Bureau of Indian Education: Actions Needed to Improve Management of a Supplemental Education Program

American Indian and Alaska Native students enrolled in public schools have performed consistently below other students on national assessments from 2005-2019. The JOM program provides academic and cultural supports, through contracts, to meet the specialized and unique educational needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students enrolled in public schools and select private schools. In fiscal year 2019, Interior allocated about $23 million for the JOM program, according to Interior's budget documentation.

GAO was asked to review issues related to Interior's JOM program, administered by BIE. This report examines the extent to which BIE (1) has key program information, (2) provides training to JOM contractors, and (3) clearly defines and identifies JOM roles and responsibilities. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and both BIE and JOM contractor documents; analyzed existing data and information on JOM; and interviewed agency officials, five JOM contractors of different types, and two nonprofit organizations selected for their knowledge of the JOM program.

The Department of the Interior's (Interior) Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) does not have key information to manage the Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) program which provides supplemental education services to meet the specialized and unique needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students. For example, BIE does not maintain a complete and accurate list of all its JOM contractors, who provide services including targeted academic supports, Native language classes, and cultural activities. In May 2019, BIE began to identify all the contractors, but officials acknowledged that their list is still incomplete, and GAO found problems with the list, such as duplicate entries. Federal internal control standards state that an agency should have relevant, reliable information to run its operations. Maintaining a complete list of contractors would improve BIE's administration of the JOM program.

BIE does not provide any training for JOM contractors. For example, BIE does not provide training to contractors on how to effectively manage their JOM programs or meet program requirements. By providing training for contractors, BIE could ensure that contractors understand the program and are equipped to provide services to meet the educational needs of their students.

In addition, BIE has not clearly defined the roles and responsibilities or identified the staff needed to effectively administer the JOM program (see figure). For example, when BIE closed a field office in California, staff were not identified to administer the office's contracts, including helping contractors renew their contracts when they expired. Also, BIE has not identified a role for Interior's attorneys in reviewing the contracts and some contractors have types of contracts for which they are not eligible. Further, BIE has not identified staff to conduct consistent program oversight, which is important to mitigating the risk of misuse and abuse of JOM funds. Until all JOM roles and responsibilities have been defined and identified, challenges may persist.

GAO is making five recommendations, including that the Director of BIE should maintain an accurate and complete list of JOM contractors, develop JOM training, and clearly define roles and responsibilities and identify staff for carrying out JOM functions. Interior agreed with the recommendations.

American Indian and Alaska Native students enrolled in public schools  have performed consistently below other students enrolled in public  schools on national assessments from 2005-2019, and had graduation  rates 13 percentage points lower than the national average for the 2016- 2017 school year. Further, these students may have cultural needs,  which include learning their Native languages and histories. The  Johnson-O’Malley (JOM) program, established in 1934, provides  supplementary financial assistance to meet these students’ specialized  and unique educational needs.

The Department of the Interior’s (Interior) Bureau of Indian Education  (BIE) contracts with tribal organizations, Indian corporations, school  districts, and states to provide JOM programs to eligible students.  According to BIE, JOM funds can be used to support a wide range of  initiatives that may include Native language and cultural enrichment  programs, academic assistance, dropout prevention programs, and the  purchase of supplies for school and extra-curricular programs. According  to BIE, these resources benefit eligible students’ academics, including  helping them stay in school. In fiscal year 2019, Interior allocated about  $23 million for the JOM program, according to Interior’s budget  documentation.

The JOM program is primarily administered by BIE, but officials within the  Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) generally disburse JOM funds.  Organizationally, BIE and BIA are separate bureaus in the Office of the  Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs (Indian Affairs) within Interior. 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.

For decades, we, along with Interior’s Inspector General, have reported  on challenges related to Indian education. In February 2017, due to long- standing ineffective administration of Indian education and other  programs, we concluded that Indian Affairs’ management of these  programs was a high risk area, and we added it to our High Risk List. In  light of this history, you asked us to provide information on issues related  to the program.

This report examines the extent to which BIE (1) has key information on  the JOM program, (2) provides training to JOM contractors, and (3)  defines and identifies JOM program roles and responsibilities.

To determine the extent to which BIE has information on the JOM  program, we reviewed Interior’s reporting forms used to collect  information from JOM contractors. We also obtained and analyzed data  from Interior’s Financial and Business Management System and other  data collected from BIE program officials on the number of JOM  contractors and the amount disbursed to each. We found these data to be  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of reporting on the number of JOM  contractors that BIE has identified and the amount disbursed to each.  However, we did not find those data to be reliable for other purposes. To  examine the information BIE collects regarding JOM disbursements, we  interviewed BIA, BIE, and other Interior officials knowledgeable about the  process for disbursing JOM funds. We compared our findings to relevant  standards for internal control.

To determine the extent to which BIE provides training to JOM  contractors, we interviewed knowledgeable BIE officials. We compared  BIE’s provision of instruction and training to federal standards for internal  control and BIE’s strategic plan. To obtain JOM contractors’  perspectives, we travelled to Oklahoma to attend two BIE-hosted  consultation sessions designed to solicit feedback from JOM contractors  and other interested stakeholders on proposed changes affecting the  program. We also met with two tribal JOM contractors and interviewed  three school districts serving as contractors in Oklahoma. We selected  the tribal contractors by identifying those contractors in close geographic  proximity to the consultation session and then prioritizing those  contractors receiving the most contract funds. The findings from the visit  and interviews with JOM contractors are not generalizable to all JOM  contractors, but provide illustrative examples of contractors’ experience  with the JOM program. We collected and reviewed relevant documents  from these contractors, but we did not evaluate contractors’  administration of their JOM programs. We also interviewed nonprofit  organizations such as the National Indian Education Association and the  National Johnson-O’Malley Association, a nonprofit organization focused  on JOM programs, both selected for their expertise on the JOM program.

To determine the extent to which BIE clearly defines and identifies JOM  program roles and responsibilities, we reviewed relevant federal laws and  regulations. We also reviewed agency documents related to the JOM  program, including relevant position descriptions and internal procedures.  We also interviewed officials with various roles and responsibilities related  to JOM functions. For example, we interviewed BIE officials in the Office  of the Director and the Office of Sovereignty in Indian Education, and  received written responses from four BIE field offices—known as  Education Resource Centers. We also interviewed BIA officials in the  Division of Workforce Development, Division of Indian Self-Determination,  and Office of Self-Governance; and other Interior officials in the Office of  the Solicitor and the Office of Budget and Performance Management. We  compared BIE’s efforts to define and identify JOM roles and  responsibilities to relevant standards for internal control.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2019 to April 2020 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

JOM Program Eligibility and Administration

The JOM program provides supplementary financial assistance, through  contracts, to meet the unique and specialized educational needs of  eligible American Indian and Alaska Native students. Eligible students,  under Interior’s regulations, are generally Indian students age 3 through  grade 12 who are either a member of an Indian tribe or at least one- quarter degree Indian blood descendant of a member of an Indian tribe.

BIE contracts with tribal organizations, Indian corporations, school  districts, and states—which we collectively refer to as JOM contractors as  that is the term used by Interior—that administer local JOM programs and  disburse funds to schools or other programs providing JOM services.  Most JOM funds are distributed through tribal contractors, according to  BIE. BIE generally relies on BIA officials to disburse JOM funds, as noted  previously (see fig. 1).

BIE’s director is generally responsible for directing and managing JOM  functions, including establishing policies and procedures, coordinating  technical assistance, and approving the disbursement of JOM funds. In  2014, BIE established one centralized position dedicated solely to  administering JOM as part of a broader re-structuring initiative and the  position has been consistently staffed since 2018. The current JOM  program specialist is responsible for planning, developing, administering,  and coordinating the JOM program.

It is the federal government’s policy to fulfill its trust responsibility for  educating Indian children by working with tribes to ensure that education  programs are of the highest quality. In 2016, Congress found in the Indian  Trust Asset Reform Act that “through treaties, statutes, and historical  relationship with Indian tribes, the United States has undertaken a unique  trust responsibility to protect and support Indian tribes and Indians.” As  further stated in the Act, the fiduciary responsibilities of the United States  to Indians are also founded in part on specific commitments made in  treaties and agreements, in exchange for which Indians surrendered  claims to vast tracts of land.

JOM Program Requirements and Implementation

The JOM program is the only federally-funded Indian educational  program that allows for student, parent, and community involvement in  identifying and meeting the educational needs of American Indian and  Alaska Native students, according to the National Johnson-O’Malley  Association—a tribally led organization which advocates for JOM  programs. The JOM regulations require prospective contractors to  formulate an education plan in consultation with an Indian Education  Committee, generally made up of parents of American Indian and Alaska  Native students, and to submit the plan to BIE. Indian Education  Committees have the authority to, among other things, participate fully in  planning, developing, implementing, and evaluating their local JOM  programs.

According to BIE officials, JOM funds can be used to support a wide  variety of supplemental education programs. For example, these funds  support programs providing Native cultural and language enrichment;  academic support; dropout prevention; and the purchase of school  supplies, according to BIE (see fig. 2). JOM programs, particularly for  students who are not living near tribal land, may be the only way students  can access tribal language and cultural programs.

According to BIE officials, JOM funding is primarily disbursed to  contractors through three different funding mechanisms: self- determination contracts, self-governance compacts, and 477 plans.  Most JOM contractors—over 200—are funded through self-determination  contracts, according to data provided by BIE. These three funding  mechanisms result in different oversight authority for Interior. However,  the Johnson-O’Malley Supplemental Indian Education Program  Modernization Act (Modernization Act)—enacted on December 31,  2018—requires all JOM contractors to submit annual reports to the  Secretary of the Interior with the number of eligible Indian students during  the previous fiscal year, an accounting of the amounts expended, and the  purposes for which those amounts were expended. BIE officials said  some contractors can also be subject to site visits to oversee the  program.

Under regulations, JOM funds are to be distributed to contractors by a  formula that factors in the number of eligible students to be served and  average per-student operating costs. Interior conducted its most recent  official JOM student count in 1995. As a result, subsequent JOM  distributions have been based on the number of students served by  contractors in 1995—271,884 students. BIE officials said that the total  number of eligible students has increased since 1995, although no official  count has been completed. As a result, the funding contractors receive  may not reflect changes in the number of students served by contractors.  The size of JOM contracts currently ranges from less than $1,000 to  nearly $4 million, according to data provided by BIE.

The Modernization Act requires BIE to determine the number of eligible  students served or potentially served and to complete a rulemaking  process to, among other things, modernize program rules. BIE  published a preliminary report on its initial determination of eligible  students in October 2019 and is continuing to work on finalizing its count  of eligible students. Additionally, in response to the Modernization Act,  Interior promulgated new final JOM program regulations that became  effective March 26, 2020.

BIE Lacks Key Information on the JOM Program Needed for Oversight

BIE Does Not Have a Complete and Accurate List of JOM Contractors

BIE does not maintain a complete and accurate list of all JOM  contractors. BIE officials said JOM funds are disbursed by awarding  officials in various BIA offices in different locations, and there is no  systematic process to identify and collect information on all the awarded  contracts. BIE began efforts to identify all the contractors and the amount of their awards in May 2019 after we asked for this information. As of  December 2019, BIE said they identified more than 340 contractors.

BIE officials said they have not verified the accuracy and completeness of  their current list of contractors. According to federal internal control  standards, an agency should have relevant, reliable information to run  and control its operations. BIE officials said their current list of JOM  contractors is incomplete because some Interior officials responsible for  administering and disbursing JOM funds did not respond to their requests  for information. In addition, BIE officials said they may not have contacted  all the relevant officials within Interior when they developed the list. BIE  officials also said they do not know how many contractors may be missing  from their list. Further, they said they did not validate the accuracy of the  information they received on JOM contractors. Our analysis of BIE’s list of  JOM contractors identified data reliability concerns. For example, we  found 19 contractors that were listed twice, meaning the total number of  contractors provided by BIE contained duplicates and was not an  accurate count.

BIE officials said that maintaining a complete list of contractors would be  very helpful in their efforts to oversee and administer the JOM program,  including allowing them to share program information more effectively  with all contractors. For example, BIE did not inform all contractors about  four consultation sessions it was holding in July 2019 on a proposed rule  to change JOM regulations because BIE did not have contact information  for all contractors, according to a BIE official. As a result, some  contractors may have missed the opportunity to participate in the  consultation sessions. Two JOM school contractors we interviewed told  us they were not informed by BIE about the consultation sessions that  took place in their state. These contractors said they had to create their  own networks of contractors to inform each other about JOM-related  developments and events because they cannot rely on communication  from BIE.

In addition, BIE officials said that a complete and accurate list of  contractors would help them determine the number of eligible JOM students, as mandated by the Modernization Act. In the two previous  efforts to update the count, BIE relied on contractors to submit the  number of eligible students they serve. However, BIE officials  acknowledged that the last effort to complete a count in 2014 failed, in  part, because some contractors never received any communication that  BIE was conducting a count. As a result, these contractors never  submitted a count of students. Without a systematic process for  maintaining a complete and accurate list of contractors, BIE may continue  to face barriers administering the program.

BIE Does Not Routinely Track the Timeliness of Payments to Contractors

BIE does not have a process for tracking and monitoring the timeliness of  JOM disbursements to contractors. According to BIE officials, the bureau  does not establish a target date for disbursing funds to JOM contractors.  JOM contractors and BIA and BIE officials we interviewed said the  disbursements of JOM funds to some contractors are routinely provided  later than expected based on contractors’ past experience. For example,  27 school contractors did not receive a portion of their calendar year 2018  funding until September 2019, according to the BIA official primarily  responsible for disbursing the contractors their funds. Further, some of  these contractors did not receive any disbursement in the 2019 calendar  year until August, months after funds are typically disbursed.

Delays in disbursing funds can hinder contractors’ ability to effectively  manage their JOM programs and serve students. For example, the three  JOM school contractors we interviewed told us that delays in  disbursements have negatively affected their ability to plan their JOM  activities because they do not know when they will receive their funding.  The contractors also said their JOM programs are not as robust as they  could be because they regularly delay spending and retain prior  disbursements to use in the following year in anticipation of future delays  in disbursements. Even with these carry-over funds, contractors said they  have had to delay JOM programs for students due to late disbursements  of funds, which negatively affect students who depend on JOM for  educational support.

We were unable to determine the full extent to which Interior disburses  JOM funds in a timely manner because BIE and other Interior offices do  not track and monitor the timeliness of JOM disbursements to contractors.  Federal internal control standards state that agency management should  design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks, such  as by comparing actual performance to planned or expected results and  analyzing significant differences. BIE, however, has not established  target disbursement dates for contracts and therefore has no standard  against which to measure the timeliness of disbursements. Furthermore,  BIE does not systematically track the time between receiving its  appropriation and the disbursement of contractor funds.

BIE officials acknowledged that establishing a target date for disbursing  funds to contractors and tracking progress in meeting that date could help  ensure funds are provided in a timely manner. In an effort to monitor the  disbursement of contractor funds, BIE officials said they have recently  started to track the balance of JOM funds at each Education Resource  Center. However, they acknowledged that tracking the balance of funds  has limited usefulness in tracking the timeliness of disbursements  because the information about fund balances does not include whether or  not individual contractors have received their funds. BIE officials said  having more detailed information on the disbursement of JOM funds  would be helpful to ensure funds are provided in a timely manner.

In addition, we recently reported that funds associated with self- determination contracts and self-governance compacts for tribes, which  include JOM funds, are not always disbursed in a timely manner. We  recommended that the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs should  establish a process to track and monitor the disbursement of funds to  tribes that are associated with self-determination contracts and self- governance compacts. However, this recommendation does not  address all JOM contractors because non-tribal contractors are not  eligible for self-determination contracts or self-governance compacts, and  not all tribal contractors receive JOM funds through these mechanisms.  Without also establishing a process for tracking and monitoring the  disbursement of JOM funds through multiple funding mechanisms, BIE  does not have reasonable assurance that funds will be disbursed in a  timely manner.

BIE Has Not Formally Assessed the JOM Information It Collects from Contractors or Updated Its Related Forms

BIE has not formally assessed the usefulness of the information it has  collected from JOM contractors for over 25 years. One contractor  questioned whether the information was useful for the agency’s  administration of the program because they never received any feedback  or comments from BIE about the information they submitted. The  contractor said they spent a considerable amount of time completing their  annual report, which totaled over 60 pages and included information and  signatures from over 40 different Indian Education Committees that  oversee local JOM programs funded by the contract. In addition, all four  contractors we interviewed that submitted annual reports said the  information requested in the forms could be streamlined. For example,  BIE’s annual report form asks each school or project site to report both  the “number of eligible students actually served” and “the number of  students actually served.” No instructions are provided to distinguish  between the two populations, and the contractors said the reported  number is identical since students must be eligible to be served by JOM.

All four contractors we met with that said they submitted an annual report  and renewal application also told us the information collection forms were  burdensome to complete. For example, they said the forms were difficult  to fill out, in part because they are not compatible with computer word  processing programs, and as a result, responses have to be handwritten  or completed with a typewriter.

All of the forms BIE uses to collect information from contractors subject to  JOM reporting requirements are also out of date. For example, the JOM  renewal application form expired in 1993, meaning the Office of  Management and Budget’s (OMB) approval to collect the information has  lapsed. Agencies are required to submit all proposed information  collections to OMB for approval. OMB reviews the proposal to assess the  need for collecting the information and whether its collection minimizes  burden on the public, among other things. Federal internal control  standards also state that management should have a process to  continually identify information requirements.

In a 2015 presentation, BIE officials recognized the need to update the  outdated forms to reflect technological developments and reduce the  paperwork burden for contractors, but no revisions to the forms have  been made. BIE officials said they plan to update the JOM application  and reporting documents through the formal OMB review and approval  process, but they do not have a timeline for doing so. We have previously  reported that outdated forms may not be necessary or useful and may be  an unnecessary burden on the public. Until BIE updates the forms,  some contractors will continue to struggle to complete them. Further, by  assessing the usefulness of the information they are collecting from JOM  contractors, BIE may identify opportunities to both collect information that  could improve program management and streamline information  requests.

BIE has not provided or developed training for JOM contractors,  according to BIE officials. National Johnson-O’Malley Association officials  told us that BIE and BIA used to provide training that was helpful to JOM  contractors on topics such as filling out annual reports and applications  for JOM contracts, particularly to new staff managing these programs, but  they no longer do so. A nonprofit organization for Indian education we  interviewed also said JOM contractors need training on a range of issues,  including how to complete JOM annual reports and other documentation,  and on how to operate following implementation of the Modernization Act.  According to the nonprofit organization, regular training on JOM is  particularly important because certain aspects of the program, such as  conducting annual assessments to determine the learning needs of Indian  children served by the program, can be technically challenging. Officials  from one tribal contractor we interviewed said the tribe provides its own  training to school staff that implement local JOM programs on such topics  as how to conduct Indian Education Committee meetings, how to fill out  reimbursement claims, and how to organize and maintain financial  records for program administrators and parents on Indian Education  Committees. The contractor said that BIE training on topics, including  how to conduct and how often to hold Indian Education Committee  meetings, would be particularly helpful. Another tribal contractor we  interviewed, which BIE data identified as receiving among the largest  amount of JOM funds of all contractors, said that other contractors they  interact with do not have sufficient program knowledge or resources to  provide training and could benefit from BIE training.

According to a BIE official, a former JOM Program Specialist, the need for  training for JOM contractors is particularly important as there is frequent  turnover among contractor staff responsible for administering programs.  Officials from the nonprofit organization for Indian education also told us  that high turnover rates among administrators of local JOM programs  necessitates regular training for new staff. They added that more senior  staff working on local JOM programs would also benefit from regular  training because they may be implementing their programs inefficiently or  ineffectively. BIE officials told us they have provided program updates  and answered questions at conferences hosted by organizations  representing JOM contractors. Not all contractors, however, are able to  attend these conferences given their limited resources, according to three  contractors we interviewed. Internal controls standards state that  management should develop training based on the needs of individuals’  roles. BIE officials acknowledged that developing and providing training  is needed, but they told us they are currently focused on other aspects of  managing the JOM program and have not prioritized training. For  example, the agency has set a goal in its strategic plan to develop a JOM  program handbook by July 1, 2020. By providing training, BIE can ensure  that contractors have the information they need to better serve their  students.

BIE Has Not Clearly Defined or Identified All the Roles and Responsibilities of BIE and Other Interior Staff Involved in Administering the Program

BIE has not clearly defined roles and responsibilities or identified the staff  necessary for conducting critical JOM functions. According to federal  internal control standards, management should establish an  organizational structure, assign responsibility, and delegate authority to  achieve the entity’s objectives. BIE’s lack of defining or identifying roles  and responsibilities related to administering contracts, reviewing the  appropriateness of contract types, and conducting program oversight is  described in the following bullets.

Administering contracts. BIE did not identify staff to administer  some contracts, which has contributed to some JOM programs  affected by these contracts going unfunded. According to BIE and BIA  officials, BIE did not assign any staff to administer at least 20  contracts in California, including helping contractors renew their  contracts when they expired, typically after 3 years. As a result,  these contracts—totaling over $300,000—expired and were not  renewed, disrupting JOM services. A BIE official informed us there  were lapses in administering these contracts because BIE closed the  office responsible for administering them as a result of its  reorganization which began in 2014, and never assigned anyone to  assume responsibility for the contracts associated with that office. BIE  has not assessed whether similar lapses in coverage may have  occurred in other states or regions.

BIE officials identified the unallocated funds from California in  September 2019. In October 2019, BIE officials began efforts to  identify and contact officials responsible for all the JOM programs  whose contracts lapsed in California due to gaps in BIE’s  administration of the program and began the process to start new  JOM programs in the future. However, without identifying staff to  administer all JOM contracts, problems with renewing and awarding  contracts may persist.

Reviewing the appropriateness of contract types. Interior’s Office  of the Solicitor does not have a role in reviewing the issuance of new  JOM contracts, according to a senior attorney in that office. The Office  of the Solicitor’s lack of a role in reviewing JOM contracts increases  the risk that contracts are not used appropriately. For example, we  found that BIE has been using self-determination contracts to  disburse JOM funds to non-tribal contractors, which is not authorized  by the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act. Under  the Act, only Indian tribes and tribal organizations are eligible to enter  into self-determination contracts; these contracts may not be used for  non-tribal entities, such as school districts and states. The use of self- determination contracts for contractors that are not eligible to receive  them can result in costs to the government. Self-determination  contracts include provisions that would not otherwise be included in  non-tribal JOM contracts, according to a senior attorney in the Office  of the Solicitor. For example, self-determination contracts may include  contract support costs and extend the Federal Tort Claims Act to tribal  government employees administering the federal program(s) under  these contracts. Therefore, school contractors that were disbursed  JOM funds through self-determination contracts may have received  contract support costs and legal protections they would not have been  eligible to receive, according to the senior attorney.

BIE officials told us that they have not determined how long self- determination contracts have been used to disburse JOM funds to  non-tribal entities, how many non-tribal contractors were awarded  these contracts, or whether the government has incurred costs as a  result of using the wrong types of contracts. They said this information  will be difficult to obtain because it is not systematically collected.  After we found that BIE was using self-determination contracts to  disburse JOM funds to school contractors, a senior attorney in the  Office of the Solicitor said that her office would provide assistance as  requested to BIE in transitioning these contracts to appropriate  contracts. By systematically including the Office of the Solicitor in the  process for reviewing JOM contracts, BIE can ensure that its  contracts are the appropriate type and can minimize the risk of future  inappropriate costs to the federal government.

Conducting JOM oversight activities. BIE has not defined the roles  and responsibilities related to overseeing JOM programs or identified  staff dedicated to this function. For example, BIE has not identified  staff at Education Resource Centers or other BIE offices with the  capacity to conduct site visits and review JOM annual reports  submitted by contractors. As a result, the bureau’s oversight of JOM  contractors is done on an ad-hoc basis and sometimes not done at all,  according to BIE officials. For example, in an internal memo  addressed to BIE’s Director, a senior BIE official said that because the  bureau has not identified staff with the capacity to conduct site visits,  most Education Resource Centers have not conducted any site visits  in at least 5 years. Officials from one tribal JOM contractor that said it  is subject to BIE oversight told us that BIE has not conducted a site  visit of their program in 10 years. They noted that BIE’s past site visits  resulted in recommendations that improved their program activities  and procedures and changed how they defined student eligibility. In  addition, the head of an Education Resource Center said that JOM  oversight activities are collateral duties that his staff do not have time  to fulfill.

Further, the responsibilities of officials who are charged with  overseeing JOM programs have not been clearly defined. For  example, BIE has not defined the responsibilities related to  conducting site visits, such as what aspects of the program should be  reviewed and which contractors should be selected for site visits. This  lack of clearly defined responsibilities has resulted in inconsistencies  in how officials are conducting oversight activities and potential gaps  in coverage of contractors that are subject to oversight. BIE’s lack of  oversight may also increase the risk of misuse and abuse of JOM  funds. According to Interior’s Office of Inspector General, there have  been three identified cases of theft related to the JOM program that  occurred between 2004 and 2010. For example, a program  coordinator of a JOM contract stole program funds as part of an  embezzlement fraud scheme and was ordered to pay nearly $36,000  in restitution. By identifying staff who have the capacity to carry out  oversight activities and clearly defining related responsibilities such as  conducting site visits and reviewing JOM annual reports, BIE could  provide support to contractors in improving their program activities  and procedures and reduce the risk of potential fraud and abuse of  JOM funds.

Senior BIE officials acknowledged that they have not identified the staff  necessary for conducting these critical JOM functions and, in November  2019, the Director of BIE approved hiring three additional JOM  specialists. The core responsibilities of the new specialist positions,  according to a knowledgeable BIE official, will be to support the  administration of contracts, oversee contractors, and provide technical  assistance. However, the exact roles and responsibilities for the new  employees and the extent to which BIE staff in the Education Resource  Centers will continue their role in providing programmatic support have  not yet been determined. An official knowledgeable about the new JOM  specialist positions added that defining the specific roles and  responsibilities for these positions will be an iterative process in which  BIE will assess the new staffs’ capacity to assume all the JOM  responsibilities that are currently assigned to other staff. Until all the roles  and responsibilities related to JOM program management have been  identified and clearly defined, challenges in administering contracts,  reviewing the appropriateness of contract types, and overseeing the  program may persist.

American Indian and Alaska Native students have unique educational and  cultural needs, which can include learning Native languages, cultures,  and histories, and obtaining additional academic support. The JOM  program is intended to address these needs that may not otherwise be  provided through the public school system.

BIE plays a critical role in administering the JOM program, which is  central to the bureau’s mission of providing Indian students quality  education opportunities starting in early childhood in accordance with a  tribe’s needs for cultural and economic well-being. However, BIE lacks  key JOM program information necessary for effective oversight, including  complete information on which contractors are participating in JOM. BIE  also has not assessed the usefulness of the information it collects from  contractors, and relies on outdated forms to collect data. Without  improved program data, BIE cannot effectively oversee the program.

In addition, BIE does not provide training for JOM contractors. This lack of  training may result in contractors misinterpreting JOM regulations and  managing their programs inconsistently. Further, BIE has not clearly  defined the roles and responsibilities of staff involved in administering the  JOM program, which has resulted in gaps in program management and  oversight. Until staff roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and  identified, gaps in managing and overseeing the program may persist,  resulting in an increased risk of potential misuse or abuse of JOM funds.

Without taking steps to improve the management and oversight of the  JOM program in these key areas, BIE cannot ensure that the program is  truly serving the educational needs of eligible American Indian and Alaska  Native students.

We are making the following five recommendations to Interior:  The Director of the Bureau of Indian Education should develop a  systematic process for identifying JOM contractors and maintaining an  accurate and complete list of contractors and other relevant information  about contractors, such as the amount of JOM funds they receive and  their current points of contact. (Recommendation 1)

The Director of the Bureau of Indian Education, in coordination with the  Bureau of Indian Affairs as needed, should establish a process to track  and monitor the timeliness of JOM disbursements to non-tribal  contractors, including identifying a target date for disbursing funds to  these contractors. (Recommendation 2)

The Director of the Bureau of Indian Education should develop a timeline  to assess the usefulness of the information they are collecting from JOM  contractors and update JOM information collection forms, including  converting them to an electronic format to reduce the burden on  contractors to complete them. (Recommendation 3)

The Director of the Bureau of Indian Education should develop and  provide training to contractors on administering the JOM program.  (Recommendation 4)

The Director of the Bureau of Indian Education should clearly define the  roles and responsibilities and identify the staff necessary for conducting  critical JOM functions, including administering contracts, reviewing the  appropriateness of contract types, and overseeing those contractors that  are subject to BIE oversight. (Recommendation 5)

We provided a draft of this report to Interior for review and comment. We  also provided relevant report sections to and requested technical  comments from the National Indian Education Association and the  National Johnson-O’Malley Association.

In its comments reproduced in appendix I, Interior concurred with our five  recommendations and described actions BIE and BIA plan to take to  address them. In our draft report, we recommended that BIE needs to  clearly define the roles and responsibilities and identify the staff  necessary for conducting technical assistance, among other critical JOM  functions. We removed reference to technical assistance from our report  because, after we provided our draft report, Interior promulgated new,  final JOM program regulations that include a new process for requesting  and providing technical assistance.

We did not receive any comments from the nonprofit organizations.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Secretary of Interior, and other interested  parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@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 Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Beth Sirois (Assistant Director),  Brian Schwartz (Analyst-in-Charge), Ben DeYoung, and Alex Galuten  made key contributions to this report. Additional assistance was provided  by Edward Bodine, Gina M. Hoover, Thomas M. James, Grant M. Mallie,  Sheila R. McCoy, Anna Maria Ortiz, Jeanette M. Soares, Joy K.  Solmonson, Curtia O. Taylor, and William T. Woods.

American Indian and Alaska Native students enrolled in public schools have consistently performed below other students on national tests. The Bureau of Indian Education’s Johnson-O’Malley program provides these students with academic support and enrichment activities, such as Native language classes.

The Bureau needs to improve how it manages the program by:

having key information such as an accurate list of contractors providing services

clearly defining and identifying staff roles and responsibilities, including who is responsible for conducting oversight

We made 5 recommendations to improve management.