[Final Audit Report on the Adopt-A-Horse Program, Bureau of Land Management]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Report No. 98-I-419

Title: Final Audit Report on the Adopt-A-Horse Program, Bureau
       of Land Management

     Date:  April 30, 1998
  

  
                      **********DISCLAIMER**********
  
         This file contains an ASCII representation of an OIG report.
     No attempt has been made to display graphic images or
     illustrations.  Some tables may be included, but may not resemble
     those in the printed version.  A printed copy of this report may be
     obtained by referring to the PDF file or by calling the Office of
     Inspector General, Division of Acquisition and Management Operations
     at (202) 208-4599.
  
                      ******************************


  
     
     U.S. Department of the Interior
     Office of Inspector General
     

     AUDIT REPORT

     THE ADOPT-A-HORSE PROGRAM, 
     BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

     REPORT NO. 98-I-419              
     APRIL 1998           
  
  
  
     MEMORANDUM
  
     TO:  The Secretary
  
     FROM:  Robert J. Williams
            Acting Inspector General
  
     SUBJECT SUMMARY:  Final Audit Report for Your Information -
                       "The Adopt-A-Horse Program, 
                       Bureau of Land Management" (No. 98-I-419)
  
     Attached for your information is a copy of the subject final
     audit report. This report presents the results of our audit of
     the Bureau of Land Management's Adopt-A-Horse Program, which is
     a part of the Wild Horse and Burro Program. This was the last of
     three reports that we issued on the Program. The objective of
     our audit was to determine whether the Bureau was operating the
     Program in accordance with applicable laws and regulations,
     including provisions that ensured that the animals received
     adequate health care and humane treatment.
  
     We determined that the three Bureau Program offices we reviewed
     were not adequately screening prospective adopters, performing
     inspections of adopters' facilities and adopted animals, and
     issuing titles for eligible adopted animals. The Bureau's
     Handbook on adoption requires the Bureau to determine whether
     prospective adopters are eligible to adopt animals and to
     perform inspections of adopters' facilities and adopted animals.
     In addition, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978
     authorizes the Bureau to convey title of the animals to adopters
     who have provided humane treatment to their adopted animals for
     1 year. However, Bureau management did not perform oversight
     reviews to ensure that the procedures in the Handbook were
     complied with or that other effective procedures were
     established by all Program offices; Bureau management at one
     Program office and, to a lesser degree, at the other two offices
     reviewed focused their efforts on placing excess animals into
     private care instead of fully complying with existing
     procedures; and the Wild Horse and Burro Information System did
     not contain adequate information on the eligibility of adopters
     and was difficult to use. As a result, the Bureau had little
     assurance that the adopted animals received humane care; some of
     the animals were mistreated; and titles for adopted animals were
     not always issued, which adversely affected the Bureau's
     accountability for these animals and unnecessarily extended the
     Bureau's legal responsibility for the animals.
  
     Based on the Bureau's response to our five recommendations, we
     considered all of the recommendations resolved.
  
     If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
     me at (202) 508-5745.
  
     Attachment
  
   
  
     Memorandum
  
     To:  Director, Bureau of Land Management
  
     From:  Robert J. Williams
            Acting Inspector General
  
     Subject: Final Audit Report on the Adopt-A-Horse Program,
              Bureau of Land Management (No. 98-I-419)
  
     This report presents the results of our audit of the Bureau of
     Land Management's Adopt-A- Horse Program, which is a part of the
     Wild Horse and Burro Program. This is the last of three reports
     we are issuing on the Wild Horse and Burro Program. The first
     report, "Expenditures Charged to the Wild Horse and Burro
     Program, Bureau of Land Management" (No. 97-I-375), dated
     February 1997, determined whether expenditures charged to the
     Program were used for Program purposes. The second report,
     "Management of Herd Levels, Wild Horse and Burro Program, Bureau
     of Land Management" (No. 97-I-1104), dated August 1997,
     determined whether the Bureau was effectively managing the herd
     levels and monitoring the health of wild horse and burro
     populations on public lands. (These two reports are synopsized
     in the Prior Audit Coverage section of this report.)
  
     The overall objective of this audit was to determine whether the
     Bureau of Land Management was operating the Wild Horse and Burro
     Program in accordance with applicable laws and regulations,
     including provisions that ensure that the animals receive
     adequate health care and humane treatment. Specifically, at the
     request of the Acting Director of the Bureau of Land Management,
     this audit focused on whether the Bureau complied with its
     policies and procedures to ensure that excess wild horses and
     burros received humane care when they were placed in the Adopt
     -A-Horse Program.
  
     We determined that the three Bureau Program offices we reviewed
     were not adequately screening prospective adopters, performing
     inspections of adopters' facilities and adopted animals, and
     issuing titles for eligible adopted animals. The Bureau's
     Handbook "Adoption of Wild Horses and Burros" requires the
     Bureau to determine whether prospective adopters are eligible to
     adopt animals and to perform inspections of adopters' facilities
     and adopted animals. In addition, the Public Rangelands
     Improvement Act of 1978 authorizes the Bureau to convey title of
     the animals to adopters who have provided humane treatment to
     their adopted animals for 1 year. However, Bureau management did
     not perform oversight reviews to ensure that the procedures in
     the Bureau's Handbook were complied with or that other effective
     procedures were established by all Program offices; Bureau
     management at the Jackson Office and, to a lessor degree, at the
     other two offices we visited focused its efforts on placing
     excess animals into private care instead of fully complying with
     existing procedures; and the Wild Horse and Burro Information
     System did not contain adequate information on the eligibility
     of adopters and was difficult to use. As a result, the Bureau
     had little assurance that the adopted animals received humane
     care; some of the animals were mistreated; and titles for
     adopted animals were not always issued, which adversely affected
     the Bureau's accountability for these animals and unnecessarily
     extended the Bureau's legal responsibility for the animals.
  
     We made five recommendations to the Bureau, which related to: (1)
     conducting reviews of Program offices to ensure that screening,
     inspection, and titling procedures were followed and determining
     whether the procedures were ensuring that adopted animals
     received humane care; (2) improving and modifying the Wild Horse
     and Burro Information System; (3) increasing the number of
     compliance inspections performed and improving documentation of
     the inspections; (4) establishing procedures to require that
     records of complaints received and actions taken on animal abuse
     or exploitation be maintained; and (5) ensuring that titles to
     animals are conveyed to adopters in a timely manner.
  
     In the April 7, 1998, response from the Director, Bureau of Land
     Management, the Bureau concurred with Recommendations 1, 2, 4
     and 5 and concurred in part with Recommendation 3 and provided
     an alternative approach to ensure the health and humane
     treatment of the adopted, but not yet titled animals. Concerning
     Recommendation 3, the Bureau stated that it would use a
     statistical sampling approach to ensure the health and humane
     treatment of adopted animals within the past year. Additionally,
     the Bureau stated that it would contact all (1) new adopters by
     telephone or physically within 6 months after adoption, (2) all
     adopters for the last 5 years who have animals eligible for
     title but are not yet titled by mail, and (3) will continue to
     inspect all animals for which complaints was received. In
     addition to addressing the report's recommendations, the Bureau
     stated that "the Wild Horse and Burro Program is in a period of
     transition" and its "current policy embodies a dramatic change
     from earlier policies to one that focuses on the welfare of
     individual adopted animals and the free-roaming herds. Last
     year, as part of this transition, the BLM [Bureau] conducted two
     intensive, internal reviews of the program" and as a followup
     the these two reports "appointed 3 independent fact-finders to
     answer more than 35 questions about the Wild Horse and Burro
     Program." The Bureau concluded that "With guidance from the
     three independent fact- finders, the reestablished Wild Horse
     and Burro Advisory Board, the Inspector General's
     recommendations, and the two internal BLM [Bureau] reports, we
     will be able to resolve recurring problems and give the Wild
     Horse and Burro Program new direction."
  
     Based on the response, we consider Recommendation 5 resolved and
     implemented and Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4 resolved but not
     implemented. Accordingly, the unimplemented recommendations will
     be referred to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management
     and Budget for tracking of implementation, and no further
     response to the Office of Inspector General is required (see
     Appendix 6).
  
     The legislation, as amended, creating the Office of Inspector
     General requires semiannual reporting to the Congress on all
     audit reports issued, actions taken to implement audit
     recommendations, and identification of each significant
     recommendation on which corrective action has not been taken.
  
     We appreciate the assistance of the Bureau of Land Management
     personnel in the conduct of our audit.
  
  
     cc:    Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Audit
     Liaison Officer, Land and Minerals Management Audit Liaison
     Officer, Bureau of Land Management              
  
     CONTENTS                                                     Page
  
     INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
  
     BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
     OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
     PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
     OTHER REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
     FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
     ADOPT-A-HORSE PROGRAM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
  
     APPENDICES
  
     1. TOTAL BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT WILD HORSES AND     BURROS
     ADOPTED, TITLED, AND UNTITLED BY BUREAU     STATE OFFICE OR
     FACILITY AS OF APRIL 1997. . . . . . . 17 2. PROCEDURES FOR THE
     ADOPT-A-HORSE PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . 18 3. RESULTS OF
     ADOPTION FILES REVIEWED - CLASSIFIED     BY BUREAU OFFICE AND
     TYPE OF PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . 21 4. ADOPTED WILD HORSES AND
     BURROS ELIGIBLE FOR     BUT UNTITLED BY STATE OFFICE . . . . . .
     . . . . . . . 22 5. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RESPONSE . . . . .
     . . . . . . . 23 6. STATUS OF AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . .
     . . . . . . . 28            INTRODUCTION    
  
     BACKGROUND
  
     The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, as amended,
     authorized and directed the Secretary of the Interior to manage
     the wild free-roaming horses and burros in a manner designed to
     achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance and
     protect wild free- roaming horses and burros as components of
     the public lands. The Act gives the Secretary authority to
     humanely capture and remove from the public lands excess wild
     free-roaming horses and burros for private care and maintenance
     for which the Secretary has determined an adoption demand
     exists. The Act defines "excess animals" as "wild free-roaming
     horses or burros (1) which have been removed from an area by the
     Secretary pursuant to applicable law or, (2) which must be
     removed from an area in order to preserve and maintain a
     thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use
     relationship in that area."
  
     The Wild Horse and Burro Program was established in 1971 to
     administer provisions of the Act. The Bureau manages wild horse
     and burro populations that exist in 10 western states: Arizona,
     California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
     Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. As of September 1996, the Bureau
     estimated that these lands had a total population of 42,138
     animals. The responsibility for the management direction and
     policy making of the Wild Horse and Burro Program was reassigned
     in January 1997 from the National Program Office in Reno,
     Nevada, to the Bureau of Land Management Headquarters in
     Washington, D.C., but the operational aspects of the Program
     remained at the National Program Office. Adoption program
     offices are located in Bureau state, district, and resource area
     offices in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
     Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Mississippi, Wisconsin, and
     Wyoming to supervise adoptions throughout the continental United
     States. The Bureau also conducts adoptions at prison training
     programs in California, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
  
     A primary focus of the Bureau's activities under the Wild Horse
     and Burro Program has been the placement of excess wild horses
     and burros from public lands to private individuals and
     organizations through the Bureau's Adopt-A-Horse Program. After
     1 year of demonstrating humane care to the animal and upon
     application by the adopter, the Bureau is authorized to issue
     title to the adopter for up to four animals each year. Once
     title has passed to the adopter, the Bureau is no longer legally
     responsible for the animal. As of April 1997, 151,814 animals
     had been placed in private care through the Adopt-A-Horse
     Program since its inception in May 1976. Of the 151,814 animals
     adopted, the Bureau had passed title to the adopters for 103,138
     of these animals (see Appendix 1).
  
     The Bureau of Land Management Manual Handbook H-4750-2, "Adoption
     of Wild Horses and Burros," provides detailed information on the
     policies, standards, and procedures to be used in the Adopt-A
     -Horse Program. The Handbook provides the detailed procedures the
     Bureau established to implement Subpart 4750, "Private
     Maintenance," of the Code of Federal Regulations. Specifically,
     the Handbook describes adopter qualifications and application
     procedures and provides guidance for Bureau compliance
     inspections and enforcement activities.  Further, the Handbook
     requires an applicant who has selected an animal for adoption to
     sign a private maintenance and care agreement that identifies
     prohibited acts and stipulates requirements for the adopter's
     facilities and for care of the animals (a narrative description
     of the procedures for animal adoption is in Appendix 2).
  
     OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
  
     The audit objective was to determine whether the Bureau of Land
     Management was operating the Wild Horse and Burro Program in
     accordance with applicable laws and regulations, including
     provisions that ensure that the animals receive adequate health
     care and humane treatment. Specifically, this audit focused on
     whether the Bureau complied with its policies and procedures to
     ensure that excess wild horses and burros received humane care
     when they were placed in the Adopt-A-Horse Program.
  
     To accomplish our objective, we made site visits to three Bureau
     offices: (1) the Canon City District Office in Canon City,
     Colorado, which administers the Program for the Colorado State
     Office; (2) the Jackson District Office in Jackson, Mississippi,
     one of two district offices that administer the Program for the
     Eastern States Office; and (3) the Oklahoma Resource Area Office
     in Moore, Oklahoma, which administers the Program for the New
     Mexico State Office. As of April 1997, these three offices were
     responsible for 48,140 (32 percent) of the 151,814 animals
     adopted in the Program since its inception. In addition, these
     offices were responsible for 13,911 (42 percent) of the 32,794
     untitled animals eligible for title as of April 1997 (see
     Appendix 1).
  
     The three offices reviewed provided us with 130 of the 167
     adopter files we judgmentally sampled. According to Bureau
     officials, the remaining 37 files were either lost or sent to
     archives. At the three offices visited, we reviewed the 130
     adoption files representing animals titled during fiscal years
     1995, 1996, and 1997 through April 18, 1997 (58 files); animals
     eligible for title as of April 18, 1997 (39 files); adopters or
     facilities that had five or more wild horses and burros from
     1973 through April 18, 1997 (15 files); adopters whose names
     were in the complaint logs at the time of our visits (9 files);
     and adopters who used power of attorney to adopt wild horses and
     burros during 1995 through April 18, 1997 (9 files). Our sample
     selection of adoption files was based on data maintained in the
     Wild Horse and Burro Information System, which identified the
     Bureauwide universe as 103,138 titled animals and 32,794
     eligible but untitled animals as of April 18, 1997.
  
     At each of these offices, we reviewed the Bureau's compliance
     with policies and procedures in its Handbook that related to
     screening adopters, performing compliance inspections,
     investigating complaints of abuse and exploitation, and titling
     animals and interviewed Bureau officials responsible for
     operating and managing the Program. In addition, we observed
     wild horse and burro adoptions at the Colorado State
     Penitentiary in Canon City, Colorado; the Cross Plains Adoption
     Center in Cross Plains, Tennessee; and a temporary adoption
     center in Herndon, Virginia.
  
     This audit was made, as applicable, in accordance with the
     "Government Auditing Standards," issued by the Comptroller
     General of the United States. Accordingly, we included such
     tests of records and other auditing procedures that were
     considered necessary under the circumstances.
  
     As part of our audit, we evaluated the system of internal
     controls to the extent that we considered necessary. The
     internal control weaknesses we identified are discussed in the
     Finding and Recommendations section of this report. The
     recommendations, if implemented, should improve the internal
     controls in these areas.
  
     We also reviewed the Departmental Report on Accountability for
     fiscal year 1996, which includes information required by the
     Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act, and the Bureau's
     annual assurance statement and determined that no material
     weaknesses were reported that directly related to the objective
     and scope of our audit.
  
     PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE
  
     During the past 5 years, the General Accounting Office has not
     audited the Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro
     Program. However, the Office of Inspector General has issued
     four audit reports on the Program as follows:
  
     - The report "Memorandum of Understanding Relating to the South
     Dakota Wild Horse Sanctuary, Bureau of Land Management" (No. 92
     -I-543), issued in March 1992, concluded that the Bureau made
     payments of $95,000 for services that were not the Bureau's
     responsibility, approved a basic rate increase for horse care
     that was not justified, and lost the opportunity to save
     $800,000 by not evaluating alternative offers for horse care.
     The report additionally stated that the sanctuary had not
     achieved financial self-sufficiency. The report's four
     recommendations were considered resolved and implemented.
  
     - The report "Selected Aspects of the Wild Horse and Burro
     Program, Bureau of Land Management" (94-I-585), issued in May
     1994, stated that it was not cost effective to maintain the
     Oklahoma wild horse sanctuary. The report recommended that the
     Bureau evaluate other options for the sanctuary horses,
     including returning the horses to the public lands and closing
     the sanctuary, since most of the sanctuary horses were old and
     unadoptable. The Bureau concurred with the recommendation but
     offered an alternative solution. Specifically, the Bureau
     decided to develop and implement an adoption initiative for the
     animals in the sanctuary, which had been successful in the
     Bureau's Montana State Office in 1992 in that over 500 sanctuary
     animals from South Dakota had been adopted.  Subsequently, the
     Bureau reduced the number of horses at the Oklahoma sanctuary
     from 1,569 in October 1993 to 1,143 in February 1996. The
     sanctuary contractor reported that the reduction of 433 horses
     was due to 236 adoptions and 197 deaths.
  
     - The report "Expenditures Charged to the Wild Horse and Burro
     Program, Bureau of Land Management" (No. 97-I-375), issued in
     February 1997, concluded that the Bureau had recorded and
     generally spent funds for Program purposes in accordance with
     its accounting procedures. However, the Bureau inaccurately
     classified certain indirect salaries and other expenditures as
     direct costs in its financial records. As a result, reported
     salary and other expenditures indicated that more direct work
     was accomplished for the Program than may have actually
     occurred. The Bureau concurred with the report's two
     recommendations, which we considered resolved but not
     implemented.
  
     - The report "Management of Herd Levels, Wild Horse and Burro
     Program, Bureau of Land Management" (No. 97-I-1104), issued in
     August 1997, concluded that the Program had not been effective
     in achieving the goal of managing the sizes of the herds to
     maintain a thriving natural ecological balance, as required by
     the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, as amended.
     In addition, the Bureau was not systematically monitoring the
     health of the herds. Specifically, the Bureau had not placed
     sufficient numbers of animals through its Adopt-A-Horse Program;
     was prevented from disposing of excess healthy animals by
     legislative restrictions included in its appropriations acts;
     and had not aggressively pursued other options for controlling
     herd sizes, such as birthrate controls. Consequently,
     approximately 15,226 more wild horses and burros were on the
     range than the Bureau determined the range could sustain at the
     end of fiscal year 1996. Additionally, the Bureau did not have
     information regarding the health of the herds that managers
     needed to make decisions regarding the operations of the
     Program. The Bureau concurred with the report's two
     recommendations, but additional information was needed to
     consider the recommendations fully resolved.
  
     OTHER REVIEW
  
     In January 1997, the Director, Bureau of Land Management,
     established a temporary Policy Analysis Team to "review all
     aspects of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Wild Horse and
     Burro (WH&B) Adoption Program." The Team's mission was to
     "analyze the current program and make recommendations for
     changes in policy and procedures to better ensure that adopted
     animals receive short- and long-term humane care."
  
     On April 18, 1997, the Team issued its report, which contained 33
     recommendations in six categories: (1) compliance activities,
     including titling; (2) employee adoptions; (3) the Wild Horse
     and Burro Information System; (4) training; (5) public outreach;
     and (6) management and accountability. The Team's
     recommendations addressed a wide range of issues, including day
     -to-day management of the Adopt-A-Horse Program, such as
     contacting 100 percent of all new adopters; performing
     compliance inspections; and resolving long-standing problems
     associated with accounting for untitled horses. Although the
     recommendations proposed by the Team addressed a wide range of
     improvements needed in the Adopt-A-Horse Program, we found that
     the proposed recommendations did not fully address the
     weaknesses we identified, which are discussed in the Finding and
     Recommendations section of this report.        

     FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  
     ADOPT-A-HORSE PROGRAM
  
     The three Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Program
     offices we reviewed were not adequately screening prospective
     adopters, performing compliance inspections of adopters'
     facilities before adoptions and of animals subsequent to
     adoption, and issuing titles for all eligible adopted animals.
     The Bureau's Handbook "Adoption of Wild Horses and Burros"
     requires the Bureau to (1) determine whether prospective
     adopters are eligible to adopt animals and (2) perform
     inspections of adopters' facilities and adopted animals. In
     addition, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 requires
     the Bureau to convey title of the animals upon application by
     adopters who have provided humane treatment to their adopted
     animals for 1 year. However, Bureau management did not perform
     oversight reviews to ensure that procedures in the Handbook were
     complied with or that other effective procedures were
     established by all offices. In addition, Bureau management at
     the Jackson District Office and, to a lessor degree, at the
     other two offices we visited focused its efforts on placing the
     animals in private care instead of ensuring compliance with
     existing procedures, and the Wild Horse and Burro Information
     System did not contain adequate information on the eligibility
     of adopters and was difficult to use. As a result, the Bureau
     had little assurance that the adopted animals received humane
     care, and some of the animals were mistreated. In addition,
     titles for adopted animals were not always issued, which
     adversely affected the Bureau's accountability for these animals
     and continued the Bureau's legal responsibility for the animals.
  
     Screening Prospective Adopters
  
     The Bureau did not adequately screen prospective adopters to
     determine their eligibility to adopt and care for the animals.
     Specifically, the Bureau did not adequately review adoption
     applications and Bureau adoption records, interview applicants,
     or perform inspections of the facilities of applicants who
     applied to adopt five or more animals. These actions are the
     initial safeguards to ensure that adopters have the capability
     to provide humane care for the adopted animals.
  
     Applications and Interviews. The Bureau Handbook (Chapter I,
     Section B) identifies three sources of information that Program
     personnel should use to screen applicants: a completed
     application; an interview with the applicant; and Bureau
     adoption records, including records in the Information System.
  
     In addition to the 37 files that were not provided, our review of
     the 130 adoption files provided by the Bureau disclosed that 13
     applications were incomplete or were missing from the files (4
     of the 13 applications had incomplete facility information) and
     that 72 files contained no evidence that an interview was
     conducted (see Appendix 3). This occurred because Bureau
     officials did not perform regularly scheduled oversight reviews
     of field offices for compliance with Program procedures. We
     noted that only three reviews were performed in 1994 and one
     review in 1995 and that these reviews covered various aspects of
     the Program in California, Montana, New Mexico, and Utah.
     However, these reviews did not determine whether the field
     offices complied with established procedures to screen adopters
     or to monitor adopters' compliance with private maintenance and
     care agreements. In our opinion, the Bureau should have included
     a requirement in its Handbook that regularly scheduled reviews
     of compliance with Program procedures or other internal controls
     should be performed to provide Bureau managers with sufficient
     information to make sound management decisions regarding Program
     operations.
  
     In addition, we found that the Wild Horse and Burro Information
     System could not be used to determine the eligibility of
     adopters, even though the Information System was identified in
     the Handbook as a source to review. Program personnel stated
     that the Information System computer program was not "user
     friendly" and that the compliance inspection module, which was
     designed to contain information on inspections performed and the
     continued eligibility of adopters, was so difficult to use that
     no one attempted to enter data about problem adopters. Without
     this vital information, adopters who had improperly cared for
     animals could be allowed to adopt other animals. For example, in
     1990, a Colorado wild horse specialist attempted to examine
     adopted animals that were eligible for title. The specialist was
     informed by the adopter that the animals had been sold to a
     "local horse trader." Bureau law enforcement officials
     investigated the incident and determined that the adopter had
     sold his four animals to another individual, who sold the
     animals to a "sale barn." Since the sale barn had closed, Bureau
     personnel concluded that the horses were not traceable. The case
     was closed, and the adopter and the first purchaser were issued
     verbal warnings. The official adoption file maintained at the
     field office was marked "ineligible." However, as of July 1997,
     the Information System listed the two animals as alive and
     untitled but eligible for title, and the adopter was not
     identified as a "violator" or as ineligible to adopt other
     animals. In addition, none of the three offices we reviewed
     maintained any other listing or document that identified problem
     adopters which could be used as a screening source before
     applications were approved. As a result, the Bureau could not be
     fully assured that animals were placed with previous adopters
     who had demonstrated that they could care for their animals.
  
     Preadoption Facility Inspections. Facility inspections are
     performed to help ensure that prospective adopters of five or
     more animals in 1 year can adequately provide humane care for
     those animals at their facility. The inspections are required by
     the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 4750.3-3), which states:
  
      An individual applying to adopt more than 4 wild horses or
     burros within a 12-month period, or an individual or group of
     individuals requesting to maintain more than 4 wild horses or
     burros at a single location shall provide a written report
     prepared by the authorized officer [a Bureau employee assigned
     to the Wild Horse and Burro Program], or by a local humane
     official, veterinarian, cooperative extension agent, or
     similarly qualified person approved by the authorized officer,
     verifying that the applicant's facilities have been inspected,
     appear adequate to care for the number of animals requested, and
     satisfy the requirements . . . [for private maintenance and care
     of the animals].
  
      The report shall include a description of the facilities,
     including corral sizes, pasture size, and shelter, barn or stall
     dimensions, and shall note any discrepancies between the
     facilities inspected and representations made in the application
     form. When an applicant requests 25 or more animals or when 25
     or more animals will be maintained at any single location,
     regardless of the number of applicants, the facilities . . .
     shall be inspected by the authorized officer prior to approving
     the application.
  
     The codified requirements for adoptions of five or more animals
     in a year are more stringent than the requirements for adoptions
     of four or fewer animals per year because of the increased risk
     of animals being exploited or abused. Of the 37 files that
     Bureau officials could not locate at the three offices visited,
     16 of these files were for adoptions of five or more animals.
     These 16 files represented adoptions of 868 wild horses and
     burros during 1976 through 1997 (March 1997).
  
     We reviewed files for 15 adoptions of 5 or more wild horses and
     burros, which involved 355 animals, and found no evidence in
     these files that facility inspections had been performed by
     Bureau officials or their authorized representatives in 2 of 3
     cases in Canon City, 5 of 8 cases in Jackson, and 2 of 4 cases
     in Oklahoma. The nine cases where facility inspections were not
     performed accounted for 248 of the 355 animals. Examples of the
     problems noted with the adoptions of five or more animals for
     which facility inspections were not performed are as follows:
  
     - A state prison in Louisiana adopted 30 horses in October 1995.
     However, no inspection was conducted by Bureau personnel from
     the Jackson District Office, as required by the Code of Federal
     Regulations and further detailed in the Bureau Handbook.
     According to officials in the Jackson Office, the inspection was
     not performed because the responsible personnel were not
     notified by personnel from the Rock Springs District Office in
     Wyoming who conducted the adoption. When the facility was
     inspected by Jackson Office personnel approximately 15 months
     after the adoption occurred, the personnel could not confirm
     that the adopted animals were still at the prison because the
     freeze brands either were illegible or were not present on the
     animals at the facility. Consequently, the Bureau could not
     issue titles for the adopted animals. On June 10, 1997, Bureau
     personnel inspected the facility, re- branded 28 of the horses,
     and signed private maintenance and care agreements for the 28
     horses. The other 2 horses died, one on July 15, 1996, from
     unknown causes and the other on November 22, 1996, from injuries
     incurred at a cattle guard. Under Bureau procedures, the private
     maintenance and care agreements should have been signed before
     the horses were adopted, and the deaths of the two horses should
     have been reported within 7 days of their deaths.
  
     - During 1982 through 1985, a wild horse advocacy group in
     Colorado adopted 156 horses for the purpose of reassigning these
     animals to other adopters. When the animals were assigned to
     other adopters, the group's name was replaced with the new
     adopters' names in the Information System. Our review of the
     Information System showed that the group had adopted only 10
     horses rather than the 156 horses identified in the field
     office's adoption file for the group. In addition, there was no
     evidence in the file that the Bureau conducted inspections of
     the group's facilities prior to the adoptions.
  
     According to Jackson District Office Program personnel, facility
     inspections were not consistently performed because the Jackson
     field office placed a higher emphasis on removal of the animals
     from public lands and placement with private individuals and
     organizations. Specifically, several employees in the Jackson
     Office stated that the Program's priority had always been the
     removal and placement of the animals over the monitoring of
     compliance with Bureau procedures. In support of this position,
     we noted that the Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Program Policy
     Analysis Team Report, dated April 18, 1997, stated:
  
      The Policy Analysis Team believes that establishment and
     achievement of Appropriate Management Levels (AMLs) in Herd
     Management Areas (HMAs) is the highest overall Wild Horse and
     Burro priority. Efforts toward this objective should not be
     reduced to provide funding or staff time for implementation of
     our recommendations [regarding compliance and titling issues].
  
     Further, during the June 24, 1997, exit conference on our prior
     report "Management of Herd Levels, Wild Horse and Burro Program,
     Bureau of Land Management" (No. 97-I-1104), the Bureau's
     Assistant Director for Renewable Resources and Planning stated
     that to reach the appropriate management levels by the year 2001
     as the Bureau plans, it will need to remove 10,000 animals from
     public land per year. However, he also stated that without
     enlisting more volunteers to assist in monitoring and conducting
     compliance inspections, the Bureau will have trouble meeting
     this goal.
  
     Postadoption Compliance Inspections
  
     The Bureau did not adequately or consistently perform compliance
     inspections to ensure that adopted animals were receiving proper
     care because the Bureau offices we reviewed emphasized the
     placement of the animals in private care over the performance of
     inspections of the adopters. In addition, Bureau offices had not
     established procedures to ensure that complaints of animal
     mistreatment were fully investigated.
  
     The Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 4760.1) states that a
     Bureau employee or an authorized representative may verify
     compliance with the private maintenance and care agreement by
     "visits to an adopter, physical inspections of the animals, and
     inspections of the facilities and conditions in which the
     animals are being maintained." In addition, the Bureau Manual
     (Section 4760.1) requires monthly compliance inspections of all
     adopters and animals when five or more animals are maintained in
     one location. The Manual also requires the Bureau to conduct
     compliance inspections whenever a complaint is received of
     inhumane treatment to an animal. The Bureau's "Strategic Plan
     for Management of Wild Horses and Burros on Public Lands," dated
     June 1992, states that the Bureau's goal is to inspect a minimum
     of 5 percent of all untitled animals each year.
  
     Inspection Goal of 5 Percent. We reviewed 97 files of adopters
     who took four or fewer animals and determined that the Bureau
     conducted 39 compliance inspections of the adopters and their
     animals. This inspection level of 40 percent exceeded the
     Bureau's goal of inspecting 5 percent of all untitled animals
     each year. However, while our nonstatistical sample results
     indicated that the Bureau had exceeded its goal, we believe that
     the prescribed and actual levels of inspections are too low to
     ensure that adopted animals are treated humanely. Our opinion is
     consistent with the Bureau's "Policy Analysis Team Report" on
     the Program, dated April 18, 1997 (see "Other Review"section).
     Regarding the compliance inspection level, the report
     recommended that the Bureau:
  
      Increase on-site compliance inspections to assure statistically
     that 95 percent of untitled animals adopted within the last five
     years are being properly cared for in compliance with the PMACA
     [private maintenance and care agreements] by adopters. . . . The
     95-percent compliance clearly requires an increase in the
     current level of on-site compliance effort. . . . The Team
     recommends doubling on-site compliance checks from approximately
     2,200 per year to 4,400 per year.
  
     The report further stated that the Bureau should use memoranda of
     understanding with various state and nonprofit organizations to
     conduct these inspections. We agree with this strategy and
     believe that the Bureau can achieve the higher inspection level
     with the support of voluntary organizations, such as the Humane
     Society of the United States.
  
     Monthly Inspections of Adopters of Five or More Animals.  Our
     review of the 15 adoptions of 5 or more animals found that the
     Bureau did not conduct the required monthly inspections for 14
     adoptions involving 248 animals. For example:
  
     - In the Jackson District Office, none of the approximately 100
     horses adopted in numbers of five or more were inspected monthly
     by Bureau officials or their authorized representatives. For
     example, in 1995 a university, through the Jackson Office,
     adopted five burros and four horses to provide an outreach
     educational program. The Jackson Office did not conduct the
     required monthly compliance inspections of the animals and the
     university's facilities. However, the Bureau did conduct an
     inspection on May 2, 1996, because Bureau personnel were in the
     area to conduct an adoption. The Bureau horse and burro
     specialist noted in her inspection report that one burro was
     missing and that the remaining animals were "malnourished."
     Subsequently, the specialist determined that one of the burros
     had died on January 24, 1996, of "unknown causes" and that this
     death was not reported to the Bureau as required. Also, the
     inspection report stated:
  
      The horses and burros . . . were in thin condition and their
     hoofs were extremely long. . . . had only been wormed once . . .
     and had received little to no handling . . . . The ribs . . .
     were easily seen, the tail head was prominent, the hip bone was
     easily discernible and the withers, shoulders and neck were
     accentuated. Their coats were dull, long, and in an unhealthy
     condition. . . . The hay on site was of very poor quality . . .
     . When the hay was given to the horses, they would not eat it.
  
     The report further stated, "The poor condition of the animals
     attested to the inadequate amount and quality of grain and hay
     being fed to the animals . . . ." During a second inspection on
     May 5, 1996, the Bureau specialist stated, "Again, there was no
     evidence of feeding and the pens were without water." As a
     result of these inspections, the university received Bureau
     assistance in caring for the animals, and the condition of the
     animals improved.
  
     - In the Canon City District Office, an adopter acquired 10
     horses during fiscal years 1994 and 1995. The Bureau did not
     conduct monthly compliance inspections of the adopter and the
     animals. Subsequently, we found that one horse had died (the
     cause of death was not reported within the required 7 days), one
     was returned to the Bureau, and eight were titled to the
     adopter.
  
     Inspections of Complaints of Animal Mistreatment. We could not
     determine, from our review of the adoption files and other
     records at the field offices we visited, whether the Bureau
     conducted inspections of adopters for which the Bureau had
     received complaints and allegations relating to the mistreatment
     of adopted animals. Additionally, allegations of abuse were not
     always referred to law enforcement officials for appropriate
     action. For example:
  
     - In the Jackson Office, we requested six files relating to
     animals for which complaints of abuse were received and recorded
     in the complaint logs. However, the Bureau could not locate 4 of
     the files (included in the 37 files we previously noted as not
     provided). Regarding the first of the remaining two files, the
     initial complaint of possible abuse was recorded on March 5,
     1996. As of May 13, 1997, the Bureau had not performed a
     compliance inspection. Regarding the second of the two remaining
     files, the initial complaint, which was the reported death of an
     animal, was received in August 1996. As of November 10, 1997, no
     further action had been taken, even though the letter certifying
     the cause of death that had been requested in August 1996 had
     not been received.
  
     Also in the Jackson Office, we reviewed an adoption file (see
     Appendix 3, "Evidence of Possible Animal Abuse") which stated
     that the adopter shot and killed his burro because it was
     unmanageable and continued to escape from its pen. Since this
     action was a prohibited act under the adopter's private
     maintenance and care agreement, the case should have been
     referred to law enforcement officials for appropriate action.
     However, no further action was taken by the Bureau on this
     burro's death, and the Bureau subsequently issued titles to this
     adopter for the three burros remaining in his custody.
  
     In the early 1990s, according to several Bureau employees, a
     former District Manager of the Jackson Office stated that,
     pursuant to management directions, the Jackson Office would no
     longer refer adopters for prosecution of wrongdoing. In
     addition, an October 9, 1990, memorandum from the Deputy State
     Director in the New Mexico State Office stated that as a result
     of budget reductions for fiscal year 1991, a wild horse and
     burro adoption center would be closed and staff may not be able
     to respond to all compliance complaints. The memorandum further
     stated that complaints should be coordinated with investigations
     conducted by local humane officials.
  
     We were not able to determine whether the Bureau had taken all
     necessary actions regarding complaints of animal mistreatment
     because it did not establish adequate procedures to ensure that
     its adoption files and complaint logs clearly documented the
     dispositions of complaints. Additionally, the Bureau did not
     ensure that a complete and accurate database of violators of the
     private maintenance and care agreements was maintained in the
     Bureau's Wild Horse and Burro Information System so that these
     individuals could be prevented from acquiring animals through
     future adoptions.
  
     Untitled Wild Horses and Burros
  
     The Bureau had not ensured that adopted wild horses and burros
     were titled to adopters after providing 1 year of humane care.
     The granting of title to the animal is the final step in the
     adoption process. The Act states that the Bureau is authorized,
     upon application, to grant title to adopters who have provided
     humane treatment and care for their animals (up to four animals
     in any 1 year) for a period of 1 year. By issuing title, full
     responsibility for the animal is placed on the adopter, and the
     Bureau's responsibility for that animal is legally terminated.
     The Bureau's Information System showed that 32,794 animals
     eligible for title were untitled as of April 18, 1997. The large
     number of untitled animals was caused by (1) the Bureau's
     practice of waiting for the adopters to submit title
     applications to its field offices and (2) the lack of effective
     followup procedures at some field offices.
  
     The titling process begins when the Bureau's Information System
     prepares and sends a title eligibility letter and application
     form to adopters within 2 months of the 1-year anniversary of
     the adoption. However, we found that the Bureau office
     administering the adoption did not normally take further action
     until it received the completed title application. Upon receipt
     of the application, Program personnel reviewed the application
     to ensure that the animal was certified as healthy by a
     "qualified individual other than the adopter." If the Bureau
     determined that the animal was healthy, title was issued, and
     the animal became the private property of the adopter.
  
     During October 1, 1992, to April 18, 1997, the number of animals
     eligible for title but untitled increased by 5,419 animals, or
     approximately 16.5 percent of the total 32,794 untitled animals
     (see Appendix 4). The Jackson Office, which administers the
     Program in 11 states (compared with 1 state and 4 states,
     respectively, administered by the two other offices we visited),
     has been responsible since fiscal year 1992 for 1,799 (33.2
     percent) of the 5,419 untitled animals and 6,212 (18.9 percent)
     of the total of 32,794 untitled animals since Program inception.
     Although the number of untitled animals was significant, we
     found that procedures were not established at the Jackson Office
     to follow up on why title applications were not received from
     eligible adopters. At the Canon City Office, we found that
     procedures had been implemented to ensure that field inspections
     were scheduled for those adopters who had not submitted title
     applications in a timely manner (see section "Program
     Improvements"). As a result, since fiscal year 1992, the Canon
     City Office has added only 47 animals to its inventory of
     eligible but untitled animals, which totaled 596 animals for
     years prior to fiscal year 1992.
  
     We also noted that the Information System reported that 773 of
     6,215 animals being held in Bureau facilities as of April 18,
     1997, were supposedly at facilities which were no longer in
     operation. Further we noted that a separate "history file,"
     created by the Bureau in 1989 to track animals that could not be
     located, reported an additional 2,557 animals (not included in
     any other Bureau statistical totals) which the Bureau had not
     located as of April 18, 1997.
    
     Program Improvements
  
     During our review, we noted several proactive actions that Bureau
     offices had taken, or proposed to take, to ensure that animals
     received humane care and were not exploited for commercial
     purposes, as described in the following paragraphs.
  
     Effective Inspection and Titling Practices. Both the Canon City
     District Office and the Oklahoma Resource Area Office developed
     local procedures which helped ensure that inspections were
     conducted and titles were issued. While the Canon City Office
     ensured that the Information System data was kept current and
     utilized the titling dates provided by the System, the Oklahoma
     Office manually reviewed adopter files to obtain current titling
     dates.
  
     At the Canon City District Office, procedures included a wild
     horse and burro staff assistant's printing, from the Information
     System, a list of adopters who were eligible for title. From the
     list, a wild horse and burro specialist identified those
     adopters who were due or overdue for titling and matched their
     locations with the locations of volunteers available throughout
     the State of Colorado. The specialist then contacted those
     volunteers and arranged for them to perform compliance
     inspections of the animals. When a volunteer determined that an
     animal had been properly cared for, the volunteer and the
     adopter prepared the application for title and forwarded it to
     the Bureau. If any problems were noted during the inspection, a
     Bureau employee would follow up with appropriate action. The
     Canon City Office maintained these lists to also document the
     number of compliance inspections it conducted during each fiscal
     year.
  
     The Oklahoma Resource Area Office developed a system that
     requires an administrative assistant to manually review adopter
     files to determine when title eligibility dates have passed. The
     files are marked with the title eligibility date on the file
     jacket. The administrative assistant reviews the files every 2
     to 3 months and pulls the files of adopters whose title
     eligibility dates are more than 3 months past due. By that date,
     the adopter should have received three letters from the National
     Business Center regarding title eligibility. The assistant sends
     a certified letter to the adopter and continues to follow up
     until the adopter responds with a certified title application or
     other satisfactory response (such as a death certificate).
  
     Slaughterhouse Agreements. The New Mexico State Office entered
     into a memorandum of understanding with a slaughterhouse whereby
     the facility's officials would voluntarily report to the Bureau
     freeze-branded animals (possibly wild horses) received at their
     facility. Under the agreement, the Bureau would determine
     whether the freeze-branded animals were wild horses and whether
     they were titled or untitled and, at Bureau expense, pick up the
     untitled animals. If the Bureau could not remove the animals
     immediately, the facility would care for the animals and charge
     the Bureau a nominal maintenance fee. Jackson District Office
     Program personnel provided us with information that this
     facility, during February 5, 1997, through March 13, 1997,
     notified the Bureau that it had received 25 freeze- branded
     animals. The Bureau subsequently determined that four of the
     animals were untitled and picked up the animals. Of the four
     animals, two were readopted, and two were still at Bureau
     holding facilities as of June 24, 1997. The Bureau received
     restitution from one of the adopters involved and is seeking
     restitution from another. We believe that the Bureau should take
     all necessary actions to obtain these kinds of agreements with
     other slaughterhouses.
  
     Volunteers and Partnerships. In the Bureau's written comments
     dated January 6, 1998, the Director noted that the Jackson
     District Office will be holding another wild horse and burro
     preadoption compliance training course for volunteers. The
     Director stated, "[I]t is anticipated that 10 to 15 people will
     take the course, providing the Jackson Office with significant
     increased pre-adoption compliance capability." Additionally the
     Director noted, "[A] significant partnership is being built with
     the Girl Scouts of central Florida where another Mustang Troop
     is being formed."
  
     Recommendations
  
     We recommend that the Director, Bureau of Land Management, ensure
     that:
  
     1. Procedures are established to conduct regular oversight
     reviews of field offices to determine whether screening,
     preadoption and postadoption inspections, and titling procedures
     are complied with. The reviews should also determine whether the
     Bureau's screening and inspection procedures provide reasonable
     assurance that wild horses and burros in the Adopt-A-Horse
     Program receive humane care.
  
     2. The Wild Horse and Burro Information System contains
     information on violators of wild horse and burro laws and
     regulations and other problem adopters to be used as a screening
     tool when offices evaluate prospective adopters. Additionally,
     the Information System should be evaluated and redesigned as
     appropriate to be more "user friendly" to Program personnel.
  
     3. Revise the Bureau's strategic plan for the management of wild
     horses and burros to require a higher percentage of inspections
     to be performed, as recommended by the Bureau's "Policy Analysis
     Team Report." Also, the number of inspections performed should
     be accurately recorded in the Information System and reported to
     Bureau management.
  
     4. Procedures are established which require records to be
     maintained on the complaints received of animal abuse or
     exploitation, the actions taken, and the final results of those
     actions.
  
     5. Procedures are established to require all offices to contact
     adopters who have not submitted title applications in a timely
     manner and to take appropriate followup actions to issue titles.
     Further, consideration should be given to implementing, on a
     Bureauwide basis, other effective procedures and memoranda of
     understanding with slaughterhouses that have been established at
     some offices.
  
     Bureau of Land Management Response and Office of Inspector
     General Reply
  
     In the April 7, 1998, response (Appendix 5) to the draft report
     from the Director, Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau
     concurred with the recommendations 1, 2, 4, and 5 and concurred
     in part with Recommendation 3 and provided an alternative
     approach to ensure the health and humane treatment of the
     adopted, but not yet titled animals. Based on the response, we
     consider Recommendation 5 resolved and implemented and
     Recommendations 1 through 4 resolved but unimplemented.
     Accordingly, the unimplemented recommendations will be referred
     to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget for
     tracking of implementation.
  
     The Bureau stated that it concurred in part with Recommendation
     3. The Bureau stated it "has adopted the recommendations of the
     'Policy Analysis Team Report'" to utilize" a statistical
     sampling approach as the best means to ensure the health and
     humane treatment of 95 percent of animals adopted within the
     past 5 years." The Bureau stated it "will perform more than
     3,659 compliance inspections in FY [fiscal year] 1998, as
     identified in the BLM's [Bureau's] Annual Work Plan." Further,
     the Bureau stated that it will check (by telephone or
     physically) "100 percent of all new adoptions within the six
     months after adoption" and that it will contact by mail "all
     adopters for the last 5 years who have animals eligible for
     title, but who have not yet titled those animals in an effort to
     ensure the health and humane treatment of the adopted but not
     yet titled animals. Additionally, the Bureau stated it will
     "continue the policy of 100 percent inspections on all
     complaints received." We believe that the Bureau's proposed
     actions will satisfy the intent of the recommendation. The
     number of compliance inspections which the Bureau intends to
     perform, including inspections of all complaints of abuse, and
     the proposed additional contacts with adopters, whether by
     telephone, mail or physical, should help ensure that adopted
     animals are receiving proper care. Accordingly, we consider the
     recommendation resolved but unimplemented.    

     TOTAL BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT WILD HORSES AND BURROS ADOPTED,
     TITLED, AND UNTITLED BY BUREAU  STATE OFFICE OR FACILITY AS OF 
     APRIL 1997
                                           
     BUREAU          STATE OFFICE         Total Number of
     Animals Adopted         Since Program          Inception           
     Total Number of         Adopted Animals         for Which Title 
     Issued         Total Number of         Adopted Animals
     Eligible for Title but           Untitled         Total Number
     of         Adopted Animals        Not Yet Eligible for 
     Title                                    ALASKA             
     ARIZONA                       CALIFORNIA             
     COLORADO                       EASTERN           STATES              
     IDAHO                       MONTANA                       NEW
     MEXICO                        NEVADA              
     OREGON                        UTAH                       WYOMING           
     Washington, D.C.,         National Program           Office            
     Animals not        assigned to specific           location            
     Animals not        assigned to general           location             
     Adjustment                        TOTAL                 
     0
15,905                                                     3,504                                                                                                      4,598                                                                                48,74       3                                                    2,642                                                    9,558                                                   15,590                                                   12,175                                                   11,272                                                    3,732                                                   13,819                                                                                                         10,158                                                                                105                                                                                13                                                      0                                                   151,814

                       13                                                    2,233                                                    9,016                                                    3,497                                                                              37,282                                                    3,368                                                   14,386                                                   16,003                                                    2,790                                                    5,430                                                    2,991                                                    6,401                                                                                                            0                                                                                 9                                                                                 0                                                    (281)                                                   103,138                          53                                                     310                                                    5,082                                                     643                                                                              10,950                                                    1,274                                                    1,019                                                    7,057                                                     812                                                    3,383                                                     944                                                    1,266                                                                                                            0                                                                                 0                                                                                 0                                                      1                                                   32,794                           2                                                     151                                                     557                                                     528                                                                               3,885                                                     345                                                     540                                                    1,114                                                     189                                                     470                                                     571                                                    1,018                                                                                                            0                                                                                 0                                                                                 0                                                      0                                                    9,370                                                                                                       
     

     PROCEDURES FOR THE ADOPT-A-HORSE PROGRAM
  
     The following narrative details the procedures for the Adopt-A
     -Horse Program as stated in Bureau Manual Handbook H-4750-2.
  
     Screening of Applicants. The Manual requires that the prospective
     adopter fill out an application for adoption which may be
     accepted through the mail, on-site at holding facilities or
     temporary adoption facilities, or at any Bureau office that has
     an authorized Bureau officer. The application requires the
     applicant to sign a statement acknowledging that it is a crime
     to make a fraudulent statement to the Government. The
     application also requires the prospective adopter to describe
     the facilities that will be provided for the animals and to
     state whether the adopter will have more than four untitled
     animals at the same location, whether someone else will be
     selecting or caring for the animal under the adopter's
     authorization, whether the adopter has made any previous
     adoptions under the Program, and whether the prospective adopter
     has ever been convicted of abuse or inhumane treatment of
     animals. The Bureau then determines eligibility based on three
     sources: the completed application; Bureau adoption records,
     including the Wild Horse and Burro Information System; and an
     interview with the applicant.
  
     When five or more animals are being adopted by one individual or
     maintained at one location, special adoption screening
     requirements apply. These requirements include a facility
     inspection and a signed statement of employment stating that the
     applicant is either not employed by or engaged in a livestock
     auction, rodeo, or slaughterhouse or is employed or engaged in
     the preceding, in which case the applicant is required to state
     in writing the reasons for adopting the animals. The Bureau must
     approve or disapprove the application within 10 days of receipt.
     If disapproval is based on an inadequate application, the
     applicant may reapply. Also, the applicant may appeal his
     disapproved application to the Department's Board of Land
     Appeals.
  
     Once the approved applicant has selected an animal at an adoption
     event, a private maintenance and care agreement must be signed
     by the adopter and the $125 per wild horse or wild burro
     adoption fee paid. At that time, Bureau personnel reiterate the
     terms of the adoption and the prohibited acts to the adopter.
     After the adoption, the Bureau retains the responsibility for
     ensuring that adopters comply with the private maintenance and
     care agreement.  The responsible Bureau office is required to
     update the Information System within 2 weeks of the adoption,
     and an official adopter file must be set up to include the
     following: an approved application; a copy of the care
     agreement; and other relevant documents, such as copies of
     compliance inspections and correspondence relating to the
     adoption. In cases in which a power of attorney is used to
     select and pick up the animals, the authorized official must
     contact the adopter within 2 weeks after the adoption to ensure
     that the animals were received, to verify the location of the
     animals, and to review responsibilities and obligations with the
     adopter. A written record is required to be maintained for all
     contacts. Any adoption modification, such as adopter change of
     address or relocation of the animals to other facilities, must
     be sent to the authorized officer within 30 days. The death of
     any adopted animal must be reported to the responsible Bureau
     office within 7 days of the death. If the adopter provides a
     veterinarian's statement that the animal died or was destroyed
     within 6 months of the adoption date because of a condition
     existing at the time of adoption, the adopter is entitled to a
     replacement animal.
  
     Compliance and Enforcement. Bureau policy does not require
     routine inspections of wild horses or burros adopted or
     maintained in groups of four or fewer animals.  However, the
     Bureau's Wild Horse and Burro Strategic Plan establishes a goal
     to inspect a minimum of 5 percent of all untitled animals. Both
     random and scheduled compliance checks are encouraged. The
     Bureau Manual does require that any adopter or facility/location
     which has five or more untitled animals be inspected at least
     monthly or when there is a complaint. Also, inspections are to
     be made during periods when weather conditions may adversely
     affect animals' feed, water, or shelter or if there is an
     outbreak of disease. Inspections may be coordinated with
     adopters, law enforcement officials, and humane organizations as
     appropriate. Results of inspections are to be discussed with the
     adopters and, as necessary, documented through written
     communications. The adopters' files are to contain records of
     inspections, and the Wild Horse and Burro Information System is
     to be updated with the dates and results of compliance
     inspections.
  
     When a complaint of abuse or inhumane treatment is received, the
     Bureau is required to investigate the complaint regardless of
     the number of animals involved. The Bureau will recommend
     corrective action if appropriate. However, if the problems
     cannot or will not be resolved by the adopter, the Bureau may
     repossess the animals. At that point, the adopter's private
     maintenance and care agreement may be terminated either
     voluntarily or involuntarily, and the animal may be reassigned.
     In those cases of involuntary termination and repossession, the
     Bureau's law enforcement officials will be called in to assist.
  
     Titling of Animals. One year after the adoption date, the animal
     is eligible for titling to the private adopter. Approximately 2
     months prior to the end of the 1-year period, a notification for
     title letter is sent to the adopter. The Bureau sends out, from
     the National Business Center, three notification letters just
     prior to and shortly after this 1-year period. The letters
     require that a qualified individual, someone other than the
     adopter, certify that the freeze-branded animal listed on the
     form has received proper care and is in good health. If five or
     more animals are involved, an authorized Bureau official or
     designee must certify the condition of the animals. However, by
     law, the Bureau may title only up to four animals per year to an
     individual.
  
     Once title is issued, the Wild Horse and Burro Information System
     is updated with a record of the titling date, and a copy of the
     title is placed in the adopter file.                          
     RESULTS OF ADOPTION FILES REVIEWED -         CLASSIFIED BY
     BUREAU OFFICE AND TYPE OF PROBLEM                                              
     NUMBER OF CASES REQUESTED                  AND REVIEWED         
     JACKSON                  DISTRICT                   CANON CITY         
     DISTRICT                   OKLAHOMA                  RESOURCE
     AREA                                        TOTAL                                           
     Number of files selected for review.                    60          
     57                    50                    167                                                          Number of files not provided by Bureau.                    (5)          
     (17)                    (15)                    (37)                                                       Number of files reviewed.                    55          
     40                    35                    130                                                                              TYPE OF PROBLEM                                                                                                                            
     Application incomplete or not in file.                    1          
     5                    3                    9                                                   Facility information provided on application        
     incomplete.                    0                    0          
     4                    4                                                   No evidence that interview of applicant was        
     conducted.                     18                     23           
     31                     72
  
     21Private maintenance and care agreement incomplete or not in
     file.                    1                    2          
     3                    6                                                 No evidence of adoption fee payment or fee not paid           in
     full with no justification on file.                    1          
     9                    3                    13                                                     Evidence of possible animal abuse.                    2          
     0                    0                    2                                                  Five or more untitled animals adopted or at one       location-
     -problems include the absence of a facility        inspection,
     lack of monthly compliance inspections         until animals are
     titled, and no statement of              employment from
     adopter.                     8                    3          
     4 APPENDIX 315
  
     Power of attorney - no followup to contact adopter.          
     1                    1                    0                    2                                                  Animals replaced without required veterinarian
     certification (after dying within 1 year following        
     adoption).                    2                    0          
     0                    2                                                            TOTAL                    34                    43          
     48                    125                                                ADOPTED WILD HORSES AND BURROS      ELIGIBLE FOR BUT
     UNTITLED         BY STATE OFFICE                          
     BUREAU          STATE OFFICE           THROUGH         SEPTEMBER
     1991          OCTOBER 1992         TO APRIL 1997          TOTAL
     AS OF         APRIL 18, 1997                                       
     ALASKA                       ARIZONA             
     CALIFORNIA                       COLORADO             
     EASTERN           STATES                        IDAHO             
     MONTANA                       NEW MEXICO              
     NEVADA                        OREGON                        UTAH             
     WYOMING                        TOTAL                                                        
     46                                                     208                                                    4,471                                                     596                                                                               8,126                                                    1,128                                                     795                                                    6,487                                                     662                                                    3,164                                                     624                                                    1,068                                                   27,375                                                      7                                                     102                                                     611                                                     47                                                                               2,825                                                     146                                                     224                                                     570                                                     150                                                     219                                                     320                                                     198                                                    5,419                                                     53                                                     310                                                    5,082                                                     643                                                                              10,951                                                    1,274                                                    1,019                                                    7,057                                                     812                                                    3,383                                                     944                                                    1,266                                                   32,794                                                                                                                        STATUS OF AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS                                 
     Finding/Recommendation                Reference                  
     1,2,3, and 4                                                                                                                                                                                   
     5                                                Status
     Resolved, not     implemented.
  
  
     Resolved and    implemented.            Action Required
     No further response to the Office of Inspector General is
     required. The recommendation will be referred to the Assistant
     Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget for tracking of
     implementation.
  
     No further response to the Office of Inspector General is
     required.
  
  
  

    ILLEGAL OR WASTEFUL ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE OFFICE OF
    INSPECTOR GENERAL BY:

    Sending written documents to:                 



    Within the Continental United States
    
    U.S. Department of the Interior
    Office of Inspector General 
    1849 C Street,N.W.
    Mail Stop 5341
    Washington, D.C. 20240

    Calling:

    Our 24 hour
    Telephone HOTLINE
    1-800-424-5081 or
    (202) 208-5300
    
    TDD for hearing impaired                                                  
    (202) 208-2420 or
    1-800-354-0996



    Outside the Continental United States

    
    Caribbean Region
    
    U.S. Department of the Interior
    Office of Inspector General
    Eastern Division- Investigations
    1550 Wilson Boulevard
    Suite 410
    Arlington, Virginia 22209

    Calling:
    (703) 235-9221


    North Pacific Region

    U.S. Department of the Interior
    Office of Inspector General
    North Pacific Region
    238 Archbishop F.C. F'lores Street
    Suite 807, PDN Building
    Agana, Guam 96910

    
    Calling:
    (700) 550-7428 or 
    COMM 9-011-671-472-7279