Since 1990, a total of 61 different areas have appeared on  the High-Risk List. In cases in which we remove the high-risk designation, we continue to  closely monitor the areas. The five criteria for  removing high-risk designations are:
Leadership commitment. Capacity. Demonstrated progress. Agencies Made Some Progress Addressing the Management Weaknesses That Led to the 2017 High Risk Designation

Officials from Indian Affairs, BIE, BIA, and IHS expressed their  commitment to addressing the issues that led to the high-risk designation  for federal management of programs that serve tribes and their members. Since we last testified before this committee on September 13, 2017, we  met with agency leaders and worked with each agency to identify actions  the agencies took or plan to take to address the concerns that contributed  to the designation. We determined that Indian Affairs, BIE, BIA, and IHS  demonstrated varying levels of progress to partially meet most or all of  the criteria for removing a high-risk designation. However, additional  progress is needed for the agencies to fully address the criteria and  related management weaknesses, particularly in the areas of leadership  commitment and capacity. Leadership Commitment

To meet the leadership commitment criterion for removal of a high-risk  designation, an agency needs to have demonstrated strong commitment  and top leadership support to address management weaknesses. The  following examples show actions Indian Affairs, BIE, BIA, and IHS took to  partially meet the leadership commitment criterion. For example, the BIE Director formed an internal  working group, convened meetings with other senior leaders within  Indian Affairs, and publicly stated that his agency is committed to  ensuring implementation of our recommendations on Indian  education. BIA officials demonstrated leadership commitment by, for  example, issuing a memorandum requiring all regions and their  agency offices to use a centralized data management system to track  requests for land title status reports. To fully meet the leadership commitment criterion, all agencies will need,  among other things, stable, permanent leadership that has assigned the  tasks needed to address weaknesses and that holds those assigned  accountable for progress. Capacity

To meet the capacity criterion, an agency needs to demonstrate that it  has the capacity (i.e., people and other resources) to resolve its  management weaknesses. Indian Affairs, BIE, BIA, and IHS each made  some progress in identifying capacity and resources to implement some  of our recommendations, but BIA officials reported to us that the agency  does not have the people and resources needed to fully implement other  recommendations. For example, it has hired school safety  officers and personnel in offices supporting the oversight of school  spending. This survey information supported staffing  decisions for the recently created Indian Energy Service Center. However, BIA officials told us the bureau does not have the staff or  resources to implement a comprehensive workforce planning system  that would be needed to ensure it has staff in place to meet its  organizational needs. For example, IHS officials stated that the  agency is expanding the role of internal audit staff within its enterprise  risk management program to augment internal audits and  complement audits by the HHS Inspector General and GAO. To fully meet the capacity criterion, all of the agencies need to assess  tradeoffs between these and other administration priorities in terms of  people and resources, and the agencies should provide to decision  makers with key information on resources needed to address  management weaknesses. Energy. In addition, Indian Affairs has made some progress in  meeting the monitoring criterion on Indian education. We made 52 recommendations to improve  management weaknesses at Indian Affairs, BIE, BIA, and IHS, of which  34 are still open. Energy. We also see varying levels of  progress at all of the agencies in understanding what they need to do to  be removed from the High Risk List by identifying steps that can be  incorporated into corrective action plans to address most  recommendations. This challenge cannot be  overcome by the agencies without a commitment from the administration  to prioritize fixing management weaknesses in programs and activities  that serve tribes and their members.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO's High Risk List identifies federal program areas that are high risk due to their vulnerability to mismanagement, among other things. GAO added the federal management of programs that serve Indian tribes and their members to its February 2017 biennial update of high-risk areas in response to management weaknesses at Interior and HHS.
This testimony provides examples of actions taken and progress made by these agencies to address the five criteria GAO uses for determining whether to remove a high-risk designation (leadership commitment, capacity, action plan, monitoring, and demonstrated progress).
To conduct this work, GAO drew on findings from GAO reports issued from September 2011 through September 2017 and updated that work by reviewing agency documentation and interviewing agency officials.

What GAO Found

GAO designated the federal management of programs that serve tribes and their members as high risk, and officials from the Department of the Interior's Office of the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs (Indian Affairs), the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Indian Health Service (IHS) expressed their commitment to addressing the issues that led to the designation. Since GAO last testified before this committee on September 13, 2017, Indian Affairs, BIE, BIA, and IHS have demonstrated varying levels of progress to partially meet most or all of the criteria for removing a high-risk designation. However, additional progress is needed to fully address management weaknesses, particularly in the areas of leadership commitment and capacity.
Leadership commitment . To meet the leadership commitment criterion for removal of a high-risk designation, the agency needs to have demonstrated strong commitment and top leadership support to address management weaknesses. Indian Affairs, BIE, BIA, and IHS each took some actions to partially meet the leadership criterion. For example, the BIE Director formed an internal working group, convened meetings with other senior leaders within Indian Affairs, and publicly stated that his agency is committed to ensuring the implementation of prior GAO recommendations on Indian education. In addition, BIA officials demonstrated leadership commitment by, for example, issuing a memorandum requiring the use of a centralized data management system to track requests for land ownership records. To fully meet the leadership commitment criterion, all the agencies need, among other things, stable, permanent leadership that has assigned the tasks needed to address weaknesses and that holds those assigned accountable for progress.
Capacity . To meet the capacity criterion, an agency needs to demonstrate that it has the capacity (i.e., people and other resources) to resolve its management weaknesses. Indian Affairs, BIE, BIA, and IHS each made progress identifying capacity and resources to partially meet the capacity criterion. For example, BIE hired school safety officers and personnel in offices supporting the oversight of school spending. BIA conducted a survey to identify workforce needs related to energy development to support staffing decisions for the recently created Indian Energy Service Center. IHS officials told us that the agency is expanding the role of internal audit staff within its enterprise risk management program to augment internal audits and complement audits by the HHS Inspector General and GAO. However, all the agencies have vacancies in key offices. For example, BIA officials said the agency does not have the staff or resources to implement a comprehensive workforce planning system to ensure it has staff in place at its agency offices to meet its organizational needs concerning numerous activities, including energy resources. To fully meet the capacity criterion, all the agencies need to assess tradeoffs between these and other administration priorities in terms of people and resources, and should provide key information to decision makers on resources needed to address the criteria and related management weaknesses.

What GAO Recommends

GAO has made 52 recommendations to improve management weaknesses at some Interior and HHS agencies, of which 34 are still open. Some of these weaknesses led to the agencies' placement on the High Risk List. GAO sees varying levels of progress at the agencies in understanding what they need to do to be removed from the list and will continue to closely monitor their progress.