Controversy Over IPS Reflects More facility, needed 14 additional positions in fiscal year 1991 to perform program operations. With regard to the issue of funding and its effect on tribal contracting, tribal and BIA officials stated that, because of inadequate funding, tribes were discouraged from contracting additional programs. Officials from two tribes told us they had considered contracting various programs but had decided not to because of funding shortages. For example, one tribe had intended to contract the forestry program but, when tribal officials became aware of the limited funding available, they no longer considered contracting a viable option. We also were told that tribes had retroceded (given back) or were planning to retrocede contracts to BIA during a contract year when, according to tribal officials, funding shortages prevented them from providing services for the remainder of the contract term. BIA Trust BIA generally characterizes the nature of its trust responsibilities as having evolved over the past decades. From an overall perspective BIA, Responsibilities Affect in June 1990 congressional hearings, stated that its trust relationship Program Budgeting and Contracting Decisions with Indian tribes involved the fulfillment of its solemn duties and responsibilities as trustee of Indian lands, natural resources, and other assets. In discussions about the IPS process, BIA and tribal officials told us that amounts budgeted for some IPS programs reflected BIA decisions regarding minimum funding levels needed to fulfill its trust and legal responsibilities rather than tribal priorities for the use of IPS funds. In addition, officials told us that in some instances tribes have not been permitted to contract programs that BIA considers to be trust responsibilities. Trust Responsibilities Limit Tribal Influence in the IPS Process For each tribe we visited, we asked BIA and tribal officials for their views regarding what changes in the IPS process, if any, were warranted. While some suggestions were offered, BIA and tribal officials often cited the federal government's trust responsibilities as a factor limiting effective tribal involvement in the IPS process. BIA and tribal officials told us that tribes have little, if any, influence during the IPS budget formulation process on determining funding levels for trust-related programs. ED&A expenses were frequently identified as being funded at BIA-determined levels, regardless of tribal preferences, because BIA viewed these activities as trust-related responsibilities. Controversy Over IPS Reflects More A number of BIA officials stated that they considered the ED&A programs to be trust responsibilities although BIA does not specifically define them as such. Further, BIA documents indicate that the determination of funding for ED&A programs is done under specific direction from the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. Thus, tribal funding preferences are subordinated to BIA's determination of funding needs. Aside from ED&A, one agency superintendent stated that agency superintendents "are mandated" to ensure that funding levels for the "trust responsibility" programs, which include such programs as realty, are adequate. The effect of BIA's efforts to carry out its trust responsibilities on budget formulation decisions was discussed in our 1978 report on tribal involvement in BIA's budget process. In that report we noted that BIA's trust responsibilities and other essential services permeate all of its budgeting activities and many of its programs. However, funds relating to these trust responsibilities and services could not be readily identified. Therefore, the amount of funds actually available to the tribes to change the mix of programs and funding priorities was not known. Trust Responsibilities and Tribal contracting, according to the 1975 Indian self-determination act In hearings related to BIA's fiscal year 1979 budget request, BIA stated that, to the extent that contracting does not violate trust responsibilities, tribal proposals for contracts are approved. However, one BIA official with whom we met stated that there is no clear policy on the relationship between trust responsibilities and the ability of tribes to contract programs. With regard to tribal opportunities for contracting BIA programs, area and agency office officials in one location stated that the area office declines contracts mainly on the grounds that trust responsibilities are involved. However, these officials also said there was no clear definition of BIA's trust responsibilities. BIA officials at this particular location We did not assess the basis for BIA's contracting decisions in light of section 102 because such an assessment was beyond the scope of our work. Controversy Over IPS Reflects More denied the tribe's request to contract the administrative officer position at the BIA agency office, partially on the basis that this position involves administering trust responsibilities for BIA. Tribal officials at another location indicated that trust responsibilities preclude them from contracting the entire BIA realty program, although the tribe contracts certain realty program activities. According to tribal officials, BIA also told the tribe that it cannot contract for BIA's agency office ED&A services because they involve trust responsibilities. Likewise, an agency official said that the tribe had been unable to contract the fire-suppression program because it involved trust responsibilities. See comment 1. See comment 2. See comment 3. See comment 2. See comment 2. Mr. James Duffus III Director, Natural Resources U. S. General Accounting Office Dear Mr. Duffus: This responds to your request for the Department's comments on the We have other more specific comments on the report, which follow. Most of The report makes no distinction between Area Direct Operations and Tribe/Agency The funds for area office operations are available for prioritization by the |