[Audit Report on the Indian Probate Process at the Minnesota Agency, Minneapolis Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Report No. 98-I-672

Title: Audit Report on the Indian Probate Process at the Minnesota
       Agency, Minneapolis Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs

Date:  September 23,1998




                  **********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
                  ******************************






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



AUDIT REPORT


INDIAN PROBATE PROCESS AT THE MINNESOTA
AGENCY, MINNEAPOLIS AREA OFFICE, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS


REPORT NO. 98-I-672
SEPTEMBER 1998


MEMORANDUM


             TO:  The Secretary

           FROM:  Richard N. Reback
                  Acting Inspector General

SUBJECT SUMMARY:  Final Audit Report for Your Information
                  - "Indian Probate Process at the Minnesota
                  Agency, Minneapolis Area Office,
                  Bureau of Indian Affairs" (No. 98-I-672)


Attached for your information is a copy of the subject final
audit report.  The objective of the audit  was  to determine
whether  the  Minnesota  Agency  was  preparing  and  filing
probate data with the administrative law judge in accordance
with  Federal regulations.  Based on our survey, we expanded
our objective  to  also  determine  whether  the  Agency was
preparing summary distributions for estates valued  at  less
than  $1,000.   Agency  superintendents  are  authorized  by
Federal  regulations  to hold informal hearings to determine
the proper distribution of these estates.

We found that the Minnesota  Agency  did not promptly report
all  Indian  deaths  and  did  not  timely  submit   to  the
administrative  law judge all the required probate data  for
Indians whose deaths  were reported during fiscal years 1995
and 1996.  Additionally,  we found that required information
was not submitted to the administrative  law  judge  because
the  Agency  instructed   employees  to  emphasize  probates
involving  land  and  did not assign a sufficient number  of
adequately trained staff to collect and submit probate data.
As a result of the Agency not forwarding the probate data to
the administrative law  judge  in  a  timely manner, probate
hearings  were  delayed,  and estate assets  and  subsequent
income associated with inherited  lands were not distributed
to the heirs in a timely manner.

In its response, the Bureau of Indian  Affairs  agreed  with
the  report's  five recommendations to address these issues.
Based  on the response,  we  considered  one  recommendation
resolved and implemented, three recommendations resolved but
not implemented,  and  requested  additional information for
the remaining recommendation.  The response also stated that
the section of report on staffing,  "exemplifies the dilemma
of most of our agency offices in trying  to fulfill multiple
important responsibilities with limited resources," and that
"since  redeployment  of  current  staff simply  results  in
another  important  job going undone,  it  is  necessary  to
increase the overall level of agency staffing."

If  you have any questions  concerning  this  matter, please
contact  me  at  (202)  208-5745  or Mr. Robert J. Williams,
Assistant Inspector General for Audits, at (202) 208-4252.

Attachment







AUDIT REPORT                                 W-IN-BIA-002-97




Memorandum


            To: Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs

                  From: Robert J. Williams
      Assistant Inspector General for Audits

      Subject:  Audit Report on the Indian Probate Process
                at the Minnesota Agency, Minneapolis Area Office,
                Bureau of Indian Affairs (No. 98-I-672)


INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our review of the Indian
probate  process[1]  at the Minnesota Agency, which is under
the  jurisdiction of the  Minneapolis  Area  Office  of  the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.  The objective of the audit was to
determine  whether  the  Agency  was  preparing  and  filing
probate data with the administrative law judge in accordance
with  Federal regulations.  Based on our survey, we expanded
our objective  to  also  determine  whether  the  Agency was
preparing summary distributions for estates valued  at  less
than  $1,000,  which the agency superintendent is authorized
by Federal regulations to resolve through informal hearings.

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Government  holds property in trust for Indians.[2]
In 1887, the Congress  enacted  the  General  Allotment Act,
which  authorized  the division of tribal lands into parcels
for allotment to individual  Indians.   Section 5 of the Act
specified that title to allotments was to  be  held in trust
by   the   United   States   for  25  years.   The  Congress
subsequently  extended  this  period  into  perpetuity.   In
addition, the Congress enacted  probate  laws which provided
that when individual Indians died, their property  interests
would descend to their heirs.

The  Congress has placed primary responsibility for managing
and protecting  trust  assets  with  the  Secretary  of  the
Interior,  who has delegated authority for the management of
trust lands  to  the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of
the Interior. Under  the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR
4.210), the Bureau is  to  begin the probate process when it
is  notified  of  the death of  an  Indian  who  owns  trust
property.  If the trust  property consists of either land or
personal  property  valued in  excess  of  $1,000,  such  as
individual  Indian  money   accounts,[3]   the   Bureau   is
responsible  for collecting and transmitting probate data on
the  decedent  to  the  administrative  law  judges  in  the
Department's Office  of  Hearings  and  Appeals,  which  has
jurisdiction  over  probate  cases.   The administrative law
judges  conduct  the  probate  hearings  and   issue  orders
distributing  the  assets.   Once  the  Bureau  submits  the
necessary  probate data to an administrative law judge,  the
Bureau generally  does  not  participate  further  until the
wills have been approved or the heirs of intestate decedents
have  been  determined  unless  the administrative law judge
requests  the  staff  to attend or testify  at  the  probate
hearings.  At  that time,  the  Bureau  is  responsible  for
distributing the  assets  as  ordered  by the judge.  If the
trust personal property is valued at less  than  $1,000  and
there  is  no land, the agency superintendent is responsible
for preparing  a  summary  distribution  to  distribute  the
assets.

In  March  1990,  the  Bureau  developed  a  probate backlog
reduction  initiative designed to eliminate its  backlog  of
probate  cases.[4]   The  Bureau  identified  a  backlog  of
4,285 cases  as  of  the  beginning of fiscal year 1991.  In
addition,   the   Bureau  estimated   that   an   additional
2,100 deaths would be discovered in the process of resolving
the 4,285 cases.[5]   Stating that the backlog was caused by
an  insufficient number  of  probate  staff,  other  program
priorities,  and  special  efforts to develop and update the
databases  for  the  Bureau's  land   records,   the  Bureau
requested  additional  appropriations to reduce or eliminate
the  backlog.   Between  1991   and   1996,   the   Congress
appropriated  $5  million  to  reduce the backlog.  However,
despite the probate initiative,  the  Bureau  estimated that
the Bureauwide backlog had increased to about 5,653 cases as
of April 1997, of which 461 cases were applicable to the six
bands   of   the   Minnesota   Chippewa   Tribe,  under  the
jurisdiction  of  the Minnesota Agency (see Table  1).   The
Bureau estimated that  an  additional  $4.5 million would be
required to eliminate the identified backlog of 5,653 cases,
which  included  1,619  cases  that  either were  identified
during  the  probate  initiative or were  subsequent  deaths
associated with the resolution of these cases.

      -------------------------------------------------
         Table 1. Bureau of Indian Affairs Probate
                          Backlog
      -------------------------------------------------
      |                    | |       |Minneapolis|
      |                    | |Bureau |  Area    |
      Minnesota
      |   Description      | |Total  | Office   |Agency
      -------------------------------------------------
       Probate Backlog as    4,285     1,160     555
          of 10/1/90a
      -------------------------------------------------
      Probate Backlog as
      of 4/7/97              1,619      422       325
                     Remaining
      10/01/90
      -------------------------------------------------
                     Since | |4,034  |  186     |136
                     10/01/90||      |          |
      -------------------------------------------------
       Total as of 4/7/97    |5,653  |  608     | 461b
      -------------------------------------------------

     aThese  totals represent  the  number  of  probate
     cases reported  by  the  Bureau during the probate
     initiative.   The Bureau defined  its  backlog  as
     those cases for  which  probate  data had not been
     submitted to the administrative law  judge  within
     the 90-day requirement as of October 1, 1990.

b The Agency's September 8, 1997, Probate  Backlog Report indicated
that the backlog had increased to 491 cases.

SCOPE OF AUDIT

We  conducted  our  audit  at  the  Bureau's Central Office,
Minneapolis Area Office, and the Minnesota  Agency  (see the
Appendix).   To  accomplish  our objective, we reviewed  and
analyzed death reports and probate  data  submitted  by  the
Agency  to  the administrative law judge for deaths reported
during fiscal  years  1995  and 1996.  We also reviewed laws
and  Departmental regulations  and  policies  governing  the
probate  process  and evaluated cash-only estates, including
individual  Indian  money   estate  accounts,  to  determine
whether probate files had been  set up for estates in excess
of $1,000.  In addition, we interviewed (1) personnel at the
Bureau offices visited, including  probate  staff,  who were
responsible for collecting and transmitting all probate data
to  the  administrative  law judge and (2) an administrative
law judge from the Office  of  Hearings and Appeals in Saint
Paul, Minnesota, concerning the  adequacy  and timeliness of
the data submitted by Bureau personnel.  We  did  not review
the   hearing   process,   which   is  administered  by  the
administrative  law judges, or nontrust  property  owned  by
individual Indians,  which  is not subject to probate by the
Department.

Our  audit  was  made  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
reviewed the Department  of  the Interior's Annual Statement
and  Report,  which is required  by  the  Federal  Managers'
Financial Integrity Act, for fiscal year 1995 and determined
that  none  of the  Department's  reported  weaknesses  were
related to the  objective  of  this audit.  We also reviewed
the Department's Accountability Report for fiscal year 1996,
which includes information required  by  the  Act,  and  the
Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs  annual  assurance statement and
determined that there were no reported weaknesses related to
the  objective  of  our  audit.  As part of  our  audit,  we
reviewed the Bureau's 1993 Bureauwide  "Probate"  Management
Control  Review,  in which the Bureau identified 13 internal
control weaknesses  involving noncompliance with established
procedures  for  processing  Indian  probates.   During  our
review, we noted that 3 of the 13 identified weaknesses were
within the scope of  our  audit  and still existed: the date
that the agency was notified of a  death was not documented,
decedent reports were not distributed  to the administrative
law judges within the required first 7 days  of  each month,
and  probate  data  were not submitted to the administrative
law judges within the  required  90 days of notice of death.
We  evaluated  the  Bureau's  system  of  internal  controls
related  to  the  probate  process  to  the extent  that  we
considered  necessary.   The  internal  control   weaknesses
identified are discussed in the Results of Audit section  of
this  report.   Our  recommendations, if implemented, should
improve the internal controls in these areas.

PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE

During the past 5 years, the Office of Inspector General has
issued one audit report  that  identified  weaknesses in the
Bureau's probate process similar to those identified in this
report.  As  part  of  our  review  of the Bureau's  probate
process, we issued, on July 29, 1998,  the   report  "Indian
Probate  Process  at  the  Yakama  and Puget Sound Agencies,
Portland Area Office, Bureau of Indian  Affairs"  (No. 98-I-
587).    The  report  stated  that  the  agencies  were  not
reporting  all  deaths  and  were  not  submitting  required
probate  data  to the administrative law judge in accordance
with  Federal regulations  for  Indians  whose  deaths  were
reported  to the agencies during fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
In   addition,   the   report   stated   that   the   agency
superintendents  at  both  agencies  were  not preparing and
processing summary distributions for estates  valued at less
than  $1,000,  which  the superintendents are authorized  to
resolve   through   informal   hearings.    Three   of   the
recommendations  made   in  the  report  are  applicable  to
conditions identified at  the  Minnesota  Agency:  (1) plans
should be developed for submitting the required probate data
to   the  administrative  law  judge,  (2) sufficient  staff
should be  assigned  to process probates, and (3) procedures
should  be  developed  for   more   proactively  identifying
deceased Indians.

RESULTS OF AUDIT

The  Minnesota  Agency did not promptly  report  all  Indian
deaths and did not  timely  submit  all the required probate
data  to  the  administrative law judge  for  Indians  whose
deaths were reported  to the Agency during fiscal years 1995
and 1996.  The Code of  Federal  Regulations  (43 CFR 4.210)
requires agency superintendents to (1) prepare  and  provide
to  the  appropriate  administrative  law  judge, within the
first 7 days of each month, a list of all Indians  who  have
died  and  whose names have not been previously reported and
(2) file with  the  appropriate  administrative  law  judge,
within  90 days of receipt of a notice of death of an Indian
who died  owning  trust  real  property  or  trust  personal
property  valued  at  $1,000 or more, all data shown in  the
records  pertaining to the  property  and  families  of  the
deceased.[6]    However,   we   found   that   the  required
information  was  not  submitted  because  Agency  officials
instructed  employees  to emphasize probates involving  land
and did not assign a sufficient  number  of staff to collect
and  submit  probate  data.  As a result of the  Agency  not
forwarding the probate  data to the administrative law judge
in a timely manner, probate hearings were delayed and estate
assets and subsequent income associated with inherited lands
were  not  distributed to the  heirs  in  a  timely  manner.
Specifically,  for Indians whose deaths were reported to the
Agency during fiscal  years  1995  and  1996,  we identified
individual Indian money accounts of about $42,000 that could
not  be  distributed  because  probate  data  had  not  been
submitted to the administrative law judge.

Reporting of Deaths

We  were not able to determine whether the Minnesota  Agency
reported  all  deaths to the administrative law judge within
the  first  7 days  of  the  month  after  notification,  as
required, because the Agency did not document the dates that
it was notified  of  the  deaths.   Probate employees stated
that they were not aware of the requirement  that all deaths
were  to  be  reported within 7 days of the month  following
receipt of notification.   In  addition,  probate  employees
said that Agency Realty Branch officials told them to report
only  decedents  who died owning trust real property and  to
postpone including  those  deaths  on reports until they had
received the death certificates.  As  a result, based on our
review  of available documentation, we determined  that  the
Agency did not report to the administrative law judge 139 of
333 Indian deaths reported to the Agency during fiscal years
1995 and 1996.

In addition,  there was little assurance that the Agency was
notified of all  deaths  of  Indians under its jurisdiction.
Of 333 deaths reported to the  Agency  during  fiscal  years
1995  and 1996, only 173[7] were deaths that occurred during
that period,  or an average of 87 deaths per year.  However,
based on the estimated  annual mortality rate of 0.6 percent
for  Indians[8]  and the 1996  tribal  population  of  about
28,000 for which the  Agency  had probate responsibility, we
estimated  that  the  mortality rate  of  0.31  percent  (87
divided by 28,000) reported  to  the  Minnesota  Agency  was
significantly  below  the  forecasted  rate  of 0.6 percent.
Consequently, we believe that the Agency probate staff needs
to   take  more  proactive  measures  to  identify  deceased
Indians. One additional measure would be to routinely review
information  already  available  in  other  systems  at  the
Agency,  such  as the individual Indian money estate account
listing.  This listing  could  provide  information  to  the
Agency  on  Indian deaths that may not have been reported to
the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe or the Agency Realty Branch.

Agency probate  employees have taken some proactive measures
to  identify deceased  Indians.  For  example,  one  probate
employee  obtained  a  listing  of  individual  Indian money
accounts for Indians who were born before 1910.  Although at
the  time  of  our  review  this employee had not determined
whether the account holders were  deceased,  we believe that
Agency officials should instruct probate employees to follow
up  on  this effort because there are more than  1,300  such
accounts,  totaling  about  $1.4  million,  on  the listing.
Another employee began researching Inheritance and  Heirship
cards[9]  to identify Indians whose deaths required probate.
Based on this  research,  the  Agency  identified Indians of
whose deaths it previously had not been aware.  Largely as a
result  of  this  research,  the  Agency's reported  probate
backlog increased from 195 cases as  of  September 30, 1996,
to 461 cases as of April 7, 1997.

Although we believe that some of the Agency  staff is taking
action to identify deceased Indians, we believe  that a more
systematic  method  of  identifying and reporting deaths  as
they occur is necessary if the Agency is to process probates
in a timely manner.  In that  regard, we believe that Agency
officials should instruct probate  employees  to comply with
the   regulations   and   to   report   all  deaths  to  the
administrative law judge within the 7-day  requirement.   We
also believe that the information from these lists should be
compiled in a historical database of Tribal members' deaths.
The information should also form the basis for a process, or
decision   tree,   through  which  probate  employees  could
determine and document  whether a death (1) requires probate
based on whether the decedent  owned  trust  real  property,
owned personal property in excess of $1,000, or died  with a
will;  (2) requires a summary distribution; or (3) does  not
require either a full probate or a summary distribution.

Submission of Probate Data

The Minnesota  Agency  did  not submit to the administrative
law judge, within the required 90 days, probate data for all
deaths reported to the Agency in fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
Of the 333 deaths reported to  the  Agency  in  fiscal years
1995 and 1996, 225 deaths, or 67 percent, required  probate.
Of   the  225  deaths  requiring  probate,  163  cases  were
submitted  to  the administrative law judge: 4 cases met the
90-day  requirement,   and   113  cases  did  not  meet  the
requirement.  We could not determine  whether  the remaining
46  cases  met  the requirement because the Agency  did  not
document the dates  the  deaths were reported to the Agency.
Because the Agency did not  submit  62 cases (225 cases less
163  cases)  to  the  administrative  law  judge,  land  and
individual Indian money accounts totaling  $42,000 could not
be distributed to the heirs of these estates.

 Agency officials told us that they did not  have sufficient
staff and funding to process probates within the required 90
days  because  the  Agency's  probate  positions  had   been
affected  by  reductions  in  force  in October and December
1995.  During the reductions in force,  the five experienced
full-time   probate  employees  were  replaced   with   four
employees who  had  little  or  no  experience in processing
probates.  The Agency did not have five  probate  clerks  to
process  probates  until  February 1996.  These five probate
employees received training  provided  by the administrative
law  judge  in  September  1996  and  were still  processing
probates as of September 1997.  We believe  that  the impact
of  the  reductions  in  force is reflected in the decrease,
based on Agency records, in  the  number of probates sent to
the administrative law judge as follows:

---------------
|Fiscal||
Probates
|Year | |
Processed
---------------
1994     228
---------------
1995     142
---------------
1996      59
---------------
1997     115
---------------

While  we  agree  that  the reductions  in  force  adversely
affected the processing of  probate  cases,  we believe that
the Minnesota Agency did not submit probate data  within the
required 90 days primarily because the agency superintendent
did  not assign a sufficient number of staff to collect  and
submit  probate  data for the current probate work load.  At
the  time  of our review,  the  Minnesota  Agency  had  five
employees assigned full time to processing probates.  Agency
officials stated  that  one  of the five employees processed
current  cases  and  that the other  four  employees  worked
exclusively  on  backlogged   cases.    However,   based  on
discussions  with  probate  employees and on reviews of  the
Agency's  monthly  activity  reports,   we  found  that  the
employee assigned to process the current  cases was assigned
other  duties  in  addition to her probate responsibilities,
even though her job description was identical to that of the
probate  clerks  assigned  to  process  the  backlog.   This
employee estimated  that  she spent only 10 to 30 percent of
her time processing probates, with the remainder of her time
spent performing other duties  such  as  processing time and
attendance  reports,  travel  vouchers, payroll,  mail,  and
correspondence.  This resulted  in  most current cases being
left unprocessed and adding to the backlog.   This employee,
one  of  the  probate  clerks who was terminated during  the
reduction  in  force,  was  rehired  in  February  1996  and
assigned  to  process  current  probates.   However,  Agency
records indicate that during  the  remainder  of fiscal year
1996, the employee submitted only five probate  cases to the
administrative law judge, of which only two were  for deaths
that  occurred  during  fiscal year 1996.  (Both cases  were
submitted  within 90 days.)   The  remaining  probate  cases
resulting from  deaths that occurred during fiscal year 1996
were added to the  backlog,  on September 30, 1996, and were
scheduled  for processing by backlog  probate  clerks  using
money that was designated for the probate backlog.

In the 1990  initiative,  the Bureau estimated that it would
take, on the average, approximately  1  week  to process one
probate.  Using this Bureau estimate, we determined that one
employee could process about 40 probate cases per  year.[10]
Based  on  the  40-case-per-year  estimate  and the Agency's
probate  work load, we concluded that one full-time  probate
employee  was  not  sufficient  to  process  the  work  load
normally anticipated  in  a  year,  even  without a backlog.
That is, one probate employee could not have  processed  and
transmitted  to  the  administrative law judge the 1995-1996
average  annual  work load  of  113  new  cases  within  the
required 90 days, even if the employee had not been assigned
other  duties and responsibilities.   Processing  an  annual
work load of 113 identified cases would require two to three
full-time  employees  based  on 40 cases being processed per
year.

Further, as noted in the "Reporting  of  Deaths"  section of
this  report,  we  estimated  that  deaths  at the Minnesota
Agency  were  significantly  underreported  based   on   the
Bureau's  estimated  annual  mortality  rate of 0.6 percent.
Applying   this   0.6  percent  rate  to  the  approximately
28,000 tribal  members  for  whom  the  Agency  has  probate
jurisdiction, the  expected  number of deaths in fiscal year
1996  would  have  been  168.   Using  the  40-case-per-year
estimate  and  the  67  percent ratio  of  deaths  requiring
probate to total deaths that  occurred  during  fiscal years
1995  and  1996,  we  determined that between two and  three
employees  would  be  required   to   process   the  current
anticipated  annual  work  load  on  a  timely  basis.    In
addition,  with the Agency's reported backlog of 461 probate
cases as of  April  7,  1997,  between 11 and 12 staff years
would be required to process just  these cases. Accordingly,
while the Agency has assigned four full-time  probate  staff
to resolve the backlog, we believe that additional staff are
needed to help ensure that current (nonbacklog) probates are
submitted  to  the  administrative  law judge and that heirs
receive their inheritances in a timely manner.  For example:

     -  Probate data had not been submitted for one decedent
who died in March 1970, although the  Agency was notified of
his death by July 1971.  The decedent owned  land and had an
individual Indian money account of $11,000, but  neither was
distributed  to  the  decedent's daughter, who died in  1994
without receiving the inheritance.   The Agency also had not
probated the daughter's death or established  a probate case
file.  In addition, the grandson of the decedent who died in
March 1970 had requested information of the Agency  in  1993
regarding the status of his grandfather's estate and in 1994
regarding   his  mother's  estate  and  offered  to  provide
information  to   the   Agency   concerning  these  estates.
However, at the time of our review, we found that the Agency
had not sought the information offered by the grandson.

     -   The  Agency  had  not resolved  the  probate  of  a
decedent whose death was reported  to  the  Agency  in 1935.
Probate  data  were not submitted to the administrative  law
judge  until  1986.    After   a   1986   hearing   revealed
discrepancies in the family history, the judge returned  the
case  to the Agency for additional information.  However, at
the time  of  our review, the Agency had not resubmitted the
case to the administrative law judge.


The administrative  law  judge  who  holds  hearings for the
Minnesota  Agency  indicated  that  while  the probate  data
submitted  by  the  Agency  were  adequate,  they  were  not
submitted  in  a timely manner.  He stated that  the  Agency
needed additional staff to process probates, that the Agency
had many older cases,  and  that he was currently working on
cases for decedents who had died from 5 to 25 years ago.  He
also stated that the older cases were more time consuming to
process for the Bureau's probate  staff,  as well as for him
and his staff, because the older cases have  more  heirs and
that, as more time passes, it becomes increasingly difficult
to locate the heirs.

We  believe  that  the  Minneapolis  Area  Director  and the
Minnesota   Agency   superintendent    should   ensure  that
sufficient  numbers  of  and  adequately  trained staff  are
assigned to probates to enable the Agency to  eliminate  its
backlog  and  comply  with  the  90-day  requirement for the
submission of probate data to the administrative  law judge.
In  addition, the Agency should discontinue the practice  of
assigning  other duties to the probate employees who process
the current  probate  work  load  because  this prevents the
timely submittal of probate cases to the administrative  law
judge.

In the June 22, 1998, response (Appendix 3) to the draft report
from the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, the Bureau
said that this section of the report "exemplifies the dilemma
of most of our Agency offices in trying to fulfill  multiple
important   responsibilities    with   limited   resources."
Regarding the shifting of realty  personnel  from  one vital
function  to another, the Bureau stated, "Since redeployment
of current  staff  simply  results  in another important job
going undone, it is necessary to increase  the overall level
of agency staffing."  In that regard, the Bureau stated that
its pending budget request "includes a requested increase of
$3 million for additional probate staff."

Recommendations

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs
require the Minneapolis Area Office and Minnesota Agency to:

     1. Develop plans, which include staffing  requirements,
target  dates,  and  titles  of  officials responsible,  for
transmitting the required probate  data,  including  data on
cash   estates   valued   in   excess   of  $1,000,  to  the
administrative law judge.

     2. Develop a historical database of  the  deaths of the
tribal members for which the Agency has probate jurisdiction
and use the database as the basis for a decision tree.  This
process should document whether the reported death  requires
probate  because  the  decedent  owned  land,  had  personal
property  in  excess  of $1,000, or left a will; requires  a
summary distribution because  the  decedent did not own land
and had personal property valued at  $1,000 or less; or does
not require either probate or a summary distribution.

     3. Assign sufficient staff to eliminate the backlog and
to  process  probate  cases as deaths are  reported  to  the
Agency.

     4. Develop procedures  for more proactively identifying
Indians who have died to include  a systematic review of the
individual Indian money estate account listings.

     5. Discontinue the practice of  assigning  other duties
to  the  probate  employee who is responsible for processing
the current probate work load.

Bureau of Indian Affairs  Response  and  Office of Inspector
General Reply

In  the June 22, 1998, response (Appendix 2)  to  the  draft
report  from the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, the
Bureau concurred  with  all  five recommendations.  Based on
the response and on information  contained in the Department
of  the  Interior's "Trust Management  Improvement  Project,
High Level  Implementation Plan," dated July 1998,  provided
by the Bureau  on August 6, 1998, we consider Recommendation
2 resolved and implemented  and  Recommendations 1, 3, and 5
resolved    but    not   implemented.    Accordingly,    the
unimplemented  recommendations   will  be  referred  to  the
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management  and  Budget  for
tracking of implementation.  Also, based on the response and
the   "Implementation   Plan,"   additional  information  is
requested for Recommendation 4 (see Appendix 3).

In its response to Recommendation  4, the Bureau stated that
our report acknowledged the proactive  measures taken by the
Minnesota  Agency  to  identify  deceased Indians,  but  the
Bureau  did  not  state  whether  the  Agency   adopted  the
recommended   procedure  of  systematically  reviewing   the
individual  Indian  money  estate  account  listings  as  an
additional measure  to identify deceased Indians. Therefore,
we request that the Bureau provide this information.

Regarding  Recommendation  5,  the  Bureau  stated  that  it
considered the recommendation resolved and implemented based
on the Minnesota  Agency's  statement  that  probate backlog
clerks   will  no  longer  be  assigned  collateral  duties.
However,  we  consider  Recommendation 5  resolved  but  not
implemented  based  on  the statement in the "Implementation
Plan" (pages 22 and 23) in which the Bureau requests funding
to "permanently staff BIA  [Bureau  of Indian Affairs] field
offices  with a minimum of one additional  staff  person  to
work  on the  current  estates"  and  because  the  Bureau's
response  did  not  specify that the clerk who is processing
the current probate work load will be relieved of collateral
duties.

Additional Comments on Audit Report

The Bureau also provided  comments  on  the report, which we
considered  and  incorporated  into  our  final   report  as
appropriate. The specific comments and our responses  are as
follows:

          Results of Audit.  The Bureau stated:

          While we [the Bureau] do not dispute the fact
          that   the   90-day  deadline  is  frequently
          missed, it does  not  necessarily follow that
          this alone led to the subsequent   delays  in
          probate   hearings   and  asset distribution.
          As of March 30, 1998,  the Office of Hearings
          and  Appeals  reported  that   it  had  4,068
          pending probate cases, of which  651 had been
          pending for 18 months or more.  As  the audit
          did  not  review  the OHA [Office of Hearings
          and Appeals] processes,  it is just as likely
          that the timely submission  of  probate  data
          would  simply  have  served  to  increase the
          backlog  at  OHA  while having little  or  no
          impact  on  the  timing   of   the   ultimate
          distribution  of  assets. This section should
          be  revised  to reflect  the  fact  that  the
          Bureau  backlog  is  simply  one  part  of  a
          significant     Departmental    backlog    in
          completing all aspects of probate work.

     Notwithstanding the backlog  situation at the Office of
     Hearings and Appeals, we believe that the Bureau should
     comply  with the Code of Federal  Regulations  (43  CFR
     4.210), which  states,  "Within  90  days of receipt of
     notice  of  death  of an Indian who died  owning  trust
     property,   the  Superintendent   having   jurisdiction
     thereof shall  commence the probate of the trust estate
     by filing with the appropriate administrative law judge
     all data shown in the records relative to the family of
     the  deceased  and  his  property."   In  addition,  we
     disagree that "it  is  just  as  likely that the timely
     submission of probate data would simply  have served to
     increase  the  backlog  at OHA [Office of Hearings  and
     Appeals] while having little or no impact on the timing
     of the ultimate distribution  of  assets."   The Bureau
     cited  the  total  number  of  pending probates at  the
     Office of Hearings and Appeals as  of  March  30, 1998,
     but  it  did  not  specify  the number of probate cases
     pending for the Minnesota Agency  in  fiscal years 1995
     and 1996, which were the location and years  covered by
     our  review.   In  that  regard,  we  found that as  of
     September  30,  1996,  only  81 probate cases  for  the
     Minnesota Agency were pending at the Office of Hearings
     and Appeals, of which only 12  were  18 or  more months
     old.   As of September 30, 1996, the Agency's  reported
     backlog  was  195  cases.   Thus,  at  the  time of our
     review, most of the unprobated cases were at the Agency
     awaiting  submission  to  the administrative law  judge
     rather  than  at  the Office of  Hearings  and  Appeals
     pending  hearings.    Any   delays   in   the  Bureau's
     submissions  of probate data to the administrative  law
     judge cause further  delays  at  the Office of Hearings
     and  Appeals  because  without  the heirship  data  and
     family  history,  the judge is precluded  from  holding
     hearings  and  issuing   orders  for  distributing  the
     assets.

     Reporting of Deaths. The Bureau  disagreed with our use
     of the 1 percent mortality rate, the  rate  used in the
     Bureau's  1993  management  control review of probates.
     Instead,  the  Bureau stated that  we  should  use  the
     Indian Health Service's  "age-adjusted"  mortality rate
     of 0.6 percent. We used the 1 percent mortality rate in
     the  draft  report  because it was the rate the  Bureau
     used.  However, based on the Bureau's response, we have
     revised  our  report  to   reflect  the  Indian  health
     Service's "age-adjusted" mortality  rate of 0.6 percent
     to estimate the number of deaths that occurred.

     The Bureau also stated that we applied  the  percentage
     factor  "to determine how many deaths should have  been
     reported  and  probate data subsequently filed with OHA
     [Office of Hearings and Appeals]."  However, we did not
     apply the 1 percent  mortality  rate  to  determine how
     many   deaths   should   have   been  reported  to  the
     administrative law judge or to determine  the number of
     probate cases to be submitted to the administrative law
     judge.    As   stated  in  the  report  (page  5),  our
     determination that the Agency did not report 139 of 333
     deaths to the administrative law judge was based on the
     number of deaths  reported  to  the  Agency  and  other
     documentation  we reviewed at the Agency.  Furthermore,
     of the deaths that  should  have  been  reported to the
     administrative law judge, we determined the  number  of
     cases that required probate based on whether the actual
     decedents  owned  either  trust  real property or trust
     personal property valued at $1,000  or  more.   We used
     the  1  percent  morality rate only to demonstrate that
     the  .31  percent  mortality   rate   reported  to  the
     Minnesota  Agency  appeared  low  and  to estimate  the
     number of deaths which may be reported to the Agency to
     provide  a  basis  for projecting the number  of  staff
     needed to process anticipated work load.

          The Bureau further stated:

          [T]he   Department's    role    in    probate
          proceedings  is limited to those Indians  who
          died owning allotted  lands  or who had funds
          in  the  custody  of  the Department  of  the
          Interior.  Some agencies  report  all deaths;
          others do not.  We have confirmed with  staff
          from  the  Solicitor's Office that the Bureau
          is not required  to  report  deaths  of those
          Indians for whom no funds or land is held  in
          trust status.

     We  disagree  that  only deaths of Indians owning trust
     property  have  to  be reported  because  the  Code  of
     Federal Regulations (43  CFR 4.210) states that "within
     the  first  7 days of each month,  each  Superintendent
     shall  prepare   and   furnish   to   the   appropriate
     administrative  law  judge a list of the names  of  all
     Indians who have died  and  whose  names  have not been
     previously  reported."  The  Bureau  did not provide  a
     written  opinion  from  the  Office  of  the  Solicitor
     supporting its position that the Bureau does  not  have
     to  comply  with the Code's requirements.  In addition,
     the administrative  law judge in the Office of Hearings
     and  Appeals  in Sacramento,  California,  stated  that
     agencies should  report  all deaths because the reports
     are circulated to other agencies,  as  well  as  to the
     Bureau's land title records offices, which may be aware
     of trust properties of decedents under the jurisdiction
     of   other  agencies.  We  believe  that  the  Bureau's
     statement that "some agencies report all deaths, others
     do not"  demonstrates  that  all  agencies  are  not in
     compliance  with  the Code of Federal Regulations.   In
     addition, the Bureau's  guidelines  and  procedures set
     forth  in  the  draft supplement to the Bureau  Manual,
     dated July 2, 1992, state:

          Upon   receiving   notice   of   death,   the
          Superintendent      having     administrative
          jurisdiction over the  decedent's tribe shall
          immediately  notify  the Land  Title  Records
          Office, and within the  first  seven  days of
          the     following     month,    notify    the
          administrative  law Judge  of  such  fact  as
          required by 43 CFR 4.210(a).

     If these requirements  are no longer valid, they should
     be formally modified.

     Submission of Probate Data.  The Bureau stated that our
     report  should  note that  "during  the  reductions  in
     force,  the  five experienced  probate  employees  were
     replaced with  four  employees  who  had  little  or no
     experience  in  processing  probates" and that the last
     sentence of the first paragraph  on page 7 "should also
     be  changed  to  reference  four new probate  employees
     rather than five."

     We  disagree  with  the  Bureau's   statement   because
     documentation provided by the Agency indicated that  as
     of  February  1996, the Agency had five probate clerks.
     These same five  probate  clerks,  employed  to process
     probates  as  stated  in  their job descriptions,  were
     assigned to process probates  at the time of our review
     in September 1997.  We also located documentation which
     indicated  that  all  five clerks  were  scheduled  for
     training provided by the  administrative  law  judge in
     September  1996.  We have revised our report to clarify
     the change in probate staff experience.

     The  Bureau  stated   that   our   report   should   be
     "significantly  expanded  as it exemplifies the dilemma
     of  most of our Agency offices  in  trying  to  fulfill
     multiple   important   responsibilities   with  limited
     resources."  The Bureau also stated:

          While  a  number  of  audits  cite  a  common
          finding  of  inadequate  numbers  of  trained
          staff,  we  [the  Bureau] can recall no audit
          that has been issued in the last decade which
          identifies  any  program   or  administrative
          office in the Bureau of Indian  Affairs which
          is  over  staffed.   Since  redeployment   of
          current   staff  simply  results  in  another
          important job  going  undone, it is necessary
          to  increase  the  overall  level  of  agency
          staffing.  The pending  budget  request   for
          the  Bureau  of   Indian  Affairs  includes a
          requested   increase   of   $3   million  for
          additional probate staff.

     We agree that recent audit reports, such as the "Wapato
     Irrigation Project, Bureau of Indian Affairs"  (No. 95-
     I-1402)  and  the "Indian Probate Process at the Yakama
     and Puget Sound  Agencies, Portland Area Office, Bureau
     of Indian Affairs"  (No  98-I-587), have indicated that
     there  is insufficient realty  staff  at  the  agencies
     reviewed    to   perform   all   realty-related   trust
     responsibilities  in  a timely manner.  In this report,
     we  identified  insufficient  staffing  and  collateral
     duties  as  factors   contributing   to   the  untimely
     processing  of  probates.  We did not intend  to  imply
     that other activities  are not important.  However, the
     timely processing of probates  is  necessary  to ensure
     that lease revenues and other income are distributed to
     the appropriate landowners or to the rightful heirs  of
     deceased  landowners.  Accordingly, we have revised the
     report  to  include  the  Bureau's  comments  regarding
     staffing.

     Other Matters

     During our review,  we  also  identified  other matters
     that  need to be addressed at the Minnesota  Agency  in
     the areas  of  summary distributions and the processing
     of probates for  which  the  Leech  Lake and Mille Lacs
     Bands were responsible.

     Summary Distributions.  The Minnesota  Agency  did  not
     process  summary distributions in fiscal years 1995 and
     1996.  As  a result, the assets from small estates were
     not distributed  to heirs in a timely manner.  The Code
     of Federal Regulations  (43  CFR 4.271) requires agency
     superintendents  to  assemble  the  apparent  heirs  of
     Indians  who  have  died  intestate   with  only  trust
     personal  property or cash valued at less  than  $1,000
     and to have an informal hearing to determine the proper
     distribution  of  assets.  Agency realty officials said
     that  the  summary  distributions  were  not  processed
     because   probate  employees   were   emphasizing   the
     processing  of  probates  involving  land.   For fiscal
     years  1995  and  1996,  we  identified  seven  summary
     distributions,  totaling  about $3,400, that the Agency
     should have processed.  While the summary distributions
     will not add to the Agency's  backlog  of probate cases
     to  be submitted to the administrative law  judge,  the
     distributions  will  increase  the work loads of Agency
     probate  staff  because heirship data  such  as  family
     history and beneficiary  information  must be assembled
     in each case.

     Processing  Probates  for Self-Governance  Tribes.   We
     found that the Agency processed  14  estates  that were
     the  responsibility  of  the  Mille  Lacs  Band  of the
     Minnesota  Chippewa  Tribe.  In addition, we identified
     32 other estates on the Agency's September 1997 probate
     backlog inventory for  which  the  Mille  Lacs  and the
     Leech  Lake  Bands  are  responsible  under their self-
     governance   compacts.[11]    Under   annual    funding
     agreements  negotiated  pursuant  to  the compacts, the
     Mille Lacs Band was responsible for processing  its own
     probates since fiscal year 1991 and the Leech Lake Band
     was  responsible  since fiscal year 1996.  However,  we
     found  that the 14 estates  were  processed  by  Agency
     probate employees because Agency officials had not told
     probate  employees  that  these estates were covered by
     self-governance  compact  funding   agreements.   As  a
     result,   the   Agency   spent   between  $14,000   and
     $21,000[12] to process the 14 cases.   In addition, the
     Bureau's processing of probates for which the two bands
     are responsible delays the processing of  probates  for
     the   other  Chippewa  bands  whose  probates  are  the
     responsibility   of   the   Agency.    Further,  unless
     corrective  action  is  taken,  the  Agency will  incur
     between  $32,000 and $48,000 to process  the  32  cases
     included  in  its  backlog  inventory,  which  are  the
     responsibility of the two bands.

     On March 2,  1998,  subsequent to the completion of our
     fieldwork, the Minnesota Agency superintendent informed
     us that he had taken  the  following actions to resolve
     this matter:

     - Notified the Mille Lacs and  Leech  Lake  Bands  that
     they   were  responsible  for  performing  the  probate
     function.

     - Transmitted  to  the  bands  listings  of  all of the
     probates  for  which  the  bands  are  responsible  for
     processing.

     - Made available a workstation within the Agency Realty
     Branch  for  use by the bands to gather information and
     documentation.

     -  Removed  the  probates  for  which  the  bands  have
     processing responsibility  from  the  Agency's  probate
     inventory list.

     -  Provided  training  on  probate  processing  to both
     Agency Realty Branch staff and band staff.

     We  did  not  make any recommendations to address these
     areas  because  the   Agency   has   taken   sufficient
     corrective  actions.   However,  we  believe  that  the
     Agency  should  continue  to  monitor  these  areas  to
     prevent recurrences of the situations described.

     In  accordance  with  the  Departmental  Manual (360 DM
     5.3), please provide us with your written  comments  to
     this  report  by October 16, 1998.  The response should
     provide the information requested in Appendix 3.

     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  personnel  of  the
     Minnesota Agency and the Minneapolis Area Office in the
     conduct of our audit.

**FOOTNOTES**

[1]:Probate is the legal process by which wills are approved
and heirs are determined after an individual dies.  If there
is  not  a  valid will, the individual is considered to have
died intestate,  and  the  probate  process  determines  the
intestate  individual's  heirs.   If  there  is  a will, the
probate process determines the legality and validity  of the
will.

  [2]:According to the Code of Federal Regulations (43  CFR  4.201), trust
  property is real or personal property, the title to which is held by the
  United States for the benefit of Indians.

  [3]:The  Code  of  Federal Regulations (25 CFR 115.1) states, "The  term
  `individual  Indian money  accounts'  means  those  accounts  under  the
  control  of  the   Secretary   of   the   Interior   or  his  authorized
  representative belonging to individuals."

  [4]:For  the purposes of this report, backlog is all cases  of  reported
  deaths  for   which   probate   data  had  not  been  submitted  to  the
  administrative law judge within the required 90 days.

  [5]:The resolution of old probate  cases  had  the potential to increase
  the  backlog  because  one  or  more of the heirs to  the  estate  being
  probated may have died.

  [6]:According to the Code of Federal  Regulations  (43  CFR  4.210), the
  data  submitted  to  the administrative law judges include, but are  not
  limited to, a copy of  the  death  certificate  or other evidence of the
  death;  data  for heirship findings, such as information  on  marriages,
  separations, and  divorces;  names and addresses of probable heirs and a
  determination as to whether their relationship is by marriage, blood, or
  adoption; and the names, relationships,  and  last  known  addresses  of
  beneficiaries and witnesses when a will or purported will is involved.

  [7]:The  173  deaths  that  occurred  during  fiscal years 1995 and 1996
  consist of 139 deaths not reported to the administrative  law  judge and
  34 deaths reported to the administrative law judge.

  [8]:According  to  the Bureau's "Probate" Management Control Review  for
  fiscal year 1993, the average mortality rate for Indians is estimated at
  about 1 percent per  year.   However,  the  Bureau, in its May 19, 1998,
  response  to  the  draft of our report "Indian Probate  Process  at  the
  Yakama and Puget Sound  Agencies, Portland Area Office, Bureau of Indian
  Affairs"  (No. 98-I-587),  included   updated  1991-1993  Indian  Health
  Service mortality  rate  information, which stated that the age-adjusted
  mortality rate for Indians had decreased to 0.6 percent.

  [9]:Inheritance and Heirship  cards  are  Bureau  records  that  contain
  information on family history and land ownership.

  [10]:The 40-case estimate was based on a work year of about 200 days  to
  account for sickness, leave, holidays, and training.

  [11]:Title  III  of  Public  Law  93-638,  as  amended,  authorizes  the
  Secretary   of  the  Interior  to  enter  into  a  compact  with  Indian
  organizations   which   allows  the  organizations  "to  plan,  conduct,
  consolidate, and administer  programs,  services,  and  functions of the
  Department of the Interior that are otherwise available to Indian tribes
  and Indians."

  [12]:These amounts are based on an Agency-estimated processing  cost  of
  $1,000 to $1,500 per case.



                                                  APPENDIX 1


                      OFFICES VISITED


------------------------------------------------------------
     OFFICE                              LOCATION


     Central Office                  Washington, D.C.

     Minneapolis     Area         Minneapolis, Minnesota
     Office                      Cass Lake, Minnesota
   Minnesota       Agency
     Office                       Sacramento, California

     Sacramento      Area
     Office                        St. Paul, Minnesota

     Department   of  the
     Interior
   Office of Hearings and
     Appeals
------------------------------------------------------------


APPENDIX 2
                                                    Page  1
of  5



APPENDIX 2
                                                    Page  1
of  5



APPENDIX 2
                                                    Page  1
of  5



APPENDIX 2
                                                    Page  1
of  5



APPENDIX 2
                                                    Page  1
of  5



APPENDIX 2
                                                    Page  1
of  5


                         APPENDIX 3


     STATUS OF AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding/
Recommendation
Reference       Status                            Action Required

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 3, and     Resolved;      No further response to the Office of Inspector General is
5                not           required.  The recommendations will be referred to the
             implemented.    Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget for
                                            tracking of implementation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2        Implemented.                  No further action is required.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    4         Management       Provide clarification that the procedures to identify
               concurs;         deceased Indians include a systematic review of the
              additional          individual Indian money estate account listings.
             information
                needed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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