Detailed Information on the
Bureau of Indian Affairs - Indian Land Consolidation Assessment

Work with OMB and Congress to develop alternative strategies for land consolidation.

Develop a strategic plan to guide program expansion to other tribal reservations.

Quantify federal program impacts, including new measures on net reductions in target ownership interests and federal benefit-cost ratios, for Report to Congress.

Target federal acquisitions to reduce future costs in trust management functions, such as managing land title records, administering land leases, distributing lease payments to IIM accounts, and processing probate actions.

Evaluate whether or not the purchase of interests leads to more economic development on the lands and the reduction of federal administrative costs.

Coordinate efforts with tribal land acquisition entities to leverage program dollars.

Measure: Number of Individual Indian Money accounts inactivated/closed

Explanation:

Measure: Number of fractionated interests acquired [Land Acquisition Progam] (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:

Measure: The average time from receipt of completed ownership application to sell land interest to the point of land acquisition (as defined by title transfer) -- for all application in which land acquisitions are transacted in the current year. (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Statutory purposes of pilot program are to: (1) acquire small ownership interests in Indian trust lands; (2) prevent further fractionation; (3) consolidate for tribal development.

Evidence: Indian Land Consolidation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-462), Title I, Sec. 213, authorizes federal acquisition of fractional ownership interests. Priority for small (2% or less) interests.

Does the program address a specific interest, problem or need?

Explanation: Federal Government's Indian trust responsibilities include maintaining legal records (title, probate, survey, lease) on land ownership and lease transactions. Ownership shares fractionate over each generation, compounding workload demands on trust administration.

Evidence: Over 10 million acres of Indian trust lands owned by individuals, with about 4 million interests distributed among 400,000 individuals. Over 1.4 million interests are 2% or less.

Is the program designed to have a significant impact in addressing the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: Acquisitions eliminate/reduce the Government's current and future costs in managing land title records, probates, leases, and individual trust fund accounts.

Evidence: Through FY 2002, the Midwest pilot projects have inactivated 664 IIM accounts, closed 125 IIM accounts, and avoided 1,688 future probate cases.

Is the program designed to make a unique contribution in addressing the interest, problem or need (i.e., not needlessly redundant of any other Federal, state, local or private efforts)?

Explanation: ILCA requires federal acquisitions be coordinated with tribal land acquisition and development programs. Pilot projects are adjusting to these recent statutory requirements, but have a high volume of pending applications from voluntary sellers to process.

Evidence: Pilot projects, initiated in 1999, acquire interests from voluntary (willing seller) applicants without priority consideration of tribal development plans or income generation.

Is the program optimally designed to address the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: Active pilot projects on five Indian reservations: Bad River, Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, and Red Cliff (WI) and Keewanee Bay (MI). Recent expansion to Rosebud (SD) is excluded from this review.

Evidence: Significant program planning and additional resources will be needed to expand to other Indian reservations with high concentrations of fractional ownership interests.

Does the program have a limited number of specific, ambitious long-term performance goals that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Statutory long-term goal is to consolidate fractional ownerships for tribes to develop lands for economic and social benefits, with repayment of the Government's purchase costs from future revenues.

Evidence: No references in DOI and BIA Strategic Plans despite relevance to Indian trust fund management reforms. DOI to address in Strategic Plan for FY 2003-2008.

Does the program have a limited number of annual performance goals that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goals?

Explanation: BIA pilot projects focus on acquiring ownership interests from voluntary willing sellers rather than annual plans based on goal-directed priorities.

Evidence: BIA to address in FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan.

Do all partners (grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, etc.) support program planning efforts by committing to the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: BIA pilot projects supported by tribal partners with tribal resolutions of endorsement and cooperative agreements for outreach efforts to notify landowners of acquisition program.

Evidence: BIA pilot projects have limited coordination with tribal land acquisition priorities, consolidation, and development plans. These recent statutory requirements should become program prerequisites at new locations.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs that share similar goals and objectives?

Explanation: No other federal Indian land consolidation program.

Evidence:  

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope conducted on a regular basis or as needed to fill gaps in performance information to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness?

Explanation: BIA issued first program evaluation: Indian Land Consolidation Pilot Project Report (April 2002), conducted by Booz-Allen-Hamilton. Recommends program management improvements needed prior to expansion to other locations.

Evidence: Report includes various program performance indicators, and 24 recommendations to improve program management and accountability. Midwest Region to establish a team to address or implement recommendations.

Is the program budget aligned with the program goals in such a way that the impact of funding, policy, and legislative changes on performance is readily known?

Explanation: Budget/accounting structure separates Land Acquisition, Youpee Escheatment, and Administration. Acquisition Fund established to deposit revenues received from acquisitions. No linkage between budgetary resources and program workloads and performance measures.

Evidence: ILCA assumes repayment for each interest purchased. Recommend amendments to consolidate revenues to avoid maintaining or establishing accounts for each ownership. Criteria needed for repayment (partial or full) waiver provisions.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: BIA should develop a strategic plan for expanding the land acquistion and consolidation program to other regions and reservations. (Also see B-A-H Report. p. IV-13.) BIA should establish national program manager to plan/coordinate future program expansions.

Evidence: DOI-BIA has initiated strategic planning activities, including federal-tribal workgroup, to assess policy and program initiatives.

Are acquisition program plans adjusted in response to performance data and changing conditions?

Explanation: High unobligated balances during 1999-2002 despite volume of willing sellers. BIA's Midwest Region required full-time staff to handle program demands.

Evidence: FY 2002 budget provided for increased administrative expenses to hire dedicated staff. Staff has expanded from 10 to 17 full-time personnel in Midwest region.

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule and performance goals?

Explanation: Alternative strategies should be assessed, such as concentrating acquisitions on: (1) owners with active IIM accounts, and/or (2) land parcels with tribal development plans. Such priorities could produce more immediate federal cost-savings and repayment schedules.

Evidence: Cost-savings analyses needed to estimate current and future federal benefits associated with eliminating IIM accounts, land title records, probates, and other trust-related administration activities.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Midwest region provides monthly status and activity reports on key performance indicators: interests acquired, acres, average costs, IIM accounts made inactive or closed, probates avoided, and pending applications and interests.

Evidence:  

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Midwest projects are closely monitored by BIA agency superintendent, BIA regional director, and OMB.

Evidence:  

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Low annual obligation rates: 41% in FY 1999; 50% in FY 2000; 37% in FY 2001, and 41% in FY 2002.

Evidence: Over $8 million carried over into FY 2002; and $11.7 million carried over into FY 2003. Reduced FY 2003 Budget to spend down carryover balances.

Does the program have incentives and procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: B-A-H Report recommends actions to improve business processes, activity based costing, and standard performance and management processes before expanding to other regions or reservations.

Evidence: Midwest Region is forming team to review/assess B-A-H Report recommendations for implementation.

Does the agency estimate and budget for the full annual costs of operating the program (including all administrative costs and allocated overhead) so that program performance changes are identified with changes in funding levels?

Explanation: B-A-H Report recommends full cost analysis, including outreach, appraisal, title search, purchase price, labor, benefits, and other administrative expenses. See Item # 9 below.

Evidence: Recommend further quantification of federal program costs and benefits. Ownership transfers accrue current and future benefits (cost savings) in federal trust administration that offset original purchase price.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: B-A-H Report finds pilot program records are auditable, and recommends actions to improve business processes and management controls.

Evidence: Funds are not disbursed to seller prior to receipt of deed transfer. However, no audits conducted on financial management practices.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Midwest Region has hired dedicated program staff to address most immediate management concern.

Evidence: Temporary personnel hired for training and performance assessment prior to conversion to full-time status.

Does the program define the required quality, capability, and performance objectives for deliverables?

Explanation: Midwest pilot project acquisitions not targeted towards performance (outcome) goals.

Evidence: Outcome goals are: (1) reduce land management and accounting costs and (2) economic development to repay purchase costs.

Has the program established appropriate, credible, cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: B-A-H Report outlines administrative processes, with unit time and costs for each stage. Labor costs exclude benefits and overhead.

Evidence: Estimate of administrative costs: $295 per case, or $15 per interest acquired.

Has the program conducted a recent, credible, cost-benefit analysis that shows a net benefit?

Explanation: B-A-H Report demonstrates customer responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and future cost benefits for Government.

Evidence: Example cost-benefit - Average purchase cost: $328 per interest. Average future probate savings: $450 per interest.

Does the program have a comprehensive strategy for risk management that appropriately shares risk between the government and contractor?

Explanation: ILCA Act precludes tribal governments from operating federal acquisition program under contract/compact agreements.

Evidence:  

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome goal(s)?

Explanation: Through FY 2002, 47,188 ownership interests acquired in 25,044 acres. About 91% of interests purchased were small (2% or less) ownerships.

Evidence: About 32% of all individual ownership interests purchased on pilot reservations.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: No annual performance goals since pilot projects respond to applications from voluntary sellers.

Evidence: Annual goals could be set if acquisitions targeted on land parcels, IIM accountholders with low activity, and other priorities.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: See Sec. III, Q-4.

Evidence:  

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: No other federal Indian land acquisition program.

Evidence:  

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: B-A-H Report (April 2002). OMB has monitored the pilot program for 2.5 years, including field visits/reviews, since a Report to Congress is due to identify/assess impacts of reductions in fractional interests on BIA accounting and recordkeeping.

Evidence: ILCA Act, Sec. 213 requires Report to Congress on pilot program due three years after certification (expected in 2003) to address possible extension and modifications.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: During FY 1999-2001, pilot program had substantial balances due to lack of full-time staff available for processing pending applications from the unanticipated number of willing sellers.

Evidence: Pilot program increased cumulative obligations to 63% through 2002 as Midwest agency staff was expanded.