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

Letter

Background

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.

Management Challenges Continue to Impede BIE’s Mission

Fragmented Administrative Structure Negatively Affects Schools

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.

BIE Faces Significant Turnover in Leadership

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.

BIE’S Limited Governance of Schools Affects Reform Efforts

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.

Concluding Observations

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.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

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.