for late 19th and early 20th century  archaeological excavations are often incomplete and scattered among  record locations at the museum. Furthermore, the manager told us that  some collections have been transferred between the Natural History  Museum and non-Smithsonian museums and that, in some cases, relevant  information in the original records was omitted or simplified during the  transfer of items. The American Indian Museum’s Repatriation Manager  also told us that complex and sometimes limited records of the  Smithsonian’s collections can pose a challenge, but added that the  museum lacks information on the origin of only a few human remains and  funerary objects in its collections.
Difficulties overcoming tribal issues: Review Committee and board  officials said that tribes’ limited resources for repatriation activities and  turnover in tribal governments can pose challenges. Furthermore, the  Review Committee has repeatedly expressed its concerns about whether  the Natural History Museum’s repatriation staff are doing enough to reach  out to tribes. The committee has recommended several times between  2003 and 2010 that the museum’s Repatriation Office hire a tribal liaison to  conduct tribal outreach. The Repatriation Manager said, however, that a  tribal liaison is not needed because repatriation staff conduct outreach  and have built positive relationships with tribes.
Poor data management (American Indian Museum): The American Indian  Museum has historically not maintained centralized files related to its  repatriation activities, according to the museum’s Repatriation Manager.  Instead, staff members at that museum have kept their own separate  working files. As a result, repatriation staff have faced difficulties in  locating case-related information. To tackle this challenge, the American  Indian Museum adopted a new case management system in January 2011  to better organize and track its repatriation activities. The new system will  allow the museum to store extensive amounts of case-related data in a  centralized system and, for example, allow the museum to more quickly  respond to inquiries about repatriation cases, according to the museum’s  Repatriation Manager.
section_title: The Review Committee’s Oversight and Reporting Are Limited, and It Faces Some Challenges to Fulfilling Its Requirements
paragraphs: The Review Committee conducts numerous activities to implement the  special committee provisions in the NMAI Act, but we found its oversight  and reporting are limited, and it faces some challenges in fulfilling its  requirements under the NMAI Act. Contrary to the NMAI Act, the Review  Committee does not monitor and review the American Indian Museum’s  inventory, identification, and repatriation activities, although it does  monitor and review the Natural History Museum’s inventory,  identification, and repatriation activities. The Review Committee also does  not submit reports to Congress on the progress of repatriation activities at  the Smithsonian. In addition, although the Review Committee has heard  few disputes, no independent appeals process exists to challenge the  Smithsonian’s cultural affiliation and repatriation decisions. Finally, the  Review Committee identified challenges it faces in fulfilling its  requirements under the NMAI Act.
subsections: section_title: Contrary to the NMAI Act, the Review Committee Only Monitors the Repatriation Activities of the Natural History Museum
paragraphs: Section 12 of the NMAI Act requires the Secretary of the Smithsonian to  appoint a special committee to monitor and review the inventory,  identification, and return of Indian human remains and objects under the  act. The law does not limit the applicability of the Review Committee to  the Natural History Museum. The Secretary nevertheless established a  Review Committee to meet this requirement in 1990 that oversees only the  Natural History Museum’s repatriation activities and is housed within that  museum. According to the Smithsonian’s legal views, it interprets the act  as limiting the Review Committee’s oversight of repatriation activities to  the Natural History Museum’s repatriation activities. The Smithsonian’s  five reasons for its position, along with our response, are presented below.
The NMAI Act only covered items that the Smithsonian had at the time  of enactment in 1989: The Smithsonian’s legal views are that Congress  only intended the Review Committee to advise the Smithsonian with  respect to the collection of Indian human remains and funerary objects in  the possession of the Smithsonian at the time of the NMAI Act’s enactment  in 1989. At that time, all such items were all in the collections of the  Natural History Museum. The Smithsonian bases this interpretation on the  statutory language and a congressional committee report that said one  purpose of the act was to provide a process of identification for the human  remains of Native Americans that are currently in the possession of the  Smithsonian Institution. However, the version of the act that this report  accompanied did not become law. The congressional committee report  accompanying the version of the act that became law notes that the  Smithsonian is to complete an inventory of Indian human remains and  funerary objects in the Smithsonian collections which, in due course, will  encompass those in the existing Heye collection. Furthermore, section 12  and the act’s legislative history do not indicate that the Review  Committee’s jurisdiction is limited to the Natural History Museum, nor do  they include any language that would dictate a time when the committee’s  jurisdiction should begin. The language of section 12 clearly directs the  Secretary to appoint a special committee to monitor and review the  inventory, identification, and return of Indian human remains and objects  under the NMAI Act.
The Review Committee provision in section 12 of the NMAI Act does not  address the Heye collection: The Smithsonian’s legal views are that  Congress neither addressed nor considered whether the Review  Committee’s jurisdiction should extend to human remains and funerary  objects obtained through the transfer of the Heye collection because at the  time the Smithsonian was not aware that the collection contained human  remains or funerary objects. However, the act’s legislative history  demonstrates that Congress believed the collection contained human  remains and funerary objects because it discussed an inventory of the  human remains and funerary objects in the Heye collection in the  congressional committee report accompanying the version of the act that  became law.
The American Indian Museum did not exist at the time of enactment:  Since the American Indian Museum did not exist at the time of the act’s  enactment in 1989, the Smithsonian’s legal view is that it did not have any  collections that could be subject to the act’s repatriation provisions.  However, 6 months before the act’s passage, the Museum of the American  Indian in New York and the Smithsonian entered into a memorandum of  understanding to transfer the museum’s assets to the Smithsonian. When  Congress passed the NMAI Act in 1989, it knew that the new American  Indian Museum would house the Heye collection. Moreover, the act  established the American Indian Museum and therefore it existed as of the  date the law was enacted.
The American Indian Museum did not exist when the Review Committee  began its work: Because the Review Committee by statute was to begin its  repatriation review process within 120 days of the act’s passage, the  Smithsonian’s legal view is that Congress could not have intended its  charge to extend to the American Indian Museum’s collection since the  museum did not exist 120 days after the act’s passage. However, section 12  only required the Secretary to appoint the Review Committee 120 days  after the act’s passage; section 12 is silent as to when the committee was  to begin its work. Moreover, as stated above, the act established the  American Indian Museum and therefore it existed as of the date the law  was enacted.
The NMAI Act provides the Board of Trustees with sole authority over the  museum’s collections: The Smithsonian’s legal view is that by granting the  American Indian Museum Board of Trustees sole authority over the  museum’s new collection, Congress intended for the board to have  independent, plenary authority over its collections, subject only to the  general policies of the Board of Regents. In the Smithsonian’s legal view,  given this intention, Congress would not have provided the Board of  Trustees with such broad powers, and, at the same time, cause it to be  subject to the oversight of an independent review committee. We asked  Smithsonian officials to provide examples of how the Review Committee  would interfere with the Board of Trustees’ sole authority if the committee  reviewed the American Indian Museum case reports and heard disputes,  but none were provided. We therefore believe that the Review  Committee’s monitoring and review of the American Indian Museum’s  repatriation activities would not interfere with the board’s sole authority  over the museum’s collections and, in particular, its policies to repatriate  to non-federally recognized tribes and to make cultural affiliations using a  “reasonable basis” standard. This is because the Review Committee’s role  is only advisory, as acknowledged by the Smithsonian.
Even though the Review Committee has not been overseeing the  repatriation activities of the American Indian Museum, since its  establishment its Board of Trustees has overseen repatriation activities  and has taken an active role in the repatriation process. For example, in  1991, the board adopted a repatriation policy that assigned specific  authority and responsibility for each aspect of the repatriation process. It  has also overseen the activities of the museum’s own Repatriation Office  at board meetings. For example, board members told us they review and  comment on repatriation case reports, vote to approve each report,  sometimes contribute to case reports, and have been involved in  inventorying museum collections. In addition, the board has, at times,  created a Repatriation Committee composed of a subset of board  members to further its oversight of the museum’s repatriation program.  No dispute had been presented to the board for resolution through  December 31, 2010, but in 2009 it did help resolve a challenge to a  repatriation recommendation. Should there be a dispute in the future, the  board told us that it plans to rely on its recently adopted process for  initiating an ad hoc Special Review Committee to resolve disputes. The  process states that a Special Review Committee would be convened by the  board’s Repatriation Committee.
section_title: The Review Committee Monitors the Natural History Museum but Does Not Report to Congress
paragraphs: To fulfill its responsibility under the NMAI Act to monitor and review the  inventory, identification, and return of Indian human remains and objects,  the Review Committee has performed a number of activities to oversee the  Natural History Museum’s repatriation process including the following:    Assessing the Natural History Museum’s progress in implementing the  act: The committee generally meets twice annually with Repatriation  Office staff and sometimes with other museum staff, including  management, to discuss the status of ongoing claims and other  repatriation activities. During the meetings, case officers report their  interactions with tribes as they address the tribes’ claims for the  repatriation of objects or human remains. The meetings also allow  committee members to review candidates to fill vacant committee seats,  discuss the status of personnel in the Repatriation Office, and raise  concerns regarding the repatriation process with the office program  manager.
Reviewing museum case reports: The committee’s reviews of the  Repatriation Office’s repatriation case reports are intended to offer an  “independent appraisal of whether the case reports provide a fair and  objective consideration and assessment of all relevant information,”  according to the Review Committee annual report. The committee  examines the methodology and information the case officers use during  their research, assesses their conclusions, and, if necessary, provides  editorial suggestions to clarify and improve the reports. The committee  has been provided courtesy copies of some case reports prepared by the  American Indian Museum’s Repatriation Office.
Reporting annually to the Secretary: The committee’s reports include  concerns it has regarding the repatriation process at the Natural History  Museum and updates on disputes, or potential disputes, over cultural  affiliation. The reports also provide information regarding conferences or  workshops the committee has attended or organized and coordination  efforts, if any, the Review Committee has had with the American Indian  Museum.
Hearing and helping resolve disputes: The committee hears disputes  brought by tribes and other interested parties regarding repatriation  decisions by the Natural History Museum and makes recommendations for  resolving these disputes to the Secretary of the Smithsonian. It has heard  two such disputes, which we describe later in this report. In a separate  case, the committee reported that it was able to avoid a potential dispute  when it arranged a consultation with one tribe in Oregon, other potentially  affiliated Oregon tribes, and expert consultants after a tribe complained  about a case report that did not recommend repatriation to the tribe.  According to the Review Committee, the meeting proved to be extremely  helpful and provided new information for the Review Committee to  consider. As a result, the Repatriation Office decided to rewrite its report  on the remains and reassess its recommendation. The human remains and  funerary objects were later found to be culturally affiliated with two  tribes.
Conducting tribal outreach: The committee has a long-standing policy of  interacting with Native American communities and relevant organizations.  For example, committee members have attended NAGPRA Review  Committee meetings and conferences to explain the Smithsonian  repatriation process to tribes. The committee also provided support for a  1995 repatriation workshop organized by the American Indian Museum  and conducted a survey in 2001 of tribes in California to determine their  level of interest in having the Natural History Museum’s Repatriation  Office conduct workshops on Smithsonian repatriation.
Although section 12 of the NMAI Act requires the Secretary, at the  conclusion of the work of the Review Committee, to so certify by report to  Congress, there is no annual reporting requirement similar to the one  required for the NAGPRA Review Committee. As we stated earlier, in 1989,  it was estimated that the Smithsonian Review Committee would conclude  its work in about 5 years and cease to exist at the end of fiscal year 1995.  Yet the committee’s monitoring and review of repatriation activities at the  Natural History Museum has been ongoing since the committee’s  establishment in 1990. In fact, the Smithsonian is not required to report  annually to Congress outside of the annual budget process, and  Smithsonian officials said the Smithsonian has not reported to Congress  on repatriation activities on a regular basis since the NMAI Act was  enacted. Furthermore, the Board of Trustees of the American Indian  Museum does not have a formal reporting process to inform the Secretary  of the Smithsonian or the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents of its activities.  As a result, over the last 21 years, policymakers have not received regular  information to assess the effectiveness of the Smithsonian’s efforts to  repatriate the Indian human remains and objects in its collections. We  believe that this would be an appropriate role for the Smithsonian’s  Review Committee, and would be similar to the role of the NAGPRA  Review Committee.
section_title: The Review Committee Has Heard Few Disputes, and No Independent Appeals Process Exists for Smithsonian Decisions
paragraphs: As stated above, the Review Committee is also responsible for hearing  disputes at the Natural History Museum with respect to the return of  Indian human remains or objects and makes nonbinding recommendations  to the Secretary of the Smithsonian. Since the Review Committee was  established, in 1990, only two disputes have been brought before it.
In 1995, a tribe disputed the Natural History Museum’s Repatriation  Office’s finding that the human remains and funerary objects it claimed  were culturally unidentifiable and recommendation that they be held until  the museum could determine their cultural affiliation. The Review  Committee reviewed the case report, requested written summaries of the  positions of the museum and the tribe, heard testimony presented by the  museum and the tribe, and recommended that the human remains be  repatriated to the tribe and that other potentially affiliated tribes be  notified of the decision. Several of the notified tribes disputed the  repatriation recommendation, and the tribes reached an agreement to  jointly repatriate the human remains and funerary objects. In the end, the  Secretary decided to implement the committee’s recommendation and  repatriated the remains and funerary objects to the requesting tribe and  also to four additional tribes in 1997.
In 2009, a tribal group disputed the Repatriation Office’s finding that  two items it had claimed were not culturally affiliated with the tribes  within the group, and that there was insufficient evidence to determine  that four additional items met the statutory definition of sacred objects  and objects of cultural patrimony. The Review Committee again reviewed  the case report, requested position statements from the tribal group and  the museum, and heard testimony and unanimously agreed that the  Natural History Museum’s cultural affiliation determination was incorrect  for the two items and that all six items met the statutory definition of  sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. On the basis of its review  of this evidence, the Review Committee recommended to the Secretary  that the items be offered for repatriation. However, the Under Secretary  for Science decided that the group had not presented sufficient evidence  to establish by the required legal standard that the items met the statutory  definitions or were culturally affiliated with any tribe in the group, so the  Smithsonian would retain the items. In the letter informing the group of  its decision, the Under Secretary stated that although he respected the  Review Committee’s recommendation and understood why the committee  “may have given more weight to general assertions provided by tribal  leaders,” the tribal group had not given sufficient evidence to prove its  claim.
An official from the tribal group involved in the second dispute told us that  the tribal group has considered challenging the Secretary’s decision, but it  has no recourse because the Smithsonian does not have an appeals  process and cannot be sued in federal court for the decision. The  American Indian Museum’s Board of Trustees, which makes final  repatriations decisions for that museum, established an appeals process in  2010 whereby, in the event of a dispute, the board would appoint  five individuals to an ad hoc Special Review Committee to hear the  dispute. However, this process lacks independence, because it relies on  decision makers overseeing their own decisions. The Smithsonian also  cannot be sued under the NMAI Act or the Administrative Procedures Act,  the law commonly used to sue federal agencies. Currently, the  Smithsonian Board of Regents is the only entity within the Smithsonian  organization that has the authority to oversee the decisions of both the  Secretary and the NMAI Board of Trustees, but there is no existing process  to appeal these decisions to the Board of Regents. In contrast, under  NAGPRA, tribes can use the Administrative Procedures Act or section 15  of NAGPRA to challenge a federal agency’s repatriation decision if they  believe it violates the act.
section_title: The Review Committee Identified Challenges It Faces
paragraphs: The Review Committee has identified two challenges it faces to  implementing its responsibilities under the NMAI Act. First, the Review  Committee has documented its inability to oversee the American Indian  Museum’s repatriation activities as a challenge. The relationship between  the Review Committee and the American Indian Museum has been mixed.  Since its establishment, the Review Committee has maintained that the  NMAI Act mandates a single review committee for monitoring repatriation  activities at all museums and units of the Smithsonian Institution. The  American Indian and Natural History Museums do coordinate on some  issues, such as conducting tribal consultations and providing funding for  consultation and repatriation expenses for tribes. However, the American  Indian Museum’s board has consistently stressed its independence from  the Review Committee with regard to monitoring the repatriation process.  According to the Review Committee, there has been no direct  communication between the committee and the Board of Trustees as of  December 31, 2010.
According to the Review Committee’s annual reports, it has taken steps to  reach out to the American Indian Museum and offer some oversight of its  repatriation program. For example, during the late 1990s, the Review  Committee’s annual reports indicate that the committee requested,  received, and reviewed courtesy copies of some American Indian Museum  case reports. The committee suggested that the Natural History Museum’s  Repatriation Office coordinate more closely with the American Indian  Museum, along with other Smithsonian museums, and other institutions to  help ensure consistency in repatriation policy. The Review Committee also  requested that it be much more involved in the American Indian Museum’s  repatriation process to meet its mandate.
In its 2000 annual report, the committee informed the Secretary that it had  met with resistance in trying to monitor the American Indian Museum’s  repatriation activities, emphasizing its belief that its mandate  encompassed the repatriation activities of the museum. The committee  further stated that if it could not perform these duties, the American  Indian Museum would continue to be “the only museum in the United  States that receives federal funding and  not subject to a monitoring of  its repatriation activities by an independent committee without a direct  interest in activities other than repatriation.” The Review Committee also  reported in 2005 and 2007 that it had conducted little or no monitoring of  the American Indian Museum’s repatriation activities.
However, dialogue has opened up recently between the two museums,  with potential for the relationship to expand, according to the Chair of the  Review Committee. Furthermore, according to the Review Committee, the  current Directors of the American Indian and Natural History Museums  have expressed interest in establishing a more collaborative relationship  between the two museums’ repatriation programs.
The second challenge identified by the Review Committee is a lack of  consistent administrative support. The committee has experienced two  lengthy instances during which it did not have a coordinator, a position  that handles a variety of tasks, including arranging biannual meetings  (travel, reimbursements to members), drafting minutes of the meetings  (on which the annual reports to the Secretary are largely based), and  managing the process for filling open seats on the committee.
In the first instance, in July 2005, the coordinator resigned and the Review  Committee operated without a coordinator until October 2006. In its  2005 annual report, the Review Committee stated its concern over the  length of time it took to fill this position and the negative effect that not  having administrative support had on its work. For example, the  committee stated that without a coordinator, it was not possible for it to  prepare formal minutes for meetings in 2006. Instead, a brief outline of the  meeting was recorded after a new coordinator was hired in October 2006.
In the second instance, according to the Natural History Museum’s  Repatriation Manager, the coordinator was released by the Smithsonian in  December 2007 because of a reduction in workforce at the Smithsonian. A  museum employee was transferred to the coordinator position that same  month but later resigned in February 2008, and the Smithsonian did not  hire a new coordinator until March 2009, resulting in an additional year  without a coordinator. Although the 2007 meeting minutes had been  transcribed by the time the new coordinator had been hired, as of  December 31, 2010, the coordinator was in the process of preparing the  minutes for 2009 and 2010. There are also no minutes for the 2008  meetings, and the recordings for those meetings have not yet been  transcribed. The committee has said that not having a coordinator from  2008 to 2009 made it difficult for it to maintain documentation of its  activities and make appropriate logistical arrangements necessary for the  committee to function. According to Smithsonian officials, during the time  that the Review Committee was without a coordinator, its travel,  reimbursement, meeting arrangements, and the process for filling open  seats were facilitated by museum staff in coordination with the Review  Committee. Smithsonian officials added that they offered to pay for  transcription of meeting minutes, but the Review Committee decided to  wait until a coordinator was in place to transcribe the tapes.
section_title: Most Human Remains and Many Objects Offered for Repatriation Have Been Repatriated, but the Smithsonian Has No Policy on Culturally Unidentifiable Items
paragraphs: The Smithsonian estimates that, of the items offered for repatriation, it has  repatriated about three-quarters of the Indian human remains, about half  of the funerary objects, and almost all the sacred objects and objects of  cultural patrimony. Some items have not been repatriated for a variety of  reasons, including tribes’ lack of resources, cultural beliefs, and tribal  government issues. In addition, the Smithsonian has not repatriated some  human remains and funerary objects that it has determined to be culturally  unidentifiable, and it does not have a policy on how it will undertake the  ultimate disposition of these items.
subsections: section_title: The Smithsonian Estimates That It Has Repatriated About 4,330 Indian Human Remains and About 100,700 Objects
paragraphs: The Smithsonian estimates that, of the items offered for repatriation, as of  December 31, 2010, it has repatriated about three-quarters (4,330) of the  Indian human remains, about half (99,550) of the funerary objects, and  nearly all (1,140) sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony (see  table 4).
Officials from several tribes that we spoke with, that had repatriation  experiences with the American Indian and Natural History Museums,  expressed overall satisfaction with how the Smithsonian facilitated the  return of human remains and objects once offered for repatriation. An  official with one tribe told us that museum staff provided guidance for  submitting the repatriation claim, such as an example of a claim letter to  use as a template for his tribe’s official request for the human remains.  Officials with other tribes told us they appreciated that the museum staffs  showed understanding of the tribes’ cultural requirements by taking great  care to properly handle and transfer the human remains to a burial site. An  official from one tribe described how the museum provided special  training in addition to coordinating the repatriation activities. In two other  instances, tribal officials said some museum staff attended repatriation  ceremonies. Officials from several tribes we spoke with also said they had  received funding that assisted them in carrying out repatriation activities  with the museums.
section_title: Items Have Not Been Repatriated for a Variety of Reasons
paragraphs: Many successful repatriations have occurred, but approximately  1,650 human remains, 112,670 funerary objects, and 100 sacred objects  offered for repatriation have not been repatriated. Tribes have either not  repatriated these items or generally not pursued repatriation because of  their lack of resources, cultural beliefs, tribal government issues, the time  needed for intertribal coordination, and need for pesticide testing.
Lack of resources: Officials from two tribes told us that, at times, their  tribes have lacked the necessary staff to facilitate the return of human  remains and funerary objects affiliated to them. Officials from two other  tribes said that their tribes did not have an appropriate location to serve as  a final resting place for the items offered for return, so they have been  unable to proceed with the repatriation process.
Cultural beliefs: In some cases, tribal cultural beliefs prevent repatriation.
For example, one tribal official told us that repatriation can have harmful  effects on the tribe, including the deceased tribal members associated with  the remains or objects. In another instance, one working group of four  tribes said that because it has an ongoing dispute with the Natural History  Museum, it will not repatriate offered items because the dispute has  created a situation where it is spiritually too dangerous for the tribes to  deal with the human remains and funerary objects that have been offered  for repatriation.
Tribal government issues: In one case, a tribe had a change in leadership  that effectively halted any repatriation efforts. In another case, a tribal  official told us that the tribe was experiencing political turmoil, and as a  result, it was not a good time for the tribe to make decisions, such as  deciding to apply for a repatriation grant.
Time needed for intertribal coordination: According to museum officials,  in a number of cases, the museums have offered the same items to  multiple tribes, and time is needed for those tribes to coordinate and  determine the disposition of the items. In another case, human remains  were offered to one tribe, but a tribal official explained that the tribe  needed time to coordinate with other tribes closely linked to the tribe’s  ancestral homeland to determine an appropriate burial site.
Need for pesticide testing: The American Indian Museum Repatriation  Manager told us that, in the 1990s, the museum offered 96 objects to one  tribe as sacred objects but these have not been repatriated because of the  possibility of pesticide contamination. The manager said that because the  museum lacked the necessary technology to test the objects for pesticides  at the time, the tribe placed a moratorium on this repatriation until the  museum could provide adequate assurances that the objects were safe to  handle.
In these particular situations where the tribes have not yet repatriated  items offered to them, the American Indian Museum Repatriation Manager  said that the museum will maintain stewardship of the items or pursue  other options. For example, in cases where tribes do not pursue  repatriation, the museum may ask whether the tribe is amenable to having  other tribes repatriate the items. The Natural History Museum’s  Repatriation Program Manager said that on multiple occasions, his office  has attempted to follow up with tribes to determine if they are ready to  repatriate human remains and objects offered to them, and plans to wait  for these tribes to respond.
section_title: The Smithsonian’s Repatriation Policies Do Not Discuss How to Handle Culturally Unidentifiable Items
paragraphs: The NMAI Act requires the Smithsonian, upon request, to repatriate  culturally affiliated Indian and Native Hawaiian human remains and  funerary objects. The act does not discuss how to handle human remains  and objects that cannot be culturally affiliated, otherwise referred to as  culturally unidentifiable items. Both museums have repatriation policies,  but neither policy addresses culturally unidentifiable items. In contrast, a  recent NAGPRA regulation that took effect in May 2010 requires, among  other things, federal agencies and museums to consult with federally  recognized Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations from whose  tribal or aboriginal lands the remains were removed before offering to  transfer control of the culturally unidentifiable human remains.
We found that both museums could not culturally affiliate some items, but  they have treated these items differently. Natural History Museum officials  stated that about 340 human remains and about 310 funerary objects are  culturally unidentifiable and will be retained by the museum until  additional information can be used to determine affiliation. In contrast, the  Repatriation Manager at the American Indian Museum stated that the  museum cannot always determine the cultural affiliation for human  remains and associated funerary objects in its collection; however,  through consultation many of these cases have been resolved by tribes  stepping forward and serving a custodial role in the respectful treatment  and disposition of these items. The manager further stated that the  American Indian Museum’s philosophy is to ultimately not have any  human remains or associated funerary objects within its collection, and  the Repatriation Office will continue consulting with tribes and  researching viable options regarding the respectful treatment and  disposition of all human remains and associated funerary objects within  its collection. Furthermore, according to the Chair of the Board of  Trustees’ Repatriation Committee, the highest priority of the board is the  expeditious return of all human remains and associated funerary objects  in the museum’s collection to culturally affiliated entities regardless of  geography or sociopolitical borders.
Museum policies and Smithsonian officials state that, although not  required to, the Smithsonian generally looks to NAGPRA and the NAGPRA  regulations as a guide to its repatriation process, where appropriate.  However, in a May 2010 letter commenting on the NAGPRA regulation on  disposition of culturally unidentifiable remains, the Directors of the  American Indian and Natural History Museums cited overall disagreement  with the regulation, suggesting that it “favors speed and efficiency in  making these dispositions at the expense of accuracy.” The Directors also  described the potential for remains to be transferred to communities other  than the communities of origin based on the geographic parameters  outlined in the regulation. They noted that such transfers could affect the  working relationships that the museums’ staff develop with tribe members.  Furthermore, they stated that reaching out to tribes to offer remains that  were located on their current or historical land is not an ideal approach  because tribes submit repatriation requests when they are ready to engage  in repatriation activities. Contacting tribes in the manner outlined in the  recent NAGPRA regulation, according to the Directors, could push certain  tribes into repatriation claims that they may not be capable of facilitating  and affect the working relationships that the museums’ staff develop with  tribe members.
During our review, we spoke to officials from two tribes interested in  receiving items the Smithsonian has determined to be culturally  unidentifiable. One tribal official believes that all Native Americans are  brothers and therefore all Indian human remains should be offered for  repatriation to a requesting tribe based on this belief alone. In addition, the  American Indian Museum’s Board of Trustees told us that one tribe has  come forward and offered to take custody of all human remains the  museum has determined to be culturally unidentifiable, and rebury them  on a special plot on its reservation. In the absence of a Smithsonian policy  for these human remains and objects, the Smithsonian’s actions in  handling culturally unidentifiable items lack transparency for both tribes  and policymakers. Tribes don’t know how culturally unidentifiable items  are to be handled, and they cannot hold the Smithsonian accountable to a  particular policy. Officials from both museums, however, suggested that  the number of culturally unidentifiable Indian human remains in their  collections could decrease as technology improves to provide new  evidence of cultural affiliation, at which point the Smithsonian could have  the data necessary to determine a cultural affiliation.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The Smithsonian has inventoried, identified, and repatriated thousands of  Indian human remains. This represents important progress toward  fulfilling one of the nation’s important duties to its Native people.  However, at the rate that the Smithsonian is identifying and culturally  affiliating the human remains and objects in its collections, it may take  decades more for it to complete this process. This process is lengthy in  part because the Smithsonian believes it must base every cultural  affiliation decision on the best available scientific and historical  documentation because of its legal and fiduciary duties. The current  process is time consuming and resource intensive, which means that the  Smithsonian spends time and resources to make determinations when, in  some cases, it may be possible to make quicker determinations.
In addition, the approach that the Smithsonian has taken to establish a  Review Committee to monitor and review inventory, identification, and  return of Indian human remains and objects does not provide the oversight  specified in section 12 of the NMAI Act. The act gives the Review  Committee jurisdiction over all Smithsonian museums, and the  Smithsonian’s reasons for limiting its jurisdiction to the Natural History  Museum are unpersuasive. Because the Review Committee is only  advisory and does not set policy or make binding decisions, we believe  that it could monitor and review the American Indian Museum’s  repatriation activities without interfering with the sole authority of its  Board of Trustees.
Moreover, because the Review Committee is not required to report on  Smithsonian repatriation activities annually to Congress, like the NAGPRA  Review Committee, Congress continues to lack information on the  progress the Smithsonian is making in implementing the NMAI Act.  Congress has received little information on the Smithsonian’s progress  over the last 21 years, and given the amount of additional time the  Smithsonian is likely to need to fulfill its repatriation responsibilities, there  is no mechanism for Congress to receive regular progress reports in the  future.
Also, at the Smithsonian, there is no independent administrative appeals  process for tribes that believe the decisions by the Secretary or the Board  of Trustees do not satisfy the NMAI Act’s requirements. Given that the  Administrative Procedures Act does not apply to the Smithsonian, judicial  review may not be practical. Currently, the Smithsonian’s Board of  Regents is the only body whose purview includes oversight of the  decisions made by the Secretary of the Smithsonian as well as the  American Indian Museum’s Board of Trustees. Without an independent  appeals process, tribes have no way of holding the Secretary and the  Board of Trustees accountable for repatriation decisions.
Finally, the NMAI Act requires the Smithsonian to, upon request, repatriate  culturally affiliated Indian and Native Hawaiian human remains and  objects, but it is silent on the treatment of items the Smithsonian cannot  culturally affiliate. The Smithsonian has not yet clearly articulated its plans  for these culturally unidentifiable items. In the absence of such plans, the  final disposition of these items is not clear. Tribes or other interested  parties thus have no way to hold the Smithsonian accountable for  decisions about how or when to retain or repatriate these items.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: Congress may wish to consider ways to expedite the Smithsonian’s  repatriation process including, but not limited to, directing the  Smithsonian to make cultural affiliation determinations as efficiently and  effectively as possible.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are recommending that the Smithsonian Institution’s Board of Regents  take the following four actions.
Direct the Secretary of the Smithsonian to expand the Review Committee’s  jurisdiction to include the American Indian Museum, as required by the  NMAI Act, to improve oversight of Smithsonian repatriation activities.  With this expanded role for the Review Committee, the Board of Regents  and the Secretary should also consider where the most appropriate  location for the Review Committee should be within the Smithsonian’s  organizational structure.
Through the Secretary, direct the Review Committee to report annually to  Congress on the Smithsonian’s implementation of its repatriation  requirements in the NMAI Act to provide Congress with information on the  Smithsonian’s repatriation activities.
Establish an independent administrative appeals process for Indian tribes  and Native Hawaiian organizations to appeal decisions to either the Board  of Regents or another entity that can make binding decisions for the  Smithsonian Institution to provide tribes with an opportunity to appeal  cultural affiliation and repatriation decisions made by the Secretary and  the Board of Trustees.
Direct the Secretary and the American Indian Museum’s Board of Trustees  to develop policies for the Natural History and American Indian Museums  for the handling of items in their collections that cannot be culturally  affiliated to provide for a clear and transparent repatriation process.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a copy of this report for review and comment to the  Smithsonian Institution. In its written comments, the Smithsonian agreed  with the report’s findings and recommendations and identified actions that  it plans to consider to respond to our recommendations. The  Smithsonian’s written comments are reprinted in appendix III.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of the Smithsonian, and other interested parties.  In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@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 major contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This appendix details the methods we used to examine the Smithsonian  Institution’s implementation of the repatriation requirements in the  National Museum of the American Indian Act (NMAI Act). We were asked  to determine  1.  the extent to which the Smithsonian has fulfilled its repatriation  requirements and what challenges it faces, if any, in fulfilling its  requirements; 2.  how the special review committee provisions in the NMAI Act have  been implemented and the challenges the committee faces, if any, in  fulfilling its requirements; and 3.  the number of human remains and objects that have been repatriated  and the reasons for those that have not.
For all three objectives, we examined the NMAI Act’s implementation at  the two Smithsonian museums with collections subject to the act—the  American Indian and Natural History Museums. We reviewed the NMAI  Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act  (NAGPRA) and its implementing regulations, and the museums’  repatriation policies. We interviewed officials from the museums’  respective repatriation offices and the Smithsonian’s Office of General  Counsel on the repatriation process. We obtained the Smithsonian’s legal  views on how it interprets the NMAI Act in writing and also received an  additional memorandum regarding its legal views. We reviewed museum  data on the total number of human remains and objects the museums have  had in their collections through December 31, 2010.
To check the reliability of these data, we interviewed officials and  discussed the methodology used in collecting and maintaining these data.  Smithsonian officials told us they face a number of challenges in  estimating the total number of Indian human remains and objects. For  example, the Natural History Museum’s Repatriation Office Manager and  the American Indian Museum’s Curator of Collections Research and  Documentation said that their records over time contained different  numbers. We also cross-checked the data across multiple source  documents and tried to reconcile any differences through discussions with  museum staff. Given the challenges with the data, we present the numbers  in the report as estimates and we rounded them to the nearest ten. The use  of rounding did not materially affect our findings, conclusions, and  recommendations because of the large number of human remains and  objects. We believe that the data are sufficiently reliable to accurately  portray broad trends showing the Smithsonian’s progress in implementing  the NMAI Act’s repatriation requirements.
In addition, during the course of our review, for all three objectives, we  traveled to several locations to attend repatriation conferences and visit  with tribes.
Wisconsin: We attended the National Association of Tribal Historic  Preservation Officers 2010 Annual Conference in Green Bay, Wisconsin,  and presented the findings of our July 2010 report on federal agency  compliance with NAGPRA. During the conference, we met with several  tribes interested in repatriation issues.
Oklahoma: We interviewed the Cheyenne Tribe of Oklahoma and the  Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, who have both repatriated human remains  from the Natural History Museum. In addition, we attended a NAGPRA  conference held in Oklahoma City that included an address by the Director  of the American Indian Museum on repatriation activities at that museum.
Alaska: In Anchorage, Alaska, we interviewed the Director of the  Smithsonian Arctic Studies Center, which is housed within the Alaska  State Museum. We also interviewed the Director of the Anchorage  Museum, who formerly handled repatriation activities for the Kaw Nation  of Oklahoma and also served as the Repatriation Manager of the American  Indian Museum. We interviewed an official with the Ukpeagvik Inupiat  Corporation who participated in a repatriation with the Natural History  Museum. We met with an official from the Native American Rights Fund  and one from the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land  Management’s Alaska State Office to discuss repatriation issues in Alaska.  In Fairbanks, Alaska, we attended the Alaska Federation of Natives  2010 Annual Conference. During the conference, we interviewed members  of the Native Village of Crooked Creek to discuss their repatriation  experiences.
Washington, D.C.: We attended the NAGPRA at 20 conference  commemorating NAGPRA’s 20th anniversary. As part of this conference,  we attended a panel discussion that included the manager of the American  Indian Museum Repatriation Office and the current and former managers  of the Natural History Museum Repatriation Office. The panel was focused  on the differences between the NMAI Act and NAGPRA.
In addition to the tribes we interviewed during our site visits, we  contacted 10 tribes that had completed repatriations with both the  American Indian and Natural History Museums and interviewed 2 of them  on their experiences with these museums.
To address our first objective, we reviewed museum summaries and  inventories to generally determine their contents and if they were  prepared within the deadlines in the act. The American Indian Museum  prepared inventories in 1993 and 1995 and was able to provide one  example of its inventories along with sample cover letters for each year  (the American Indian Museum did not prepare separate summaries); the  Natural History Museum was able to provide copies of all of its summaries  and inventories. We reviewed (1) the American Indian Museum  Repatriation Office’s progress reports to the museum’s Board of Trustees,  (2) the Natural History Museum Repatriation Office’s progress reports to  the Review Committee, and (3) the Review Committee’s annual reports to  the Secretary of the Smithsonian and meeting minutes. We obtained and  reviewed all repatriation claims submitted to the Smithsonian and  analyzed all 171 case reports prepared by repatriation staff at both the  American Indian and Natural History Museums to collect information  about the museums’ repatriation activities, including the number of  catalog numbers considered in each report. Specifically, where it was  available in case reports, we collected information that falls into the  following three categories:    Repatriation claim: For case reports that include information about a  repatriation claim for one or more items addressed in the report, we  recorded the name of the requesting entity or requesting entities, the first  date of contact between the Smithsonian and the requesting tribe, the date  of the official claim letter, and the date of the report as well as the date of  any amendments or addenda to the report. We also recorded descriptive  information in the case reports about factors that affected the timeliness  with which the Smithsonian addressed the claim.
Culturally unidentified remains and funerary objects: For human  remains and funerary objects explicitly identified as culturally  unidentified, we recorded the total number of catalog numbers that fall  into this category for human remains and funerary objects and, where  available, the approximate number of human remains and funerary objects  represented by these catalog numbers.
Recommendations regarding repatriation: In cases where the case report  includes a recommendation that the Smithsonian repatriate human  remains or objects to specific tribes or consult with specific tribes  regarding the disposition of remains or objects, we recorded the names of  those tribes. We also recorded whether or not the case report recommends  that any human remains or objects be retained by the Smithsonian.
Each case report was reviewed by two analysts independently, answers  were recorded, results were compared by a third reviewer, and then any  differences were reconciled. Using this information, we calculated the  length of time from the date of a tribal claim to the date of a case report  using available month and year information, where applicable and when  such dates were available. In the couple of instances when case reports  had no month, we imputed January. We used the date of the official claim  letter as the basis for the report-processing times because information on  when the Smithsonian actively started working on each claim was not  routinely available. As a result, the processing times include the time that  the claims were inactive while they were awaiting active consideration.  For the Natural History Museum, we used the date that the NMAI Act was  originally enacted—November 28, 1989—for claims submitted prior to that  time. For the American Indian Museum, we used the date the museum  officially took control of its collections—June 1, 1990—for claims  submitted prior to that time. We supplemented the case report review by  reviewing all claim letters submitted from enactment through December  2010 to both museums. In the few instances when case reports did not  document a claim letter but we found there actually was a claim based on  the claim letter review, we added the date to our time frames. We also  interviewed officials from the American Indian and Natural History  Museums, members of the American Indian Museum’s Board of Trustees  and the Review Committee, and tribes who have submitted claims for  remains or objects held by the Smithsonian to determine any challenges  the Smithsonian faces in implementing the NMAI Act’s repatriation  requirements.
For purposes of our analysis, intercoder reliability was measured as the  percent agreement between the independent coders and a threshold of  70 percent agreement was used as a basis to assess intercoder reliability.  Using percent agreement as a measure of intercoder reliability was  appropriate in our case since the majority of the variables coded in this  exercise are count variables or nominal variables with multiple possible  responses where the likelihood of agreement through mere chance is  decreased. Thirteen of the 15 items evaluated achieved an acceptable level  of agreement between 74 and 97 percent. For the 2 items in which  agreement was less than 70 percent, attempts were made to better  understand the pattern of errors and reviewers met to discuss and were  able to effectively resolve these inconsistencies. Ultimately, most items,  including those 2 items, were not systematically reported on, but rather  used for anecdotal purposes.
For our second objective, we examined the Review Committee charter and  bylaws. We analyzed the repatriation offices’ progress reports and Review  Committee annual reports, meeting minutes, and other documents. To  document the activities and challenges of the Review Committee, we  examined comments made by Review Committee members on repatriation  case reports, attended portions of two Review Committee meetings in  Washington, D.C., in December 2009 and December 2010, and interviewed  6 of the 7 Review Committee members at each meeting. In addition, we  received written comments from the full Review Committee. Because the  Board of Trustees has performed oversight of the American Indian  Museum’s repatriation activities, we interviewed 5 of the 23 board  members, 4 of the 8 who make up the board’s Repatriation Committee. We  met with these 5 members because they were available to meet in between  sessions of a board meeting. We also received written comments from the  full board. In addition, we reviewed the Administrative Procedures Act  and case law interpreting it.
For our third objective, we analyzed museum data as well as specific lists  prepared by the museums of the human remains and objects in their  collections that were offered for repatriation but never repatriated. We  contacted 14 of the 68 tribes or tribal entities to which these human  remains and objects were culturally affiliated—8 for the American Indian  Museum and 6 for the Natural History Museum—and interviewed 5 of  them to determine why the items offered had not been repatriated. The  other 9 tribes that we contacted did not respond to our inquiries. We chose  tribes in a way to ensure geographic diversity and targeting those with a  substantial number of items offered for repatriation. Where items were  offered to multiple tribes (of which there were numerous cases), we  included at least one of those tribes. We reviewed the repatriation policies  of both museums to determine if they covered culturally unidentifiable  items. We interviewed Smithsonian officials and both Repatriation Offices  to determine if they have a policy for handling culturally unidentifiable  items. We interviewed and submitted written questions to both the Review  Committee and board about the disposition of culturally unidentifiable  items, and we reviewed the Department of the Interior’s regulation on  culturally unidentifiable items under NAGPRA.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2010 to May 2011 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  based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Processing Times for Repatriation Case Reports
paragraphs: This appendix provides (1) overall time frames for completing case reports  and factors affecting the time frames and (2) specific details on the  processing times for repatriation case reports.
subsections: section_title: Overall Time Frames for Completing Case Reports and Factors Affecting the Time Frames
paragraphs: The Smithsonian completed 171 case reports from November 28, 1989,  through December 31, 2010—at least 126 were completed in response to a  claim. The remainder were completed proactively without a claim. For the  41 case reports prepared by the American Indian Museum through 2010  where we identified a claim, we found that it took a median of 1.5 years  from the date of an official claim letter to the date a draft case report was  submitted to the museum’s Board of Trustees for final approval and a  repatriation decision. This varied from 3 months to 8.2 years. For the  85 claim-based case reports prepared by the Natural History Museum  through 2010, we found that it took a median of 2.8 years from the date of  an official claim letter to the date a final case report was approved by the  Secretary of the Smithsonian. This varied from 1 month to 18.3 years. We  used the date of the official claim letter as the basis for the report- processing times because information on when the Smithsonian actively  started working on each claim was not routinely available. As a result, the  processing times include the time that the claims were pending while they  were awaiting active consideration. We identified examples of claim  letters remaining in the queue awaiting active consideration for months  and even years before the museums initiated a case report.
Case reports prepared by the Smithsonian ranged in length from a 3-page  report about the remains of a single individual to a 631-page report that  addressed the remains of more than 1,200 individuals and more than  14,400 funerary objects held by the Natural History Museum. On average,  case reports prepared by the Natural History Museum considered  33 catalog numbers, while case reports prepared by the American Indian  Museum considered 11 catalog numbers.
We identified a number of factors that have affected the length of this  process, based on information in the case reports. For example,    Repatriation offices were not yet established: Several claims were  submitted to the American Indian and Natural History Museums before  they established repatriation offices in November 1993 and September  1991, respectively.
Staffing changes occurred: We identified examples where staff  responsible for preparing the case report left the Smithsonian, resulting in  delays to the case report preparation process.
Waiting for tribal response: In some cases, the museums did not receive  needed responses or information from the requesting tribe in a timely  manner. For example, in one case a tribe submitted a claim for human  remains held by the Natural History Museum and subsequently told the  museum that it was opposed to documentation of the remains and asked  that the documentation be halted. The museum sought clarification from  the tribe on how to proceed, and about 5 months passed before the tribe  agreed to allow the museum to continue documentation.
Competing claims: The Natural History Museum gives priority to claims  for named individuals. In some cases, a tribe may submit a claim for all  human remains and objects potentially affiliated to it, then, later on, a  lineal descendant may submit a competing claim. In those cases, the  museum may halt its work on the original claim to work on the latter  claim.
Museum priorities: Previously, the museums prioritized claims for human  remains, resulting in some delays in addressing claims for sacred objects  and objects of cultural patrimony. Currently, the Natural History Museum  prioritizes claims for named individuals, but otherwise both museums  address claims in the order they are received.
In a couple of cases, the museums expedited the case report process and,  in other cases, the museum conducted a significant amount of work before  receiving an official claim, which may have reduced the length of time  needed to complete the report. For example, in one instance, the Natural  History Museum agreed to a tribal request to expedite the repatriation  process so that the tribe could complete the process at the same time it  completed repatriations from the National Park Service. Furthermore,  both museums have proactively initiated research and produced case  reports about some of the human remains in their collections and, in some  instances, later received claims for these human remains. These case  reports are included in the time frames provided below.
section_title: Specific Details on the Processing Times for Repatriation Case Reports
paragraphs: Table 5 shows the specific details on the processing times for repatriation  case reports completed through December 31, 2010.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Smithsonian Institution
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Jeffery D. Malcolm, Assistant Director;  Pamela Davidson; Emily Hanawalt; Cheryl Harris; Rich Johnson; Mark  Keenan; Sandra Kerr; Anita Lee; Ruben Montes de Oca, Ben Shouse; and  Jeanette M. Soares made key contributions to this report.