BIA administers funding for the operation, maintenance, construction, and repair of school facilities at 171 elementary and secondary schools in 23 states. These schools are located primarily in rural areas and small towns and serve Indian students living on or near reservations. Many of these schools include not only educational buildings, but also dormitories and supporting infrastructure such as water and sewer systems. BIA operates 64 of the schools directly while the others are operated by tribes through separate grant or contract agreements. We previously reported on issues related to the condition of BIA school facilities in 1997 and 2001. BIA’s Office of Facilities Management and Construction (OFMC) is responsible for overseeing FMIS. At both BIA-operated and tribal-operated schools, it is the responsibility of the facility managers to enter data about the inventory and condition of their schools into the system. Prior to acceptance into FMIS, these draft data entries are reviewed and approved by facility managers at BIA agency and regional offices respectively, before final review and approval by a BIA contractor and BIA’s central office. For 22 years BIA relied on its Facility Construction Operations and Maintenance (FACCOM) system to maintain inventory data for its annual O&M program, as well as “backlog” data that reflect repairs and improvements needed outside of the annual maintenance program to improve the facilities’ condition now and in the future. These data assist BIA in monitoring the status of facilities repair and new construction projects and identifying funding needs for O&M and renovation. However, as BIA’s needs began to change, BIA managers realized that FACCOM had limitations and acknowledged that there were serious concerns with the accuracy and completeness of these data. As shown in figure 1, BIA’s efforts to replace FACCOM began in 1995 when one of its contractors issued a report about the FACCOM system’s shortcomings and recommended actions for improvement. In 1995, BIA entered into a contract with Anteon Corporation, a system developer, to design the new management information system. Relying on government standards, BIA worked with Anteon Corporation to design the new system and address FACCOM’s shortcomings. In 1999, BIA contracted with an engineering firm, Applied Management Engineering, Inc. (AME), to conduct a survey at all school sites in order to validate the schools’ condition data and to verify the presence of buildings and their use. According to BIA officials, after AME validated each school’s inventory and condition data, and BIA approved it, the data were accepted into FMIS. From fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BIA spent nearly $12.5 million to develop and begin implementing FMIS. These costs include about $8 million for contractor expenses and over $2.6 million for BIA in-house expenses, which covered the design of FMIS and ongoing technical support. During fiscal years 1999- 2003, BIA spent about $13 million for the AME contract covering the validation of inventory and condition data and other engineering support activities. To operate FMIS, BIA expects to spend about $1.7 million annually through fiscal year 2006 for contractor expenses and about $250,000 for in-house expenses. In fiscal year 2007, BIA hopes to move to an annual steady rate of about $750,000 for contractor costs and about $250,000 for in-house costs. To continue having AME reassess and validate the schools’ inventory and condition data, BIA projects to spend over $8.3 million from fiscal years 2004 through 2006 on contract expenses. Recognizing the FACCOM system’s shortcomings, BIA worked with its system developer to design a new management information system that would assist in resolving many of the weaknesses identified with the old system, including those related to difficulty of use and accuracy of data. FMIS is more user friendly and it is designed to meet facility managers’ needs at all levels within BIA by serving as both an information management system and as a project management tool. FMIS incorporates modules, including the inventory and backlog modules, which help facility managers make decisions regarding the condition of the school facilities to provide a safe environment for their students. The inventory module contains information such as the physical characteristics and use of buildings and is used to make funding decisions for annual operating expenses and routine maintenance. The backlog module contains data that tracks detailed information about the physical condition of a school’s facility and is used to prioritize and fund repair projects, capital improvements, and construction. FMIS is designed to better support the day-to-day activities of the facility management staff by being more user friendly. FMIS is a Windows-based system that provides a point-and-click feature, which makes it easy to navigate the system without having to remember codes. This is important for FMIS users, because some facility managers have little prior exposure to computers. Facility managers we interviewed at the school sites and agency and regional offices said that compared to FACCOM, FMIS is better and easier to use. One facility manager in Arizona said FMIS is easier to use because the system automatically sends messages to him when changes are made to the data, allowing him to instantly see when updates have been made to his school’s data. Another facility manager in Arizona said FMIS’s automated functions, such as drop-down menus, make it user friendly. Finally, according to BIA officials, FACCOM was only accessible by about 3-4 percent of facility managers, which did not include facility managers located at the schools. FMIS is designed to be accessible by all of BIA’s facility managers, including those at the school sites, via an Internet connection. Although most of the facility managers we visited at the schools said FMIS was better compared to FACCOM, many had been unable to access FMIS at school sites since December of 2001 due to a court order that shut down access to BIA’s Internet site. These facility managers had to travel to agency or regional offices to enter data or had to forward data to these offices for data entry. FMIS is also designed to help BIA employees improve the accuracy of the data, in part through automated mechanisms that help facility managers consistently describe the category and rank of backlog entries and the funding needed to address them. One difficulty under FACCOM was that entries listed in the backlog were often categorized incorrectly with inflated priorities, making it difficult to determine which projects needed immediate attention. To address this problem, FMIS is designed to restrict who can enter safety deficiencies, which are given first priority for funding. In addition, FMIS is designed to only accept entries that have been reviewed and approved by three different levels of BIA management and the contractor. Further, BIA refined the definitions of how backlog items should be categorized and ranked to help facility managers use the definitions consistently. The definitions now include nine categories and a ranking system for determining the priority of the items entered into the backlog (see table 1). These nine categories describe whether the deficiency at the school affects safety and endangers students’ lives; violates an environmental, disability, or energy standard; is a maintenance or capital improvement item; or requires an emergency repair. In addition, the system ranks items using a scale from one through three—with one describing the most severe deficiency. The backlog entries ranked as a “1” will most likely be funded first because they are the highest priority. FMIS requires facility managers to enter an associated category and rank for all items entered into the backlog. Such a process, with its greater specificity in how to categorize and rank deficiencies, can help facility managers improve consistency in the data entered for all 171 schools. U-1—an unforeseen event in which danger exists that could reasonably be expected to cause death, physical harm, or property damage. S-1—serious deficiency that poses a threat to safety and health, such as fire safety violations. S-2—moderate deficiency such as poor lighting or trip or fall hazards. (maintenance) M-1—deficiency related to the structural, mechanical, or electrical systems that render it inoperable, such as the deterioration of a roof that causes interior building damage. M-2—deficiency related to the facility, systems, or grounds, such as replacing worn door locks that are inoperable M-3—functional facility equipment exceeds its normal life expectancy. H-1—serious code deficiency, such as the lack of accessible door hardware. H-2—violation of codes and standards, such as the lack of code compliant accessible handrails. X-1—serious code deficiency that poses a threat to life or property, such as removing friable asbestos in occupied areas. X-2—code deficiency, such as removing asbestos floor tiles from a building. R-3—backlogs identified for future planning to determine the life cycle needs beyond the 5-year plan. C-1—to replace buildings with serious code/safety deficiencies or to abate numerous high cost code violations that meet or exceed the replacement cost rule. C-2—to accommodate functional or programmatic needs, such as replacing an undersized dining room to accommodate the student population. P-2—to change the functional space or to accommodate programmatic space needs, such as retrofitting an existing classroom into a computer laboratory. E-2—violation of energy codes and standards, such as upgrading or replacing inefficient heating systems. E-3—deficiencies, which when corrected will reduce energy use, such as replacing weather seals on exterior doors. To help facility managers develop accurate and consistent cost estimates to address backlog items, FMIS is designed to operate with a software program that helps facility managers accomplish industry standard cost estimates for replacement, renovation, or construction projects over $5,000. A facility manager at a school site we visited said that this software tool eliminates the need to make calculations by hand, and thus greatly assists him in estimating accurate costs for school projects. Another accuracy-related area that plagued FACCOM was that projects would continue on the active backlog list even after completion. The FMIS backlog module is designed with a “backlog completion screen” that stores completion dates, costs, and narrative comments. This function helps facility managers monitor the length of time that funded backlog items remained on the backlog without being completed. Unlike FACCOM, FMIS is designed with a tracking function that identifies the name of the person who entered or updated a particular backlog item. Managers can use this function to seek clarification or justification for items that have not been completed within a reasonable timeframe. The FMIS inventory module, one of six modules in the system, is designed to assist BIA in determining operations and maintenance funding for its school facilities. Specifically, the inventory module is designed to manage information about all of BIA’s school buildings, rooms, towers (such as a water tower), and grounds, along with their associated inventory items, such as stairs, sidewalks, or playgrounds. The inventory module also details if the property is owned, operated, or maintained by BIA directly or under contract or grant. The inventory module is designed with the capacity to integrate with other FMIS modules in order to generate reports and provide detailed documentation for federal funding purposes. At the schools we visited, several facility managers said the inventory function in FMIS helps them to better manage their school facilities. For example, one school facility manager in Arizona said FMIS helps him more accurately keep track of his school’s inventory and allowed him to enter the information that is necessary for BIA to make good funding decisions. Another facility manager in South Dakota said that because only one staff person can enter information into the inventory module, his school is able to maintain consistency in inventory changes and additions. The FMIS backlog module is designed to help BIA officials prioritize and make funding decisions for needed repair projects and capital improvements. The backlog collects and tracks condition data related to deficiencies, capital improvements, or construction for specific inventory items, such as classrooms, sidewalks, or utility systems. These data are entered into FMIS by a facility manager, by safety officers as a part of a safety inspection, or by BIA’s contractor. Although the backlog module can store information about any identified deficiency, the only items that are reported as part of BIA’s backlog are those with an estimated cost of more than $1,000 to fix. These deficiencies, which may be grouped together to form repair, replacement, or construction projects are maintained in the backlog until funded and complete. During our site visits, many of the facility managers said the backlog module helped them to better manage their facilities. For example, one school facility manager in Arizona said FMIS’s ability to store digital pictures was helpful because a picture of a deficiency could be sent to the regional facility manager and reviewed without the facility manager traveling nearly 284 miles to the school. Facility managers at schools use the information in the backlog module to justify funding needs for repair projects and capital improvements at their schools. BIA management officials allocating funding among the schools said the data in the backlog module allow them to determine which deficiencies are related to student safety and need to be addressed immediately, and which are related to capital improvements, such as roof replacement, that are planned for the future. BIA officials said they use the backlog data to help improve the physical condition of their schools in order to provide a safe and healthy learning environment for the students. BIA’s engineering contractor has corrected the inventory and backlog data that existed in the old data system, but BIA has not transferred all corrected information to the new FMIS. The contractor completed its validation of the inventory data in February 2003, and BIA plans to transfer the corrected data into the FMIS by August 2003. BIA officials expect that the corrected inventory data, in conjunction with improvement to the existing funding formula, will enhance their ability to better match funding with annual expenses for utilities and routine maintenance at each school site. For the backlog data, BIA’s contractor is in the third year of the second cycle review of the condition of BIA-funded schools as planned. In fiscal year 2002, the contractor visited 33 schools and identified corrections to add, delete, or adjust the FMIS data. BIA, however, had not entered the results of these condition assessments into FMIS for over 1 year. BIA officials attribute the long delays in correcting the FMIS condition data to a revised process for verifying contractor data and to software compatibility problems that they say are being addressed. The FMIS inventory module contains data on BIA facilities, including almost 2,200 separate buildings that are occupied by or used for BIA- funded schools. More than 50 percent (1,146) of the buildings are used directly by children, as shown in table 2. Accurate and up-to-date inventory data are crucial to the operation of the entire FMIS because other modules rely on inventory data for planning and prioritizing the work and for identifying and prioritizing funding needs. For example: School facility managers access inventory data when planning and scheduling routine maintenance of their facilities, grounds, and equipment. For example, one FMIS module acts as a scheduling tool to inform facilities managers about work, such as preventive maintenance, that needs to be done to buildings, equipment, and other physical assets listed in the inventory. BIA’s Office of Facilities Management and Construction uses inventory data in the formula that determines the amount of operations and maintenance funding allocated to each school location. Distribution of this funding is calculated using a formula that includes such inventory data as the square footage of rooms in each building and systems that support the facility such as heating and cooling systems. Funding distributions have been a particular source of contention for Office of Indian Education officials, who told us that inaccuracies in the inventory data have led to inequities in how the money is apportioned. Accurate data that are collected using a methodology that is consistent from site to site is a necessary component for demonstrating the fairness of the process. BIA’s engineering contractor, AME, has remained on schedule in its effort to improve the accuracy of the inventory information currently in FMIS. In conducting this effort, AME visited each school and collected inventory data using a standardized, industry-based approach to help ensure that information on all facilities is uniformly collected and recorded. AME completed the first phase of this effort in 2000, when it visited each school to verify and update the inventory data listed in the FACCOM before its transfer to FMIS in that year, according to a BIA official. This phase, which focused on the more general aspects of the inventory, was aimed at such matters as identifying which buildings were still in use, the use of the facility, and who owns it. AME completed the second phase of the improvement effort in February 2003. This second phase, which took longer than the first phase, involved a more extensive measurement of the buildings and updated the drawings of floor space, grounds, infrastructure, and utility lines. BIA’s current plans call for replacing the existing data in FMIS with this updated and corrected data by August 2003. Our preliminary review of the new data generated during the second phase of AME’s work indicates that the inventory figures may change considerably for some schools. At our request, AME officials provided revised square footage data for more than 90 buildings (such as classroom buildings, dormitories, multipurpose buildings, and offices) at 13 different schools. Overall, the revised measurements for these buildings decreased the total square footage by about 3 percent, but the range in increases and decreases at each school varied significantly. For 9 of the schools the decrease in square footage ranged from less than 1 percent to more than 13 percent; increases for the remaining 4 schools, ranged from less than 1 percent to almost 18 percent. We do not know if these results will be typical for all schools. One BIA official indicated, however, that some schools were likely to experience greater changes than others in the square footage that would qualify for O&M funding. BIA officials said that the improved data, along with improvements to the funding formula, will help ensure the various schools that their share of O&M funding was objectively and accurately determined. However, whether this corrected inventory data will be transferred to FMIS in time for making fiscal year 2004 funding decisions is uncertain. BIA may yet face some implementation problems as it moves into the final months of putting this information in place. For example, during 2002, BIA attempted to run the O&M funding formula using the existing FMIS inventory data for the first time and experienced problems with the data and software. While the agency has had a year to work out these problems, introduction of the updated inventory data may hold its own unforeseen problems. If such problems are encountered and remain unresolved, a BIA official told us that the agency would continue to use the data currently in the system to allocate the O&M funding for fiscal year 2004. The backlog data in FMIS reflects actions and funding needed to improve the condition of facilities and infrastructure at the various schools now and in the future. Most of the items listed in the backlog provide detail for repairs needed over the next 5 years to correct what is wrong with a facility such as a leaky roof, the presence of asbestos, or a violation of handicapped codes and standards. However, FMIS also includes entries for capital improvements that will need to be addressed beyond 5 years to upgrade specific building components such as replacing lighting and power systems, siding, and carpeting as well as future construction to replace, renovate, and add buildings to accommodate program needs. Accurate and up-to-date backlog data are important because FMIS contains formulas that use these data to allow BIA to make informed decisions not only about which projects are in greatest need of attention, but also how much money is needed to fund them each year. As of October 2002, for example, BIA schools had a backlog of unfunded repairs and improvements with an estimated cost over $640 million (see table 3); FMIS shows that almost two-thirds of this amount may be needed within the next 5 years. AME currently validates the backlog for each school in a 3-year cycle. During its first review, in 1999, AME conducted a 100-percent validation of the backlog data prior to transferring that data from the old FACCOM system to the new FMIS backlog module. In that review, AME updated the backlog data by confirming entries already in the system, updating the costs estimated to conduct the work, deleting entries for duplicate items or completed work, and identifying new entries. Results of the validation effort, as shown in table 4, increased the backlog by more than $265 million; almost 28 percent of the total backlog of $960 million that existed in 1999. AME has since started the second review of each school, which consists of updating this information for a certain percentage of the facilities each year. AME updated 20 percent of the facilities in each year 2001 and 2002. For 2003, AME is on track to increase the percentage of facilities reviewed each year to 34 percent to comply with recent changes in the law. These updates involve visually inspecting the architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical components of each facility to determine if action is still needed and to update the estimated costs. In addition, AME identifies new deficiencies, including the extent to which handicapped accessibility requirements are met, and verifying estimated costs. Our review of some updates conducted during fiscal year 2002 indicates that AME’s reviews will continue to result in substantial changes in backlog data. We obtained data for 14 of the schools reviewed between February and April 2002. For the 14 schools, the AME update resulted in a net increase of almost $11 million (see table 5) in the unfunded FMIS backlog of more than $39 million, an increase of about 28 percent. Part of the change involved modifications to deficiencies already in the backlog inventory, such as revising cost estimates and deleting projects that had been completed or no longer needed but were still listed in the backlog as ongoing. However, a large part of the change involved adding new deficiencies to the backlog. In all, there were almost 650 new backlog entries, and more than 75 percent of these entries were for deficiencies identified at school facilities and dormitories, where children are the primary occupants. For example, there were more than 200 entries for dormitories with an estimated cost of almost $4 million. None of these entries were for urgent or safety deficiencies that needed immediate attention; most were maintenance deficiencies that will need attention over the next 2 to 5 years, such as repairing lighting and plumbing systems, carpeting, and ceilings. While the contractor’s field assessments are proceeding on schedule, there have been significant delays in incorporating the 2002 updated backlog data into FMIS. In fiscal year 2001, the first year of the updates, the contractor assessed the condition of 39 schools and transferred the data from its information system to the FMIS without problems, according to BIA and contractor officials. However, officials said that in fiscal year 2002, the untimely transfer of data from the field assessments to the contractor’s information system and software compatibility problems between the contractor’s information system and FMIS delayed the update of backlog data for 33 schools for over a year. These implementation problems occurred for such reasons as the following: BIA added a new function to the FMIS, which took 6 months to implement, rather than the 2 months that they had planned, according to a BIA official. This new function involved using the FMIS, for the first time, to generate the O&M funding amounts to be distributed to the various schools. A change to the backlog category and ranking system in FMIS created duplicate entries that took time to resolve. In the 2002 assessments, some deficiencies that were already in the system were recategorized, and when the update was transferred to FMIS a duplicate entry was created instead of overwriting the old entry. According to BIA and contractor officials, this software compatibility problem has largely been addressed. As of April 2003, data for 27 of the 33 schools had been entered into FMIS. A BIA official told us that delays in introducing these updates into the FMIS backlog could have some impact on their ability to prioritize or fund repair and capital improvement projects, but not a significant impact for two reasons. First, the deficiencies that receive the highest points in the project ranking system are safety deficiencies, which are identified and updated in an annual safety inspection by BIA’s safety officers and not AME. Second, the most critical deficiencies at the schools were identified in the first assessment in 1999, and during this second assessment, AME is finding very few deficiencies that would be funded within 1 to 2 years that were not already in the system. However, one official acknowledged that since the FMIS ranks the schools for major repair and capital improvement projects based on the points applied to each deficiency, if AME’s assessment indicated an increase in the severity of a deficiency and that change was not reflected in the system, that school could be ranked lower than if the data were up to date. Our site visits to 8 BIA-funded schools did not disclose any instances where serious problems were not being addressed. While facilities management staff and school principals pointed out problems with their facilities, we did not observe that the children were in an unsafe learning environment with obvious safety or repair issues. The problems we observed were either of a less serious nature, or if serious, were being addressed in some form. For example, at a boarding school in Arizona the principal said that the fire alarm system for the school building and dormitory had been improperly installed and had to be replaced. While waiting for the funding for a new system, which had been approved, they had to use funds from the school budget to hire extra people to stand fire watch 24 hours a day. The ability of FMIS to provide accurate and complete data depends on BIA employees entering correct and timely information, but review processes and training programs BIA has established for ensuring data quality have been largely ineffective. Although adherence to federal control standards are a major part of providing reasonable assurance that the objectives of the agency are being achieved, half of the entries proposed by BIA employees are incorrect or incomplete and are flagged by BIA’s contractor. Discussions with BIA employees indicate that some employees are unclear about their responsibilities in maintaining the accuracy of FMIS data, and the high error rates in data entry indicate that additional training is needed in some locations to improve performance. BIA has not analyzed the information it has available about the content and origination of the data errors to determine the type of additional training that might be needed or to target locations with the highest error rates for technical assistance. Further, BIA has not established criteria or performance goals that define its expectations for the accuracy and completeness of the data for employees that enter and review this information. BIA’s Office of Facilities Management and Construction, which manages FMIS, did not until recently have authority to establish criteria or performance goals for agency and regional office personnel that are responsible for reviewing and approving data entries by school facility managers. BIA’s OFMC still does not have similar authority over school facility managers who originate most data entries. Under BIA’s current organization, such action would have to be taken by the Office of Indian Education Programs. BIA established a multilevel review process as a control to prevent problems related to inaccurate and incomplete data entries to BIA’s information system. In this process, each entry that school facility managers propose for the backlog is first reviewed and approved by BIA facility management personnel at an agency and a regional office before it is sent to BIA’s contractor, AME, for review and approval, with final approval by BIA’s central office. After approval has been obtained from each level, the status of the entry is changed from “draft” to “accepted” in FMIS, according to BIA. Although BIA established this multilevel review process to improve the quality of the data entered into FMIS, AME continues to reject half of the proposed entries because they are inaccurate and incomplete. For example, between August 2001 and December 2002, out of more than 650 entries to the backlog made by facilities management staff from 102 schools, more than 300, or almost 50 percent, were rejected by the contractor. BIA documents show that the incidence of the errors among the 102 schools was widespread. In all, 73 of the 102 schools entering data had one or more entries disapproved, and 33 of them had all entries disapproved (see table 6). Facility management staff at the regional and agency offices appear to have the necessary background to fulfill their responsibilities for screening and correcting inaccurate and incomplete data entries; however, it may be unclear to some reviewers what their role is in this process. Federal control standards require that employees have the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform their job appropriately and have clear roles and responsibilities outlined in their job descriptions. Among the facilities management staffs in the agency and regional offices that we interviewed, most had an engineering background or had significant experience in facilities management and they were aware that maintaining accurate and complete data in the FMIS was important. However, facilities managers we interviewed at two regional offices each had a different view about their role in the review process. One said that it was important that the backlog entries are consistent and that two staff had been designated to review the FMIS entries from the schools and agencies in the region before being sent on to the central office for review by the contractor. The second manager said he reviewed the entries so that he knew what new additions were being proposed for the backlog; he did not consider it his role to critique the entries for accuracy and completeness. Although most BIA locations have staffs that have received training to use FMIS, the extent of the errors indicates that employees may not be receiving the kind of training needed to create accurate and complete data entries. Standards for internal control in the federal government include a commitment to competence, which includes the provision that employees receive the appropriate training necessary to improve their performance. BIA has developed a training program that is intended to provide FMIS users with sufficient information to operate the system. All FMIS users receive 40 hours of training before they are given a password that allows them to access the system, according to BIA; a review of BIA’s training log indicates that about 70 percent of the schools have at least one staff member onsite that has received this training. While training appears to be adequate in terms of providing staff with the basic skills needed to use the computer-based applications, what appears to be lacking in the training program is more specific instruction and guidance on the kinds of information that are needed to enter an accurate and complete deficiency to the backlog. BIA officials acknowledged that a user manual to provide this type of guidance was lacking and should be developed. BIA officials said developing the FMIS training has been a challenge because the facilities management staffs have different levels of knowledge about computers—for some facility managers, FMIS training was their first exposure to using a computer. The training programs were developed to meet the needs of this diverse group of users, according to the contractor that developed and provides the training. In our site visits we asked users about the training that they had received for using FMIS; almost all of the staff that we interviewed said that they were pleased with the training they received and believed that it had prepared them for using FMIS. In addition, they said that when they did have problems they contacted central office with questions and/or problems with using the system, the response was prompt and very helpful. However, the engineering contractor indicated that the varying levels of experience and expertise is a difficulty affecting staff’s ability to input data successfully. He said that there are more than 180 sites with education buildings for which data must be entered and the level of knowledge and expertise about facilities and the kinds of information needed for an FMIS entry varies widely—particularly in those sites where the turnover rate of facilities management staff is high. We were unable to obtain comprehensive data on the turnover rate for the facility management staff, but among the schools that we visited, the facilities managers’ length of employment at their current location ranged from 2 years to 17 years. BIA officials have information on the number and reasons that data entries are rejected at each location, but said that they had not used this information to provide performance counseling to employees or modify the training and guidance in this regard. Standards for internal control in the federal government include the provision that employees receive the feedback necessary to improve their performance. Analyzing the extent and content of data errors would be helpful to determine the type and amount of additional training and guidance needed to improve employee performance at schools, agencies, and regional offices and target them appropriately for technical assistance. BIA data we reviewed indicated that the reasons for disapproval generally fell into one of four groups and were consistent with historical data entry problems experienced under the old FACCOM system. For example, more detailed description was needed for the deficiency; a roof repair, for example, required specific information about the kind of roof and its size; questionable cost estimates involving labor rates or material costs; duplicate entry for a deficiency already in the backlog; and wrong category and/or rank for the entry such as categorizing the replacement of asbestos floor tiles as maintenance rather than environmental, which are funded from different sources. Of these problems, most of the rejected backlog entries generally related to insufficient detail to accurately estimate the cost to address the deficiency, according to an AME official who reviewed and rejected many of these entries. The kind of detail that is needed to successfully enter a deficiency can be seen in an example involving the repair of a leaking roof. To adequately estimate the cost for this repair, information is needed about the size of the area that needs repair or replacement, the composition of the roof (such as asphalt shingles or tile), and other associated components (such as whether skylights or gutters are present and whether they also need to be replaced). We reviewed one entry that had been rejected by the contractor because it came through the review process without information about the roof’s size or its composition. The ineffectiveness of BIA’s guidance, training, and review processes to minimize inaccurate or incomplete data entries by its employees suggests that accountability is another issue that deserves attention. Federal standards require that agencies clearly establish authority and responsibility for achieving agency goals and hold their employees accountable for performing their assigned responsibilities in a competent manner. During our review, the organization of BIA was such that the office that manages FMIS did not have line authority to establish performance criteria and standards for the BIA employees that entered and reviewed the FMIS data. In April 2003, BIA announced a new organization plan. This plan may offer OFMC greater opportunity to establish performance criteria and standards for facility managers at agency and regional offices. BIA officials told us the reorganization would not provide OFMC with line authority for facility managers at schools. However, the Director of the Office of Indian Education programs said that his office would work with OFMC to establish comparable performance criteria and standards for school facility managers. FMIS is designed to assist BIA employees improve the quality of information used to manage school facilities, but the quality of the decisions that BIA makes for managing the operations and maintenance, repair, and construction of its facilities is directly dependent upon BIA employees entering correct and timely information. Currently, the FMIS data that BIA uses for making its decisions are improving as the data are updated by its contractor and entered into FMIS—to date the inventory data have been updated and the contractor is in the third year of assessing the condition of the schools and updating the backlog for the second time. However, challenges remain in BIA’s efforts to improve the quality of data entered by its employees. Although BIA has implemented controls for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the FMIS data entered and reviewed by BIA employees, they do not work effectively. Without the role of the contractor as a reviewer of new entries by field staff and in conducting site visits to verify and update the data, the quality of the FMIS data could quickly become inaccurate and out of date. BIA has not taken the necessary steps to hold its staff accountable for data accuracy or to use the available information on why the problems exist to develop training programs and target technical assistance where it is needed. Such actions are needed if BIA is to rely on its employees, rather than the contractor, to ensure that it provides a safe and quality learning environment for Indian children. To better enable BIA to rely on its employees for maintaining accurate and complete information in the FMIS, we recommend that the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs establish data standards for accuracy and completeness of FMIS data and related performance criteria for BIA employees who are responsible for entering and reviewing the data and analyze available error data and use this information to provide its employees with the necessary training, guidance, and technical assistance to improve performance. We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior for its review and comment. Interior’s comments are provided in appendix II. In its written comments, Interior agreed with our findings and recommendations and said that BIA is establishing a special working group to develop a plan to address our recommendations. In addition, BIA will consider our comments and observations as it continues to develop and implement the FMIS. We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of the Department of Interior, relevant congressional committees, Indian education organizations, and other interested parties, and will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me at (202) 512-6778 if you or your staff have any questions about this report. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. The objectives of this study were to determine (1) whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) new facilities management information system (FMIS) addresses the former system’s shortcomings and meets BIA’s needs for managing school facilities; (2) the status of BIA’s effort to validate the accuracy and completeness of the data being transferred from the old system into FMIS; and (3) how well BIA’s quality control measures are working to ensure that new data entered into FMIS are accurate and complete. To determine the extent to which FMIS was designed to address weaknesses of the previous data processing system and how the new system meets BIA’s facility management needs we reviewed contractor reports, BIA documentation on the FMIS, and interviewed contractors and BIA headquarters, regional, agency, and school facility management staff. First, we reviewed the needs assessment studies conducted by independent contractors to identify old system weaknesses and the recommendations made for addressing the system problems. We then reviewed the FMIS documentation to determine whether the system addressed weaknesses identified in the needs assessment. In addition, we conducted interviews with some of the contractors hired by BIA to build and implement the system. We also interviewed BIA officials at the Office of Facilities Management and Construction, the Division of Safety and Risk Management, and the Office of Indian Education Programs about improvements in the new system and how it meets their management needs. Finally, to understand how well school facility management staff received FMIS, we conducted site visits to 8 schools in Arizona, New Mexico, and South Dakota. We selected these schools to obtain a mix based on their differences in size, geographic location, type of school (i.e., grade level, day school, or on-reservation boarding school), and whether it was BIA-operated or tribal-operated. At these schools, we interviewed facility managers, education line officers, principals, and tribal officials. We also interviewed facility management staff at two regional and five agency offices that provide facility management services to the schools. To determine the extent to which the FMIS inventory and backlog data are accurate and complete we used three methods. First, we obtained data from two sources (1) a copy of the FMIS database and (2) a copy of the contractor file of backlog data from the fiscal year 2002 condition assessments of 14 schools. The data in these files were assessed for reliability, which included looking for missing data, the relationship of one data element to another, values beyond a given range, and dates outside of valid time frames. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also calculated summary statistics of the data from these files. Second, we evaluated BIA’s multilevel review process. For this analysis, we obtained data on the number of backlog entries made by facility managers and the number that had been accepted and rejected by the contractor. In addition, we reviewed the log of entries that had been rejected by the contractor to understand the reasons for these rejections. We also interviewed the contractor and BIA central office and regional and agency facility management staff about this review process. Finally, we accompanied BIA’s engineering contractor on site visits to 2 schools in Arizona where we evaluated their methodologies for data collection and validation of the inventory and backlog data. To determine how well BIA’s internal control measures are working for its FMIS we first reviewed our standards on internal controls to identify controls that apply to an organization’s management of an information system. We then compared the BIA controls with those identified in our reports to evaluate the effectiveness of the BIA controls. Additionally, we interviewed staff at the BIA central office about the internal controls they had in place for the FMIS. We also interviewed staff at the regional and agency offices and the schools about one of the controls—the effectiveness of the training they received. In addition to the individuals mentioned above, Jessica Botsford, Maya Chakko, Terry Dorn, David Gill, Barbara Johnson, Nathan Morris, Stan Stenerson, and Michelle Zapata made significant contributions to this report.

Summary: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is responsible for providing over 48,000 children with a safe place to learn. In response to concerns that data in its old information system did not accurately reflect the condition of facilities, BIA acquired a new system, called the Facilities Management Information System (FMIS). GAO was asked to determine whether FMIS addresses the old system's weaknesses and meets BIA's management needs, whether BIA has finished validating the accuracy of data entered into FMIS from the old system, and how well the quality control measures are working for ensuring the accuracy of new data being entered into the system from individual schools. FMIS is designed to address the previous data system's shortcomings and appears to have the capability to meet BIA's management needs if the data that are entered into FMIS are correct and timely. The old system was hard to use and did not readily provide data for maintenance and repair efforts. FMIS's design appears to overcome these weaknesses. For example, FMIS has features that help facility managers make data more consistent, as well as tools for helping managers develop cost estimates for maintenance and construction projects. BIA's contractor has been correcting the data that were transferred to FMIS from the previous system, but issues such as software compatibility problems between the contractor's system and FMIS have delayed entry of some of the data for more than 1 year. BIA officials say that these problems are being addressed. They said the delay has not affected their ability to prioritize or fund repair and construction projects, and our review of the data indicated that most newly identified deficiencies will not need to be addressed for 2 to 5 years. Our review of data from 14 BIA schools and observations during site visits disclosed no instances in which these data problems resulted in an unsafe learning environment for children. Most measures for controlling the quality of new data BIA employees are entering into the system for individual schools are not working well. BIA has established a multilevel review process and training programs to help ensure that such data entries are complete and accurate, but BIA's contractor, in reviewing data at the end of this process, continues to find that nearly half of the proposed data entries coming through the system are inaccurate and incomplete. Data entries from one-third of 102 schools that entered data show a 100-percent error rate. As a result, BIA officials continue to rely on their contractor to ensure that FMIS reflects accurate and complete data on the condition of BIA's facilities.