Indian Affairs: Management Challenges Continue to Hinder Efforts to Improve Indian Education
Published: 2013-02-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 2011, the federal government provided over $800 million to BIE schools that serve about 41,000 Indian students living on or near reservations. Within the Department of Interior, BIE is part of Indian Affairs, and BIEs director is responsible for the management of all education functions. BIEs mission is to provide quality education opportunities to Indian students. However, poor student outcomes raise questions about how well BIE is achieving its mission.
This testimony reports on ongoing GAO work about the Department of Interiors management of BIE schools. A full report will be issued later this year. Based on preliminary findings, todays testimony will focus on: (1) the key management challenges affecting BIE and (2) BIEs governance of schools.
For this work, GAO reviewed agency documents and relevant federal laws and regulations; interviewed agency officials; and conducted site visits to public and BIE schools.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Management challenges within the Department of Interior's Office of the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs (Indian Affairs), such as fragmented administrative structures and frequent turnover in leadership, continue to hamper efforts to improve Indian education. For example, incompatible procedures and lack of clear roles for the Bureau of Indian Education and the Indian Affairs' Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management (DAS-M), which provides administrative functions to BIE, such as human resources and acquisitions, contribute to delays in schools acquiring needed materials and resources. According to BIE officials, some DAS-M staff are not aware of the necessary procedures and timelines to meet schools' needs. For instance, delays in contracting have occasionally affected BIE's ability to provide services for students with disabilities in a timely manner. A study commissioned by Indian Affairs to evaluate the administrative support structure for BIE and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)--also under Indian Affairs--concluded that organizations within Indian Affairs, including DAS-M, BIA, and BIE, do not coordinate effectively and communication among them is poor. Similarly, preliminary results from GAO's work suggest that lack of consistent leadership within DAS-M and BIE hinders collaboration between the two offices.
Although BIE's responsibilities to operate Indian schools are in some respects similar to those of state educational agencies (SEAs), BIE's influence is limited because most schools are tribally-operated. Like an SEA, BIE administers, monitors, and provides technical support for a number of programs funded by the Department of Education. Yet, in contrast to states that can impose a range of reforms on schools, in most BIE schools tribes retain authority over key policies. For example, BIE cannot require most schools to adopt or develop their own teacher and principal evaluation systems. Further complicating reform efforts, many small individual BIE schools function as their own school districts. We have previously reported that smaller school districts may face challenges acquiring special education services or providers because they lack the same capacity, resources, knowledge, or experience necessary to provide those services as larger-sized school districts.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the preliminary results of  our work you requested on management of the Department of the  Interior’s (Interior) Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools. In 2011, the  Departments of the Interior and Education provided over $800 million to  183 BIE schools, primarily in rural areas and small towns, in 23 states.  These schools serve about 41,000 Indian students living on or near  reservations, or about 7 percent of the Indian student population. There  are significant gaps in educational outcomes for students in BIE schools  compared with public schools. Additionally, the high school graduation  rate for BIE students for the 2008-2009 school year was 52 percent,  compared to the national average for public school students of 76  percent.Indian students. Poor student outcomes raise questions about how well  BIE is achieving its mission. For today’s testimony, we will focus on (1)  the key management challenges affecting BIE and its mission of  educating Indian children, and (2) BIE’s governance of schools.
BIE’s mission is to provide quality education opportunities to  Our analysis is based on interviews with officials in the Interior’s Office of  the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs’ Office of the Deputy Assistant  Secretary for Management, and Bureaus of Indian Education and Indian  Affairs. We also interviewed Department of Education (Education)  officials. Additionally, we reviewed agency documents, including budget  justifications, guidance, internal correspondences, agency-sponsored  management studies and relevant federal laws and regulations. We also  conducted site visits to public schools, as well as BIE schools that serve  the Oglala Sioux Tribe in Pine Ridge, S.D., and the Mississippi Band of  Choctaw Indians, where we interviewed administrators and teachers. Site  visit locations were selected to reflect an array of BIE schools that varied  in administration type, school and tribal size, and location. We plan to  conduct an additional site visit in the spring of this year to complete our  work. This testimony is part of ongoing work requested by this  subcommittee. We intend to produce a report later this year that will  provide our final results on and further detail the management of BIE  schools, as well as compare funding, expenditures and performance  indicators for BIE schools to those of nearby public schools and, where  appropriate, Department of Defense schools. We discussed our  preliminary results with Interior, and incorporated their comments as  appropriate.
We are conducting our ongoing work in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that  we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to  provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our  audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a  reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: BIE, formerly known as the Office of Indian Education Programs when it  was part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), was renamed and  established as a separate bureau in 2006. Organizationally, BIE is under  the Office of the Assistant Secretary- Indian Affairs (Indian Affairs), and its  director reports to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs.  The director is responsible for the direction and management of all  education functions, including the formation of policies and procedures,  supervision of all program activities, and approval of the expenditure of  funds for education functions. BIE is comprised of a central office in  Washington, D.C.; a major field service center in Albuquerque, New  Mexico; 3 associate deputy directors’ offices located regionally (1 in the  east and 2 in the west); 22 education line offices located near Indian  reservations; and schools in 23 states. Of the 183 schools and  dormitories BIE administers, 58 are directly operated by BIE (BIE- operated), and 125 are operated by tribes (tribally-operated) through  federal contracts or grants.
BIE schools are primarily funded through Interior. Similar to public  schools, BIE schools receive formula grants from Education. BIE, like  state educational agencies, administers and monitors the operation of  these Education programs.
Currently, BIE’s administrative functions—human resources, budget  management, information technology, and acquisitions—are managed by  Indian Affairs’ Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management (DAS-M). The  heads of both BIE and DAS-M report to the Principal Deputy Assistant  Secretary-Indian Affairs. (See fig. 1)
BIE and its predecessor, the Office of Indian Education Programs, have  been through a number of restructuring efforts. Prior to 1999 BIA’s  regional offices were responsible for most administrative functions for  Indian schools. In 1999, the National Academy of Public Administration  issued a report, commissioned by the Assistant Secretary of Indian  Affairs, which identified management challenges within BIA. The  report concluded that BIA’s management structure was not adequate to  operate an effective and efficient agency. The report recommended  centralization of some administrative functions. According to BIE officials,  for a brief period from 2002 to 2003, BIE was responsible for its own  administrative functions. However, in 2004, in response to the NAPA  study, its administrative functions were centralized under the DAS-M.
More recently, in 2011, Indian Affairs commissioned another study— known as the Bronner report—to evaluate the administrative support  structure for BIE and BIA. The report, issued in March 2012, found that  organizations within Indian Affairs, including DAS-M, BIA, and BIE, do not  coordinate effectively and communication among them is poor. The study  recommended that Indian Affairs adopt a more balanced organizational  approach to include, among other things, shared responsibility, new  policies and procedures, and better communication, with increased  decentralization. the process of developing a plan to address these recommendations, but  they have not yet finalized a proposal for reorganization.
section_title: Management Challenges Continue to Impede BIE’s Mission
subsections: section_title: Fragmented Administrative Structure Negatively Affects Schools
paragraphs: Bronner Group, Final Report: Examination, Evaluation, and Recommendations for  Support Functions (March 2012). instance, is critical to ensure that all supplies and textbooks are delivered  before the start of the school year. However, the procurement process  used by BIE-operated schools can cause delays in textbook delivery.  Likewise, delays in contracting have occasionally affected BIE’s ability to  provide timely services for students with disabilities.
Communication is especially difficult because of Indian Affairs’  fragmented administrative structure. For example, school officials we  spoke with said that their correspondences are often lost and that there  appears to be little coordination between Indian Affairs offices. For  instance, the Bronner report found that the responsibility for facilities  management is scattered between three divisions within DAS-M. First,  the Property Management Division in the Office of the Chief Financial  Officer (OCFO) is responsible for maintaining the real property inventory.  Second, the Acquisition Office in the OCFO manages the leasing of  buildings for the BIA and BIE. Finally, maintenance and construction of all  Indian Affairs’ buildings is under the purview of the Office of Facilities,  Environmental and Cultural Resources, and Office of Facilities  Management and Construction. This fragmented administrative structure  directly impact schools. For instance, the Little Wound School on the Pine  Ridge reservation in South Dakota closed for a few days because Indian  Affairs initially did not respond to their request for funds to replace a  broken boiler. Tribal school officials in Mississippi told us they are unsure  whether they should invest in repairs or rent additional modular  classrooms as they have not been told when or if the department will  construct new facilities.
The Bronner report found that although DAS-M is tasked with supporting  both BIE and BIA, its staff is not structured in a way that effectively  supports both bureaus. Although the contracting needs of schools are  different than those of a federal agency, DAS-M does not have a specific  acquisition team assigned to BIE. The report also found that DAS-M’s  acquisition services were slow and not customer focused and that there  was a disconnect between programs and support.
Further, DAS-M staff may not have the requisite expertise needed for  working on BIE-related tasks. The Bronner report found that key staff  positions, such as budget analysts, were not assigned responsibilities in a  manner that would help them develop expertise on the goals, funding  history, and performance of BIE programs. Despite a request from BIE,  DAS-M has not conducted a workforce analysis to determine the number  and skill set of staff supporting the mission of BIE.
According to BIE officials, DAS-M staffs’ focus on supporting BIA rather  than BIE hinders DAS-M from seeking and acquiring expertise in  education issues and from making the needs of BIE schools a priority. We  have previously reported that strategic workforce planning, similar to  workforce analysis, can identify core competencies for mission-critical  occupations and be used to develop targeted training as well as spur  planning efforts.
In a December 2011 memo to Secretary Salazar, BIE’s former Director  expressed frustration with the current organizational structure of Indian  Affairs and asserted that the “major challenges facing BIE cannot be  overcome . . . until basic structure and governance issues are addressed  and resolved.” In addition, according to his memo, “because of this  disjointed system, points-of-view concerning the effectiveness of support  functions do not necessarily originate from a similar organizational  culture, mindset, or most importantly, mission outcomes.” Additionally, he  noted that “the outcome of student achievement is often overshadowed  and leaves our Bureau fighting to focus attention on education priorities  and competing for leftover resources scattered throughout the larger  organization.”
The challenges outlined above run contrary to our past work on agency  collaboration. We have found that different agencies participating in any  collaborative mechanism bring diverse organizational cultures to it.  Accordingly, it is important to address these differences and establish  ways to operate across agency boundaries.reported, agencies can work together to define and agree on roles and   As we have previously  responsibilities, which can be set forth in policies, memorandums of  understanding, or other arrangements.issues and report our final results later this year.
section_title: BIE Faces Significant Turnover in Leadership
paragraphs: Leadership turnover in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian  Affairs, DAS-M, and BIE has exacerbated the various challenges created  by administrative fragmentation. (See fig. 2.) Since approximately 2000  there have been:
12 acting and permanent Assistant Secretaries for Indian Affairs,
6 DAS-M Deputy Assistant Secretaries, and
8 BIE Directors or Acting Directors.
The tenure of acting and permanent assistant secretaries has ranged  from 16 days to 3 years. Further, from August 2003 through February  2004 the post was unfilled. These are key leadership positions. The  assistant secretary provides direction on all issues related to Indian  affairs, while DAS-M, as mentioned above, provides essential  administrative functions for BIE and its schools. In previous reports, we  found that frequent changes in leadership may complicate efforts to  improve student achievement, and that lack of leadership negatively  affects an organization’s ability to function effectively and to sustain focus  on key initiatives.
Preliminary results from our work also suggest that lack of consistent  leadership within DAS-M and BIE hinders collaboration between the two  offices. According to our work on leadership, effective working  relationships between agency leaders and their peers is essential to using  resources most effectively and ensuring that people and processes are  aligned to an agency’s mission. Working relations between BIE and  DAS-M’s leadership appears informal and sporadic. Currently, there are  no regularly scheduled meetings between BIE and DAS-M leadership to  discuss issues, priorities and goals. Additionally, BIE officials reported  having difficulty obtaining timely updates from DAS-M on its responses to  requests for services from schools. According to BIE officials, they used  to have regularly scheduled meetings with DAS-M leadership to discuss  operations, but the meetings were discontinued in September 2012. BIE  now depends on ad hoc meetings to discuss issues requiring resolution.  As a result, BIE officials stated there is a disjointed approach to serving  schools.
section_title: BIE’S Limited Governance of Schools Affects Reform Efforts
paragraphs: Although BIE’s responsibilities to operate Indian schools are in some  respects similar to those of state educational agencies (SEA), BIE’s  influence is limited because most schools are tribally operated. Like an  SEA, BIE administers, oversees, and provides technical support for a  number of programs funded by Education. These include grants for  disadvantaged children, students with disabilities, and teacher quality  improvement. BIE also acts in the capacity of an SEA by monitoring,  overseeing, and providing technical support to BIE schools. Yet, in  contrast to states that can impose a range of reforms on schools, in  tribally operated schools, which form the majority of BIE schools, tribes  retain authority over key policies. This means that BIE must seek  cooperation from tribal officials to implement reform. For example, BIE  cannot require tribally-operated schools to adopt or develop their own  teacher and principal evaluation systems. Also, although BIE could  implement a curriculum for the schools it operates, BIE cannot implement  a bureau-wide curriculum that would apply to tribally-operated schools. In  contrast, some SEAs may be granted this authority through their state’s  laws.
According to BIE correspondence submitted to Education in June 2012,the accountability system BIE is required to use, as a condition of  receiving funding under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary  Education Act (ESEA), as amended, is onerous. Like SEAs, BIE is  accountable for the academic achievement of students in its schools.  However, BIE schools must use the accountability measures of the 23  respective states where the schools are located unless an alternative has  been approved. As a result, BIE calculates proficiency—the extent to  which schools have made adequate yearly progress meeting  performance goals—using the states’ accountability systems. In 2008, we  reported that BIE officials told us that, given the work involved, it was  challenging to calculate and report proficiency levels to schools before the  start of the subsequent school year. However, under ESEA, if schools  do not make adequate yearly progress toward specific proficiency levels  set by the states in reading, math, and science, they may be required to  pursue reforms that are best implemented at the beginning of the school  year. Recently, Education allowed 16 of the 23 states where BIE schools  are located to change their assessments and methodology for calculating  proficiency. Consequently, this has affected BIE’s ability to calculate  proficiency for its schools in a timely manner. Currently, BIE is seeking to  revise its regulations that require it to use the 23 states’ accountability  systems.
Further complicating reform efforts, both BIE and Education consider BIE  schools, unlike public schools, to have the responsibilities of both school  districts and schools. BIE, unlike an SEA, treats each school as a public  school district. According to BIE and Education officials, many of these  individual schools are small in size and lack the organizational capacity to  function as a school district. We have previously reported that smaller  school districts face challenges acquiring special education services or  providers because they lack the same capacity, resources, knowledge, or  experience necessary to provide those services as larger-sized school  districts. BIE and Education officials acknowledge that this represents a strain on BIE’s capacity to function in this manner.
BIE is one of two federal entities that directly oversees the management  and operation of schools. The Department of Defense is the only other  federal agency that operates elementary and secondary schools, and it  does so to meet the educational needs of military dependents and  children of some civilian employees. The Department of Defense  Education Activity (DODEA) oversees the management and operation of  194 schools in seven states; Puerto Rico and Guam; and 12 foreign  countries. Unlike BIE, DODEA has considerable autonomy over its own  internal management, budget, and operations. According to the Director  of DODEA, the DODEA headquarters office is responsible for setting  general policy guidelines, while schools and local DODEA administrative  offices are charged with overseeing day-to-day operations. As a result,  DODEA retains full operational control over all its schools and is therefore  able to establish standardized curricula, testing, and evaluations.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: It is critical that Indian students receive a high-quality education in order  to ensure their long-term success. While BIE confronts several limitations  in its ability to govern schools, its mission remains to provide students  quality education opportunities. To this end, officials’ roles and  responsibilities must be clear, and sustained leadership is key.  Additionally, it is imperative that the offices responsible for education work  together more efficiently and effectively to enhance the education of  Indian children. We will continue to monitor these issues as we complete  our ongoing work and consider any recommendations needed to address  these issues.
Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran, and Members of the  Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be pleased to  answer any questions that you may have.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For future contact regarding this testimony, please contact George A.  Scott at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Key contributors to this  testimony were Beth Sirois, Ramona Burton, Sheranda Campbell, Holly  Dye, Alex Galuten, Rachel Miriam Hill, and Jean McSween.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.