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

Letter

Background

BIE’s mission is to provide Indian students quality education opportunities starting in early childhood in accordance with a tribe’s needs for cultural and economic well-being. Students attending BIE schools must be members of federally-recognized Indian tribes, or descendants of members of such tribes, and reside on or near federal Indian reservations. BIE’s Indian education programs derive from the federal government’s trust relationship with Indian tribes, a responsibility established in federal statutes, treaties, court decisions, and executive actions.

BIE, formerly known as the Office of Indian Education Programs when it was part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), was renamed and established as a separate bureau within Interior in 2006. Organizationally, BIE is under the Office of the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, and its director reports to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs. The BIE director is responsible for the direction and management of education functions, including the formation of policies and procedures, supervision of all program activities, and approval of the expenditure of funds for education functions. BIE is composed of a central office in Washington, D.C.; a major field service center in Albuquerque, New Mexico; 3 associate deputy directors’ offices located regionally (1 in the east and 2 in the west); 22 education line offices located on or near Indian reservations; and schools in 23 states. Of the 185 elementary and secondary schools BIE administers, 59 are directly operated by BIE (BIE- operated), and 126 are operated by tribes (tribally-operated) through federal contracts or grants. BIE provides funding on the same terms to tribally-operated schools as it does to BIE-operated schools based on the number of students attending the schools, among other factors. A local education line office manages the BIE-operated schools, functioning like a public school district superintendent’s office. It also provides technical assistance to tribally-operated as well as BIE-operated schools.

While BIE schools are primarily funded through Interior, they receive annual formula grants from Education, similar to public schools. Like state educational agencies that oversee public schools in their respective states, BIE administers and monitors the operation of these Education grants. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended, holds recipient schools accountable for improving their students’ academic performance, using Education program funds they receive through BIE. Specifically, under ESEA, schools must be measured to determine whether they are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) in meeting standards in math, reading, and science. In turn, the performance information must be reported to parents. Interior determined that, to measure AYP, each BIE school would use the definitions used by the state in which the school was located.

BIE and its predecessor, the Office of Indian Education Programs, have been through a number of restructuring efforts. Before 1999, BIA’s regional offices were responsible for most administrative functions for Indian schools. In 1999, the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) issued a report, commissioned by the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, which identified management challenges within BIA. The report concluded that BIA’s management structure was not adequate to operate an effective and efficient agency. The report recommended centralization of some administrative functions. According to BIE officials, for a brief period from 2002 to 2003, BIE was responsible for its own administrative functions. However, in 2004, in response to the NAPA study, its administrative functions were centralized under the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management (DAS-M).

More recently, in 2011, Indian Affairs commissioned another study— known as the Bronner report—to evaluate the administrative support structure for BIE and BIA. The report, issued in March 2012, found that organizations within Indian Affairs, including DAS-M, BIA, and BIE, do not coordinate effectively and communication among them is poor. The report recommended that Indian Affairs adopt a more balanced organizational approach to include, among other things, shared responsibility, new policies and procedures, better communication, and increased decentralization. administrative structural realignment intended to address the Bronner report recommendations.

Bronner Group, Final Report: Examination, Evaluation, and Recommendations for Support Functions (March 2012).

BIE Students Score Consistently Below Indian Students in Public Schools on National Assessments and Have Relatively Low Graduation Rates

Students in BIE schools have performed consistently below Indian students enrolled in public schools on national assessments administered by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) between 2005 and 2011. For example, in 2011, 4th grade estimated average reading scores were 22 points lower for BIE students than for Indian students attending public schools. For 4th grade mathematics, BIE students scored lower, on average, than Indian students attending public schools, but the gap was less than for reading scores—14 points in 2011. Figure 1 shows the trend in the estimated average 4th grade reading and math scores for students in BIE schools as compared to Indian students in public schools and the national average for non-Indian students.

In 8th grade, BIE students also scored consistently lower, on average, on NAEP assessments than Indian students in public schools. However, for reading the performance gap was slightly less than it was for 4th grade. For example, in 2011, 8th grade estimated average reading scores were 19 points lower for BIE students than for Indian students attending public schools. Further, Indian students attending BIE and public schools have consistently scored lower on average than the national average of non- Indian students in 8th grade on both the math and reading NAEP assessments. Figure 2 shows the trend in estimated average 8th grade reading and math scores for students in BIE schools compared to Indian students in public schools and the national average for non-Indian students.

Further, Indian students attending BIE and public schools have consistently scored lower on average than the national average for non- Indian students in 4th and 8th grades on both the math and reading NAEP assessments. Some of the difference in performance levels between Indian students and non-Indian students may be explained by factors such as poverty and parents’ educational backgrounds. For example, in 2011, larger percentages of Indian students were eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (an indicator of low family income) in both grades 4 and 8 as compared to non-Indian students. In addition, the percentage of 8th grade Indian students reporting that at least one parent had some education beyond high school was smaller than the percentages of Black, White, and Asian students.

In states we visited, BIE students also consistently underperformed Indian students in public schools on state reading and math assessments in 3rd and 7th grade, over the most recent 3-year period for which data are available. Specifically, in Mississippi and South Dakota, a lower percentage of students in BIE schools scored at the proficient level or above on 3rd and 7th grade state assessments compared to Indian students in public schools. In Arizona, the difference in the performance of students in BIE schools and Indian students in public schools was less marked, with a somewhat lower percentage of students in BIE schools scoring at the proficient or above levels.

Finally, students attending BIE schools had relatively low high school graduation rates compared to Indian students enrolled in public schools in the 2010-2011 school year. Specifically, the graduation rate for BIE students for the 2010-2011 school year was 61 percent—placing BIE students in the bottom half among graduation rates for Indian students in states where BIE schools are located. student graduation rates ranged from 42 percent to 82 percent. Figure 3 shows the Indian student graduation rates for BIE and states where BIE schools are located.

Our analysis of graduation rates covered 20 of the 23 states where BIE schools are located. At the time of our review, cohort graduation rate data were not available for 2 of the 23 states where BIE schools are located, and we excluded data from an additional state due to the small number of students in the Indian student subgroup for which the graduation rates were calculated.

BIE Has Difficulty Complying with Various Assessment Requirements and Collaborating with Education, but is Working to Address Certain Challenges

BIE’s administrative and internal control weaknesses have resulted in difficulty assessing the academic progress of its students and AYP for its schools as required under ESEA. In addition, BIE has delayed critical efforts to collaborate with Education. BIE’s efforts to assess student and school performance are not consistent with internal controls standards that can help agencies operate more effectively and help ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

BIE Provided Inaccurate and Changing Guidance to Schools

BIE officials provided inaccurate guidance to some of its schools about which student assessment to administer in the 2011-12 school year, resulting in a lack of compliance with federal requirements. In that school year, BIE offered its schools in New Mexico the ability to administer an assessment—in lieu of the state assessment—that was not approved by Education for use as an accountability tool for determining whether schools made AYP under ESEA. Education officials told us they did not approve any BIE schools to use assessments other than those required by Interior’s regulation.ESEA accountability requirements, Education has an external group of experts to evaluate the assessment. This evaluation ensures that the assessment is aligned with the state academic content and achievement standards taught in the classroom and is valid and accessible for use by the widest possible range of students—such as students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency. However, BIE did not submit a request to Education to review the assessment through this To determine whether an assessment meets process. As a result of BIE’s guidance, 21 of BIE’s 42 schools in New Mexico administered an alternative assessment that Education was unable to use to hold schools accountable for student performance under ESEA.

Further, BIE did not act within the scope of its authority when providing this option to schools. Under an Interior regulation, BIE schools are generally required to administer the same academic assessments used by the 23 respective states where the schools are located. While this regulation allows BIE schools to use alternative assessments for the purposes of ESEA, the Secretaries of Education and Interior must first provide approval. In addition to not obtaining Education’s approval of the assessment, BIE made this critical decision without the appropriate level of review by the Secretary of the Interior or his designee. This happened because BIE does not have procedures that specify who should be involved in making key decisions. As a result, BIE offered its schools a choice to use an assessment without approval from the Secretaries, which does not align with Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. These standards state that significant events should be authorized and executed only by persons acting within the scope of their authority. Further, the standards state that internal controls and other significant events need to be clearly documented to help management with decision making and to help ensure operations are carried out as intended. The documentation should appear in management directives, administrative policies, or operating manuals.

BIE officials acknowledged that they did not obtain approval from the Secretary of Interior to allow schools in New Mexico to use the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress rather than their state assessment as required by an Interior regulation, nor did they submit a waiver request to Education to allow them to do so. As a result, they acknowledged they did not adhere to the correct process when providing schools in New Mexico the option of which assessment they could administer.

BIE also provided changing directions to its schools about what assessments they could use to assess students’ academic progress in the 2012-13 school year to comply with ESEA. For the 2012-13 school year, BIE school officials in Arizona, Mississippi, and South Dakota said that BIE directed them to administer the alternative assessment it allowed the BIE schools in New Mexico to take during the prior school year, instead of their respective state assessments. However, in late September 2012, BIE directed them to administer both their state assessment and the alternative assessment. As a result, some BIE schools, such as those in Arizona, experienced delays in obtaining materials for the state assessment. Further, school officials in Arizona, Mississippi, and South Dakota were under the impression that their schools would administer the alternative assessment used in New Mexico instead of their respective state assessments. Without clear decision- making procedures, BIE has not provided schools consistent guidance to help them develop strategies to inform instruction.

BIE Did Not Inform Schools about Adequate Yearly Progress in a Timely Manner

BIE did not notify schools of their AYP status for the 2011-12 school year before the start of the 2012-13 school year. Specifically, BIE did not notify its schools of their AYP status for the 2011-12 school year until April and May 2013—over 6 months after the school year typically begins. According to Education officials, the impact of schools not knowing whether they made AYP depends on their performance the previous year. Some BIE and school officials we spoke with expressed concern that without this information on whether they made AYP they were unable to comply with ESEA and notify parents in a timely manner of the schools’ performance. Schools receiving ESEA Title I Part A funds face specific consequences depending on how many years they do not make AYP.

Table 1 shows the remedial actions for BIE Title I Part A for schools that do not make AYP. Such actions may include replacing school staff, implementing new curricula, or appointing outside experts to advise schools.

Federal internal control standards provide that information should be recorded and communicated to management and others who need it in a form and within a time frame that enables them to carry out their internal control and other responsibilities. For an entity to run and control its operations, it must have relevant, reliable, and timely communications. Without such timely communication, BIE and school officials were unable to make informed decisions about additional actions that might be needed to support educational reforms.

According to BIE officials, many of their challenges informing schools of their AYP status in a timely manner stem from having to determine the performance scores and AYP status for schools in 23 different states, each with its own accountability system. In 2008, we reported that BIE officials told us that, given the work involved, it was challenging to calculate and report proficiency levels to schools before the start of the subsequent school year. Further complicating their efforts, BIE officials noted that state calculations of AYP are not crafted with BIE schools in mind. BIE officials cited Arizona as an example. According to these officials, based on Arizona’s formula for calculating AYP, BIE schools typically do not have enough students in each grade to be able to use the state’s formula. Additionally, BIE officials said that the varied locations of BIE schools make it difficult to compare academic achievement across states, address student achievement issues, and provide technical assistance. BIE officials told us they found it especially challenging in calculating AYP results for the 2011-12 school year because Education granted waivers to several states—including states where BIE schools are located—that allowed these states to change the performance targets used to assess their schools’ yearly progress (accountability systems). For example, BIE had developed a method for comparing academic achievement across states, but is no longer able to use this method to calculate achievement across states because of these Education waivers.

BIE officials plan to address their challenges by transitioning to a unified accountability system which uses the same indicators to determine AYP for all BIE schools. To accomplish this, Interior must first change its regulation that generally requires BIE schools to use the assessments of the states in which they are located. Interior has begun the process for making this change, but the process could take several months to a year, according to a BIE official. This process requires Interior to undertake a negotiated rulemaking, which includes the formation of a negotiated rulemaking committee with members from the federal government and tribes served by BIE schools. In January 2013, Interior announced its intent to establish such a committee (which will recommend specific changes to the regulation) and invited tribes to nominate prospective members.

Critical BIE and Education Collaborative Efforts Have Been Delayed

In December 2012, the Departments of the Interior and Education established a memorandum of understanding (MOU), required by an Executive Order. The MOU is to, among other things, take advantage of both Departments’ expertise, resources, and facilities and address how the Departments will collaborate. The MOU created a BIE-Education Committee to facilitate communication between the two agencies. Among other goals, the BIE-Education Committee seeks to improve the academic performance of Indian students. The Committee is charged with exploring ways to promote more effective school reform efforts and build support for BIE’s efforts to monitor and enforce compliance with Education program requirements for which schools receive funding, particularly tribally-operated schools. The Committee is also to examine options to support BIE responsibilities, including the option of having Education establish conditions on the funding it provides to BIE consistent with applicable laws.

BIE officials in the field who provide technical assistance to schools, as well as Education officials, noted that some tribally-operated schools need to improve their administrative and technical capacity to comply with requirements for schools receiving Education grants. Such grants include those under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that support services to students with disabilities, and ESEA. For example, a senior BIE official said the local education line offices she is responsible for supervising frequently receive questions from tribally-operated school administrators about education laws and regulations. The official commented that this situation is particularly problematic as there is frequent turnover among some tribal school administrators in her region, so the local education line offices must educate new administrators on federal education requirements whenever a change in leadership occurs. BIE officials told us that they face challenges holding some tribally- operated schools accountable for compliance with federal education laws and regulations because those schools are under the purview of the tribes. BIE’s past problems holding its schools accountable led Education to impose an ongoing corrective action plan on BIE to improve its schools’ compliance with IDEA and ESEA requirements. As a part of this plan, BIE is required to submit quarterly progress reports to Education on how it is implementing the plan, and there are special conditions on its IDEA funding, such as additional documentation requirements. Although BIE officials can provide information to tribally-operated schools about Education grant requirements, they stated that unlike with BIE-operated schools, it is difficult to compel these schools to follow the requirements.

The BIE-Education Committee has not yet begun grappling with issues such as improving BIE schools’ services for students or holding schools accountable for Education funding requirements because Interior has not designated officials to serve on the committee. Consequently, as of mid July 2013 the Committee had not met although the MOU calls for it to meet at least once every three months. According to Education officials, the committee is expected to meet some time in August 2013. In the absence of committee meetings, the activities outlined in the MOU have not yet been undertaken, such as exploring ways to help BIE’s ability to monitor and enforce compliance with Education grant programs. We have previously concluded that collaboration can benefit from formal written agreements, like an MOU, but ineffective implementation of an MOU may contribute to the sporadic and limited amount of collaboration between agencies.

Poor Management and Communication Hinder Support for BIE Operations

Challenges such as a fragmented administrative structure and frequent turnover in leadership have prompted Indian Affairs to undergo an administrative structural realignment. DAS-M staff, who provide administrative services, have been detailed to BIA’s regional offices and now report to BIA regional directors. The realignment is intended to improve efficiency in the delivery of services to BIE, among others. However, the process Indian Affairs followed to develop the realignment, and its lack of a strategic plan and workforce analysis, run counter to key practices for organizational transformations, as well as principals for strategic workforce planning.

BIE Faces Fragmented Administrative Services

Until July 2013, Indian Affairs’ DAS-M was responsible for BIE’s administrative functions, including handling school contracting needs, facilities, and budget issues. However, as we noted in our February 2013 testimony, poor communication, incompatible procedures and a lack of clear roles for BIE and DAS-M staff, and leadership turnover have hampered efforts to improve Indian education.

According to school officials we interviewed, communication between Indian Affairs’ leadership and BIE is poor, resulting in confusion about policies and procedures. Working relations between BIE and DAS-M’s leadership are informal and sporadic, and BIE officials reported having difficulty obtaining timely updates from DAS-M on its responses to requests for services from schools. In addition, there is a lack of communication between Indian Affairs’ leadership and schools. For example, a high-ranking BIE official noted there are no clear procedures regarding school maintenance and facilities matters and agreed it is confusing for schools not to have a process to follow when requesting assistance concerning these matters. Additionally, BIE and school officials in all four states we visited reported that they were unable to obtain definitive answers to policy or administrative questions from BIE leadership in Washington D.C. and Albuquerque. For example, school officials in one state we visited reported that they requested information from BIE’s Albuquerque office in the 2012-13 school year about the amount of IDEA funds they were due to receive. The Albuquerque office subsequently provided them three different dollar amounts. The school officials were eventually able to obtain the correct amount of funding from their local education line office. Similarly, BIE and school officials in three states reported that they often do not receive responses from BIE’s Washington D.C. and Albuquerque offices to questions they pose via email or phone. Further, one BIE official stated that meetings with BIE leadership are venues for conveying information from management to the field, rather than opportunities for a two-way dialogue.

BIE schools have encountered delays in contracting due to DAS-M’s lack of knowledge about the needs of schools and the laws and regulations regarding educational institutions. BIE does not have a specific contracting team assigned to it, although the contracting needs of schools are different than those of a federal agency. Purchasing items for schools in a timely manner, for instance, is critical to ensure that all supplies and textbooks are delivered before the start of the school year. However, DAS-M’s procurement process has caused delays in textbook delivery to some schools. In another instance, DAS-M processes led to the termination of a contract held by an experienced speech therapist serving a BIE school in favor of a less expensive contract with another therapist. However, the new therapist was unable to travel to the schools being served to provide therapy to students. As a result, the schools were unable to implement students’ individualized education programs in the timeframe required by IDEA. In addition, although BIE accounts for approximately 34 percent of Indian Affairs’ budget, several BIE officials reported that improving student performance is often overshadowed by other Indian Affairs priorities. DAS-M staff’s focus on supporting other offices within BIA, such as the Office of Trust Services, hinders staff from seeking and acquiring expertise in education issues.

Leadership turnover in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, DAS-M, and BIE has exacerbated the various challenges created by administrative fragmentation. For instance, the tenure of acting and permanent assistant secretaries in Indian Affairs has ranged from 16 days to 3 years, and the post was vacant from August 2003 through February 2004 (see fig. 4). In previous reports about other agencies, we found that frequent changes in leadership may complicate efforts to improve student achievement, and that lack of leadership negatively affects an organization’s ability to function effectively and to sustain focus on key initiatives.

Indian Affairs underwent an administrative structural realignment on July 1, 2013, and DAS-M administrative staff responsible for BIE administrative functions have been detailed to BIA’s regional offices based on their current geographical duty station. These DAS-M staff will now be reporting to BIA regional directors, who will have authority over most of BIE’s administrative functions, including acquisitions, budget, facilities management, financial management, and property. DAS-M will continue to be responsible for information technology and human resource functions. In addition, DAS-M will continue its responsibilities overseeing and monitoring BIE activities, including updating its policies and procedures and providing technical assistance to administrative staff in the field.

Indian Affairs’ recent realignment—approved by the cognizant congressional committees in late May 2013—is intended to improve efficiency in the delivery of services to Indian Affairs stakeholders, including BIE schools. According to information we received from Indian Affairs in June 2013, the provision of administrative functions by BIA regional offices would be governed by service-level agreements specifying the services provided to BIE and the responsible parties based on BIE’s needs. However, although Indian Affairs officials told us these agreements would be signed and in place before the realignment took effect, the agreements were not in place as of late July 2013.

The process Indian Affairs followed to develop the realignment plan is unclear and Indian Affairs did not consult BIE officials on the specific changes outlined in the realignment request it submitted to Congress. For example, it did not consult with BIE on transferring the responsibilities for most of BIE’s administrative functions to BIA regional offices. Additionally, although Indian Affairs informed Congress that the realignment would be overseen by an Executive Implementation Oversight Board, several senior BIE officials, including an acting BIE Director, reported that they were not asked for input into the new plan. Indian Affairs officials acknowledged that their office had not consulted with BIE officials on potential organizational changes since before the Bronner report was issued in March 2012. The Bronner report recommended that Indian Affairs, among other things, develop new policies and procedures and increase decentralization, but does not address the specific changes entailed in the realignment. Key practices for organizational transformation include employee involvement in organizational change to help create the opportunity to increase employees’ understanding and acceptance of organizational goals and objectives, and gain ownership for new policies and procedures. Such involvement also allows employees to share their experiences and shape policies. In addition, while Indian Affairs conducted tribal consultations in April and May 2012 on the findings of the Bronner report, Indian Affairs did not formally consult with tribes on the specific changes entailed in the realignment before it took effect on July 1, 2013. Indian Affairs’ main method of obtaining information from tribes is through tribal consultations.

In addition to implementing its realignment without seeking input from key stakeholders, Indian Affairs’ leadership does not appear to have broadly communicated information about the realignment to BIE schools or BIE officials in the field. For example, although the realignment was already in effect, two BIE school administrators and the director of a BIE education line office with responsibility for a large number of schools told us on July 8, 2013 that they had no knowledge of the realignment. Another BIE school administrator said she had just recently found out about it. As a result, these school administrators were unaware that BIA regional offices, rather than DAS-M, would be responsible for carrying out their administrative functions, including acquisitions, budget, and financial management. This information is important to school administrators to have because they have experienced problems with administrative services, such as acquisition of textbooks. According to one high-ranking BIE official, improvements under the realignment are not likely, in part, because there is little communication between BIE and BIA regional office officials. These reactions may stem from the insufficient involvement of BIE and school officials in planning for the realignment and could undermine support for the change.

Indian Affairs officials acknowledged that the office has not established a strategic plan with specific goals and measures for itself or for BIE or a strategy for communicating with stakeholders. Key practices for organizational transformation suggest that effective implementation of a results-oriented framework, such as a strategic plan, requires agencies to clearly establish performance goals for which they will be held accountable, measure progress towards those goals, determine strategies and resources to effectively accomplish the goals, and use performance information to make the decisions necessary to improve performance. In addition, communicating information early and often helps to build an understanding of the purpose of planned changes and builds trust among employees and stakeholders. Although Interior as a whole has a strategic plan, BIE’s inclusion in the Interior plan consists of two performance measures to improve Indian education, but it does not detail how BIE will achieve these goals. Indian Affairs and BIE officials were unable to provide us with a more specific plan articulating the strategies they will use to achieve BIE’s mission of improving education for Indian students. BIE officials commented that a strategic plan would help BIE leadership and staff pursue goals in a consistent manner and collaborate to achieve them.

Key practices for organizational transformation also suggest that performance goals and measures are an important part of the strategic planning process. Specifically, performance measures allow an organization to demonstrate its progress toward meeting performance goals. Performance goals and measures are part of a broader system that creates a “line of sight” showing how team, unit, and individual performance can contribute to overall organizational results. Interior’s fiscal year 2008 Performance and Accountability Report lists two performance measures that relate to BIE school construction and nine measures for BIE relating to individual student performance, cost per student, and teacher qualifications. However, there are no measures for how internal departments, such as DAS-M and BIA, are fulfilling their responsibilities to provide administrative and facilities support to BIE schools. In a response to questions from Congress, Interior stated that its realignment plan requires the development and execution of performance measures for the delivery of administrative support functions, but it is not yet clear what specific measures will be adopted because the service level agreements between BIE and BIA regional offices have not yet been negotiated. Without such performance measures, BIE and BIA staff cannot be held accountable for meeting agency goals.

According to key principles for workforce planning, another element of an effective strategic plan is a clear strategy for maintaining and improving Key principles for effective strategic workforce an agency’s workforce. planning include: (1) aligning an organization’s human capital program with its current and emerging mission and programmatic goals and (2) developing long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff to achieve programmatic goals. The appropriate geographic and organizational deployment of employees can further support organizational goals and strategies. Effective deployment strategies can enable an organization to have the right people, with the right skills, doing the right jobs, in the right place, at the right time.

While Indian Affairs’ most current workforce plan is for 2008-2013, it was based on workforce data from fiscal years 2003-2007. Therefore, the data in the plan would not reflect recent changes in the workforce or current workforce needs. As a result, Indian Affairs’ recent realignment may result in an imbalance in BIA regions’ workload in supporting BIE schools. For example, under the realignment, 11 of the 12 BIA regional directors are responsible for providing administrative support to BIE schools in their However, BIE schools are unevenly distributed among the 11 regions. BIA regions, with the regions containing between 2 and 65 schools (see table 2). Therefore, it is important to ensure that each BIA regional office has an appropriate number of staff who are familiar with education laws and regulations and school-related needs to be prepared to support the schools in that region.

In addition, DAS-M records show that almost 250 employees in BIE and BIA left the agency in recent months using the Voluntary Early Retirement Authority and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments offered by Interior, which agency officials told us were prompted by the sequestration. Indian Affairs recent realignment as well as its employee early-out and buy-out efforts in the first half of 2013 highlights the importance of workforce planning. Staff departures can affect organizational capacity, and in this instance, may affect implementation of the realignment. Current information on attrition rates and geographic and demographic trends could be used to estimate the number of employees with specific skills and competencies and the bureau’s staffing needs going forward. Further, a revised workforce plan could focus on the strategic deployment of staff with educational expertise to regions with a large number of BIE schools and education-specific training for DAS-M and BIA staff with responsibilities in support of Indian education.

Further, some tribes are planning to convert BIE-operated schools to tribally-operated schools in the future. For example, the Navajo Nation intends to convert its remaining 31 BIE-operated schools to tribally- operated schools. Should this occur, only 15 percent of BIE schools would remain BIE-operated. While such a shift would decrease BIE’s administrative responsibilities, BIE’s oversight, monitoring and technical assistance responsibilities would remain. We have previously reported that it is essential that agencies determine the skills and competencies that are critical to achieving their missions and goals, especially when factors change the environment within which agencies operate.

Conclusions

The federal government, through the Department of the Interior, has a trust responsibility for the education of Indian students. However, the extent to which Interior is effectively meeting its responsibilities is questionable considering students’ relatively poor academic performance and BIE’s myriad administrative and management challenges. BIE lacks clear procedures for decision-making, which has resulted in it acting outside the scope of its authority, undermining school officials’ ability to assess student performance under ESEA and potentially affecting their compliance with federal regulations. Further, while Indian Affairs has reported the benchmark for the quality of education BIE provides to its students is whether its schools meet AYP goals, BIE’s ongoing challenges calculating AYP and reporting this information to schools may exacerbate poor school performance. Also, given the significant challenges BIE and Indian schools face in improving student academic performance, it is critical that Interior leverage existing resources and opportunities to improve communication. For example, as of late July 2013, Interior had not yet appointed members to the BIE-Education Committee. Unless BIE collaborates with partner agencies and provides schools information that affects student instruction in a timely and consistent manner, it will be difficult for BIE to be well-positioned to improve student academic performance in the future.

While Indian Affairs has undertaken another realignment of its administrative functions, it is unclear to what extent, if at all, the changes will result in improved services for BIE and schools. For instance, Indian Affairs implemented the realignment without seeking input from a broad range of stakeholders. Further, it did not develop a strategic plan with specific goals and measures for itself or BIE or strategies to achieve these goals. In addition, it has not updated its workforce plan or assessed Indian Affairs’ realignment and its impact on BIE to ensure it has the right people in place with the right skills to effectively meet the needs of BIE schools. In addition, BIE did not develop a strategy for communicating key decisions to stakeholders, including schools. Rather than contribute to improved administrative functions, the lack of planning and communication efforts may ultimately undermine them. Therefore, undertaking these steps as well as developing a comprehensive, systematic approach to providing technical assistance would help improve school officials’ administrative capacity and technical expertise, especially related to BIE compliance with Education requirements.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs to take the following five actions:

Develop and implement decision-making procedures for BIE that specify who should be involved in the decision-making process for key decisions that affect BIE and its schools to ensure that BIE has effective management controls, is accountable for the use of federal funds, and comports with federal laws and regulations. Such procedures should be clearly documented in management directives, administrative policies, or operating manuals.

Develop a communication strategy for BIE to inform its schools and key stakeholders of critical developments that impact instruction in a timely and consistent manner to ensure that BIE school officials receive information that is important for the operation of their schools.

Appoint permanent members to the BIE-Education committee and ensure that the committee meets quarterly as required by the MOU to improve collaboration between BIE and Education and address the challenges that Indian schools face in improving student performance.

Develop a strategic plan that includes detailed goals and strategies for BIE and for those offices that support BIE’s mission, including BIA, to help Indian Affairs effectively implement its realignment. Development of the strategic plan should incorporate feedback from BIE officials and other key stakeholders. To gather stakeholder input, we recommend that the plan include a comprehensive communications strategy to improve communication within Indian Affairs and between Indian Affairs and BIE staff.

Revise its strategic workforce plan to ensure that employees providing administrative support to BIE have the requisite knowledge and skills to help BIE achieve its mission and are placed in the appropriate offices to ensure that regions with a large number of BIE schools have sufficient support.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Interior and Education for review and comment. Education chose not to provide comments. Interior’s comments are reproduced in appendix I.

Interior concurred with all of our recommendations. Interior stated that the report’s findings and recommendations will aid its efforts to move forward with improving the quality of education in Indian country. For example, Interior noted that it is obtaining advice from Education and other subject- matter experts on how to improve BIE’s structure and systems.

Interior agreed with our recommendation about the need to develop and implement procedures for key decisions affecting BIE to ensure it has effective management controls and makes decisions that comport with federal laws and regulations. Interior said that as part of Indian Affairs’ realignment, it will need to refine and redefine some of the roles and responsibilities of BIE and BIA and noted it is currently finalizing a plan driven by these changes. To reflect changes in the roles of BIE and BIA as a result of the realignment, Interior acknowledged the importance of updating its policy documents, such as departmental manuals. In addition to these actions, we believe it is important for Interior to review existing policies to understand what additional controls are needed to ensure BIE activities comply with relevant laws and regulations.

Interior agreed with our recommendation to develop a communication strategy. Interior said that BIE should develop and follow set communications protocols within its schools and field offices to ensure that each entity understands its roles and responsibilities. In response to our recommendation to appoint permanent members to the BIE- Education Committee, Interior stated that it had appointed members to the Committee in late July 2013 and that the first Committee meeting was held in mid-August 2013. As Interior and Education move forward with the Committee, we believe it is important to ensure that it meets on a regular basis and that the Departments evaluate and monitor the extent to which it is achieving its stated goals.

In response to our recommendation that BIE develop a strategic plan, Interior stated that it has established a committee—composed of key Indian Affairs offices—to develop a comprehensive communication plan for BIE. Interior plans to seek input from key stakeholders on the plan, including the States and tribal Departments of Education. In addition these actions, we believe it is important that this plan include specific goals and measures for Indian Affairs and BIE that align to BIE’s mission of improving the quality of Indian students’ education.

Lastly, in response to our recommendation on the need for strategic workforce planning, Interior stated it had completed a workforce plan that served as the foundation for the current Indian Affairs’ realignment. However, the workforce plan was based on workforce data from fiscal years 2003-2007 and would not reflect recent changes in the workforce or current workforce needs. As a result, we believe it is important to revise the strategic workforce plan to reflect current staffing needs.

We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional committees, the Secretaries of Interior and Education, and other interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgements

In addition to the contact named above, Elizabeth Sirois (Assistant Director), Ramona L. Burton, Sheranda Campbell, Rachel Miriam Hill, and Matthew Saradjian made key contributions to this report. James E. Bennett, Holly A. Dye, Alexander G. Galuten, Sheila R. McCoy, Jean L. McSween, Kathy Peyman, Vernette G. Shaw, and Sarah E. Veale provided support.