Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the Interior
(Letter Report, 01/01/99, GAO/OCG-99-9).

As part of its Performance and Accountability Series, GAO provided
information on the major management challenges and program risks facing
the Department of the Interior.

GAO noted that: (1) a reexamination of the organization of the four
major land management agencies is needed to streamline their operations
and become more efficient; (2) even though Interior is the caretaker for
much of the nation's natural and cultural resources, it frequently lacks
information on the condition of these resources; (3) as a result,
Interior does not know the status of key issues like the nature or
extent of many problems relating to the resources it is legislatively
mandated to foster, protect, and preserve; the effectiveness of measures
taken to deal with the problems; or the areas where the limited
financial resources available should be allocated to achieve the most
good; (4) decentralization of responsibility, coupled with inadequate
guidance and oversight, has resulted in significant differences in how
Interior's field offices have implemented both legislative mandates and
the administration's goals and objectives; (5) management of the $3
billion Indian trust fund has long been characterized by inadequate
accounting and information systems, untrained and inexperienced staff,
poor recordkeeping and internal controls, and inadequate written
policies and procedures; (6) a half-billion-dollar automated records
system now being developed by the Bureau of Land Management is years
behind schedule and is estimated to cost more than $100 million over the
original estimate; (7) Interior has acknowledged the need to address
many of these challenges and, for the most part, has begun to do so; and
(8) however, much remains to be done, and it is still too early to
determine whether Interior's actions will be effective.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  OCG-99-9
     TITLE:  Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department 
             of the Interior
      DATE:  01/01/99
   SUBJECT:  Land management
             Accountability
             Risk management
             Federal agency accounting systems
             Internal controls
             Information resources management
             Federal agency reorganization
             Natural resources
             Financial management
             Systems conversions
IDENTIFIER:  Performance and Accountability Series 1999
             Indian Trust Fund
             BLM Automated Land and Minerals Record System
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Performance and Accountability Series

January 1999

MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND
PROGRAM RISKS - DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR

GAO/OCG-99-9

Department of Interior Challenges


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AIMD -
  BIA -
  BLM -
  FWS -
  RCED -
  TPA -

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER



January 1999

The President of the Senate
The Speaker of the House of Representatives

This report addresses the major performance and management challenges
that have limited the effectiveness of the Department of the Interior
in carrying out its mission.  It also addresses corrective actions
that Interior has initiated or plans to take, as well as further
actions that are needed.  For many years, we have reported
significant problems and weaknesses in the management of Interior's
programs.  These problems are the results of serious deficiencies in
organizational structure, information systems, and the management
controls that provide oversight and accountability.  These
deficiencies cut across Interior's program areas. 

Interior has acknowledged the need to address many of these
deficiencies and, for the most part, has begun to do so.  Actions
being taken by the agency to improve performance and accountability
are largely playing out through the development and implementation of
the strategic and performance plans required by the Government
Performance and Results Act.  However, much remains to be done, and
it is still too early to determine whether Interior's actions will be
effective.  In addition, resolving some of these problems, such as
streamlining and reorganizing the Department's structure to achieve
greater coordination and integration of functions and obtaining
better information on resource conditions, will be difficult and take
time. 

This report is part of a special series entitled the Performance and
Accountability Series:  Major Management Challenges and Program
Risks.  The series contains separate reports on 20 agencies--one on
each of the cabinet departments and on most major independent
agencies as well as the U.S.  Postal Service.  The series also
includes a governmentwide report that draws from the agency-specific
reports to identify the performance and management challenges
requiring attention across the federal government.  As a companion
volume to this series, GAO is issuing an update to those government
operations and programs that its work has identified as "high risk"
because of their greater vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement.  High-risk government operations are also identified
and discussed in detail in the appropriate performance and
accountability series agency reports. 

The performance and accountability series was done at the request of
the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, Dick Armey; the
Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, Dan Burton; the
Chairman of the House Budget Committee, John Kasich; the Chairman of
the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Fred Thompson; the
Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Pete Domenici; and Senator
Larry Craig.  The series was subsequently cosponsored by the Ranking
Minority Member of the House Government Reform Committee, Henry A. 
Waxman; the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information and Technology, House Government Reform
Committee, Dennis J.  Kucinich; Senator Joseph I.  Lieberman; and
Senator Carl Levin. 

Copies of this report series are being sent to the President, the
congressional leadership, all other Members of the Congress, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of the
Interior, and the heads of other major departments and agencies. 

David M.  Walker
Comptroller General of
the United States


OVERVIEW
============================================================ Chapter 0

The Department of the Interior has jurisdiction over about 450
million acres of land--about one-fifth of the total U.S. 
landmass--and about 3 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf. 
As the guardian and steward of these resources, the agency is
entrusted to preserve our most awesome landscapes, like the wild
beauty of the Grand Canyon and Yosemite national parks and the
soaring peaks of Mount Rainier and Denali; our most historic places,
such as Independence Hall and the Gettysburg battlefield; and our
most revered national icons, such as the Statue of Liberty and the
Washington Monument.  At the same time, Interior is to provide for
the environmentally sound production of oil, gas, minerals, and other
resources found on America's public lands; honor the nation's
obligations to American Indians and native Alaskans; protect habitat
to sustain fish and wildlife; help manage water resources in Western
states; and provide scientific and technical information to allow for
sound decisionmaking about resources.  To meet its responsibilities,
Interior has been appropriated $6 billion to $7 billion annually in
recent years.  With these resources, Interior employs about 66,000
people at over 4,000 sites across the country. 

Managing this vast federal estate is largely characterized by the
continual struggle to balance the pressures and demands for greater
use with the need to conserve and protect resources for the benefit
of future generations.  We, Interior's Inspector General, the
Department, and others have documented many management problems
facing the agency and have recommended reforms.  However, in many
cases, progress has been slow.  As a result, many major performance
and management challenges still remain. 


   THE CHALLENGES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1


      A BASIC REEXAMINATION OF THE
      ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS
      OF LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES
      IS NEEDED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1.1

The four major land management agencies in the United States are the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service, and the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in Interior and the Forest Service in
the Department of Agriculture.  The responsibilities of these
agencies--particularly, BLM and the Forest Service--have become
similar over time.  At the same time, managing these agencies has
become more complex; budgets have become tighter, and there is an
increased understanding that the boundaries for natural systems are
not necessarily consistent with the existing jurisdictional and
administrative boundaries of federal, state, and local agencies. 
These conditions suggest a need to reexamine how these agencies are
organized and function in order to streamline their operations and
become more efficient. 


      INTERIOR DOES NOT HAVE THE
      INFORMATION IT NEEDS TO
      PROPERLY PROTECT, PRESERVE,
      AND MAINTAIN RESOURCES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1.2

Even though Interior is the caretaker for much of the nation's
natural and cultural resources, it frequently lacks information on
the condition of these resources.  In addition, Interior does not
know the scope and extent of maintenance problems at the tens of
thousands of buildings, dams, and other facilities it is responsible
for.  As a result, Interior does not know the status of key issues
like the nature or extent of many problems relating to the resources
it is legislatively mandated to foster, protect, and preserve; the
effectiveness of measures taken to deal with the problems; or the
areas where the limited financial resources available should be
allocated to achieve the most good. 


      GUIDANCE, OVERSIGHT, AND
      ACCOUNTABILITY NEED
      IMPROVEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1.3

Decentralization of responsibility, coupled with inadequate guidance
and oversight, has resulted in significant differences in how
Interior's field offices have implemented both legislative mandates
and the administration's goals and objectives.  Similarly, the Park
Service is just now developing systems to hold field managers
accountable for the results of their decisions. 


      MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS CONTINUE
      TO PLAGUE INTERIOR'S TRIBAL
      AND INDIAN PROGRAMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1.4

Management problems continue to plague Interior's tribal and Indian
programs.  Management of the $3 billion Indian trust fund has long
been characterized by inadequate accounting and information systems,
untrained and inexperienced staff, poor recordkeeping and internal
controls, and inadequate written policies and procedures.  In
addition, the distribution of about $800 million annually to
tribes--for basic services such as law enforcement and child welfare
and other social services and for contract support activities--is not
in synch with the tribes' changing needs or changes in tribal
revenues from activities such as gaming. 


      PROBLEMS IN MANAGING NEW
      AUTOMATED RECORDS SYSTEM PUT
      BLM PROGRAMS AT RISK
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1.5

A half-billion-dollar automated records system now being developed by
BLM is years behind schedule and is estimated to cost more than $100
million over the original estimate.  The system is still fraught with
problems, and the agency still has not yet developed a credible
schedule for when the system will be fully deployed.  In the
meantime, the agency's mission-critical systems for land and mineral
records and information to support land and resource management
activities involving oil and gas leases, mining claims, land patents,
and a variety of other land uses are at risk of being disrupted by
the Year 2000 computer-date problem. 


   PROGRESS AND NEXT STEPS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

Interior has acknowledged the need to address many of these
challenges and, for the most part, has begun to do so.  Actions being
taken by the Department are largely playing out through the
development and implementation of the strategic and performance plans
required by the Results Act.  However, much remains to be done, and
it is still too early to determine whether Interior's actions will be
effective. 

In order to ensure that Interior follows through on efforts to deal
with the major performance and management challenges we and others
have identified, the Congress needs to monitor the progress made on
them, as reported in the agencies' annual performance plans and
reports.  If the Congress is not satisfied with the pace of
Interior's progress in addressing these issues, it may want to
provide more specific directions, including tighter deadlines. 
However, resolving some of these problems, such as getting a better
understanding of resource conditions and addressing Interior's
maintenance needs, will likely be expensive and will take years. 


   KEY CONTACT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

Victor S.  Rezendes
Energy, Resources, and Science Issues
Resources, Community, and Economic
  Development Division
(202) 512-3841
[email protected]


MAJOR PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT
ISSUES
============================================================ Chapter 1

As the caretaker of the nation's most precious natural and cultural
treasures and steward of its trust responsibilities to American
Indians and native Alaskans, the Department of the Interior helps
define the nature and spirit of our common national heritage.  In
this capacity, Interior's programs and activities touch the lives of
Americans and the world community in many disparate ways.  The public
lands, parks, and waterways under Interior's jurisdiction provide
recreational opportunities for over 400 million visitors annually. 
Commodities such as oil, natural gas, minerals, and timber--with a
market value of over $20 billion--are extracted from land and water
resources under the Department's purview each year.  In addition,
Interior provides educational, social, and other services to more
than 550 Indian tribes. 

The overarching management challenge facing Interior is striking a
balance between its two basic mandates--accommodating the demands for
greater use and more consumption of resources with the demands to
protect and conserve resources for the benefit of future generations. 
Many of the major challenges facing Interior are shaped by its
agencies' actions in trying to manage the difficult trade-offs
inherent in these mandates.  In today's climate of shrinking budgets
and a smaller federal government, the need to reexamine past
approaches to help achieve increased effectiveness and efficiency is
imperative.  In recent years, our work has identified a number of
opportunities for how Interior can better accomplish this imperative. 


   A BASIC REEXAMINATION OF THE
   ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS OF
   LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES IS
   NEEDED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

Historically, Interior has been a highly decentralized agency.  As a
result, Interior has, for the most part, allowed its component
agencies to develop their own systems and processes for managing
their programs.  Our past work at Interior has identified several
areas where better coordination should have occurred; the increases
in effectiveness and efficiency resulting from improved coordination
would be substantial. 

The federal government now owns about 30 percent (about 650 million
acres) of the nation's total surface area.  BLM, the Park Service,
and FWS in Interior and the Forest Service in the Department of
Agriculture manage about 95 percent of these lands for a variety of
commodity uses--including hardrock mining, foraging by livestock, oil
and gas production and development, and timber harvesting.  These
agencies also manage these lands for noncommodity uses--including
providing fish and wildlife habitat; natural, scenic, and historic
resources; recreation; water; and wilderness.  Our work has shown
that the responsibilities of these four agencies have become similar
over time.  All of these agencies--most notably BLM and the Forest
Service--now provide more noncommodity uses, for instance, recreation
and protection of fish and wildlife, on lands they manage.  At the
same time, managing these lands has become more complex.  Managers
have to reconcile differences among a growing number of laws and
regulations, and the authority for administering these laws is
dispersed among several federal, state, and local agencies.  These
changes have coincided with two other developments--the federal
government's increased emphasis on downsizing and budgetary
constraints and scientists' increased understanding of the importance
and functioning of natural systems whose boundaries may not be
consistent with existing jurisdictional and administrative boundaries
of federal, state, and local agencies.  Together, these conditions
suggest a basis for reexamining the structure, as well as the
processes, under which the federal land management agencies currently
operate. 

Over the past 28 years, two basic strategies have been proposed to
improve federal land management.  These are (1) streamlining the
existing structure by coordinating and integrating functions,
systems, programs, and field locations and (2) reorganizing the
structure by combining agencies.  The two strategies are not mutually
exclusive, and some prior proposals have encompassed both. 

But past efforts to improve federal land management have not
succeeded, in part, because they were not supported by a solid
consensus for change.  In addition, any effort to streamline or
reorganize the existing structure of federal land management agencies
will require a coordinated approach both within agencies and across
agency lines to avoid creating new unintended consequences for the
future.  Moreover, the need to create specific identifiable goals
will require decisionmakers to agree on, among other things, how to
balance differing objectives for various uses of federal lands over
the short and long terms.  While recently there has been some
evidence of greater coordination and collaboration across agency
boundaries, particularly between BLM and the Forest Service, these
efforts have been somewhat limited and have not included the kind of
fundamental reexamination of organization and functions as suggested
by our analysis. 


   INTERIOR DOES NOT HAVE THE
   INFORMATION IT NEEDS TO
   PROPERLY PROTECT, PRESERVE, AND
   MAINTAIN RESOURCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

A fundamental part of Interior's mission is to ensure that the
nation's natural and cultural resources are properly protected,
preserved, and maintained.  However, Interior's ability to carry out
this part of its mission is severely diminished because it lacks
essential information about the condition of many of the resources it
is responsible for.  This basic lack of information exists for
natural and cultural resources and the infrastructure that supports
activities on federal lands. 


      THE CONDITION OF MANY
      RESOURCES IS NOT KNOWN
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.1

We and others have reported that the condition of important natural
and cultural assets, such as wildlife at Yosemite and Glacier
national parks and some of the buildings at Ellis Island, is not
being routinely monitored.  In addition, data needed to reach an
overall judgment on the health of wildlife on public lands or
determine the movement of endangered and threatened species toward or
away from recovery are not being developed.  Furthermore, Interior
cannot always clearly identify the environmental impacts of oil and
gas production. 

In the absence of this kind of information, it is difficult, at best,
to determine whether the condition of key resources under Interior's
stewardship is deteriorating, stabilizing, or improving.  As a
result, instead of fact-based decisions, Interior must frequently
rely on subjective judgments in assessing how effectively and
efficiently its limited budgetary resources are being used to protect
and preserve natural and cultural assets.  On a practical level, this
means that Interior currently frequently does not have the
information it needs to do things like (1) objectively identify the
most significant problems concerning natural and cultural resources;
(2) rank priorities so that the most pressing issues receive the most
attention; or (3) link its planning process directly to budget
decisions to have a greater impact on the allocation of new financial
resources.  Accordingly, Interior frequently does not know the status
of key issues that directly affect its ability to perform its
mission.  These issues include things like the nature or extent of
many problems relating to the resources it is legislatively mandated
to foster, protect, and preserve; the effectiveness of measures taken
to deal with the problems; or the areas where the limited financial
resources available should be allocated to do the most good. 


      THE EXTENT OF MAINTENANCE
      PROBLEMS IS NOT KNOWN
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.2

In addition to its need to know about the condition of its key
resources, Interior also needs to maintain these resources--including
the buildings and associated infrastructure that goes with them.  The
three major land management agencies within Interior--the Park
Service, BLM, and FWS--manage tens of thousands of buildings and
other facilities such as roads, dams, bridges, utility lines, and
recreation sites.  These facilities can be valued in the billions of
dollars, and many, like Independence Hall and the Statue of Liberty,
are beyond valuation.  As the steward of these assets, Interior is
obligated to maintain them. 

In this time of reduced federal spending and increased competition
for these limited dollars, it is more critical than ever to know what
the agencies' maintenance needs are and how to best address them. 
Yet while the Park Service, BLM, and FWS have estimated that they
have maintenance needs of about $7 billion, Interior officials
acknowledge that this estimate does not mean much, since they do not
have accurate or reliable information on the extent of the problems. 
As a result, managing the deferred maintenance needs has eluded
Interior.  In fact, our work has shown that Interior is contributing
to its own problems in this area.  Specifically, the Park Service is
maintaining a large housing inventory for employees in more than 100
parks across the country when the need for all of these housing units
is not at all clear.  At the same time, Park Service officials
estimate that the deferred maintenance on these housing units may
cost as much as $100 million to $200 million.  Obviously, minimizing
the employee housing inventory to include only those units that are
absolutely necessary would help stretch the limited funding that is
available for addressing Interior's maintenance needs.  After 5 years
of urging by us and the Congress, the Park Service is just now doing
a needs assessment for its employee housing. 

Even though the Congress has attempted to help Interior deal with
this problem in recent years by providing additional appropriations
and revenue from a new experimental fee program, the land management
agencies are not yet able to determine how much these additional
funds are helping because they do not know the size of the problem. 
Accordingly, while we and Interior's Inspector General have reported
on the deteriorating conditions of the agencies' facilities, until
useful data are developed, managing and resolving the deferred
maintenance problem will continue to elude the agency. 

Interior managers have been aware of the problem for years but have
not developed a comprehensive approach to solving it.  Instead,
Interior has approached this problem piecemeal by trying to address
what it judges to be its highest priority needs each year.  However,
recent developments should, if properly implemented, help the agency
address this resource management issue.  New accounting standards and
the enactment and implementation of the Results Act offer an
opportunity to address these concerns in a more strategic and
systematic way.\1 Also, Interior has recently completed a
departmentwide study of maintenance and repair issues that, according
to Interior officials, will lead to a more complete and accurate
understanding of its maintenance and capital needs.  However, as now
planned, acquiring the needed data and getting the needed processes
in place will take several years.  Since the processes in support of
all of these initiatives are now being developed and implemented, the
Congress may wish to continue emphasizing the importance of
effectively implementing them.  Furthermore, the Congress may wish to
monitor Interior's activities to ensure that programs for determining
and monitoring the condition of critical resources are included in
the agencies' plans and that the agencies' performance against
established plans is acceptable.  Finally, in light of the Park
Service's past reluctance to cut back on its housing inventory, the
Congress may wish to monitor the agency's progress in this area. 


--------------------
\1 Federal Financial Accounting Standard No.  6, ï¿½Accounting for
Property, Plant, and Equipment,ï¿½ requires disclosures about the
condition and estimated cost to remedy deferred maintenance of
property, plant, and equipment.  It is effective for fiscal years
starting after September 30, 1997. 


   GUIDANCE, OVERSIGHT, AND
   ACCOUNTABILITY NEED IMPROVEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

Decentralization of responsibility, coupled with inadequate guidance
and oversight, has resulted in significant differences in how
Interior's various field offices have implemented both legislative
mandates and the administration's goals and objectives.  For example,
BLM field offices vary widely in the organization and staffing of the
oil and gas inspection and enforcement program, the degree of
supervisory oversight provided, the number of inspections planned and
conducted, the types of enforcement actions taken, the amount of
training given inspectors, and the extent of program evaluation.  As
a result, BLM's oil and gas inspection and enforcement program
continues to be an area that is vulnerable to abuse and/or
mismanagement.  BLM officials are aware of this problem and have
recently taken a number of actions to address it.  However, since
many of the corrective actions were taken in 1998, it is still too
early to determine their effectiveness. 

Similarly, in the Park Service, decisions about spending and
operating priorities are, to a large degree, delegated to the
individual park managers.  Under this approach, park managers have
broad discretion in deciding how to spend the parks' operating funds. 
The most significant limitation associated with this decentralized
approach is that it does not focus on the results that were achieved
with the funds spent.  As a result, scarce park dollars are not
always spent in the best interest of the agency as a whole but rather
on the more parochial interests and preferences of individual park
managers.  However, changes that are now being made within the agency
in response to the Results Act should, if implemented properly, help
address this issue. 

As part of its implementation of the Results Act, the Park Service is
requiring individual park managers to develop strategic and annual
performance plans that are consistent with and support Service-wide
goals.  The Park Service is also implementing an information system
to track performance against established goals and to link spending
to goals.  Nonetheless, until these processes are fully implemented,
there is no effective means to monitor progress toward achieving the
agency's goals and holding park managers accountable.  Consequently,
the Congress may want to continue to emphasize and monitor the
effective development and implementation of the accountability
systems called for by the Results Act so that Interior uses its
financial resources more efficiently. 


   MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS CONTINUE TO
   PLAGUE INTERIOR'S TRIBAL AND
   INDIAN PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4

Interior administers the federal government's trust responsibilities
to tribes and Indians.  This responsibility includes managing $3
billion in Indian trust funds and providing about $800 million
annually for basic tribal services such as natural resource
management and social services.  Management of the trust funds has
long been characterized by inadequate accounting and information
systems, poor recordkeeping and internal controls, and other
weaknesses that result in no assurance that fund assets are being
properly managed.  In addition, federal funding to provide basic
tribal services has been criticized for not being responsive because
the funding does not take into consideration tribes' needs, the
tribes' own revenues, or the funds necessary to fully fund the tribal
programs. 


      INDIAN TRUST FUNDS AND
      ASSETS NEED TO BE MORE
      EFFECTIVELY MANAGED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4.1

The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for administering the
government's trust responsibilities to tribes and Indians, including
managing about $3 billion in Indian trust funds and about 54 million
acres of Indian lands.  Management of the Indian trust funds and
assets has long been characterized by inadequate accounting and
information systems; untrained and inexperienced staff, backlogs in
appraisals, determinations of ownership, and recordkeeping; the lack
of a master lease file and an accounts receivable system; inadequate
written policies and procedures; and poor internal controls.  Because
of these overall weaknesses, account holders do not have assurance
that their account balances are accurate and that their assets are
being managed prudently. 

To address these long-standing problems, the Congress created the
Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians.  In April 1997,
the Special Trustee submitted a strategic plan to the Congress, but
Interior did not fully support the plan.  On August 22, 1997, the
Secretary of the Interior indicated that he and the Special Trustee
for American Indians reached agreement on some of the initiatives
proposed in the strategic plan and outlined the Department's approach
for improving Indian trust management.  That approach, a 3-year
effort, is directed at data cleanup; systems improvements; and
addressing deficiencies regarding records management, training,
policies and procedures, and internal controls. 

Because many of the needed improvements center on information
technology, adhering to legal and regulatory requirements, such as
the Clinger-Cohen Act and the Office of Management and Budget's
guidance for major information technology investments, is critical. 
In this regard, we previously recommended that Interior develop a
strategic information resources management plan, criteria for the
evaluation of major information system investments, and an
information architecture that aligns technology with mission goals. 
To support the design and development of management and information
systems and to provide adequate evidence of a framework for sharing
related business and functional information and program requirements
among the cognizant organizations and functions, we also recommended
that Interior identify all related business functions and obtain
input on information requirements from all Indian trust fund
stakeholders.  Interior agreed with these recommendations but has yet
to implement them. 


      DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FOR
      INDIAN PROGRAMS MAY NOT
      MATCH NEEDS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4.2

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is the primary agency of the
federal government charged with the responsibility to implement
federal Indian policy and to discharge the federal trust
responsibility for Indian tribes and Alaska native villages.  Under
current federal Indian policy, tribes are allowed to administer their
own programs.  When the tribes enter into agreements with BIA to
administer their own programs, BIA is required to provide funding for
the programs as well as contract support funds to cover the tribes'
administrative costs.  Recently, these funds have approached $800
million annually.  They are distributed through a process called
tribal priority allocations (TPA). 

BIA's distribution of a portion of TPA funds, referred to as "TPA
base funds," has been widely criticized for not being responsive to
changes in the relative needs of tribes.  These funds are used to
provide basic tribal services, such as social services, adult
vocational training, child welfare services, and natural resources
management.  BIA distributes TPA base funds primarily on the basis of
historical distribution levels.  That is, the amount available to a
particular tribe is generally the same as the previous year's amount,
without consideration of the tribe's needs or the tribe's own
revenues.  Not only has no corresponding change occurred in the
amount of TPA base funds distributed to tribes whose relative needs
have changed, but BIA has not even established criteria to determine
what the needs of the tribes are.  Consequently, the distribution of
TPA base funds has not kept pace with recent trends and developments
that directly affect the funding needs of individual tribes.  This is
a critical issue because for some tribes, especially those with
substantial gaming operations, revenues over the past few years have
risen dramatically.  For example, for several tribes, the revenues
from gaming have exceeded $100 million annually per tribe.  In total,
these revenues are about $1.8 billion annually, but these additional
revenues are not considered in distributing TPA base funds.  As a
result, tribes with the highest reported revenues can receive more
TPA base funds than other tribes with no revenues or with losses. 

The other type of fund distribution involves contract support.  These
funds are to be distributed on the basis of tribes' administrative
costs.  However, insufficient funds have been appropriated to fully
meet these needs.  BIA calculated a $26 million shortfall in funding
for contract support costs for fiscal year 1998.  This shortfall
represents about 20 percent of the $130 million needed for these
costs.  Concerns have been raised in recent years over the
ever-increasing need for contract support funds and the effect of
funding shortfalls on tribal governments.  For example, tribal
governments may have to use their own resources or use program funds
to cover their funding shortfalls. 

Because it is critical that Interior continue its efforts to address
the deficiencies in Indian trust fund accounting and asset management
and that BIA and the Special Trustee work together toward this end,
the Congress may wish to conduct oversight to ensure progress. 
Regarding BIA's distribution of funds, various studies are under way
to address this matter.  BIA has been directed to report to the
Congress by April 1, 1999, on alternative methods for distributing
TPA funds, taking into account tribal revenues and the relative needs
of tribes and tribal members.  BIA, the Indian Health Service, and
the National Congress of American Indians all have established work
groups to review contract support costs.  In addition, we have been
directed to conduct a comprehensive study of contract support costs
and to report on the results of the study to the Congress by June 30,
1999.  These issues will be at the forefront of the congressional
debate over BIA's fiscal year 2000 appropriation and the long-term
debate over the future of federal Indian policy. 


   PROBLEMS IN MANAGING NEW
   AUTOMATED RECORDS SYSTEM PUT
   BLM PROGRAMS AT RISK
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:5

During the energy boom in the early 1980s, BLM found that it could
not handle the case-processing workload associated with a peak in the
number of applications for oil and gas leases.  BLM recognized that
to keep up with increased demand, it needed to automate its records
and case-processing activities.  Furthermore, according to BLM
officials, most of the more than 1 billion paper documents in its
possession--including land surveys, tract books, land patents, mining
claims, and oil and gas leases--are deteriorating and becoming
increasingly difficult to read.  These circumstances led BLM to begin
planning to acquire an automated land and mineral case processing
system.  The scope and attributes of the planned automated system
have changed over the years, evolving into the largest system
development project ever undertaken by BLM or Interior--the Automated
Land and Mineral Record System.  In 1993 when BLM agreed to the
system design, the system was estimated to cost $403 million. 

Initially, BLM planned to begin to deploy the system in fiscal year
1997.  However, in March 1997, we reported that the agency was
encountering problems with the system that increased the risk of
degraded performance and capability and that had already resulted in
higher costs.  At that time, the higher costs were estimated to be
about $537 million--
about $134 million, or 33 percent, higher than BLM's original
estimate of $403 million.  We also reported BLM would not be ready to
deploy the system until it had completed essential management plans,
policies, and procedures to help ensure a successful transition and
operating environment. 

As of May 1998, BLM had not yet fully dealt with our concerns nor had
it even developed a credible schedule for fully implementing the
system.  In addition, the agency has found continuing problems with
computer hardware and software during testing of the system.  BLM's
testing also surfaced operational concerns that had not been
adequately addressed, such as how the system will support public
information needs and data exchanges between BLM and other
organizations.  Finally, our work has shown that recent and potential
delays in implementing the Automated Land and Minerals Record System
place BLM at risk because existing systems that are being used to
support mission-critical business processes, which are to be replaced
by the system under development, will be subject to the Year 2000
computer-date problem.  While BLM is intending to provide the
upgrades necessary to allow for the continued use of these systems in
case the Automated Land and Minerals Record System is not fully
deployed by 2000, the agency has yet to develop a plan to do this. 

We have made several recommendations to correct shortcomings and
mitigate risks associated with the project.  These recommendations
have focused on areas such as configuration management, security
planning and architecture, transition planning, operations and
maintenance planning, and Year 2000 contingency planning.  While BLM
has agreed with the recommendations, it has not yet fully implemented
them. 

In April 1998, we also testified that Interior had shortcomings in
its Year 2000 program.  At that time, Interior had not verified the
accuracy and reliability of BLM's Year 2000 renovation actions to
ensure that executive management received a reliable picture of the
program's progress.  Nor had Interior maintained a centralized
inventory of its more than 2,900 data exchanges to determine whether
agreements had been reached with external entities.  Therefore, it
may have missed key information showing whether data exchanges were
Year 2000 compliant; until these data exchanges are compliant, there
is an increased risk that Interior's systems will receive
noncompliant data that can corrupt its databases.  Finally, Interior
had not instructed its bureaus to develop plans to ensure the
continuity of core business operations in the event of unforeseen
failures. 


RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 2

REEXAMINATION OF ORGANIZATION AND
FUNCTIONS

Department of the Interior:  Observations on Performance Plan and
Other Management Issues (GAO/T-RCED/AIMD-98-173, Apr.  22, 1998). 

Results Act:  Observations on the Department of the Interior's Draft
Strategic Plan (GAO/RCED-98-207R, July 18, 1997). 

Federal Land Management:  Streamlining and Reorganization Issues
(GAO/T-RCED-96-209, June 27, 1996). 

PROTECTING, PRESERVING, AND
MAINTAINING RESOURCES

National Park Service:  Efforts to Identify and Manage the
Maintenance Backlog (GAO/RCED-98-143, May 14, 1998). 

National Park Service:  Maintenance Backlog Issues (GAO/T-RCED-98-61,
Feb.  4, 1998). 

National Park Service:  Employee Housing Issues (GAO/T-RCED-98-35,
Oct.  29, 1997). 

National Parks:  Park Service Needs Better Information to Preserve
and Protect Resources (GAO/T-RCED-97-76, Feb.  27, 1997). 

Federal Land Management:  Information on Efforts to Inventory
Abandoned Hard Rock Mines (GAO/RCED-96-30, Feb.  23, 1996). 

National Park Service:  Difficult Choices Need to Be Made on the
Future of the Parks (GAO/RCED-95-238, Aug.  30, 1995). 

National Park Service:  Condition of and Need for Employee Housing
(GAO/RCED-93-192, Sept.  30, 1993). 

Wildlife Protection:  Enforcement of Federal Laws Could Be
Strengthened (GAO/RCED-91-44, Apr.  26, 1991). 

Public Land Management:  Attention to Wildlife Is Limited
(GAO/RCED-91-64, Mar.  7, 1991). 

Rangeland Management:  BLM Efforts to Prevent Unauthorized Livestock
Grazing Need Strengthening (GAO/RCED-91-17, Dec.  7, 1990). 

Public Lands:  Limited Progress in Resource Management Planning
(GAO/RCED-90-225, Sept.  27, 1990). 

Federal Land Management:  Better Oil and Gas Information Needed to
Support Land Use Decisions (GAO/RCED-90-71, June 27, 1990). 

Endangered Species:  Management Improvements Could Enhance Recovery
Program (GAO/RCED-89-5, Dec.  21, 1988). 

GUIDANCE, OVERSIGHT, AND
ACCOUNTABILITY

National Park Service:  Efforts to Link Resources to Results Suggest
Insights for Other Agencies (GAO/AIMD-98-113, Apr.  10, 1998). 

Park Service:  Managing for Results Could Strengthen Accountability
(GAO/RCED-97-125, Apr.  10, 1997). 

Department of the Interior:  Observations on Performance Plan and
Other Management Issues (GAO/T-RCED-98-173, Apr.  22, 1998). 

Results Act:  Observations on the Department of Interior's Draft
Strategic Plan (GAO/RCED-98-207R, July 18, 1997). 

Federal Land Management:  Better Oil and Gas Information Needed to
Support Land Use Decisions (GAO/RCED-90-71, June 27, 1990). 

TRIBAL AND INDIAN PROGRAMS

Indian Programs:  Tribal Priority Allocations Do Not Target the
Neediest Tribes (GAO/RCED-98-181, July 17, 1998). 

Financial Management:  Recommendations on Indian Trust Fund Strategic
Plan Proposals (GAO/AIMD-98-37, Nov.  26, 1997). 

Financial Management:  Indian Trust Fund Strategic Plan
(GAO/T-AIMD-97-138, July 30, 1997). 

Financial Management:  BIA's Tribal Trust Fund Account Reconciliation
Results (GAO/AIMD-96-63, May 3, 1996). 

BLM'S RECORDS SYSTEM

Land Management Systems:  Actions Needed in Completing the Automated
Land and Minerals Record System Development (GAO/AIMD-98-107, May 15,
1998). 

Department of the Interior:  Year 2000 Computing Crisis Presents Risk
of Disruption to Key Operations (GAO/T-AIMD-98-149, Apr.  22, 1998). 

Land Management Systems:  Information on BLM's Automated Land and
Minerals Record System Release 2 Project (GAO/AIMD-97-109R, June 6,
1997). 

Land Management Systems:  BLM Faces Risks in Completing the Automated
Land and Minerals Record System (GAO/AIMD-97-42, Mar.  19, 1997). 

Land Management Systems:  Progress and Risks in Developing BLM's Land
and Minerals Record System (GAO/AIMD-95-180, Aug.  31, 1995). 


PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
SERIES
============================================================ Chapter 3

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  A Governmentwide
Perspective (GAO/OCG-99-1)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Department of
Agriculture (GAO/OCG-99-2)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Department of
Commerce (GAO/OCG-99-3)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Department of Defense
(GAO/OCG-99-4)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Department of
Education (GAO/OCG-99-5)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Department of Energy
(GAO/OCG-99-6)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Department of Health
and Human Services (GAO/OCG-99-7)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Department of Housing
and Urban Development (GAO/OCG-99-8)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Department of the
Interior (GAO/OCG-99-9)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Department of Justice
(GAO/OCG-99-10)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Department of Labor
(GAO/OCG-99-11)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Department of State
(GAO/OCG-99-12)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Department of
Transportation (GAO/OCG-99-13)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Department of the
Treasury (GAO/OCG-99-14)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Department of
Veterans Affairs (GAO/OCG-99-15)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Agency for
International Development (GAO/OCG-99-16)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Environmental
Protection Agency (GAO/OCG-99-17)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (GAO/OCG-99-18)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (GAO/OCG-99-19)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Social Security
Administration (GAO/OCG-99-20)

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  U.S.  Postal Service
(GAO/OCG-99-21)

High-Risk Series:  An Update (GAO/HR-99-1)




The entire series of 21 performance and accountability reports and
the high-risk series update can be ordered by using the order number
GAO/OCG-99-22SET. 


*** End of document. ***