oversight

Indian Issues: Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2012-04-12.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

             United States Government Accountability Office

GAO          Report to the Honorable Dan Boren,
             House of Representatives



April 2012
             INDIAN ISSUES

             Federal Funding for
             Non-Federally
             Recognized Tribes




GAO-12-348
                                             April 2012

                                             INDIAN ISSUES
                                             Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized
                                             Tribes
Highlights of GAO-12-348, a report to the
Honorable Dan Boren, House of
Representatives




Why GAO Did This Study                       What GAO Found
As of January 3, 2012, the United            Of the approximately 400 non-federally recognized tribes that GAO identified,
States recognized 566 Indian tribes.         26 received funding from 24 federal programs during fiscal years 2007 through
Federal recognition confers specific         2010. Most of the 26 non-federally recognized tribes were eligible to receive this
legal status on tribes and imposes           funding either because of their status as nonprofit organizations or state-
certain responsibilities on the federal      recognized tribes. Similarly, most of the 24 federal programs that awarded
government, such as an obligation to         funding to non-federally recognized tribes during the 4-year period were
provide certain benefits to tribes and       authorized to fund nonprofit organizations or state-recognized tribes. In addition,
their members. Some tribes are not           some of these programs were authorized to fund other entities, such as tribal
federally recognized but have qualified
                                             communities or community development financial institutions.
for and received federal funding. Some
of these non-federally recognized            For fiscal years 2007 through 2010, 24 federal programs awarded more than
tribes are state recognized and may be       $100 million to the 26 non-federally recognized tribes. Most of the funding was
located on state reservations.               awarded to a few non-federally recognized tribes by a small number of programs.
GAO was asked to address (1) the key         Specifically, 95 percent of the funding was awarded to 9 non-federally recognized
means by which non-federally                 tribes, and most of that funding was awarded to the Lumbee Tribe of North
recognized tribes have been eligible for     Carolina. Similarly, 95 percent of the funding was awarded by seven programs in
federal funding and (2) the amount of        four agencies, and most of that funding was awarded by one Department of
federal funding awarded to non-              Housing and Urban Development program.
federally recognized tribes for fiscal
                                             During the course of its review, GAO identified some instances where federal
years 2007 through 2010. GAO also
                                             agencies had provided funding to non-federally recognized tribes for which grant
identified some eligibility and federal
financial reporting issues related to        eligibility is disputed and one instance where an agency was in the process of
non-federally recognized tribes. GAO         better enforcing federal financial reporting requirements with one tribe.
compiled a list of about 400 non-            Specifically:
federally recognized tribes and              •   The Department of Education awarded American Indian Vocational
reviewed information from federal                Rehabilitation Services Program funding to the United Houma Nation, the
agencies, USAspending.gov, states,
                                                 Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and a consortium consisting of the
and other sources to identify tribes’
                                                 Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb and the Four Winds Cherokee. Each of
federal funding and eligibility.
                                                 these four tribes is state recognized, but it appears that none of them has a
                                                 “reservation” as required by the statute establishing the program. GAO has
What GAO Recommends                              substantial questions about whether Education’s interpretation of the term
GAO recommends that Education and                “reservation” is broader than the statutory definition supports.
HHS take specific actions to ensure
                                             •   The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarded funding to
that they are not making grants to
                                                 the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey and the Powhatan
ineligible tribes and to enforce federal
financial reporting requirements. HHS            Renape Nation—two non-federally recognized tribes in New Jersey—under
agreed. Education stated its                     programs authorized to fund state-recognized tribes. The state of New
commitment to review its practices, but          Jersey, however, does not consider these entities to be state recognized.
disagreed with GAO’s finding on the          •   HHS has initiated action to enforce federal financial reporting requirements
statutory eligibility for the American           for the Accohannock Indian Tribe. The Accohannock Indian Tribe has not
Indian Vocational Rehabilitation
                                                 filed its required financial report for 2009 that was due no later than
Services Program, which is discussed
                                                 September 30, 2010. In 2009, the Accohannock Indian Tribe reported
more fully in the report.
                                                 spending over $1 million in federal funds from three different federal
                                                 programs administered by the department. The department sent letters of
                                                 inquiry about the delinquent financial report on March 8, 2011, and more
View GAO-12-348. For more information,           recently, after GAO inquired about the issue, on February 7, 2012.
contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-3841 or
mittala@gao.gov.

                                                                                      United States Government Accountability Office
Contents


Letter                                                                                      1
               Background                                                                   4
               Most Non-Federally Recognized Tribes That Received Federal
                 Funding Were Eligible as Nonprofit Organizations or State-
                 Recognized Tribes                                                        10
               Federal Programs Awarded More Than $100 Million in Funding to
                 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes for Fiscal Years 2007 through
                 2010                                                                     19
               Agencies Have Funded Some Likely Ineligible Non-Federally
                 Recognized Tribes, and One Agency Is in the Process of
                 Enforcing Single Audit Act Requirements                                  23
               Conclusions                                                                28
               Recommendations for Executive Action                                       28
               Agency Comments and Our Evaluation                                         29

Appendix I     Objectives, Scope, and Methodology                                         31



Appendix II    Tribes Whose Recognition Was Terminated                                    36



Appendix III   State-Recognized Tribes                                                    39



Appendix IV    Non-Federally Recognized Tribes That Received Federal
               Funding before Fiscal Year 2007                                            44



Appendix V     Statutes and Regulations That Explicitly Include State-Recognized
               Tribes or Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations                  50



Appendix VI    Comments from the Department of Education                                  56



Appendix VII   Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services                  60




               Page i                               GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix VIII   GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments                                      63



Tables
                Table 1: Nonprofit and State-Recognition Status of 26 Non-
                         Federally Recognized Tribes That Received Direct Federal
                         Funding, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010                           12
                Table 2: Statutory or Regulatory Authority of 24 Programs
                         Awarding Funding to Non-Federally Recognized Tribes,
                         Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010                                    15
                Table 3: Direct Federal Funding Received by 26 Non-Federally
                         Recognized Tribes, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010                 20
                Table 4: Twenty-four Federal Programs That Awarded Funding to
                         Non-Federally Recognized Tribes, Fiscal Years 2007
                         through 2010                                                      22
                Table 5: Years in Non-Federally Recognized Status for 38 Tribes
                         Whose Recognition Was Terminated and Subsequently
                         Restored                                                          36
                Table 6: Nine Tribes in California Whose Recognition Was
                         Terminated and Not Restored                                       38
                Table 7: State-Recognized Tribes Identified by States That Are Not
                         Federally Recognized, as of September 2011                        39
                Table 8: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes That GAO Identified as
                         Having Received Federal Funding before Fiscal Year 2007           44
                Table 9: Federal Programs with Explicit Statutory or Regulatory
                         Authority to Fund State-Recognized Tribes and Tribes on
                         or in Proximity to State Reservations or Rancherias               50




                Page ii                              GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Abbreviations
BIA         Bureau of Indian Affairs
CFDA        Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
DUNS        Data Universal Numbering System
HHS         Department of Health and Human Services
HUD         Department of Housing and Urban Development
OMB         Office of Management and Budget

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.




Page iii                                      GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548




                                   April 12, 2012

                                   The Honorable Dan Boren
                                   House of Representatives

                                   Dear Mr. Boren:

                                   Federal recognition of Indian tribes confers specific legal status on these
                                   tribes and imposes certain responsibilities on the federal government,
                                   such as an obligation to provide the tribes and their members with certain
                                   benefits. As far back as the 17th century, some tribes developed
                                   relationships with colonial governments by, for example, signing treaties
                                   or residing on reservations established by these colonial governments.
                                   The federal government has signed treaties with or taken other actions to
                                   recognize Indian tribes, although some tribes have never developed a
                                   formal relationship with the federal government. Changes in federal
                                   Indian policy throughout U.S. history have influenced which tribes are
                                   recognized today by the federal government. In this report, we refer to
                                   those groups that self-identify as Indian tribes but are not recognized by
                                   the federal government as non-federally recognized tribes. 1

                                   You asked us to report on federal funding for non-federally recognized
                                   tribes. Accordingly, this report addresses (1) the key means by which
                                   non-federally recognized tribes have been eligible for federal funding and
                                   (2) the amount of federal funding awarded to non-federally recognized
                                   tribes for fiscal years 2007 through 2010, by agency and program. In
                                   addition, this report provides information about some cases we identified
                                   during our work concerning non-federally recognized tribes’ eligibility for
                                   funding and compliance with federal financial reporting requirements.

                                   To address these objectives, we first compiled a list of approximately
                                   400 non-federally recognized tribes in the contiguous 48 states from a
                                   variety of information sources, such as data collected by the Department
                                   of the Interior (Interior), and information provided to us by officials from


                                   1
                                    We use the term “non-federally recognized tribes” in this report in order to convey that
                                   these entities self-identify as Indian tribes even though Department of the Interior
                                   regulations use the term “Indian group” to refer to any Indian aggregation within the
                                   continental United States that the Secretary of the Interior does not acknowledge to be an
                                   Indian tribe.




                                   Page 1                                        GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
selected states. 2 We identified, from sources including information
collected by Interior’s Indian Arts and Crafts Board and the U.S. Census
Bureau, a list of 15 states that were most likely to have state-recognized
tribes within their borders. We reached out to officials in each of the
15 states to confirm the presence of state-recognized tribes in these
states. On the basis of our interviews with state officials we determined
that 12 of the 15 states had state-recognized tribes. For the other
33 states, we largely relied on information provided by these states to
Interior’s Indian Arts and Crafts Board. According to this information,
these states had identified no state-recognized tribes within their borders
that were not also federally recognized. We spot-checked this information
by contacting 20 states for which we were able to identify a state official
who could respond to our questions, and 9 of these states responded to
our inquiry and confirmed that they did not have any state-recognized
tribes.

To determine which non-federally recognized tribes had received funding
and identify the programs that had provided funding to them for fiscal
years 2007 through 2010, we searched publicly available funding data at
USAspending.gov and reviewed agency-provided data. 3 For each
program we identified as having awarded funding to non-federally
recognized tribes for this period, we reviewed the authorizing statutes,
program regulations, and eligibility requirements to identify the key means
by which non-federally recognized tribes would have been eligible for
federal funding from these programs. In addition, we collected information
about the organizational and legal status of each entity and compared this
information with program eligibility requirements. For example, we
determined which of these non-federally recognized tribes are also
organized as nonprofit organizations. When a non-federally recognized
tribe was eligible to receive federal funding from a program through
several means, we did not attempt to single out the means by which the



2
 We excluded Alaska and Hawaii because of their unique histories and circumstances.
See our complete scope and methodology in appendix I for more detailed information
about why we excluded Alaska and Hawaii.
3
 In December 2007, the Office of Management and Budget launched USAspending.gov,
a publicly accessible website containing data on federal awards, to comply with the
requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which,
according to a relevant Senate committee report, is intended to increase the transparency
and accountability of federal government expenditures by providing access to information
on federal funding awards through a single, searchable, publicly available website.




Page 2                                       GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
tribe qualified for the funding it received. We limited the scope of our
review to federal funding awarded directly to non-federally recognized
tribes and excluded federal funding provided through loans or
procurement contracts.

From the information we obtained from USAspending.gov and from the
federal agencies, we compiled the total amount of federal funding
awarded to non-federally recognized tribes for fiscal years 2007 through
2010, by agency and program. We assessed the reliability of this
information by, for example, testing for missing data and outliers and
comparing USAspending.gov data against agency information and
financial reports filed by selected non-federally recognized tribes. Where
we identified inconsistencies in these data, we worked with
knowledgeable agency officials to update the data set. After taking these
steps, we concluded that the updated data set was reliable for the
purpose of estimating the amount of funding awarded by federal agencies
to non-federally recognized tribes for fiscal years 2007 through 2010.

During our review, as we were comparing programs’ eligibility
requirements with the characteristics of the non-federally recognized
tribes that received federal funding, we identified some instances where
federal agencies had made grants to likely ineligible non-federally
recognized tribes and where an agency had initiated actions to enforce
federal financial reporting requirements. This report provides information
on the three cases we identified as part of this analysis. Appendix I
describes our scope and methodology in more detail.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 through April 2012,
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.




Page 3                                GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
             Federally recognized tribes have a government-to-government
Background   relationship with the United States and are eligible to receive certain
             protections, services, and benefits by virtue of their unique status as
             Indian tribes. 4 Federal Indian policy—which has undergone significant
             changes since the end of the colonial era—has influenced how the
             federal government has recognized and currently recognizes tribes:

             •   Treaty, reservations, and removal era. During this period, the federal
                 government entered into treaties with Indian tribes to, for example,
                 establish peace, fix land boundaries, and establish reservations. For
                 some federally recognized Indian tribes, treaties provided the basis for
                 subsequent actions that established their recognition.

             •   Assimilation era. The Act of February 8, 1887, commonly referred to
                 as the General Allotment Act or the Dawes Act, was a comprehensive
                 congressional attempt to change the role of Indians in American
                 society by encouraging assimilation through individual land
                 ownership. 5 Under this policy, tribes surrendered tribally owned land
                 for individual allotments of land and, in some cases, surplus land was
                 sold to white settlers. As a result of this policy, the total amount of
                 tribal land in the United States was reduced by about 90 million acres.

             •   Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. In the 1930s and 1940s, federal
                 Indian policies generally reflected a shift away from assimilation
                 policies toward increased tolerance and respect for traditional aspects
                 of Indian culture. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 encouraged
                 economic development, self-determination, cultural pluralism, and the
                 revival of tribalism. 6 Specifically, the act permitted tribes to adopt
                 constitutions and organize into federally recognized Indian tribes,
                 including tribes without a common linguistic, cultural, or political
                 heritage that lived together on one reservation.




             4
              For example, the Department of the Interior’s Indian Affairs Programs—which includes
             programs administered by Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Bureau of Indian
             Education—provides services to federally recognized Indian tribes and their members and
             had a budget of $2.94 billion for fiscal year 2011.
             5
              Act of February 8, 1887, ch. 119, 24 Stat. 388 (1887) (known as the General Allotment
             Act or Dawes Act).
             6
              Act of June 18, 1934, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984 (1934) (known as the Indian Reorganization
             Act or Wheeler-Howard Act).




             Page 4                                       GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
•   Termination era. On August 1, 1953, Congress adopted House
    Concurrent Resolution 108, which established a policy of making
    Indians “subject to the same laws and entitled to the same privileges
    and responsibilities” that apply to other citizens and declared that
    Indian tribes and their members “should be freed from Federal
    supervision and control.” Subsequently, in the 1950s and 1960s, the
    federal government terminated its government-to-government
    relationships with a number of tribes. Congress has since restored
    government-to-government relationships with 38 tribes that were
    terminated during the termination era (see app. II for more information
    about terminated and restored tribes).

•   Self-determination era. Since the 1970s, the federal government has
    adopted policies to promote the practical exercise of tribes’ inherent
    sovereign powers, including fostering economic development of
    Indian land and encouraging self-determination of Indian affairs. For
    example, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
    of 1975 enables federally recognized Indian tribes to administer
    certain federal programs for Indians, which were previously
    administered by the federal government on their behalf. 7

In 1977, the American Indian Policy Review Commission reported that
“[t]he distinction the Department of the Interior draws between the status
of recognized and unrecognized tribes seems to be based merely on
precedent—whether at some point in a tribe’s history it established a
formal political relationship with the Government of the United States.” 8
The commission identified 133 non-federally recognized tribes. At that
time, no administrative process was in place for these non-federally
recognized tribes to seek federal recognition. In 1978, Interior established




7
Pub. L. No. 93-638 (1975), codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 450 to 458ddd-2.
8
 American Indian Policy Review Commission, Final Report Submitted to Congress,
May 17, 1977, vol. I (Washington, D.C.: 1977), at 462. The purpose of the commission
was to conduct a comprehensive review of the historical and legal developments
underlying the Indians’ unique relationship with the federal government to determine the
nature and scope of necessary revisions in the formulation of policy and programs for the
benefit of Indians.




Page 5                                        GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
an administrative acknowledgment process by which Indian groups could
submit a petition to seek federal recognition. 9

Interior maintains a list of entities that have submitted a letter of intent to
petition for federal recognition or have initiated the administrative
acknowledgment process by submitting a complete petition. This list
includes at least 350 entities, according to Interior’s Office of Federal
Acknowledgment. The process of developing a complete petition is
expensive and may take years. Consequently, as we reported in
November 2001, and as of April 2011, most of these entities have not yet
submitted a complete petition. 10 A complete petition must include
information on seven criteria established in the regulations governing
Interior’s administrative acknowledgment process. For example, the entity
must submit evidence that it has been identified as an American Indian
entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900 and that it has
maintained political influence or authority over its members as an
autonomous entity from historic times until the present.

Since 1979, Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has regularly
published a list of federally recognized Indian tribes in the Federal
Register. The most recent list, published in October 2010, listed
565 federally recognized Indian tribes—340 in the contiguous United
States and 225 in Alaska. 11 In addition, on January 3, 2012, Interior
reaffirmed the Tejon Indian Tribe of California’s federal recognition,




9
 Interior’s administrative acknowledgment process is governed by 25 C.F.R. pt. 83
(Procedures for Establishing That an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe).
Since the American Indian Policy Review Commission report in 1977, action has been
taken on an estimated 33 of the 133 non-federally recognized tribes listed in the report.
Specifically, an estimated 21 tribes have since become federally recognized through a
variety of means, including Interior’s administrative acknowledgment process, and
potentially12 have been denied federal recognition through Interior’s administrative
acknowledgment process. Because some tribal names used in the report differ from
current tribal names, it is difficult to determine with certainty whether action has been
taken on some tribes listed in the report.
10
  GAO, Indian Issues: Improvements Needed in Tribal Recognition Process, GAO-02-49
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2, 2001).
11
  75 Fed. Reg. 60810 (Oct. 1, 2010); supplemented by 75 Fed. Reg. 66124 (Oct. 27,
2010).




Page 6                                        GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                    making it the 566th federally recognized Indian tribe. 12 Non-federally
                    recognized tribes can generally seek federal recognition through Interior’s
                    administrative acknowledgment process or through other means, such as
                    congressional action. For example, the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina—
                    which was the subject of legislation but not federally recognized in
                    1956 13—petitioned Interior for recognition and has also sought recognition
                    through legislation. 14 As of April 29, 2011, 17 entities had been granted
                    federal recognition through Interior’s administrative acknowledgment
                    process, and 32 had been denied. 15 Federal recognition of the
                    Shinnecock Indian Nation in New York—the tribe most recently
                    recognized through Interior’s administrative acknowledgment process—
                    became effective on October 1, 2010. 16


Non-Federally       No official list of non-federally recognized tribes similar to BIA’s list of
Recognized Tribes   federally recognized Indian tribes exists. Non-federally recognized tribes
                    fall into two distinct categories: (1) state-recognized tribes that are not
                    also federally recognized and (2) other groups that self-identify as Indian
                    tribes but are neither federally nor state recognized.



                    12
                      Interior reaffirmed federal recognition of the Tejon Indian Tribe of California because
                    an administrative error had resulted in the tribe’s exclusion from BIA’s list of federally
                    recognized tribes for several years. The Tejon Indian Tribe of California was not
                    recognized under Interior’s administrative acknowledgment process governed by
                    25 C.F.R. pt. 83.
                    13
                      Act of June 7, 1956, ch. 375, 70 Stat. 254 (1956) (known as the Lumbee Act of 1956).
                    In 1988, the Office of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior determined that the
                    Lumbee Act of 1956 did not provide federal recognition of the Lumbee Indians as a tribe.
                    See also Lumbee Indians of North Carolina, 58 Comp. Gen. ¶ 699, B-185659 (Aug. 1,
                    1979) (the act constitutes neither congressional recognition of the Lumbees as Indians for
                    the purpose of establishing eligibility for federal benefits nor congressional direction that
                    they be denied benefits if otherwise entitled); Maynor v. Morton, 510 F.2d 1254, 1258
                    (D.C. Cir. 1975) (Congress was very careful not to confer by this legislation any special
                    benefits on these people so designated as Lumbee Indians).
                    14
                      In 1989, Interior’s Office of the Solicitor determined that the Lumbee Act of 1956
                    terminated or forbade a federal relationship with the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and
                    therefore the regulations for Interior’s administrative acknowledgment process precluded
                    the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina from petitioning for recognition through that process.
                    15
                      A total of 71 petitions have been resolved as of April 29, 2011—49 through Interior’s
                    administrative acknowledgment process, 3 by other Interior actions, 9 by congressional
                    action, and 10 by other means.
                    16
                      75 Fed. Reg. 66124 (Oct. 27, 2010).




                    Page 7                                          GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
State-Recognized Tribes   Twelve state governments officially recognize one or more non-federally
                          recognized tribes within their borders, according to state officials we
                          spoke with. Each state government determines which groups in the state,
                          if any, should be recognized. Some of these 12 states—such as North
                          Carolina and South Carolina—have formalized their procedures for
                          recognizing tribes, while other states—such as Massachusetts—have not.
                          For example, North Carolina’s Commission of Indian Affairs and South
                          Carolina’s Commission for Minority Affairs have promulgated regulations
                          outlining the process for entities seeking recognition in those states.
                          Furthermore, some states have established state reservations that are
                          not also federal Indian reservations. No federal agency maintains a list of
                          state-recognized tribes and their reservations, but the U.S. Census
                          Bureau collected information about state-recognized tribes as part of its
                          effort to designate American Indian Areas for the Decennial Census of
                          2010. The U.S. Census Bureau considers an Indian tribe to be state
                          recognized if it is specifically recognized by a state government through
                          treaty (with, for example, 1 of the original 13 colonial assemblies), state
                          legislation, or other formal process. (See app. III for a list of state-
                          recognized tribes that are not federally recognized and more detailed
                          information about how we compiled this list.)

                          In some instances, representatives of state governments have
                          acknowledged the existence of a tribe or its members in the state, but the
                          state has not officially recognized the tribe. Forms of acknowledgment
                          may include a governor’s proclamation or legislative resolution. For
                          example, in March 2009 the Texas Senate and House of Representatives
                          each adopted a simple resolution (voted on only by the house in which it
                          was introduced and not sent to the Governor to sign) to commend and
                          recognize the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas. The resolution stated that the
                          tribe is the present-day incarnation of the clans, bands, and divisions
                          historically known as the Lipan Apaches, who have lived in Texas and
                          Northern Mexico for 300 years. According to Texas officials, such simple
                          resolutions do not go beyond the bounds and the authority of the house
                          that acts on it and do not officially establish any group as a state-
                          recognized tribe. In another example, the California Native American
                          Heritage Commission maintains a list of organized tribal governments in
                          that state—including both federally recognized Indian tribes and non-
                          federally recognized tribes. Despite acknowledging these organized tribal
                          governments and requiring cities and counties to consult with them under
                          certain circumstances, California does not have a process for officially
                          recognizing non-federally recognized tribes, according to a state official
                          we spoke with.



                          Page 8                                GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Other Self-Identified Tribes   A number of other groups self-identifying as Indian tribes are not federally
                               or state recognized. These include groups in each of the following
                               categories:

                               •    groups self-identifying as Indian tribes that have initiated but not yet
                                    completed Interior’s administrative acknowledgment process,

                               •    groups self-identifying as Indian tribes that have been denied federal
                                    recognition through Interior’s administrative acknowledgment process,

                               •    Indian tribes whose status as a federally recognized Indian tribe was
                                    terminated by the federal government and has not been restored, and

                               •    other entities that self-identify as Indian tribes.


The Single Audit Act’s         The purpose of the Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, was, among
Financial Reporting            other things, to promote sound financial management, including effective
Requirements                   internal controls, with respect to federal awards administered by
                               nonfederal entities. 17 Under the act, certain nonfederal entities—such as
                               a state, local government, Indian tribe, or nonprofit organization—that
                               expend $500,000 or more in federal awards in a fiscal year must have an
                               audit conducted in accordance with Office of Management and Budget
                               (OMB) Circular No. A-133 and submit a report regarding the audit to the
                               Federal Audit Clearinghouse Single Audit Database. 18 OMB Circular No.
                               A-133 sets forth standards for obtaining consistency and uniformity
                               among federal agencies for the audit of nonfederal entities expending
                               federal awards. Audits of nonfederal entities’ financial statements and
                               schedule of expenditures of federal awards must be conducted by an
                               independent auditor in accordance with generally accepted government
                               auditing standards. The report on the audit provides information about the
                               nonfederal entity, its federal programs, and the results of the audit.




                               17
                                Pub. L. No. 98-502 (1984), amended by Pub. L. No. 104-156 (1996), codified as
                               amended at 31 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7507.
                               18
                                 The U.S. Census Bureau, in the Department of Commerce, maintains the Federal Audit
                               Clearinghouse Single Audit Database that contains summary information on completed
                               single audits, including information on the auditor, the recipient and its federal programs,
                               and the audit results. It is available at https://harvester.census.gov/fac/.




                               Page 9                                         GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                        Audits are to be completed and the requisite report submitted within the
                        earlier of 30 days after receipt of the auditor’s report or 9 months after the
                        end of the audit period. The federal agency that provides an award directly
                        to the recipient (known as the federal awarding agency) is generally
                        responsible for ensuring that audits for the federal awards it makes are
                        completed and reports are received in a timely manner and in accordance
                        with OMB Circular No. A-133. In cases of continued inability or
                        unwillingness to have an audit conducted, OMB Circular No. A-133 directs
                        federal agencies to take appropriate actions using sanctions such as:

                        •   withholding a percentage of federal awards until the audit is
                            completed satisfactorily,

                        •   withholding or disallowing overhead costs,

                        •   suspending federal awards until the audit is conducted, or

                        •   terminating the federal award.


                        Of the list of about 400 non-federally recognized tribes that we compiled,
Most Non-Federally      we identified 26 that received federal funding for fiscal years 2007 through
Recognized Tribes       2010. Most of the 26 non-federally recognized tribes were eligible for these
                        funds because of their status as a nonprofit or state-recognized tribe
That Received           (24 out of 26). Most of the 24 federal programs that provided this funding
Federal Funding Were    were authorized to fund either nonprofits or state-recognized tribes (18 out
Eligible as Nonprofit   of 24). Other non-federally recognized tribes that received funding but were
                        not nonprofits or state-recognized tribes were awarded funding through
Organizations or        programs that had authority to fund other types of entities.
State-Recognized
Tribes




                        Page 10                                 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
For Fiscal Years 2007     Out of the approximately 400 non-federally recognized tribes that we
through 2010, 26 Non-     identified, we determined that 26 non-federally recognized tribes had
Federally Recognized      received federal funding for fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Twenty-four
                          of these 26 non-federally recognized tribes were organized as nonprofit
Tribes Received Federal   organizations (see table 1). 19 As nonprofits, these 24 non-federally
Funding                   recognized tribes would be eligible to receive federal funding from any
                          program authorized to fund nonprofits. As we have reported in the past,
                          the federal government is increasingly partnering with nonprofit
                          organizations because nonprofits bring many strengths, such as flexibility
                          to respond to needs and access to those needing services, and in fiscal
                          year 2006, about 700 federal programs provided funding for nonprofits. 20
                          In addition, we found that 14 of the 26 non-federally recognized tribes that
                          received funding over the 4-year period were state-recognized tribes and
                          would be eligible to receive funding from programs specifically authorized
                          to fund state-recognized tribes. (See app. IV for information about the
                          nonprofit and state-recognition status of non-federally recognized tribes
                          we identified as having received federal funding before fiscal year 2007.)




                          19
                            For purposes of this review, we define a nonprofit organization as any organization
                          having federal tax-exempt status as approved by the Internal Revenue Service under
                          section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. This category includes all organizations
                          covered under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, such as charities, social
                          welfare organizations, and chambers of commerce.
                          20
                            GAO, Nonprofit Sector: Significant Federal Funds Reach the Sector through Various
                          Mechanisms, but More Complete and Reliable Funding Data Are Needed, GAO-09-193
                          (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 2009), and Nonprofit Sector: Increasing Numbers and Key
                          Role in Delivering Federal Services, GAO-07-1084T (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2007).




                          Page 11                                      GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Table 1: Nonprofit and State-Recognition Status of 26 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes That Received Direct Federal
Funding, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010

                                                                                              Status in Interior’s administrative
                                                                                                                         c
Tribe name                          City               State   Nonprofita   State recognizedb acknowledgment process
Accohannock Indian Tribe            Marion Station     MD                                     Petitioner #149. Letter of intent
                                                                                               submitted on Jan. 18, 1995.
American Indian Council of          Mariposa           CA                                     Petitioner #82. Petition under active
Mariposa County (petitioned as                                                                 consideration since Nov. 1, 2010.
Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation)
Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and        Brutus             MI                                     Petitioner #101. Denied, effective
Chippewa Indians, Inc.                                                                         Jan. 23, 2007.
Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb       Zwolle             LA                                    Petitioner #37. Letter of intent
                                                                                               submitted on July 2, 1978.
Coharie Tribe of North Carolina     Clinton            NC                                    Petitioner #74. Letter of intent
                                                                                               submitted on Mar. 13, 1981.
Duwamish Tribe                      Seattle            WA                                     Petitioner #25. Denied, effective
                                                                                               May 8, 2002.
                                                                                               d
Eel River Tribe of Indiana          Chalmers           IN
                                                                                               e
Euchee (Yuchi) Tribe of Indians     Sapulpa            OK          
Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe of North Hollister          NC                                    Petitioner #63. Letter of intent
Carolina                                                                                       submitted on Nov. 27, 1979.
Lower Muskogee Creek Tribe          Whigham            GA                         f          Petitioner #8. Denied, effective
                                                                                               Dec. 21, 1981.
Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina      Pembroke           NC                                    Petitioner #65. Deemed ineligible to
                                                                                               apply on Oct. 23, 1989.
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribeg            Mashpee            MA                                    Petitioner #15. Recognized,
                                                                                               effective May 23, 2007.
MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians        Mount Vernon       AL         h               f          Petitioner #86. Denied, effective
                                                                                               Nov. 26, 1999.
Nanticoke Indian Association        Millsboro          DE                                    Petitioner #40. Requested petition
                                                                                               be placed on hold on Mar. 25, 1989.
                                                                                    i
Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of   Bridgeton          NJ                                     Petitioner #127. Letter of intent
New Jersey                                                                                     submitted on Jan. 3, 1992.
Occaneechi Band of Saponi Nation    Mebane             NC                                    Petitioner #148. Letter of intent
of North Carolina                                                                              submitted on Jan. 6, 1995.
                                                                                    i
Powhatan Renape Nation              Rancocas           NJ                                      Petitioner #171. Letter of intent
                                                                                               submitted on Apr. 12, 1996.
Saponi Nation of Missouri Mahenips Willow Springs      MO                                     Petitioner #220. Letter of intent
Band                                                                                           submitted on Dec. 14, 1999.
Sappony (High Plains Indians,       Roxboro            NCj                                   Petitioner #95. Letter of intent
petitioned as Indians of Person                                                                submitted on Sept. 7, 1984.
County)
Shinnecock Indian Nationg           Southampton        NY                         f          Petitioner #4. Recognized, effective
                                                                                               Oct. 1, 2010.




                                             Page 12                                    GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                                                                                                 Status in Interior’s administrative
                                                                                                                                            c
Tribe name                           City                     State       Nonprofita           State recognizedb acknowledgment process
St. Francis/Sokoki Band of         Swanton                    VT                                                               Petitioner #68. Denied, effective
Abenakis of Vermont Abenaki Tribal                                                                                              Oct. 1, 2007.
Council
Tuscarora Nation of Indians of the   Newell                   NC                                                               Petitioner #286. Letter of intent
Carolinas                                                                                                                       submitted on Dec. 21, 2004.
United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya         Guntersville             AL                                                              Petitioner #246. Letter of intent
Nation                                                                                                                          submitted on Nov. 8, 2001.
United Houma Nation                  Golden                   LA                                                              Petitioner #56. Proposed negative
                                     Meadow                                                                                     finding published Dec. 22, 1994.
Waccamaw Siouan Tribe of North       Bolton                   NC                                                              Petitioner #88. Letter of intent
Carolina                                                                                                                        submitted on June 27, 1983.
Wesget Sipu                          Fort Kent                ME                                                               Petitioner #256. Letter of intent
                                                                                                                                submitted on June 4, 2002.
Total                                                                            24                         14
                                              Sources: The Internal Revenue Service for information about nonprofit status, state officials for information about state-recognition
                                              status, and GAO analysis of information from Interior’s Office of Federal Acknowledgment for petitioner status.

                                              Note: This table does not include non-federally recognized tribes outside the contiguous United
                                              States, such as those in Alaska or Hawaii.
                                              a
                                               Non-federally recognized tribes that were organized as nonprofits at any time in fiscal years 2007
                                              through 2010 are indicated by a check mark.
                                              b
                                               Non-federally recognized tribes that were state recognized at any time in fiscal years 2007 through
                                              2010 are indicated by a check mark.
                                              c
                                               Status of the entity’s efforts to petition for federal recognition through Interior’s administrative
                                              acknowledgment process as of April 29, 2011.
                                              d
                                               This entity may be associated with petitioner #304 (Eel River Tribe Inc. of Indiana), located in
                                              Lafayette, Indiana, which submitted a letter of intent to petition on September 13, 2006.
                                              e
                                               This entity may be associated with petitioner #121 (Yuchi Tribal Organization), which was denied
                                              acknowledgment, effective March 21, 2000.
                                              f
                                               This state-recognized tribe also has a state reservation, according to state officials we spoke with,
                                              and therefore would be eligible to receive funding from those federal programs that are authorized to
                                              fund tribes located on or in proximity to state reservations.
                                              g
                                               Two federally recognized Indian tribes—the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Shinnecock Indian
                                              Nation—received federal funding during this period before the effective date of their federal
                                              recognition—May 23, 2007, and October 1, 2010, respectively. Both of these entities were state
                                              recognized for some or all of the period of our review, and the Shinnecock Indian Nation has a state
                                              reservation. Therefore, the Shinnecock Indian Nation would have been eligible to receive funding
                                              from those federal programs that are authorized to fund tribes located on or in proximity to state
                                              reservations.
                                              h
                                               According to the Internal Revenue Service, this non-federally recognized tribe’s nonprofit status was
                                              automatically revoked, effective May 15, 2010, because the entity had not submitted required
                                              nonprofit tax return information for 3 consecutive years.
                                              i
                                              With respect to two entities in New Jersey—the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey and
                                              the Powhatan Renape Nation—a number of sources, including the 2010 Census and the entities’
                                              websites, imply that they are state-recognized tribes. Nevertheless, it is the official position of the
                                              state of New Jersey that there are not, and were not during the period of our review, any state-
                                              recognized tribes in that state.
                                              j
                                                  This entity is also located in Virgilina, VA.




                                              Page 13                                                               GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                           Of the 26 non-federally recognized tribes that received federal funding
                           over the 4-year period, 2—Eel River Tribe of Indiana and the Powhatan
                           Renape Nation—were neither nonprofits nor state-recognized tribes at
                           any time in fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Federal grants awarded to
                           these two entities are described later in this report.

                           As of April 29, 2011, at least 24 of the 26 non-federally recognized tribes
                           have pursued, or expressed an interest in pursuing, federal recognition
                           through Interior’s administrative acknowledgment process. Of these
                           24 entities, 13 have submitted letters of intent to petition for federal
                           recognition and have advanced no further in the process, 5 have been
                           denied, 2 have received federal recognition, 1 had a proposed negative
                           finding published in December 1994, 1 has been under active
                           consideration since November 2010, 1 was deemed ineligible to apply
                           through the administrative acknowledgment process, and 1 requested
                           that its petition be placed on hold.


For Fiscal Years 2007      We identified 24 federal programs that provided funding to the 26 non-
through 2010, 24 Federal   federally recognized tribes for fiscal years 2007 through 2010.
Programs Provided          Specifically, of the 24 programs we identified, 11 programs were
                           authorized to fund nonprofits, 6 had explicit statutory or regulatory
Funding to Non-Federally   authority to fund state-recognized tribes, 1 had authority to fund tribes
Recognized Tribes          located on state reservations, and 1 was authorized to fund state-
                           recognized tribes on state reservations. See table 2 for information on the
                           24 programs, including their assigned number from the Catalog of
                           Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). This catalog is administered by the
                           General Services Administration, and it provides information on federal
                           domestic assistance programs, including grant programs. 21 (See also
                           app. V for a list of all federal programs with explicit statutory or regulatory
                           authority to fund state-recognized tribes.) Some of these 24 programs
                           were also authorized to fund other eligible entities, and in some cases
                           non-federally recognized tribes could have received funding if they met
                           the eligibility requirements for the other entities.




                           21
                             The CFDA is a governmentwide compendium for descriptions of federal programs that
                           provide assistance to the American public. The CFDA data are available on the web at
                           https://www.cfda.gov.




                           Page 14                                    GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Table 2: Statutory or Regulatory Authority of 24 Programs Awarding Funding to Non-Federally Recognized Tribes, Fiscal
Years 2007 through 2010

                                                                             CFDA                            State-recognized
Agency and program                                                           number(s)a        Nonprofits          tribes
Department of Agriculture
                                                                                                                     b
  Rural Housing Preservation Grants                                          10.433                 
  Rural Business Enterprise Grantsc                                          10.769                 
Department of Commerce
  Grant Program for Community Alert Systems                                  11.468
Department of Housing and Urban Development
  Rural Housing and Economic Development                                     14.250                 
  Economic Development Initiative-Special Project, Neighborhood Initiative   14.251
  and Miscellaneous Grantsd
  Indian Community Development Block Grant Program                           14.862                                  b
  (includes Recovery Act funding)                                            14.886
  Indian Housing Block Grants (includes Recovery Act formula and             14.867
  competitive grants)                                                        14.882                                 e
                                                                             14.887
Department of the Interior
  Cultural Resources                                                         15.946                f
Department of Labor
                                                                                                    g
  Native American Employment and Training (includes Recovery Act funding)    17.265                                 g
Department of the Treasury
  Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (includes Recovery Act   21.020
  funding)
Department of Education
  Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies              84.060                                 h
                                                                                                                     i
  American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program                 84.250
  Small, Rural School Achievement Program                                    84.358A
Department of Health and Human Services
  Low-Income Home Energy Assistance                                          93.568                                  
  Community Services Block Grant Program (includes Recovery Act funding)     93.569
                                                                                                                     
                                                                             93.710
  Community Services Block Grant Program (discretionary awards)              93.570                 
  Administration for Native Americans’ Improvement of the Capability of      93.581                                  
  Tribal Governing Bodies to Regulate Environmental Quality
  Administration for Native Americans’ Preservation and Enhancement of       93.587                 
  Native American Languages Programj
  Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals                               93.593                 
  Head Start (includes Recovery Act funding)                                 93.600
                                                                                                    
                                                                             93.708




                                           Page 15                                    GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                                                                           CFDA                                    State-recognized
Agency and program                                                                         number(s)a            Nonprofits              tribes
  Administration for Native Americans’ Social and Economic Development                     93.612                      
  Strategies Programj
Environmental Protection Agency
  Surveys, Studies, Investigations, Training and Special Purpose Activities                66.309
  Relating to Environmental Justicek
Corporation for National and Community Service
  Retired and Senior Volunteer Program                                                     94.002                    
  Volunteers in Service to America                                                         94.013                    
Total                                                                                      24 programs          11 programs            6 programs
                                            Sources: GAO and agency legal research.
                                            a
                                             The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) details program descriptions for more than
                                            2,000 federal assistance programs, and a unique CFDA number is assigned to each program. At least
                                            some federal programs that awarded funding appropriated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment
                                            Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) have a unique CFDA number to track Recovery Act funds. The table above
                                            includes relevant CFDA numbers for each program—including those for Recovery Act funding. CFDA
                                            numbers for funds appropriated in whole or in part by the Recovery Act are italicized.
                                            b
                                             Eligible recipients include Indian tribes that were eligible under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of
                                            1972. To have been eligible under the act, Indian tribes needed a “recognized governing body which
                                            performed substantial governmental functions.” We identified six currently non-federally recognized tribes
                                            that received funding under this act: (1) Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe, (2) Mattaponi Tribe, (3) Paucatuck
                                            Eastern Pequot, (4) Pamunkey Indian Tribe, (5) Poospatuck (Unkechauge) Indian Nation, and
                                            (6) Schaghticoke Tribal Nation. All six of these non-federally recognized tribes are state recognized, and
                                            none of them received funding during the 4-year period covered by our review. We identified five federally
                                            recognized tribes that received funding under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 before they
                                            became federally recognized, including the Shinnecock Indian Nation.
                                            c
                                                This program is authorized to fund Indian tribes on state reservations.
                                            d
                                             The Shinnecock Indian Nation, a state-recognized tribe before becoming a federally recognized
                                            Indian tribe on October 1, 2010, received an Economic Development Initiative grant from the
                                            Department of Housing and Urban Development because of congressional direction in a committee
                                            report accompanying an appropriations act.
                                            e
                                             To be eligible, a state-recognized tribe’s housing authority must also have had a contract with the
                                            Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Housing Act of 1937 before October 26,
                                            1996, and received funding under that contract between October 26, 1991, and October 26, 1996.
                                            f
                                            The National Park Service has authority to enter into cooperative agreements with private nonprofit
                                            organizations and other entities.
                                            g
                                             To be eligible, a state-recognized tribe or tribal organization must serve individuals who were eligible
                                            under section 401 of the Job Training Partnership Act. 65 Fed. Reg. 49373 (Aug. 11, 2000). In
                                            addition, the tribe or tribal organization must have legal status as a government or as an agency of a
                                            government, or private non-profit corporation in order to be eligible.
                                            h
                                             To be eligible, a state-recognized tribe must represent not less than one-half of the eligible Indian
                                            children who are served by a local educational agency that has not established a required Indian
                                            parents committee.
                                            i
                                            To be eligible, a tribe must be both state recognized and have a state reservation.
                                            j
                                                Categories of eligible organizations also include incorporated non-federally recognized tribes.
                                            k
                                             The Environmental Protection Agency awards environmental justice grants pursuant to research and
                                            development provisions in various statutes, such as the Clean Water Act and the Solid Waste
                                            Disposal Act. For example, the Clean Water Act authorizes research, investigation, and
                                            demonstration grants to public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, organizations, and
                                            individuals. Although eligible grantees vary among the statutes, none of the statutes explicitly
                                            authorize funding to non-federally recognized tribes or state-recognized tribes.




                                            Page 16                                                  GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Examples of the 24 federal programs that awarded funding to non-
federally recognized tribes in the 4-year period and that are authorized to
fund nonprofit organizations that meet all applicable eligibility
requirements include the following:

•    the Rural Business Enterprise Grants program, administered by the
     Department of Agriculture, which has statutory authority to fund public
     bodies, including Indian tribes on state reservations, and private
     nonprofit corporations for measures designed to finance and facilitate
     development of small and emerging private business enterprises,
     among other measures;

•    the Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals program,
     administered by the Department of Health and Human Services
     (HHS), which has statutory authority to enter into agreements with
     nonprofits for the purpose of conducting projects that provide
     technical and financial assistance to private employers that assist
     them in creating jobs for low-income individuals; and

•    the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program, administered by the
     Corporation for National and Community Service, which has statutory
     authority to make grants to or contract with nonprofits to support
     programs for certain volunteer service projects for senior citizens.

Six of the 24 programs were not authorized to fund either nonprofits or
state-recognized tribes, but non-federally recognized tribes received
funding under these programs for other reasons. For example, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Economic
Development Initiative-Special Project program awarded funding to the
Shinnecock Indian Nation as a result of congressional direction in a
committee report accompanying an appropriations act before the tribe
was federally recognized. 22 In another example, the Environmental
Protection Agency awards environmental justice grants pursuant to
research and development provisions in various statutes, such as the
Clean Water Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and some of these
statutes authorize broad categories of recipients, such as institutions and
organizations. In addition, the Department of Education’s (Education)
Small, Rural School Achievement Program can provide grants to entities


22
  Pub. L No. 111-8, 123 Stat 524, 959 (2009); 155 Cong. Rec. H2089, H2519 (Feb. 23,
2009).




Page 17                                    GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
as local education agencies, and the Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe of North
Carolina received a grant because it is so organized.

The other three programs that were not authorized to provide funding to
nonprofits or state-recognized tribes were authorized to provide funding to
the following types of entities:

•    Under the Department of Commerce’s Remote Community Alert
     Systems Program, eligible grant recipients include “tribal
     communities” that meet certain requirements. 23 The Eel River Tribe of
     Indiana received funding through this program.

•    The Indian Community Development Block Grant Program is
     authorized to fund Indian tribes that were eligible recipients under the
     State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. As explained in
     appendix V, we identified at least six non-federally recognized tribes
     that have received funding under the act, as well as five federally
     recognized Indian tribes that received funding before the effective
     date of their federal recognition.

•    The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund can provide
     technical assistance grants for activities that enhance the capacity of
     a community development financial institution, which is an entity that
     meets the following five criteria: (1) has a primary mission of
     promoting community development; (2) serves an investment area or
     targeted population; (3) provides development services in conjunction
     with equity investments or loans, directly or through a subsidiary or
     affiliate; (4) maintains, through representation on its governing board
     or otherwise, accountability to residents of its investment area or
     targeted population; and (5) is not an agency or instrumentality of the
     United States, any state, or political subdivision of a state. The
     Lumbee Revitalization and Community Development Corporation,
     which was established by the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina to
     foster economic development, received funding through this program.

Some non-federally recognized tribes may have been eligible for some of
the federal funding they received through several means. For example, a
non-federally recognized tribe that was organized as a nonprofit and was


23
  The term “tribal communities” is not defined in legislation or the notices of funding
availability.




Page 18                                         GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                          also state recognized may have been eligible to apply for some funding
                          as either a nonprofit or a state-recognized tribe. In these cases, we did
                          not attempt to determine the basis on which the funding was awarded.


                          Federal agencies awarded more than $100 million in funding to the
Federal Programs          26 non-federally recognized tribes for fiscal years 2007 through 2010. As
Awarded More Than         shown in table 3, the majority of this funding was awarded to a small
                          number of non-federally recognized tribes. For example, funding to the
$100 Million in           Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina accounted for about 76 percent of the
Funding to Non-           federal funding that we identified. Overall, the Lumbee Tribe of North
Federally Recognized      Carolina received more than $78 million awarded by 10 programs in
                          six federal agencies during the 4-year period. Some of this funding was
Tribes for Fiscal Years   awarded to incorporated entities—such as the Lumbee Regional
2007 through 2010         Development Association—that were created by the Lumbee Tribe of
                          North Carolina to provide services to the Lumbee Indian community. Most
                          of the funding (75 percent) awarded to the Lumbee Tribe of North
                          Carolina was awarded by HUD’s Indian Housing Block Grants program.




                          Page 19                               GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Table 3: Direct Federal Funding Received by 26 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010

Dollars in thousands
                                                                                                                Fiscal year
Tribe name                                                                                       2007             2008        2009      2010       Total
Lumbee Tribe of North Carolinaa                                                              $16,575          $15,039       $27,190   $19,979    $78,782
MOWA Band of Choctaw Indiansb                                                                      636              723       2,080      829       4,268
                                               c
Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe of North Carolina                                                    1,180               994       1,104      849       4,128
Coharie Tribe of North Carolina                                                                    676              681        930       587       2,874
United Houma Nation                                                                                421              433        503       748       2,104
Accohannock Indian Tribe                                                                           500              986        441                 1,926
Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarbd                                                                     385              395        416       425       1,621
Waccamaw Siouan Tribe of North Carolina                                                            331              419        416       351       1,517
Lower Muskogee Creek Tribe                                                                         357              366        366       375       1,463
                             e
Shinnecock Indian Nation                                                                           186                                   790        976
Euchee (Yuchi) Tribe of Indians                                                                    118              192        316       122        747
Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Inc.                                                  91             128        126       122        467
Tuscarora Nation of Indians of the Carolinas                                                         96                        134       152        382
St. Francis/Sokoki Band of Abenakis of Vermont Abenaki Tribal Council                                80               78        78        78        314
Wesget Sipu                                                                                                                    146       160        306
Eel River Tribe of Indiana                                                                                            99       175                  274
American Indian Council of Mariposa County (petitioned as Southern                                                    12       170        78        260
Sierra Miwuk Nation)
Sappony (High Plains Indians, petitioned as Indians of Person County)                                               225                             225
Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey                                                       185                                    23        208
Powhatan Renape Nation                                                                             200                                              200
Duwamish Tribe                                                                                     107                70                            177
Occaneechi Band of Saponi Nation of North Carolina                                                                             130                  130
United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation                                                                                   21                  77         98
Saponi Nation of Missouri Mahenips Band                                                                               65                             65
Nanticoke Indian Association                                                                         41                                              41
                                 f
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe                                                                              33                                              33
Total                                                                                        $22,198          $20,926       $34,720   $25,743   $103,588
                                               Source: GAO analysis of data from USAspending.gov as of December 14, 2011.

                                               Notes: (1) This table does not include non-federally recognized tribes in states outside the contiguous
                                               United States, such as Alaska or Hawaii. (2) Totals may not add because of rounding. (3) Some of
                                               the funding identified in the table was used to provide services to members of federally recognized
                                               Indian tribes and Native Hawaiians. For example, non-federally recognized tribes that receive Native
                                               American Employment and Training grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements must provide
                                               services to meet the needs of Indians, Alaska Natives, or Native Hawaiians in the area served by the
                                               non-federally recognized tribe.




                                               Page 20                                                        GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
a
 This table row includes funding awarded to incorporated entities, such as the Lumbee Regional
Development Association, Inc.; the Lumbee Land Development, Inc.; and the Lumbee Revitalization
and Community Development Corporation.
b
    This table row includes funding awarded to the MOWA Choctaw Housing Authority.
c
    This table row includes funding awarded to the Haliwa-Saponi Tribal School.
d
 The Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb received funding on behalf of the Intertribal Council of Central
Louisiana, Inc.—a consortium of two state-recognized tribes—which also included the Four Winds
Cherokee.
e
 The Shinnecock Indian Nation received federal recognition through Interior’s administrative
acknowledgment process, effective October 1, 2010. This table includes only funding the tribe
received before the effective date of its federal recognition.
f
The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe received federal recognition through Interior’s administrative
acknowledgment process, effective May 23, 2007. This table includes only funding the tribe received
before the effective date of its federal recognition.


Similarly, as shown in table 4, nearly all the federal funding we identified
as having been awarded to the 26 non-federally recognized tribes over
the 4-year period was awarded by a small number of federal programs.
Specifically, 95 percent of the funding was awarded by seven federal
programs in four agencies. Each of these programs awarded a total of
more than $1.5 million to non-federally recognized tribes during the
period. About 67 percent (nearly $69 million) of the funding we identified
was awarded by HUD’s Indian Housing Block Grants program. 24 Five
non-federally recognized tribes have received funding through this
program: the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina (see sidebar), the MOWA
Band of Choctaw Indians, the Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe of North
Carolina, the Coharie Tribe of North Carolina, and the Waccamaw Siouan
Tribe of North Carolina. To determine funding amounts for all federally
recognized Indian tribes and eligible non-federally recognized tribes, the
program uses a formula that considers factors such as the population and
housing conditions of tribal communities. Program funds are used to
support such activities as housing development.




24
  Most program recipients are federally recognized Indian tribes. Overall, funding to non-
federally recognized tribes accounted for about 2.7 percent of the more than $2.6 billion in
program funds awarded over the 4-year period.




Page 21                                               GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Table 4: Twenty-four Federal Programs That Awarded Funding to Non-Federally Recognized Tribes, Fiscal Years 2007
through 2010

Dollars in thousands
                                                                                                                                      Number of
                                                                                                                                         unique           Funds
Program                                                                       Agency                                                  recipients        awarded
Indian Housing Block Grants (includes Recovery Act formula and                Housing and Urban Development                                    5         $68,887
competitive grants)
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance                                             Health and Human Services                                             5      7,074
Head Start (includes Recovery Act funding)                                    Health and Human Services                                             1      7,029
American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program                    Education                                                             4      5,915
Native American Employment and Training (includes Recovery                    Labor                                                                 4      4,411
Act funding)
Administration for Native Americans’ Social and Economic                      Health and Human Services                                            13      3,626
Development Strategies Program
Community Services Block Grant Program (includes Recovery Act                 Health and Human Services                                             5      1,764
funding)
Administration for Native Americans’ Preservation and                         Health and Human Services                                             3       732
Enhancement of Native American Languages Program
Community Services Block Grant Program (discretionary awards)                 Health and Human Services                                             1       686
Indian Community Development Block Grant Program (includes                    Housing and Urban Development                                         1       600
Recovery Act funding)
Rural Housing and Economic Development                                        Housing and Urban Development                                         1       590
Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals                                  Health and Human Services                                             1       500
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (includes                   Treasury                                                              1       283
Recovery Act funding)
Cultural Resources                                                            Interior                                                              1       260
Remote Community Alert Systems Program                                        Commerce                                                              1       274
Administration for Native Americans’ Improvement of the                       Health and Human Services                                             1       219
Capability of Tribal Governing Bodies to Regulate Environmental
Quality
Economic Development Initiative-Special Project, Neighborhood                 Housing and Urban Development                                         1       190
Initiative and Miscellaneous Grants
Rural Housing Preservation Grants                                             Agriculture                                                           1       186
Small, Rural School Achievement Program                                       Education                                                             1        92
Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies                 Education                                                             1        90
Rural Business Enterprise Grants                                              Agriculture                                                           1        80
Retired and Senior Volunteer Program                                          Corporation for National and                                          1        63
                                                                              Community Service
Volunteers in Service to America                                              Corporation for National and                                          1        25
                                                                              Community Service
Surveys, Studies, Investigations, Training and Special Purpose                Environmental Protection Agency                                       1        10
Activities Relating to Environmental Justice
Total                                                                                                                                              26   $103,588
                                           Sources: GAO analysis of data from USAspending.gov as of December 14, 2011, and agency-provided data.

                                           Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.




                                           Page 22                                                        GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                            During our review, we identified some instances where federal agencies
Agencies Have               had provided funds to non-federally recognized tribes for which grant
Funded Some Likely          eligibility is disputed and one instance where an agency is trying to
                            enforce the Single Audit Act’s reporting requirements. Specifically, when
Ineligible Non-             we compared the eligibility requirements for each federal program that
Federally Recognized        provided funding to non-federally recognized tribes for fiscal years 2007
Tribes, and One             through 2010 with the characteristics of each entity, we found that
                            Education funded some non-federally recognized tribes under the
Agency Is in the            American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program that appear
Process of Enforcing        to be ineligible and that HHS funded two non-federally recognized tribes
                            in New Jersey that the state does not consider to be state recognized. In
Single Audit Act            addition, we identified one instance where HHS has initiated action to
Requirements                better ensure that a non-federally recognized tribe completes its required
                            financial report under the Single Audit Act.


Under Its American Indian   Education awarded American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Vocational Rehabilitation   Program funding to two state-recognized tribes that do not have a state
Services Program,           reservation—United Houma Nation and the Lumbee Tribe of North
                            Carolina—and a consortium consisting of two additional state-recognized
Education Funded Non-       tribes—Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb and Four Winds Cherokee—that
Federally Recognized        also do not have a state reservation. The statute establishing the program
Tribes That Appear to       authorizes grants to the governing bodies of state- and federally
Have Been Ineligible        recognized Indian tribes “located on federal and state reservations” and
                            consortia of such governing bodies to pay for vocational rehabilitation
                            services for disabled Indians “residing on or near such reservations.” 25
                            Although this program is designed to enhance the availability of
                            vocational rehabilitation services to Indians living on and near
                            reservations, many of whom have been poorly served by state
                            agencies, 26 there are substantial questions about whether Education has
                            interpreted the term “reservation” more broadly than its statutory definition
                            supports and has awarded grants to ineligible tribes.



                            25
                             29 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B), 741(a) (emphasis added).
                            26
                              See 124 Cong. Rec. S2519 (daily ed. Feb. 28, 1978) (statement of Sen. Randolph)
                            (“during oversight hearings on the Rehabilitation Act and other programs, it was brought to
                            the subcommittee’s attention that reservation based Indian tribes may experience unique
                            problems”); S. Rep. No. 95-890, at 13-14 (1978) (the existing Vocational Rehabilitation Act
                            “has proved to be an inadequate means of addressing the problems experienced by
                            reservation-based Indians, particularly those located on reservations spanning more than
                            one state”).




                            Page 23                                       GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
The applicable statutory definition of reservation says:

“The term ‘reservation’ includes Indian reservations, public domain Indian allotments,
former Indian reservations in Oklahoma, and land held by incorporated Native groups,
regional corporations, and village corporations under the provisions of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act.” 27

Education told us that under its long-standing interpretation of this
definition, 28 “reservation” includes not only the four categories enumerated
in the statute, but also “a defined and contiguous area of land where there
is a concentration of tribal members and in which the tribe is providing
structured activities and services, such as the tribal service areas identified
in the tribe’s grant application.” Education’s interpretation allows a tribe to
self-define “reservation” by designating any area and providing structured
services to tribal members there. Rules of statutory construction weigh
against this interpretation. Under the noscitur a sociis rule, words grouped
in a list should be given related meaning. 29 Courts rely on this rule “to avoid
ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its
accompanying words, thus giving unintended breadth to the Acts of
Congress.” 30 Applied here, this rule means that to satisfy the statutory
definition of “reservation,” the area should, like the four areas designated
in the statute, be established by or pursuant to a treaty, statute,
regulation, executive order, or other formal government recognition. The
tribal service areas that constitute “reservations” for purposes of
Education’s grants to the United Houma Nation, Lumbee Tribe of North
Carolina, Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb, and Four Winds Cherokee, by



27
   29 U.S.C. § 741(c) (emphasis added). See generally 124 Cong. Rec. S15562 (daily ed.
Sept. 20, 1978) (statement of Sen. Bartlett) (because not all the Indians are on federal and
state reservations, the Senator offered an amendment, which was enacted, to include a
definition of “reservation” that “follows the customary language which defines reservation
to include Indian reservations, public domain Indian allotments, former Indian reservations
in Oklahoma, and land held by incorporated native groups, regional corporations, and
village corporations under the provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act”).
28
  The department did not provide us with any documentation of this long-standing
interpretation, and this interpretation differs from the department’s regulatory definition.
The regulatory definition states that “[r]eservation means”—rather than “includes”—the
four categories enumerated in the statute. See 34 C.F.R. § 371.4.
29
  See, e.g., Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, 494 U.S. 26, 36 (1990).
30
 Gutafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 575 (1995) (citing Jarecki v. G.D. Searle &
Co., 367 U.S. 303, 307 (1961)).




Page 24                                         GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
contrast, have been delineated by the tribes themselves, which have then
applied for federal grants on the basis of these self-created geographic
areas. This approach essentially transforms the grant program into one
for “Indian tribes no matter where they are located, to provide assistance
to disabled Indians no matter where they reside.” Such an outcome is not
what Congress intended or enacted.

In addition, the statute’s use of both the term “reservation” and “tribal
service area” undercuts Education’s interpretation because it suggests
Congress did not believe a tribal service area is simply a type of
reservation. The statute authorizes the department to make grants to
certain governing bodies of Indian tribes on federal and state reservations
and, elsewhere, discusses how Indians with disabilities living on or near a
reservation or tribal service area are to be provided vocational
rehabilitation services. 31 If the term “reservation” included the term “tribal
service area,” Congress would not have referred to them separately in
section 101(a)(11)(F)(ii) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended in
1998. 32




31
  Education makes vocational rehabilitation services grants to both designated state
agencies and tribal entities. The latter is referred to as the American Indian Vocational
Rehabilitation Services Program. If no tribal entities within a state receive American Indian
Vocational Rehabilitation Services grants, Indians eligible for vocational rehabilitation
services would be served by the designated state agency. The statute requires the state
agency and any tribal entity within the state that has received an American Indian
Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program grant to enter into a cooperative agreement
that “describes strategies for collaboration and coordination” in providing vocational
rehabilitation services to Indians. 29 U.S.C. § 721(a)(11)(F). The cooperative agreement,
among other things, must include procedures for ensuring that American Indians who are
individuals with disabilities and are living “near a reservation or tribal service area” are
provided vocational rehabilitation services. Education believes this provision means the
law has equated “reservations” with “tribal service areas.” For the reasons discussed
above, we disagree.
32
  See, e.g., Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular
Systems, Inc., 131 S.Ct. 2188, 2196 (2011); Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. U.S. Dept.
of Interior, 228 F.3d 82, 88 (2000) (courts disfavor interpretations of statutes that render
language superfluous).




Page 25                                        GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
HHS Funded Two             The state-recognition status of some non-federally recognized tribes in
Ineligible Non-Federally   New Jersey has been called into question. 33 The two non-federally
Recognized Tribes in       recognized tribes in New Jersey that received federal funding in the
                           4-year period covered by our review were the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape
New Jersey
                           Indians of New Jersey and the Powhatan Renape Nation. About 30 years
                           ago, the New Jersey legislature passed concurrent resolutions regarding
                           the Confederation of Nanticoke-Lenni Lenape and the Powhatan Renape
                           Nation. 34 Concurrent resolutions are not signed by the Governor and
                           therefore do not have the force of law. In addition, these tribes are
                           referred to in a few state statutes, including the statute establishing the
                           New Jersey Commission on Native American Affairs. Since at least
                           December 2001, however, the state of New Jersey has officially taken the
                           position in correspondence with the Department of the Interior that these
                           actions do not constitute official state recognition and therefore these
                           tribes are not considered to be state recognized. In addition, in 2002, New
                           Jersey law was amended to require specific statutory authorization for the
                           recognition of the authenticity of any group as an American Indian tribe.
                           No state laws contain specific statutory authorization for state recognition
                           of any Indian tribe in New Jersey.

                           Notwithstanding this history, the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New
                           Jersey and the Powhatan Renape Nation continue to consider themselves,
                           and have represented themselves to HHS, as state-recognized tribes in
                           applying for funding awarded by the Community Services Block Grant
                           program and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program, respectively,
                           during the 4-year period of our review. These programs, however, are
                           authorized to fund only states and federally and state-recognized Indian
                           tribes. 35 The Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape’s application repeatedly stated that it



                           33
                             Alexa Koenig and Jonathan Stein, “Federalism and the State Recognition of Native
                           American Tribes: A Survey of State-Recognized Tribes and State Recognition Processes
                           across the United States,” 48 Santa Clara L. Rev. 79, 126-28 (2008).
                           34
                             A third concurrent resolution was also passed in 1979 regarding the Ramapough
                           Mountain Indians.
                           35
                             42 U.S.C. § 9906 (state allotments for Community Services Block Grants); 42 U.S.C.
                           § 8623 (state allotments for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance). Under the regulations
                           for both programs, the term Indian tribe includes federally recognized Indian tribes and
                           organized groups of Indians that the state in which they reside has expressly determined
                           are Indian tribes or tribal organizations in accordance with state procedures for making
                           such determinations. See 45 C.F.R. § 96.44(b) (Community Services Block Grants);
                           45 C.F.R. § 96.48(b) (Low-Income Home Energy Assistance).




                           Page 26                                     GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                               was state recognized and included the concurrent resolution from the
                               1980s as evidence of state recognition. Agency officials told us they did not
                               take any additional steps to verify that the entity was in fact state
                               recognized; they also said they have had regular contact with state officials
                               about the awards, and those state officials never told them that the tribe
                               was not state recognized. On the basis of this statement in the grant
                               application, the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey received
                               two grants totaling $44,405 from the Community Services Block Grant
                               Program—one in fiscal year 2007 and one in fiscal year 2010.

                               Regarding the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program, the
                               Powhatan Renape Nation presented itself as state recognized in a letter
                               submitted with its grant application. Agency officials stated that the entity’s
                               state-recognition status would have been verified when it started receiving
                               program funding about 30 years ago. During the 4-year period of our
                               review, the Powhatan Renape Nation received $200,342 from the Low-
                               Income Home Energy Assistance program in fiscal year 2007.


HHS Has Taken Some             The Accohannock Indian Tribe, one of the non-federally recognized tribes
Initial Steps in Response to   that we identified as receiving federal funds during the period of our
the Accohannock Indian         review, did not have an audit or submit a report for 2009 as required by
                               the Single Audit Act. According to HHS data, the Accohannock Indian
Tribe’s Noncompliance          Tribe reported spending over $1 million in federal funds for calendar year
with the Single Audit Act      2009 from three different HHS programs—Community Services Block
                               Grant Program Discretionary Awards, Job Opportunities for Low-Income
                               Individuals, and Administration for Native Americans’ Social and
                               Economic Development Strategies Program. The entity’s expenditure of
                               federal funds in 2009 was more than twice the threshold that triggers the
                               Single Audit Act’s requirements. Unless an exception applied, the entity’s
                               audit report would have been due 9 months after the end of the entity’s
                               fiscal year, at the latest. Since the entity’s fiscal year ends on December
                               31, its audit report would have been due by September 30, 2010, at the
                               latest. As of February 7, 2012, the Accohannock Indian Tribe had not
                               submitted its required audit report for 2009 to the Federal Audit
                               Clearinghouse, which maintains the Single Audit Database.

                               HHS is the federal awarding agency responsible for ensuring the entity’s
                               compliance with the act because it is the only agency that awarded the
                               Accohannock Indian Tribe federal funds in 2009. The entity’s
                               noncompliance with the Single Audit Act was flagged, and the agency
                               sent a letter of inquiry to the Accohannock Indian Tribe on March 8, 2011.
                               According to agency officials, they did not receive a response to their


                               Page 27                                 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                      letter. More recently, after we began inquiring about the issue, the agency
                      sent the entity an Audit Deficiency Notice via certified mail on February 7,
                      2012. According to agency officials, because the Accohannock Indian
                      Tribe is not a current grantee, the agency has limited enforcement
                      options. Nevertheless, agency officials stated they plan to continue to
                      pursue their administrative options to encourage the Accohannock Indian
                      Tribe to meet its federal financial reporting obligations.


                      Determining the state-recognition status of non-federally recognized tribes
Conclusions           can be a difficult and confusing task, as is trying to determine which entities
                      have state reservations. No official consolidated list of state-recognized tribes
                      or state reservations exists, and states have varying policies and procedures
                      for providing state recognition. Nevertheless, Education provided funds
                      under the American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program to
                      state-recognized tribes that were not located on state reservations but rather
                      had self-defined tribal service areas, raising substantial questions about the
                      tribes’ eligibility for the funding, and HHS provided funds to two non-federally
                      recognized tribes in New Jersey as state-recognized tribes that are not
                      officially recognized by the state. Finally, when entities expend $500,000 or
                      more in federal funds in a fiscal year, they are required to comply with the
                      reporting requirements of the Single Audit Act. The Accohannock Indian
                      Tribe did not comply with those requirements for 2009. In response, HHS
                      has begun taking administrative steps to encourage the Accohannock Indian
                      Tribe to meet its federal financial reporting obligations.


                      We are making the following three recommendations.
Recommendations for
Executive Action      To ensure that grants under the American Indian Vocational
                      Rehabilitation Services Program are made consistent with applicable law,
                      we recommend that the Secretary of Education review the department’s
                      practices with respect to eligibility requirements and take appropriate
                      action with respect to grants made to tribes that do not have federal or
                      state reservations.

                      To ensure the proper award and oversight of grants by the Department of
                      Health and Human Services, we recommend that the Secretary of Health
                      and Human Services take the following two actions.

                      •   Investigate whether the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New
                          Jersey and the Powhatan Renape Nation met the statutory eligibility
                          requirements for the grants they were awarded and take appropriate


                      Page 28                                  GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                         action as necessary. In doing so, the agency should consult with the
                         state of New Jersey to determine whether the state has officially or
                         formally recognized the tribes and treats them as state recognized.

                     •   Continue to pursue the Accohannock Indian Tribe’s noncompliance
                         with the Single Audit Act and take appropriate action as necessary.


                     We provided a copy of our draft report to the Departments of Agriculture,
Agency Comments      Education, Energy, the Interior, Labor, and HHS. In its written response,
and Our Evaluation   reprinted in appendix VI, Education stated its commitment to review its
                     practices for determining eligibility for the American Indian Vocational
                     Rehabilitation Services Program and taking appropriate action, if helpful,
                     such as clarifying its interpretation. In addition, Education requested that
                     we change the phase “appropriate corrective action” in the
                     recommendation to simply “appropriate action.” We made that change to
                     the recommendation. Education’s commitment to review its practices and
                     take appropriate action is consistent with our revised recommendation.

                     While agreeing to review its practices, Education disagreed with our
                     finding (which was the basis for the recommendation) that state-
                     recognized tribes without state reservations, but with self-defined tribal
                     service areas, are likely ineligible for the American Indian Vocational
                     Rehabilitation Services grant program. Education stated that its
                     interpretation of the term “reservation” was reasonable and that we
                     should defer to its interpretation. However, for the reasons detailed in the
                     report, we continue to have substantial questions about whether
                     Education reasonably interpreted the statutory definition of “reservation”
                     for the American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services grant program
                     to include tribal service areas. We note that Education’s interpretation
                     effectively rewrites the statute to allow tribes to unilaterally self-define a
                     reservation and then apply for a grant. That reading appears to go
                     beyond Congress’s intent and language.

                     In addition, Education states that its interpretation is supported by the
                     1998 amendments to the statute, which (1) authorized American Indian
                     Vocational Rehabilitation Service Program grantees to serve American
                     Indians with disabilities living near reservations as well as those living on
                     reservations, and (2) required states and American Indian Vocational
                     Rehabilitation Service Program grantees to enter into cooperative
                     agreements that, among other things, include procedures for ensuring
                     that American Indians with disabilities living near a reservation or tribal
                     service area are provided vocational rehabilitation services. However,


                     Page 29                                 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
expanding the universe of Indians eligible to receive vocational
rehabilitation services to those living “near” a reservation does not alter
what qualifies as a “reservation.” Moreover, Congress’s use of both
“reservation” and “tribal service area” undercuts Education’s interpretation
because it suggests Congress did not believe a tribal service area is
simply a type of reservation.

HHS agreed with the two recommendations involving its activities and
stated that it will seek to clarify with the state of New Jersey the status of
the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey and the Powhatan
Renape Nation. HHS also stated that it will continue to address issues
related to compliance with the Single Audit Act related to the
Accohannock Indian Tribe. (See app. VII for HHS’s written comments.)
The Departments of Agriculture, Education, the Interior, and HHS also
provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as
appropriate. The Departments of Energy and Labor had no comments.


As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the
report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
Secretaries of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human
Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, and Labor;
appropriate congressional committees; and other interested parties. The
report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at
http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this
report are listed in appendix VIII.

Sincerely yours,




Anu K. Mittal
Director, Natural Resources
  and Environment




Page 30                                 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
              Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
              Methodology



Methodology

              This review’s objectives were to address (1) the key means by which non-
              federally recognized tribes have been eligible for federal funding and
              (2) the amount of federal funding awarded to non-federally recognized
              tribes for fiscal years 2007 through 2010, by agency and program. In
              addition, this report provides information about some cases we identified
              during our work concerning non-federally recognized tribes’ eligibility for
              funding and compliance with federal financial reporting requirements.

              Because no comprehensive list of non-federally recognized tribes exists,
              we first compiled a list of about 400 such tribes in the contiguous
              48 states. 1 To compile this list we relied on information from (1) the
              Department of the Interior, and obtained a list of all those entities that
              have submitted a letter of intent to petition for federal recognition through
              the department’s administrative acknowledgment process or have
              submitted a complete petition but had not received federal recognition as
              of April 29, 2011; (2) selected states about state-recognized tribes; and
              (3) other documents and sources that identified other self-identified tribes
              that are not federally recognized.

              For this review, we compiled a list of states with state-recognized tribes
              that are not federally recognized. We compiled this list by gathering
              information from a variety of sources, including information gathered by
              Interior’s Indian Arts and Crafts Board on state-recognized tribes in all
              50 states and information collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. On the
              basis of this information, we identified 15 states that were most likely to



              1
               We excluded Alaska and Hawaii because of the unique circumstances in those states. In
              addition to the 225 federally recognized tribes in Alaska, Alaska Native corporations were
              created pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act but are not federally
              recognized tribes and some federal programs have explicit authority to fund them. As a
              result, including Alaska would have required extensive and different research and legal
              analysis on how federal programs treat Alaska Native corporations. Hawaii enacted
              legislation in July 2011 to provide for and implement the recognition of the Native
              Hawaiian people by means and methods that will facilitate their self-governance. The
              Attorney General of Hawaii has identified over 160 federal laws explicitly addressing
              Native Hawaiians. See Can Congress Create a Race-Based Government? The
              Constitutionality of H.R. 309 and S. 147, Hearing Before the House Subcomm. on the
              Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 6, 60-80 (2005). Native
              Hawaiians are not eligible to apply for federal recognition through Interior’s administrative
              acknowledgment process, and as a result, Interior’s list of entities that have submitted a
              letter of intent to petition for federal recognition does not include information about
              Hawaiian entities that may self-identify as tribes. Like the situation in Alaska, including
              Hawaii would have required extensive and different research and legal analysis on how
              federal programs treat Native Hawaiians.




              Page 31                                        GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology




have state-recognized tribes, and we reached out to state officials in each
of these states. On the basis of our discussions with officials in these
states, we confirmed that 12 of the 15 states had state-recognized tribes.
In addition, state officials in the other 33 states had at one time told
Interior’s Indian Arts and Crafts Board that their states had no state-
recognized tribes that were not also federally recognized. As part of our
contact with these 15 states, in addition to inquiring about any state-
recognized tribes, we also asked about whether they were aware of any
other non-federally recognized tribes within their borders. For the other
33 states, we relied largely on information provided by these states to
Interior’s Indian Arts and Crafts Board. According to this information,
these states had identified no state-recognized tribes within their borders.
We spot-checked this information by contacting 20 states for which we
were able to identify a state official who could respond to our questions,
and 9 of these states responded to our inquiry and confirmed that they did
not have any state-recognized tribes. 2

To address both objectives of this review, we obtained and reviewed
statutes and agency documents; searched databases such as
USAspending.gov and the Single Audit Database; analyzed agency-
provided data; and met with officials of various federal agencies, including
all six agencies with programs that have explicit statutory or regulatory
authority to fund certain non-federally recognized tribes, such as state-
recognized tribes that are not also federally recognized. These agencies
are the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and
Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor. In
addition, we traveled to North Carolina and Virginia to meet with state
officials, representatives of Native American organizations, and officials
from several non-federally recognized tribes located in those states. We
selected North Carolina because it had the highest concentration of non-
federally recognized tribes that we identified as having received funding
during the 4-year period (7 out of 26), including three of the top four
recipients of federal funds during the period. We included Virginia
because of its proximity to Washington, D.C., and because tribes in the
state have received federal funding in the past.



2
  The 15 states we identified as possibly having state-recognized tribes were the 12 states
listed in table 7 plus California, New Jersey, and Ohio. The additional 9 states responding
to our inquiry were Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan,
Oklahoma, and Texas.




Page 32                                       GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology




To identify which non-federally recognized tribes had received federal
funding during the period 2007 through 2010 and which programs had
provided this funding, we searched publicly available funding data from
USAspending.gov and agency-provided data. USAspending.gov, a
publicly accessible website containing data on federal awards, was
launched in December 2007 to comply with the requirements of the
Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. 3 Under
that act, federal agencies are required to report information about all
federal awards of $25,000 or more. As a result of these searches, we
determined that 26 of the about 400 non-federally recognized tribes that
we had identified had received federal funding in the 4-year period from
24 federal programs.

To determine by which means non-federally recognized tribes were
eligible to receive federal funding, we reviewed the authorizing statutes,
program regulations, and eligibility requirements for all 24 programs that
had awarded funding to the 26 non-federally recognized tribes during
fiscal years 2007 through 2010. In addition, we collected information
about the organization and legal status of the 26 non-federally recognized
tribes. For example, we searched Internal Revenue Service data to
identify which of the receiving entities were organized as nonprofits at any
time during the 4-year period. We then analyzed how each entity could
have qualified for the funding it received, by comparing the organizational
and legal status of the recipient with the statutory and regulatory authority
of the awarding program. When a non-federally recognized tribe was
eligible to receive federal funding from a program through several means,
we did not attempt to single out which means qualified the tribe for the
funding received. In those instances where we could not identify any
means by which a non-federally recognized tribe was eligible for funding
received, we contacted agency officials to determine how the entity had
qualified. For example, we contacted two agencies to determine how non-
state-recognized tribes in New Jersey qualified for funding from programs
that are authorized to fund state-recognized tribes but not to fund other
non-federally recognized tribes.

For each non-federally recognized tribe we identified, we searched
USAspending.gov and agency-provided data on relevant identifying
information, including tribal names provided by Interior for petitioners and



3
Pub. L. No. 109-282, 120 Stat. 1186 (2006).




Page 33                                       GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology




by state officials for state-recognized tribes and other non-federally
recognized tribes in their states. Where possible, we used available
information such as tribal names and addresses to identify each entity’s
Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number—a nine-digit number
assigned by Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., to identify each physical location for
businesses. Entities such as non-federally recognized tribes may have
multiple DUNS numbers, and we took steps to identify all relevant DUNS
numbers by, for example, searching Dun & Bradstreet’s records for
additional DUNS numbers associated with a particular entity, such as a
previous DUNS number where applicable. We then searched
USAspending.gov and agency-provided data on tribal names and DUNS
numbers to compile an updated data set on federal funding awarded by
federal agencies in the 4-year period to the non-federally recognized
tribes we identified.

To determine the amount of federal funding awarded for fiscal years 2007
through 2010 to non-federally recognized tribes, we used the information
that we obtained from USAspending.gov and agency-provided data. We
supplemented USAspending.gov data with agency-provided data from
(1) all seven programs that we identified as each having awarded a total
of more than $1.5 million in funding to non-federally recognized tribes in
the 4-year period and (2) some additional programs administered by
these agencies. Some programs awarded funding appropriated through
the annual appropriation process as well as funding appropriated by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Although the Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 4 may assign unique numbers to
track these two funding sources, we did not consider the funding as
coming from separate programs for the purposes of tallying the number of
programs that awarded funding to non-federally recognized tribes.

We took a number of steps to assess the reliability of these data. For
example, we compared USAspending.gov against information in single
audit reports filed by those non-federally recognized tribes that filed these
reports for one or more of the fiscal years included in this review. We also
tested the data for missing data and outliers, interviewed agency officials
from all seven programs that awarded more than $1.5 million to non-
federally recognized tribes in the 4-year period to discuss how they collect



4
 CFDA details program descriptions for more than 2,000 federal assistance programs and
assigns a unique CFDA number to each program. See http://www.cfda.gov.




Page 34                                     GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology




and maintain these data, and contacted knowledgeable agency officials to
resolve any inconsistencies in these data sources. For example, by
reviewing single audits completed by the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina,
we identified an award that was not listed in USAspending.gov; we
contacted agency officials to confirm the amounts awarded by fiscal year
and program and to determine why the award was not listed. An agency
official stated that the award was not listed in USAspending.gov because
it was below the reporting threshold required by the Federal Funding
Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. On the basis of information
provided by the agency, we were able to include the award in our updated
data set. After taking these steps, we concluded that the updated data set
was reliable for the purpose of estimating the amount of federal funding
awarded by federal agencies to non-federally recognized tribes for fiscal
years 2007 through 2010. After collecting this information, we compared
the characteristics of each non-federally recognized tribe with applicable
program eligibility requirements, and we checked for compliance with the
financial reporting requirement in the Single Audit Act, as amended. 5 As a
result, we identified some instances where federal agencies had made
grants to likely ineligible non-federally recognized tribes and where an
agency had initiated actions to enforce federal financial reporting
requirements.

We excluded awards received by non-federally recognized tribes as
subawards from other entities, including states, because neither
USAspending.gov nor the federal agencies maintain reliable information on
subawards. We also excluded loans, procurement contracts, and tax
expenditures and did not make any effort to determine the amount of
funding received directly by individual members of non-federally recognized
tribes through, for example, scholarships awarded by federal agencies.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 through April 2012,
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.



5
 Pub. L. No. 98-502 (1984), amended by Pub. L. No. 104-156 (1996), codified as
amended at 31 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7507.




Page 35                                     GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix II: Tribes Whose Recognition Was
                                            Appendix II: Tribes Whose Recognition Was
                                            Terminated



Terminated

                                            This appendix provides information about tribes whose relationship with
                                            the United States was terminated. These tribes are not eligible to petition
                                            for federal recognition through the Department of the Interior’s
                                            administrative acknowledgement process, but may have their recognition
                                            restored by other means. 1 As of October 1, 2010, federal recognition had
                                            been restored for 38 tribes whose relationship with the United States had
                                            been terminated (see table 5). These tribes were non-federally
                                            recognized upon termination until the effective date of restoration.

Table 5: Years in Non-Federally Recognized Status for 38 Tribes Whose Recognition Was Terminated and Subsequently
Restored

                                                                                                                         Years non-
                                                                                                                           federally
Restored tribe                                                      State      Date terminated      Date restored        recognized
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin                                 WI         Apr. 30, 1961        Dec. 22, 1973                12.65
Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California                    CA         Sept. 3, 1965        June 29, 1977                11.83
Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon               OR         Aug. 13, 1956        Nov. 18, 1977                21.28
Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma                                            OK         Aug. 3, 1959         May 15, 1978                 18.79
Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma                                 OK         Aug. 2, 1959         May 15, 1978                 18.80
Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh     UT         Mar. 1, 1957         Apr. 3, 1980                 23.11
Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band
of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)
Wiyot Tribe, California (formerly the Table Bluff Reservation—      CA         Apr. 11, 1961        Sept. 21, 1981               20.46
Wiyot Tribe)
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon          OR         Aug. 13, 1956        Nov. 22, 1983                27.29
Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw          OR         Aug. 13, 1956        Oct. 17, 1984                28.20
Indians of Oregon
Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, California            CA         July 16, 1966        Feb. 13, 1985a               18.59
                                                                                                                    a
Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria,        CA         Nov. 11, 1965        Feb. 13, 1985                19.27
California
Blue Lake Rancheria, California                                     CA         Sept. 22, 1966       Feb. 13, 1985a               18.41
                                                                                                                    a
Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California               CA         Apr. 11, 1961        Feb. 13, 1985                23.86
Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California             CA         Aug. 1, 1961         Feb. 13, 1985a               23.55




                                            1
                                             For information on how federal recognition has been restored for these tribes see
                                            enclosure II of GAO, Indian Issues: BLM’s Program for Issuing Individual Indian
                                            Allotments on Public Lands Is No Longer Viable, GAO-07-23R (Washington, D.C.:
                                            Oct. 20, 2006), and appendix II of GAO, Native American Graves Protection and
                                            Repatriation Act: After Almost 20 Years, Key Federal Agencies Still Have Not Fully
                                            Complied with the Act, GAO-10-768 (Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2010).




                                            Page 36                                      GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                            Appendix II: Tribes Whose Recognition Was
                                            Terminated




                                                                                                                                                     Years non-
                                                                                                                                                       federally
Restored tribe                                                                 State          Date terminated              Date restored             recognized
Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California                             CA             Dec. 30, 1965                Feb. 13, 1985a                 19.14
                                                                                                                                                 a
Elk Valley Rancheria, California                                               CA             July 16, 1966                Feb. 13, 1985                  18.59
                                                                                                                                                 a
Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California                            CA             Dec. 8, 1966                 Feb. 13, 1985                  18.20
Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California                             CA             Aug. 1, 1961                 Feb. 13, 1985a                 23.55
                                                                                                                                                 a
Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California                              CA             Feb. 18, 1966                Feb. 13, 1985                  19.00
Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California                         CA             Feb. 18, 1966                Feb. 13, 1985a                 19.00
                                                                                                                                                 a
Pinoleville Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California                            CA             Feb. 18, 1966                Feb. 13, 1985                  19.00
                                                                                                                                                 a
Potter Valley Tribe, California                                                CA             Aug. 1, 1961                 Feb. 13, 1985                  23.55
Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley Reservation                CA             Jan. 20, 1967                Feb. 13, 1985a                 18.08
of California
Redding Rancheria, California                                                  CA             June 20, 1962                Feb. 13, 1985a                 22.67
                                                                                                                                                 a
Redwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California                         CA             Aug. 1, 1961                 Feb. 13, 1985                  23.55
                                                                                                                                                 a
Smith River Rancheria, California                                              CA             July 29, 1967                Feb. 13, 1985                  17.56
Klamath Tribes, Oregon                                                         OR             Aug. 13, 1961                Aug. 27, 1986                  25.05
Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas                                              TX             July 1, 1955                 Aug. 18, 1987                  32.15
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska                                                        NE             Oct. 27, 1966                Oct. 31, 1990                  24.03
Guidiville Rancheria of California                                             CA             Sept. 3, 1965                Sept. 6, 1991                  26.02
Lytton Rancheria of California                                                 CA             Aug. 1, 1961                 Sept. 6, 1991                  30.12
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California                               CA             Sept. 3, 1965                Sept. 6, 1991                  26.02
Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California                          CA             June 2, 1967                 Apr. 17, 1992                  24.89
Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South Carolina)                    SC             July 2, 1960                 Oct. 27, 1993                  33.34
United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of                      CA             Aug. 18, 1967                Oct. 31, 1994                  27.22
California
Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians of California                                 CA             Apr. 11, 1961                Nov. 2, 1994                   33.58
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California                              CA             Feb. 18, 1966                Dec. 27, 2000                  34.88
Wilton Rancheria, California                                                   CA             Sept. 22, 1964               June 8, 2009                   44.74
                                            Sources: GAO analysis of information reported in GAO-07-23R, GAO-10-768, and the Federal Register.
                                            a
                                             We use February 13, 1985, as the restoration date because it is the date of publication of the first list
                                            of federally recognized tribes, by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), to
                                            include the tribe. Under section 7 of the court-approved stipulated agreement settling Tillie Hardwick
                                            v. United States, No. C-79-1710-SW (N.D. Cal. 1983), tribes involved in the litigation were to be
                                            recognized by the Secretary of the Interior and included on BIA’s Federal Register list of recognized
                                            tribal entities pursuant to 25 C.F.R. § 83.6(b) (1983). Although the court approved the stipulated
                                            agreement on December 27, 1983, the Secretary did not publish a notice in the Federal Register
                                            regarding the settlement and restoration until June 11, 1984, and the BIA list of federally recognized
                                            tribes was not published until February 13, 1985.




                                            Page 37                                                          GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                        Appendix II: Tribes Whose Recognition Was
                                        Terminated




                                        For a variety of reasons, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive list
                                        of all existing tribes whose recognition was terminated and not restored.
                                        For example, some tribes located in western Oregon and terminated in
                                        1956 appear to have been historic tribes that once resided in that area
                                        but were no longer organized as tribes at the time of their termination,
                                        according to the Department of the Interior. 2 Nonetheless, we identified
                                        nine tribes in California whose recognition was terminated and not
                                        restored and therefore are non-federally recognized tribes (see table 6).

Table 6: Nine Tribes in California Whose Recognition Was Terminated and Not Restored

Terminated tribe                                      Date terminated                                        Federal Register termination notice
Cache Creek Rancheria                                 Apr. 11, 1961                                          26 Fed. Reg. 3073
Mark West Rancheria                                   Apr. 11, 1961                                          26 Fed. Reg. 3073
Ruffeys Rancheria                                     Apr. 11, 1961                                          26 Fed. Reg. 3073
Strawberry Valley Rancheria                           Apr. 11, 1961                                          26 Fed. Reg. 3073
Alexander Valley Rancheria                            Aug. 1, 1961                                           26 Fed. Reg. 6875
Indian Ranch Rancheria                                Sept. 22, 1964                                         29 Fed. Reg. 13146
Nevada City Rancheria                                 Sept. 22, 1964                                         29 Fed. Reg. 13146
El Dorado Rancheria                                   July 16, 1966                                          31 Fed. Reg. 9685, 9686
Mission Creek Reservation                             July 14, 1970                                          35 Fed. Reg. 11272, 11273
                                        Source: GAO analysis of BIA data and Federal Register notices.

                                        Note: Pub. L. No. 88-419, § g, 78 Stat. 390, 391 (1964), authorized the Secretary of the Interior to sell
                                        any rancheria or reservation lying wholly within the state of California that was unoccupied as of
                                        January 1, 1964. From 1965 through 1967, the Secretary sold the unoccupied Colfax, Taylorsville,
                                        and Strathmore rancherias.




                                        2
                                         Pub. L. No. 83-588, 68 Stat. 724 (1954); 21 Fed. Reg. 6244 (Aug. 18, 1956).




                                        Page 38                                                          GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix III: State-Recognized Tribes
                                             Appendix III: State-Recognized Tribes




                                             This appendix provides information on state-recognized tribes. We
                                             identified 12 states that had state-recognized tribes. Officials in these
                                             12 states identified 61 state-recognized tribes that are not federally
                                             recognized, as of September 2011 (see table 7). Some states—such as
                                             California and Texas—have acknowledged non-federally recognized
                                             tribes in their states but have not officially identified these entities as state
                                             recognized, according to officials we spoke with.

Table 7: State-Recognized Tribes Identified by States That Are Not Federally Recognized, as of September 2011


State and tribe name                                            Status in Interior’s administrative acknowledgment processa
Alabama
  Cherokees of Northeast Alabama                                Petitioner #77. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 23, 1981.
  Cher-O-Creek Intra Tribal Indians (Cherokees of Southeast Petitioner #107. Letter of intent submitted on May 27, 1988.
  Alabama)
  Echota Cherokees of Alabama                                   Petitioner #321. Letter of intent submitted on June 10, 2009.
  Ma-Chis Lower Alabama Creek Indian Tribe                      Petitioner #87. Denied, effective Aug. 22, 1988.
                                    b
  MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians                                  Petitioner #86. Denied, effective Nov. 26, 1999.
                                                                c
  Piqua Shawnee Tribe
                                                                c
  Star Clan of Muscogee Creeks of Pike County
  United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation                           Petitioner #246. Letter of intent submitted on Nov. 8, 2001.
Connecticut
  Golden Hill Paugussett Tribeb                                 Petitioner #81. Denied, effective Mar. 18, 2005.
  Paucatuck Eastern Pequotb                                     Petitioner #35 and petitioner #113. Denied, effective Oct. 14, 2005.
                             b
  Schaghticoke Tribal Nation                                    Petitioner #79. Denied, effective Oct. 14, 2005.
Delaware
                                                                c
  Lenape Indian Tribe of Delaware
  Nanticoke Indian Association                                  Petitioner #40. Requested petition be placed on hold on Mar. 25, 1989.
Georgia
                                                                c
  Cherokee of Georgia Tribal Council
  Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee Indians, Inc.d              Petitioner #41. Petition ready, waiting for active consideration since
                                                                June 9, 2003.
  Lower Muscogee Creek Tribeb                                   Petitioner #8. Denied, effective Dec. 21, 1981.
Louisiana
  Adai Caddo Tribe                                              Petitioner #138. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 13, 1993.
  Bayou Lafourche Band of the Biloxi-Chitimacha                 Petitioner #56A. Proposed negative finding published May 30, 2008.
  Confederation of Muskogees
  Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb                                 Petitioner #37. Letter of intent submitted on July 2, 1978.
  Clifton Choctaw Tribal Reservation, Inc.                      Petitioner #30. Letter of intent submitted on Mar. 22, 1978.




                                             Page 39                                        GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                            Appendix III: State-Recognized Tribes




                                                                                                                               a
State and tribe name                                           Status in Interior’s administrative acknowledgment process
                                                               c
  Four Winds Cherokee
  Grand Caillou/Dulac Band of the Biloxi-Chitimacha            Petitioner #56A. Proposed negative finding published May 30, 2008.
  Confederation of Muskogees
  Isle de Jean Charles Band of the Biloxi-Chitimacha           Petitioner #56A. Proposed negative finding published May 30, 2008.
  Confederation of Muskogees
                                                               c
  Louisiana Choctaw Tribe
  Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe                                 Petitioner #56B. Proposed negative finding published May 30, 2008.
  United Houma Nation                                          Petitioner #56. Proposed negative finding published Dec. 22, 1994.
Massachusettse
  Chappaquiddick Wampanoag                                     Petitioner #310. Letter of intent submitted on May 21, 2007.
                                                               f
  Chaubunnagungamaug Nipmucks
                                                               c
  Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe
  Nipmuc Nation Hassanamisco Band                              Petitioner #69A. Denied, effective Jan. 28, 2008.
  Pocasset Wampanoag Tribe                                     Petitioner #153. Letter of intent submitted on Feb. 1, 1995.
                                                               c
  Seaconke Wampanoag Tribe
Montana
  Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana            Petitioner #31. Denied, effective Oct. 27, 2009.
New York
  The Poospatuck (Unkechauge) Indian Nationb                   c


North Carolina
  Coharie Tribe of North Carolina                              Petitioner #74. Letter of intent submitted on Mar. 13, 1981.
  Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe of North Carolina                 Petitioner #63. Letter of intent submitted on Nov. 27, 1979.
  Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina                               Petitioner #65. Deemed ineligible to apply on Oct. 23, 1989.
  Meherrin Indian Tribe                                        Petitioner #119a. Letter of intent submitted on Aug. 2, 1990.
  Occaneechi Band of Saponi Nation of North Carolina           Petitioner #148. Letter of intent submitted on Jan. 6, 1995.
  Sappony (High Plains Indians, petitioned as Indians of       Petitioner #95. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 7, 1984.
  Person County)
  Waccamaw Siouan Tribe of North Carolina                      Petitioner #88. Letter of intent submitted on June 27, 1983.
South Carolina
  Beaver Creek Indians                                         Petitioner #184. Letter of intent submitted on Jan. 26, 1998.
  Edisto Natchez Kusso Tribe of South Carolina (petitioned     Petitioner #23. Letter of intent submitted on Dec. 30, 1976.
  as Four Holes Indian Organization, Edisto Tribal Council)
  Pee Dee Indian Tribe of South Carolina                       Petitioner #152. Letter of intent submitted on Jan. 30, 1995.
  Pee Dee Nation of Upper South Carolina                       Petitioner #296. Letter of intent submitted on Dec. 14, 2005.
  Santee Indian Organization                                   Petitioner #53. Letter of intent submitted on June 4, 1979.
  Waccamaw Indian People (petitioned as The Chicora-           Petitioner #144. Letter of intent submitted on Oct. 5, 1994.
  Waccamaw Indian People)
                                                               c
  Wassamasaw Tribe of Varnertown Indians




                                            Page 40                                        GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                        Appendix III: State-Recognized Tribes




                                                                                                                                                                      a
State and tribe name                                                Status in Interior’s administrative acknowledgment process
Vermont
                                                                    c
  Elnu Abenaki Tribe
                                                                    c
  Nulhegan Band of the Coosuk Abenaki Nation
Virginia
  Cheroenhaka (Nottoway)                                            Petitioner #264. Letter of intent submitted on Dec. 30, 2002.
  Chickahominy Indian Tribe                                         Petitioner #168. Letter of intent submitted on Mar. 19, 1996.
  Eastern Chickahominy                                              Petitioner #241. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 6, 2001.
                 b
  Mattaponi Tribe                                                   Petitioner #157. Letter of intent submitted on Apr. 4, 1995.
  Monacan Indian Nation                                             Petitioner #161. Letter of intent submitted on July 11, 1995.
  Nansemond                                                         Petitioner #244. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 20, 2001.
                                                                    c
  Nottoway of Virginia
                         b
  Pamunkey Indian Tribe                                             Petitioner #323. Letter of intent submitted on June 29, 2009.
                                                                    c
  Patawomeck
  Rappahannock Tribe                                                Petitioner #61. Letter of intent submitted on Nov. 16, 1979.
  Upper Mattaponi                                                   Petitioner #62. Letter of intent submitted on Nov. 26. 1979.
                                        Sources: Information provided by state officials for tribe name and GAO analysis of information from Interior’s Office of Federal
                                        Acknowledgment for petitioner status.

                                        Notes: The table lists only state-recognized tribes as of September 2011. Maryland officially
                                        recognized two non-federally recognized tribes (Piscataway Conoy Tribe and Piscataway Indian
                                        Nation) in January 2012 by executive order as authorized by state law. The Piscataway Conoy Tribe
                                        includes the Piscataway-Conoy Confederacy and Sub-Tribes and Cedarville Band of Piscataway.
                                        a
                                         Status of the entity’s efforts to petition for federal recognition through Interior’s administrative
                                        acknowledgment process, as of April 29, 2011, where we were able to confirm, on the basis of
                                        matching name and address, that the state-recognized tribe and petitioning group are the same
                                        entity. Because entities may have changed addresses since petitioning for federal recognition, this list
                                        may not be comprehensive.
                                        b
                                         This state-recognized tribe has a state reservation, according to an official we spoke with. State
                                        officials in five states reported that a total of eight non-federally recognized tribes have state
                                        reservations in those states, but this list may not be comprehensive.
                                        c
                                         On the basis of the names and addresses we were able to identify for this entity, we were unable to
                                        positively match it with any entity that has petitioned for federal recognition through Interior’s
                                        administrative acknowledgment process.
                                        d
                                         According to Georgia’s Council on American Indian Concerns, four groups have claimed to be the
                                        state-recognized Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, which was recognized in 1993. Furthermore,
                                        according to Interior’s Office of Federal Acknowledgment, at least two groups have represented
                                        themselves as petitioner #41 (Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokees, Inc.). In November 2007, the
                                        Council on American Indian Concerns formally recommended to the Governor and the General
                                        Assembly that the state officially identify the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee Indians, Inc. (located
                                        at P.O. Box 607, Dahlonega, GA) as the true and legitimate state-recognized Georgia Tribe of
                                        Eastern Cherokee. As of February 2012, no further actions had been taken on this matter, according
                                        to a state official we spoke with.
                                        e
                                         Massachusetts considers the listed entities to be state-recognized tribes but has not established a
                                        formal recognition process, according to an official we spoke with from the Massachusetts
                                        Commission on Indian Affairs.
                                        f
                                        This entity may be associated with petitioner #69B (Chaubunagungamaug Band of the Nipmuck
                                        Nation, Webster/Dudley), which was denied acknowledgment, effective Jan. 28, 2008.




                                        Page 41                                                               GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix III: State-Recognized Tribes




We cross-checked the information we received from state officials with
information included in (1) a 2008 law review article, 1 (2) the 2010
Census, 2 and (3) correspondence between the states and Interior’s Indian
Arts and Crafts Board. 3 Trying to reconcile differences among these
sources highlighted the difficulties inherent in trying to develop a
comprehensive list of state-recognized tribes. For example, questions
were raised about the legal status of legislative resolutions that are not
signed by a state’s governor and the significance of other types of
designations, such as “historic” or “acknowledged” tribes.

Nonetheless, except for some recent events that have occurred since the
2008 law review article was written and the 2010 Census information was
compiled, and a couple of other notable exceptions, the information that
we present in table 7 generally matches these other sources. The notable
exceptions include the following:

•   We did not include any entities from New Jersey in table 7. New
    Jersey does not have any state-recognized tribes, according to New
    Jersey officials whom we spoke with, as well as correspondence
    between New Jersey officials and Interior’s Indian Arts and Crafts
    Board. The 2008 law review article counted three potentially state-
    recognized tribes in New Jersey, and the 2010 Census data counted
    two state-recognized tribes.

•   We did not include any entities from California and Ohio in table 7.
    The officials whom we spoke with from those states indicated that
    their states had not established processes for officially recognizing
    tribes. The 2010 Census data and the correspondence with Interior’s
    Indian Arts and Crafts Board also confirmed that those states have no


1
 Alexa Koenig and Jonathan Stein, “Federalism and the State Recognition of Native
American Tribes: A Survey of State-Recognized Tribes and State Recognition Processes
across the United States,” 48 Santa Clara L. Rev. 79 (2008).
2
 For the 2010 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau identified state-recognized tribes in
11 states. Six of these 11 states include at least one state-recognized tribe with a state
reservation, according to the 2010 Census data. For each state-recognized tribe without a
state reservation, Census delineated a tribal land area referred to as a State Designated
Tribal Statistical Area. A Census map of state-recognized tribes and their tribal land areas
can be found at
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/aian2010_wall_map/aian_wall_map.html.
3
 The Indian Arts and Crafts Board provided correspondence from all 50 states on the topic
of state-recognized tribes.




Page 42                                        GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix III: State-Recognized Tribes




    state-recognized tribes. On the basis of legislative resolutions in
    California and Ohio that were not signed by the states’ governors, the
    2008 law review article counted two state-recognized tribes in
    California and one state-recognized tribe in Ohio.

•   We included six entities for Massachusetts in table 7 on the basis of
    the designation provided by a state official. The official also stated that
    Massachusetts does not have an established formal process for
    granting state recognition and that these entities are acknowledged by
    Massachusetts as historic tribes. The 2008 law review article included
    the same entities as state-recognized tribes, while the 2010 Census
    counted only one entity in Massachusetts as state recognized. In
    correspondence with Interior’s Indian Arts and Crafts Board, dated
    November 16, 2000, the state provided a list of the historic tribes but
    also stated “[t]here are no officially state recognized tribes.”

Some of the state-recognized tribes listed in table 7—such as the
Mattaponi Tribe and the Pamunkey Indian Tribe—were recognized by
colonial governments and considered state recognized since the
beginning of statehood, while others became state recognized more
recently, according to state officials we spoke with. For example, the two
state-recognized tribes in Vermont were recognized in 2011, according to
an official in that state. In some instances, state governments
acknowledged a group long before officially designating it as a state-
recognized tribe. Furthermore, some state governments have procedures
for recognizing tribes today. As a result, the number of state-recognized
tribes may increase, according to state officials we spoke with.

According to some state officials and state websites, their states officially
recognize certain Indian entities, but these entities are not considered
tribes. For example, South Carolina recognizes “Native American Indian
groups,” which the state defines as a number of individuals assembled
together, which have different characteristics, interests, and behaviors
that do not denote a separate ethnic and cultural heritage today, as they
once did. That state also recognizes Native American Special Interest
Organizations, which promote Native American culture and address
socioeconomic deprivation among people of Indian origin, such as the
Little Horse Creek American Indian Cultural Center. In another example,
the state of North Carolina recognizes four Indian organizations, each of
which represents Indian communities in one or more counties.




Page 43                                 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix IV: Non-Federally Recognized
                                            Appendix IV: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                            That Received Federal Funding before Fiscal
                                            Year 2007


Tribes That Received Federal Funding before
Fiscal Year 2007
                                            This appendix provides information on non-federally recognized tribes
                                            that received federal funding before fiscal year 2007. During our review,
                                            we identified a significant number of non-federally recognized tribes that
                                            received federal funding before fiscal year 2007, as shown in table 8.
                                            However, we also found that the publicly available funding data for the
                                            pre-2007 period were neither complete nor comprehensive, and therefore
                                            we have not included funding that these tribes received in table 8.

Table 8: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes That GAO Identified as Having Received Federal Funding before Fiscal Year 2007

                                                                                                         Status in Interior’s
                                                                                                         administrative
Tribe name                               City             State     Nonprofita    State recognizedb      acknowledgment processc
Adai Caddo Tribe                         Robeline         LA                                           Petitioner #138. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Sept. 13, 1993.
Amah Mutsun Band of                      Woodside         CA                                             Petitioner #120. Petition
Ohlone/Costanoan Indians                                                                                 ready, waiting for active
                                                                                                         consideration since
                                                                                                         Sept. 15, 2003.
Amonsoquath Tribe of Cherokee            West Plains      MO                                            Petitioner #155. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Feb. 17, 1995.
                                                                                                         d
The Bear Creek Band of Michigan          Hopkins          MI
Ottawa Indians, Inc.
Beaver Creek Indians (funded as          Lexington        SC                                           Petitioner #184. Letter of
Beaver Creek Band of Pee Dee                                                                             intent submitted on
Indians)                                                                                                 Jan. 26, 1998.
Brothertown Indian Nation (also funded   Fond du Lac      WI                                            Petitioner #67. Proposed
as Brotherton Indian Nation)                                                                             finding issued
                                                                                                         Aug. 17, 2009.
Chaloklowa Chickasaw Indian People       Hemingway        SC                                            Petitioner #259. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Aug. 14, 2002.
The Chi-cau-gon Band of Lake Superior Iron River          MI                                            Petitioner #183. Letter of
Chippewa of Iron County                                                                                  intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Feb. 12, 1998.
Chicora Indian Tribe of South Carolina   Loris            SC                                            Petitioner #134. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Feb. 10, 1993.
Chinook Indian Tribe/Chinook Nation      Chinook          WA                                            Petitioner #57. Denied,
                                                                                                         effective July 12, 2003.
Clifton Choctaw Tribal Reservation, Inc. Clifton          LA                                           Petitioner #30. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Mar. 22, 1978.




                                            Page 44                                        GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                            Appendix IV: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                            That Received Federal Funding before Fiscal
                                            Year 2007




                                                                                                         Status in Interior’s
                                                                                                         administrative
Tribe name                               City             State     Nonprofita    State recognizedb      acknowledgment processc
Coastal Band of Chumash                  Buellton         CA                                            Petitioner #80. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Mar. 25, 1982.
Costanoan-Rumsen Carmel Tribe            Chino            CA                                            Petitioner #143. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Aug. 24, 1994.
                                                                                                         d
Croatan-Peedee Indian People             Williston        SC             
Dunlap Band of Mono Indians              Fresno           CA                                            Petitioner #92. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent to resubmit petition on
                                                                                                         Aug. 9, 2005.e
Edisto Natchez Kusso Tribe of South      Ridgeville       SC                                           Petitioner #23. Letter of
Carolina (petitioned as Four Holes                                                                       intent submitted on
Indian Organization, Edisto Tribal                                                                       Dec. 30, 1976.
Council)
Fernandeno/Tataviam Tribe                Sylmar           CA                                            Petitioner #158. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Apr. 24, 1995.
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians of    Beaumont         CA                                            Petitioner #201. Letter of
California                                                                                               intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Nov. 3, 1998.
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation                 San Gabriel      CA                                            Petitioner #140. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Mar. 21, 1994.
                                                                                                         d
Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee        Dahlonega        GA
Indians
Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee        Dahlonega        GA                                           Petitioner #41. Petition
              f
Indians, Inc.                                                                                            ready, waiting for active
                                                                                                         consideration since
                                                                                                         June 9, 2003.
Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe             New Haven        CT                                            Petitioner #81. Denied,
                                                                                                         effective Mar. 18, 2005.
Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians      Grand Rapids     MI                                            Petitioner #146. Petition
                                                                                                         ready, waiting for active
                                                                                                         consideration since
                                                                                                         Mar. 29, 2007.
                                                                                                         g
Hatteras Tuscarora Tribe                 (Unknown)        NC
Konkow Valley Band of Maidu              Oroville         CA                                            Petitioner #197. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Aug. 20, 1998.
Lipan Apache Band of Texas, Inc.         San Antonio      TX                                            Petitioner #211. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                         May 26, 1999.
Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Great Falls     MT                                           Petitioner #31. Denied,
Montana                                                                                                  effective Oct. 27, 2009.




                                            Page 45                                        GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                            Appendix IV: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                            That Received Federal Funding before Fiscal
                                            Year 2007




                                                                                                         Status in Interior’s
                                                                                                         administrative
Tribe name                                City            State     Nonprofita    State recognizedb      acknowledgment processc
Lost Cherokee of Arkansas & Missouri      Conway          AR                                            Petitioner #204. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Feb. 10, 1999.
Mackinac Bands of Chippewa and            Hessel          MI                                            Petitioner #186. Letter of
Ottawa Indians                                                                                           intent submitted on
                                                                                                         May 13, 1998.
Mattaponi Tribe                           West Point      VA                                           Petitioner #157. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Apr. 4, 1995.
Meherrin Indian Tribe                     Winton          NC                                           Petitioner #119A. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Aug. 2, 1990.
Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota                Mendota         MN                                            Petitioner #169. Letter of
Community                                                                                                intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Apr. 11, 1996.
Miami Nation of Indians of the State of   Peru            IN                                            Petitioner #66. Denied,
Indiana, Inc.                                                                                            effective Aug. 17, 1992.
Monacan Indian Nation                     Madison         VA                                           Petitioner #161. Letter of
                                          Heights                                                        intent submitted on
                                                                                                         July 11, 1995.
Muscogee Nation of Florida (funded as     Bruce           FL                                            Petitioner #32. Petition
Florida Tribe of Eastern Creek Indians)                                                                  ready, waiting for active
                                                                                                         consideration since
                                                                                                         Jan. 29, 2003.
Nipmuc Nation Hassanamisco Band      South Grafton        MA                                           Petitioner #69A. Denied,
(funded as Nipmuc Indian Development                                                                     effective Jan. 28, 2008.
Corporation)
Nor-Rel-Muk Wintu Nation (formerly        Weaverville     CA                                            Petitioner #93. Letter of
Hayfork Band)                                                                                            intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Jan. 5, 1984.
Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old       Columbia        MO                                            Petitioner #100B. Letter of
Louisiana Territory                                                                                      intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Feb. 19, 1992.
Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indians of     Clinton         MO                                            Petitioner #100. Letter of
Missouri and Arkansas                                                                                    intent submitted on
                                                                                                         July 26, 1985.
Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation           Monterey        CA                                            Petitioner #132. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                         Dec. 3, 1992.
Pamunkey Indian Tribe                     King William    VA                                            Petitioner #323. Letter of
                                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                         June 29, 2009.
Paucatuck Eastern Pequot                  North           CT                                           Petitioner #35 and petitioner
                                          Stonington                                                     #113. Denied, effective
                                                                                                         Mar. 18, 2005.




                                            Page 46                                        GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                          Appendix IV: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                          That Received Federal Funding before Fiscal
                                          Year 2007




                                                                                                       Status in Interior’s
                                                                                                       administrative
Tribe name                             City             State     Nonprofita    State recognizedb      acknowledgment processc
Pee Dee Indian Tribe of South Carolina McColl           SC                                           Petitioner #152. Letter of
                                                                                                       intent submitted on
                                                                                                       Jan. 30, 1995.
Piedmont American Indian Association   Simpsonville     SC                                            Petitioner #198. Letter of
                                                                                                       intent submitted on
                                                                                                       Aug. 20, 1998.
Piro/Manso/Tiwa Indian Tribe of Pueblo Las Cruces       NM                                            Petitioner #5. Petition under
of San Juan de Guadalupe (funded as                                                                    active consideration since
Tiwa Tribe and Turtle River Nation,                                                                    Jan. 4, 2010.
Inc.)
                                                                                           h
Piscataway-Conoy Confederacy and       La Plata         MD                                            Petitioner #28. Letter of
Sub-Tribes, Inc.                                                                                       intent submitted on
                                                                                                       Feb. 22, 1978.
Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe           Montegut         LA                                           Petitioner #56B. Proposed
                                                                                                       negative finding published
                                                                                                       May 30, 2008.
Pokanoket Tribe of the Wampanoag       Bristol          RI                                            Petitioner #145. Letter of
Nation                                                                                                 intent submitted on
                                                                                                       Oct. 5, 1994.
Pokanoket/Wampanoag Federation/        Warwick          RI                                            Petitioner #187. Letter of
Wampanoag Nation/Pokanoket Tribe                                                                       intent submitted on
and bands                                                                                              Jan. 5, 1998.
                                                                                                       d
The Poospatuck (Unkechauge) Indian     Mastic           NY                                
Nation
Rappahannock Tribe                     Indian Neck      VA                                           Petitioner #61. Letter of
                                                                                                       intent submitted on
                                                                                                       Nov. 16, 1979.
San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians   Oceanside        CA                                            Petitioner #96. Letter of
                                                                                                       intent submitted on
                                                                                                       Oct. 18, 1984.
Santee Indian Organization             Holly Hill       SC                                           Petitioner #53. Letter of
                                                                                                       intent submitted on
                                                                                                       June 4, 1979.
Schaghticoke Tribal Nation             Derby            CT                                            Petitioner #79. Denied,
                                                                                                       effective Oct. 14, 2005.
Snohomish Tribe of Indians             Edmonds          WA                                             Petitioner #12. Denied,
                                                                                                       effective Mar. 9, 2004.
Steilacoom Tribe                       Steilacoom       WA                                            Petitioner #11. Denied,
                                                                                                       effective June 17, 2008.
                                                                                                       i
Strawberry Valley Rancheria (funded as Oroville         CA
Strawberry Valley Native Cultural
Protective Association)
Swan Creek Black River Confederated    Saginaw          MI                                            Petitioner #135. Letter of
Ojibwa Tribes, Inc.                                                                                    intent submitted on
                                                                                                       May 4, 1993.




                                          Page 47                                        GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                          Appendix IV: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                          That Received Federal Funding before Fiscal
                                          Year 2007




                                                                                                                                       Status in Interior’s
                                                                                                                                       administrative
Tribe name                             City                    State            Nonprofita            State recognizedb                acknowledgment processc
Talimali Band, The Apalachee Indians   Libuse                  LA                                                                     Petitioner #166A. Letter of
of Louisiana                                                                                                                           intent submitted on
                                                                                                                                       Feb. 5, 1996.
                                                                                                                                       j
Todds Valley Miwok-Maidu Cultural      Foresthill              CA                      
Foundation
Tuscarora Nation of North Carolina     Maxton                  NC                                                                     Petitioner #102. Determined
                                                                                                                                       ineligible to petition on
                                                                                                                                       Oct. 23, 1989.
United Cherokee Indian Tribe of        Madison                 VA                                                                     Petitioner #224. Letter of
Virginia                               Heights                                                                                         intent submitted on
                                                                                                                                       Aug. 3, 2000.
The Waccamaw Indian People             Aynor                   SC                                                                    Petitioner #144. Letter of
(petitioned as the Chicora-Waccamaw                                                                                                    intent submitted on
Indian People)                                                                                                                         Oct. 5, 1994.
Western Cherokee Nation of Arkansas    Mena                    AR                                                                     Petitioner #191. Letter of
and Missouri                                                                                                                           intent submitted on
                                                                                                                                       May 1, 1998.
                                          Sources: The Internal Revenue Service for information about nonprofit status, state officials for information about state-recognition
                                          status, and GAO analysis of information from Interior’s Office of Federal Acknowledgment for petitioner status.

                                          Notes: (1) This table does not include non-federally recognized tribes outside the contiguous United
                                          States, such as those in Alaska or Hawaii. (2) This table does not include non-federally recognized
                                          tribes that we identified as having received federal funding at any time in fiscal years 2007 through
                                          2010, even if they also received funding before fiscal year 2007.
                                          a
                                           Non-federally recognized tribes that were organized as nonprofits at any time in the past are
                                          indicated with a check mark, which may not reflect their current status or status at the time federal
                                          funding was awarded. For most non-federally recognized tribes listed in the table, we used employee
                                          identification numbers to identify their nonprofit organizations. We did not, however, have employee
                                          identification numbers for all of the non-federally recognized tribes in the table, and may not have
                                          identified all applicable nonprofits from our name searches. As a result, we may not have identified all
                                          non-federally recognized tribes that were organized as nonprofits at any time in the past.
                                          b
                                           Non-federally recognized tribes that were state recognized as of September 2011, according to state
                                          officials, are indicated with a check mark, which may not reflect the state-recognition status at the
                                          time federal funding was received.
                                          c
                                           Status of the entity’s efforts to petition for federal recognition through Interior’s administrative
                                          acknowledgment process, as of April 29, 2011.
                                          d
                                           On the basis of the names and addresses we were able to identify for this entity, we were unable to
                                          positively match it with any entity that has petitioned for federal recognition through Interior’s
                                          administrative acknowledgment process.
                                          e
                                           This entity submitted a letter of intent to petition on January 4, 1984, withdrew its letter of intent on
                                          July 2, 2002, and submitted a letter of intent to resubmit a petition in 2005.
                                          f
                                           According to Georgia’s Council on American Indian Concerns, four groups have claimed to be the
                                          state-recognized Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, which was recognized in 1993. Furthermore,
                                          according to Interior’s Office of Federal Acknowledgment, at least two groups have represented
                                          themselves as petitioner #41 (Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokees, Inc.). In November 2007, the
                                          Council on American Indian Concerns formally recommended to the Governor and the General
                                          Assembly that the state officially identify the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee Indians, Inc. (located
                                          at P.O. Box 607, Dahlonega, GA) as the true and legitimate state-recognized Georgia Tribe of
                                          Eastern Cherokee. As of February 2012, no further actions have been taken on this matter, according
                                          to a state official we spoke with.




                                          Page 48                                                               GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix IV: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
That Received Federal Funding before Fiscal
Year 2007




g
 This entity may be associated with petitioner #34 (Hatteras Tuscarora Indians), which was
determined ineligible to petition on October 23, 1989. According to Interior’s Office of Federal
Acknowledgment, the group merged with the Tuscarora East of the Mountains (petitioner #215) on
March 22, 2004.
h
 Maryland officially recognized the Piscataway Conoy Tribe and Piscataway Indian Nation in January
2012 through executive orders, as authorized by state law. The Piscataway Conoy Tribe includes the
Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and subtribes and the Cedarville Band of Piscataway.
i
Strawberry Valley Rancheria was terminated on April 11, 1961. Groups which are, or the members of
which are, subject to congressional legislation terminating or forbidding the federal relationship are
not eligible to petition for federal recognition through Interior’s administrative acknowledgement
process but may seek federal recognition through other means.
j
The foundation was created by descendants of the Colfax Rancheria and the Foresthill/Todds Valley
area, according to a website maintained by the Colfax-Todds Valley Consolidated Tribe. The
Secretary of the Interior sold the unoccupied Colfax Rancheria in the late 1960s.


In addition to the 64 non-federally recognized tribes listed in table 8, we
were able to identify that all of the 26 non-federally recognized tribes
having received funding in fiscal years 2007 through 2010 also received
funding before fiscal year 2007, except two—Eel River Tribe of Indiana
and Wesget Sipu. Cumulatively, counting the post- and pre-2007 periods,
we identified 117 non-federally recognized tribes that have received
federal funding—26 in fiscal years 2007 through 2010, 64 additional
unique non-federally recognized tribes before fiscal year 2007, and
27 additional federally recognized tribes that received funding before the
effective date of their recognition.




Page 49                                             GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix V: Statutes and Regulations That Appendix V: Statutes and Regulations That
                                          Explicitly Include State-Recognized Tribes or
                                          Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations

Explicitly Include State-Recognized Tribes or
Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations
                                          This appendix provides information on various statutory and regulatory
                                          provisions that authorize federal programs to provide federal funding for
                                          non-federally recognized tribes. 1 Specifically, as shown in table 9, there
                                          are 34 federal programs that have explicit statutory or regulatory authority
                                          to fund state-recognized tribes, tribes on state reservations, or tribes on
                                          or in proximity to a state reservation or rancheria.

Table 9: Federal Programs with Explicit Statutory or Regulatory Authority to Fund State-Recognized Tribes and Tribes on or
in Proximity to State Reservations or Rancherias

                                                                                                                 Tribes located on, or
                                                                                     State-        Tribes on       in proximity to, a
                                                                                  recognized         state       state reservation or
Agency and program                            Legal citation                        tribesa      reservations          rancheriab
Department of Agriculture
  Community Facilities Loans                  7 U.S.C. § 1926(a)(1);                                   
                                              7 C.F.R. §§ 3575.2,
                                              3575.20(c)(4)
  Water and Waste Facility Loans and Grants 7 U.S.C. § 1926(a)(1), (2)                                 
  Rural Business Opportunity Grants           7 U.S.C. § 1926(a)(11);                                  
                                              7 C.F.R. § 4284.620(a)
  Section 306C WWD Loans and Grants           7 U.S.C. § 1926c(a)(1);                                  
                                              7 U.S.C. § 1926c(e)(1)(A), (B)
  Business and Industry Loan Guarantees       7 U.S.C. § 1932(a)                                       
  Rural Business Enterprise Grants            7 U.S.C. § 1932(c);                                      
                                              7 C.F.R. § 1942.305(a)(1)
  Food Stamp Program                          7 U.S.C. §§ 2012(v), 2020(d);                            c
                                              7 C.F.R. § 271.2




                                          1
                                           The Department of Justice has raised constitutional concerns with legislation that
                                          provides government benefits to individuals who are not members of, or closely affiliated
                                          with, a federally recognized Indian tribe. According to the department, under the Supreme
                                          Court’s decisions, a substantial likelihood exists that legislation providing special benefits
                                          to individuals of Indian or Alaska Native descent who do not have a clear and close
                                          affiliation with a federally recognized tribe would be regarded by the courts as creating a
                                          racial preference subject to strict constitutional scrutiny, rather than a political preference
                                          subject to rational basis review. See Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 518-22 (2000);
                                          Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551-555 (1974). In the event legislation is regarded as
                                          awarding government benefits on the basis of a racial classification, it would be
                                          constitutional only if it is supported by a factual record demonstrating that its use of race-
                                          based criteria to award the benefits at issue is “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling”
                                          government interest.




                                          Page 50                                           GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                             Appendix V: Statutes and Regulations That
                                             Explicitly Include State-Recognized Tribes or
                                             Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations




                                                                                                                   Tribes located on, or
                                                                                       State-         Tribes on      in proximity to, a
                                                                                    recognized          state      state reservation or
Agency and program                              Legal citation                        tribesa       reservations         rancheriab
 Food Distribution Program                      7 U.S.C. §§ 2012(v),                                     c
                                                2013(b)(2)(B);
                                                7 C.F.R. §§ 271.2, 253.2
Department of Education
 Indian Education Formula Grants to Local       20 U.S.C. §§ 7422(c)(1),                 
 Educational Agencies                           7491(3)(A)
 Special Programs for Indian Children           20 U.S.C. §§ 7441(b),                    
 (demonstration grants)                         7491(3)(A)
 Professional Development for Teachers and 20 U.S.C. §§ 7442(b)(3),                      d
 Education Professionals                   7491(3)(A)
 National Research Activities                   20 U.S.C. §§ 7451(b),                    
                                                7491(3)(A)
 Grants to tribes for education administrative 20 U.S.C. §§ 7455(a),                     
 planning and development                      7491(3)(A)
 Improvement of Educational Opportunities       20 U.S.C. §§ 7456(a),                    
 for Adult Indians                              7491(3)(A)
 Capacity Building for Traditionally            29 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B),                 
 Underserved Populations                        718(b)(2), (3)
 National Institute on Disability and           29 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B),                 
 Rehabilitation Research’s research and         764(a)(1)
 other covered activities
 Rehabilitation Service Administration’s        29 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B),                 
 Special Demonstration Programs                 773(b)(2)(A)
 Projects with Industry                         29 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B),                 
                                                795(a)(2)
                                                                                          e               e
 American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation      29 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B),
 Services Program                               741(a);
                                                34 C.F.R. §§ 371.2, 371.4(b)
Department of Energyf
 Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income       42 U.S.C. §§ 3002(27),                                                      
 Persons Program                                6862(6), 6863(d)
Department of Health and Human Services
 Administration for Native Americans’ Social    42 U.S.C. § 2991b(a);
 and Economic Development Strategies            45 C.F.R. § 1336.33(a)(1)(iii)
 Programg
 Administration for Native Americans’           42 U.S.C. § 2991b-3;
 Preservation and Enhancement of Native         45 C.F.R. § 1336.33(a)(1)(iii)
 American Languages Programg
 Administration for Native Americans’           42 U.S.C. § 2991b(d);                    
 Improvement of the Capability of Tribal        45 C.F.R. § 1336.33(a)(4)(ii)
 Governing Bodies to Regulate
 Environmental Qualityh




                                             Page 51                                           GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
                                             Appendix V: Statutes and Regulations That
                                             Explicitly Include State-Recognized Tribes or
                                             Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations




                                                                                                                                Tribes located on, or
                                                                                                State-          Tribes on         in proximity to, a
                                                                                             recognized           state         state reservation or
Agency and program                                  Legal citation                             tribesa        reservations            rancheriab
  Administration for Native Americans’      Pub. L. No. 103-139, § 8094A                           
  Mitigation of Environmental Impacts to    (1993);
  Indian Lands Due to Department of Defense 45 C.F.R. § 1336.33(a)(3)(ii)
             h
  Activities
  Grants for state and community programs           42 U.S.C. §§ 3002(27),                                                                  
  on aging                                          3021(a)(2)(C)
  Older Individuals’ Protection from Violence       42 U.S.C. §§ 3002(27),                                                                  
  Projects Grants Program                           3002(54), 3032b
  Community Innovations for Aging in Place          42 U.S.C. §§ 3002(27),                                                                  
  Grant Programs                                    3002(54), 3032k(a)(1)(A)
  Native American Organization and Elder            42 U.S.C. §§ 3002(27),                                                                  
  Justice Program                                   3002(54), 3058aa
  Low-Income Home Energy Assistance                 42 U.S.C. § 8623(d)(1);                        
                                                    45 C.F.R. § 96.48(b)
  Community Services Block Grant Program            42 U.S.C. § 9911                               
Department of Housing and Urban Development
  Indian Housing Block Formula Grants               25 U.S.C. §§ 4103(13), 4111                    i
  Title VI Loan Guarantee Program                   25 U.S.C. §§ 4103(13), 4191(a)                 i
Department of Labor
  Native American Employment and Training           29 U.S.C. § 2911(b)(2);                        j
                                                    20 C.F.R. 668.200(c), (d);
                                                    65 Fed. Reg. 49294, 49373
                                                    (Aug. 11, 2000)
  Older American Community Service                  42 U.S.C. §§ 3056(b), 3002(27)                                                          
  Employment Program
Total                                                                                             17                 8                       6
                                             Sources: GAO and agency legal research.

                                             Note: This table includes federal programs with explicit statutory or regulatory authority to fund state-
                                             recognized tribes.
                                             a
                                              State officials identified 61 state-recognized tribes in 12 of the 48 contiguous states that are not also
                                             federally recognized (see table 7).
                                             b
                                              Some tribes, such as the federally recognized Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California,
                                             are referred to as rancherias, and their land is commonly referred to as a rancheria, rather than a
                                             reservation. California has both reservations and rancherias within its borders.
                                             c
                                              Indian tribes on state reservations are eligible to be designated as administrators for food stamp
                                             programs if they hold a treaty with a state government.
                                             d
                                                 Eligible entities include Indian tribes in consortium with an institution of higher education.
                                             e
                                                 To be eligible, Indian tribes must both be state recognized and have a state reservation.
                                             f
                                              The Secretary of Energy is also authorized to make competitive grants to “units of local government
                                             (including Indian tribes)” that are not eligible for energy efficiency and conservation block grants
                                             under 42 U.S.C. § 17156. Eligible entities are states, eligible units of local government, and federally
                                             recognized Indian tribes. As a result, Energy interprets 42 U.S.C. § 17156(a)(1) as authorizing grants
                                             to non-federally recognized tribes, who would otherwise not be an eligible entity.




                                             Page 52                                                    GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix V: Statutes and Regulations That
Explicitly Include State-Recognized Tribes or
Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations




g
    Categories of eligible organizations also include incorporated non-federally recognized tribes.
h
 Categories of eligible organizations also include incorporated non-federally recognized and state-
recognized tribes.
i
To be eligible, a state-recognized tribe must also have had a contract with the Department of Housing
and Urban Development under the Housing Act of 1937 before October 26, 1996, and received
funding under that contract between October 26, 1991, and October 26, 1996.
j
Although the regulations do not identify state-recognized tribes as specifically eligible for designation
based solely upon such status, the regulations establish the status of state-recognized tribal grantees
under the repealed Job Training and Partnership Act as “Indian-controlled organizations in order to
continue the eligibility of individuals who were eligible under that act as a result of being members of
state-recognized tribes.”


In addition to the statutes and regulations included in table 9, other
statutes and regulations also explicitly include state-recognized tribes.
For example:

•       State-recognized tribes are eligible to participate in the Small
        Business Administration’s section 8(a) business development
        program. This program is one of the federal government’s primary
        means for developing small businesses owned by socially and
        economically disadvantaged individuals.

•       The Indian Arts and Crafts Act, as amended, authorizes Indian groups
        that have been formally recognized as Indian tribes by a state
        legislature or by a state commission or similar organization
        legislatively vested with state tribal recognition authority to bring
        lawsuits against persons who offer for sale or sell a good in a manner
        that falsely suggests it is Indian produced. Under the act, it is unlawful
        to offer or display for sale or to sell any good in a manner that falsely
        suggests it is Indian produced, an Indian product, or the product of a
        particular Indian or Indian tribe or Indian arts and crafts organization
        resident in the United States. Under the act and its implementing
        regulations, an Indian is an individual who is a member of an Indian
        tribe—a federally or state-recognized tribe—or who is certified by an
        Indian tribe as a non-member Indian artisan.

•       Regulations implementing the Native American Graves Protection and
        Repatriation Act authorize museums and federal agencies to transfer
        control of culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains in
        their possession or control to non-federally recognized Indian tribes
        under certain circumstances.




Page 53                                                GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix V: Statutes and Regulations That
Explicitly Include State-Recognized Tribes or
Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations




Additionally, Agriculture’s Rural Housing Preservation Grants program
and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Indian
Community Development Block Grant Program have explicit statutory or
regulatory authority to fund certain non-federally recognized tribes. 2
Specifically, eligible grant recipients under this statute and regulation
include any Indian tribe which had been eligible under the State and Local
Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. 3 The act, which was repealed in 1986,
established a trust fund in the U.S. Treasury for a revenue-sharing
program among federal, state, and local governments, which included
Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages having a recognized governing
body which performs substantial governmental functions. The act did not
define Indian tribe, but the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, developed a
list of tribes and villages eligible to participate in the revenue-sharing
program. 4 BIA officials were not able to locate a copy of this list.

We identified six non-federally recognized tribes—all of which were state
recognized—that received revenue-sharing payments and five federally
recognized tribes that received revenue-sharing payments before they




2
 In addition, two other programs—HUD’s Rural Housing and Economic Development
program and the Department of Labor’s Youthbuild program—previously had explicit
statutory or regulatory authority to fund eligible recipients under the State and Local Fiscal
Assistance Act of 1972. From fiscal year 1999 through 2002, HUD’s definition of Indian
tribe for the purposes of its Rural Housing and Economic Development program included
eligible recipients under the act. Until 2006, when the authorizing statute was amended,
the applicable statutory definition of Indian tribe for the YouthBuild program also included
eligible recipients under the act.
3
 Pub. L. No. 92-512 (1972), amended by Pub. L. No. 94-488 (1976); Pub. L. No. 96-604
(1980); and Pub. L. No. 98-185 (1983), repealed by Pub. L. No. 99-272, tit. XIV,
§ 14001(a)(1), 100 Stat. 82, 327 (1986).
4
 GAO, Changes Needed in Revenue Sharing Act for Indian Tribes and Alaskan Native
Villages, GAO/GGD-76-64 (Washington, D.C.: May 27, 1976). According to our May 1976
report, BIA area offices used Bureau of the Census criteria to define a government with
substantial governmental functions. The criteria were that the government (1) be
organized, and possess some type of corporate powers; (2) have governmental character,
indicated by officers that are popularly elected or appointed by public officials; and
(3) possess substantial autonomy, such as the power to raise a portion of its revenue from
resources it controls and to administer its activities independently of external
administrative controls.




Page 54                                           GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix V: Statutes and Regulations That
Explicitly Include State-Recognized Tribes or
Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations




became federally recognized. 5 Therefore, at least six state-recognized
tribes are eligible recipients of Rural Housing Preservation Grants
program funding and Indian Community Development Block Grant
Program funding.

Finally, some statutes identify members of state-recognized tribes but not
the tribe itself as an eligible participant or recipient of a government
program. For example, the Indian Health Service provides health care
services for members of federally recognized tribes as well as urban
Indians. The statutory definition of urban Indians includes Indians who are
members of a tribe or other organized group of Indians recognized by the
state in which they reside. Members of state-recognized tribes are also
eligible for certain scholarships administered by HHS’s Indian Health
Service such as the Indian health professions scholarships.




5
  The six state-recognized but not federally recognized tribes that received revenue-
sharing payments were the Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe, Mattaponi Tribe, Paucatuck
Eastern Pequot, Pamunkey Indian Tribe, Poospatuck (Unkechauge) Indian Nation, and
Schaghticoke Tribal Nation. The five federally recognized Indian tribes that received
revenue-sharing payments before being federally recognized were Alabama-Coushatta
Tribes of Texas; Huron Potawatomi, Inc.; Mashantucket Pequot Tribe; Shinnecock Indian
Nation; and Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas.




Page 55                                           GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix VI: Comments from the
             Appendix VI: Comments from the Department
             of Education



Department of Education




             Page 56                                     GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department
of Education




Page 57                                     GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department
of Education




Page 58                                     GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department
of Education




Page 59                                     GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix VII: Comments from the
             Appendix VII: Comments from the Department
             of Health and Human Services



Department of Health and Human Services




             Page 60                                      GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department
of Health and Human Services




Page 61                                      GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department
of Health and Human Services




Page 62                                      GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff
                  Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff
                  Acknowledgments



Acknowledgments

                  Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov
GAO Contact
                  In addition to the individual named above, Jeffery D. Malcolm (Assistant
Staff             Director), Mariana Calderón, Colleen Candrl, Jennifer Cheung, Ellen W.
Acknowledgments   Chu, Pamela Davidson, Emily Hanawalt, Catherine Hurley, Ben Shouse,
                  and Jeanette M. Soares made key contributions to this report.




(361298)
                  Page 63                                GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
GAO’s Mission         The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
                      investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
                      constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
                      accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
                      examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
                      policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
                      to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions.
                      GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
                      accountability, integrity, and reliability.

                      The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
Obtaining Copies of   cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon,
GAO Reports and       GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and
                      correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products,
Testimony             go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

Order by Phone        The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
                      production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
                      publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
                      white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website,
                      http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
                      Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
                      TDD (202) 512-2537.
                      Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
                      MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
                      Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Connect with GAO      Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
                      Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
                      Contact:
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in   Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
                      E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs      Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

                      Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-
Congressional         4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
Relations             7125, Washington, DC 20548

                      Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs        U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
                      Washington, DC 20548




                        Please Print on Recycled Paper.