This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-348 
entitled 'Indian Issues: Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized 
Tribes' which was released on May 9, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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. 

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: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-348, a report to the Honorable Dan Boren, House 
of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

As of January 3, 2012, the United States recognized 566 Indian tribes. 
Federal recognition confers specific legal status on tribes and 
imposes certain responsibilities on the federal government, such as an 
obligation to provide certain benefits to tribes and their members. 
Some tribes are not federally recognized but have qualified for and 
received federal funding. Some of these non-federally recognized 
tribes are state recognized and may be located on state reservations. 

GAO was asked 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. GAO also identified some 
eligibility and federal financial reporting issues related to non-
federally recognized tribes. GAO compiled a list of about 400 non-
federally recognized tribes and reviewed information from federal 
agencies, USAspending.gov, states, and other sources to identify tribes’
federal funding and eligibility. 

What GAO Found: 

Of the approximately 400 non-federally recognized tribes that GAO 
identified, 26 received funding from 24 federal programs during fiscal 
years 2007 through 2010. Most of the 26 non-federally recognized 
tribes were eligible to receive this funding either because of their 
status as nonprofit organizations or state-recognized tribes. 
Similarly, most of the 24 federal programs that awarded funding to non-
federally recognized tribes during the 4-year period were authorized 
to fund nonprofit organizations or state-recognized tribes. In 
addition, some of these programs were authorized to fund other 
entities, such as tribal communities or community development 
financial institutions. 

For fiscal years 2007 through 2010, 24 federal programs awarded more 
than $100 million to the 26 non-federally recognized tribes. Most of 
the funding was awarded to a few non-federally recognized tribes by a 
small number of programs. Specifically, 95 percent of the funding was 
awarded to 9 non-federally recognized tribes, and most of that funding 
was awarded to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. Similarly, 95 
percent of the funding was awarded by seven programs in four agencies, 
and most of that funding was awarded by one Department of Housing and 
Urban Development program. 

During the course of its review, GAO identified some instances where 
federal agencies had provided funding to non-federally recognized 
tribes for which grant eligibility is disputed and one instance where 
an agency was in the process of better enforcing federal financial 
reporting requirements with one tribe. Specifically: 

* The Department of Education awarded American Indian Vocational 
Rehabilitation Services Program funding to the United Houma Nation, 
the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and a consortium consisting of the 
Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb and the Four Winds Cherokee. Each of 
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 substantial questions about whether Education’s 
interpretation of the term “reservation” is broader than the statutory 
definition supports. 

* The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarded funding to 
the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey and the Powhatan 
Renape Nation-—two non-federally recognized tribes in New Jersey—-
under programs authorized to fund state-recognized tribes. The state 
of New Jersey, however, does not consider these entities to be state 
recognized. 

* HHS has initiated action to enforce federal financial reporting 
requirements for the Accohannock Indian Tribe. The Accohannock Indian 
Tribe has not filed its required financial report for 2009 that was 
due no later than September 30, 2010. In 2009, the Accohannock Indian 
Tribe reported 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 recently, after GAO inquired about 
the issue, on February 7, 2012. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that Education and HHS take specific actions to ensure 
that they are not making grants to ineligible tribes and to enforce 
federal financial reporting requirements. HHS agreed. Education stated 
its commitment to review its practices, but disagreed with GAO’s 
finding on the statutory eligibility for the American Indian 
Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program, which is discussed more 
fully in the report. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-348]. For more 
information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-3841 or 
mittala@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Most Non-Federally Recognized Tribes That Received Federal Funding 
Were Eligible as Nonprofit Organizations or State-Recognized Tribes: 

Federal Programs Awarded More Than $100 Million in Funding to Non-
Federally Recognized Tribes for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010: 

Agencies Have Funded Some Likely Ineligible Non-Federally Recognized 
Tribes, and One Agency Is in the Process of Enforcing Single Audit Act 
Requirements: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Tribes Whose Recognition Was Terminated: 

Appendix III: State-Recognized Tribes: 

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

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

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Education: 

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

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: 

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: 

[End of section] 

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.[Footnote 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 selected states.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 
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. 

Background: 

Federally recognized tribes have a government-to-government 
relationship with the United States and are eligible to receive 
certain protections, services, and benefits by virtue of their unique 
status as Indian tribes.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 

* 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.[Footnote 7] 

In 1977, the American Indian Policy Review Commission reported that 
"the 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."[Footnote 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 an administrative 
acknowledgment process by which Indian groups could submit a petition 
to seek federal recognition.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 11] In addition, on January 3, 
2012, Interior reaffirmed the Tejon Indian Tribe of California's 
federal recognition, making it the 566th federally recognized Indian 
tribe.[Footnote 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[Footnote 13]--
petitioned Interior for recognition and has also sought recognition 
through legislation.[Footnote 14] As of April 29, 2011, 17 entities 
had been granted federal recognition through Interior's administrative 
acknowledgment process, and 32 had been denied.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 
16] 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes: 

No official list of non-federally recognized tribes similar to BIA's 
list of 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. 

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. 

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 Financial Reporting Requirements: 

The purpose of the Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, was, among 
other things, to promote sound financial management, including 
effective internal controls, with respect to federal awards 
administered by nonfederal entities.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 

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. 

Most Non-Federally Recognized Tribes That Received Federal Funding 
Were Eligible as Nonprofit Organizations or State-Recognized Tribes: 

Of the list of about 400 non-federally recognized tribes that we 
compiled, we identified 26 that received federal funding for fiscal 
years 2007 through 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 (24 out of 26). Most of the 24 
federal programs that provided this funding were authorized to fund 
either nonprofits or state-recognized tribes (18 out of 24). Other non-
federally recognized tribes that received funding but were not 
nonprofits or state-recognized tribes were awarded funding through 
programs that had authority to fund other types of entities. 

For Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010, 26 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 
Received Federal Funding: 

Out of the approximately 400 non-federally recognized tribes that we 
identified, we determined that 26 non-federally recognized tribes had 
received federal funding for fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Twenty-
four of these 26 non-federally recognized tribes were organized as 
nonprofit organizations (see table 1).[Footnote 19] As nonprofits, 
these 24 non-federally 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.[Footnote 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.) 

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

Tribe name: Accohannock Indian Tribe; 
City: Marion Station; 
State: MD; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #149. Letter of intent submitted on Jan. 18, 1995. 

Tribe name: American Indian Council of Mariposa County (petitioned as 
Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation); 
City: Mariposa; 
State: CA; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #82. Petition under active consideration since Nov. 1, 2010. 

Tribe name: Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Inc.; 
City: Brutus; 
State: MI; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #101. Denied, effective Jan. 23, 2007. 

Tribe name: Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb; 
City: Zwolle; 
State: LA; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #37. Letter of intent submitted on July 2, 1978. 

Tribe name: Coharie Tribe of North Carolina; 
City: Clinton; 
State: NC; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #74. Letter of intent submitted on Mar. 13, 1981. 

Tribe name: Duwamish Tribe; 
City: Seattle; 
State: WA; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #25. Denied, effective May 8, 2002. 

Tribe name: Eel River Tribe of Indiana; 
City: Chalmers; 
State: IN; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Empty]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: [D]. 

Tribe name: Euchee (Yuchi) Tribe of Indians; 
City: Sapulpa; 
State: OK; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: [E]. 

Tribe name: Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe of North Carolina; 
City: Hollister; 
State: NC; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #63. Letter of intent submitted on Nov. 27, 1979. 

Tribe name: Lower Muskogee Creek Tribe; 
City: Whigham; 
State: GA; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check][F]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #8. Denied, effective Dec. 21, 1981. 

Tribe name: Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina; 
City: Pembroke; 
State: NC; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #65. Deemed ineligible to apply on Oct. 23, 1989. 

Tribe name: Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe[G]; 
City: Mashpee; 
State: MA; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #15. Recognized, effective May 23, 2007. 

Tribe name: MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians; 
City: Mount Vernon; 
State: AL; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check][H]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check][F]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #86. Denied, effective Nov. 26, 1999. 

Tribe name: Nanticoke Indian Association; 
City: Millsboro; 
State: DE; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #40. Requested petition be placed on hold on Mar. 25, 1989. 

Tribe name: Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey; 
City: Bridgeton; 
State: NJ; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: i; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #127. Letter of intent submitted on Jan. 3, 1992. 

Tribe name: Occaneechi Band of Saponi Nation of North Carolina; 
City: Mebane; 
State: NC; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #148. Letter of intent submitted on Jan. 6, 1995. 

Tribe name: Powhatan Renape Nation; 
City: Rancocas; 
State: NJ; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Empty]; 
State recognized[B]: i; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #171. Letter of intent submitted on Apr. 12, 1996. 

Tribe name: Saponi Nation of Missouri Mahenips Band; 
City: Willow Springs; 
State: MO; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #220. Letter of intent submitted on Dec. 14, 1999. 

Tribe name: Sappony (High Plains Indians, petitioned as Indians of 
Person County); 
City: Roxboro; 
State: NC[J]; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #95. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 7, 1984. 

Tribe name: Shinnecock Indian Nation[G]; 
City: Southampton; 
State: NY; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check][F]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #4. Recognized, effective Oct. 1, 2010. 

Tribe name: St. Francis/Sokoki Band of Abenakis of Vermont Abenaki 
Tribal Council; 
City: Swanton; 
State: VT; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #68. Denied, effective Oct. 1, 2007. 

Tribe name: Tuscarora Nation of Indians of the Carolinas; 
City: Newell; 
State: NC; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #286. Letter of intent submitted on Dec. 21, 2004. 

Tribe name: United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation; 
City: Guntersville; 
State: AL; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #246. Letter of intent submitted on Nov. 8, 2001. 

Tribe name: United Houma Nation; 
City: Golden Meadow; 
State: LA; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #56. Proposed negative finding published Dec. 22, 1994. 

Tribe name: Waccamaw Siouan Tribe of North Carolina; 
City: Bolton; 
State: NC; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #88. Letter of intent submitted on June 27, 1983. 

Tribe name: Wesget Sipu; 
City: Fort Kent; 
State: ME; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #256. Letter of intent submitted on June 4, 2002. 

Total: 
Nonprofit[A]: 24; 
State recognized[B]: 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. 

[End of table] 

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 through 2010, 24 Federal Programs Provided 
Funding to Non-Federally Recognized Tribes: 

We identified 24 federal programs that provided funding to the 26 non-
federally recognized tribes for fiscal years 2007 through 2010. 
Specifically, of the 24 programs we identified, 11 programs were 
authorized to fund nonprofits, 6 had explicit statutory or regulatory 
authority to fund state-recognized tribes, 1 had authority to fund 
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.[Footnote 21] (See also appendix 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. 

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

Agency and program: Department of Agriculture: 

Agency and program: Rural Housing Preservation Grants; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 10.433; 
Nonprofits: [Check]; 
State-recognized tribes: [B]. 

Agency and program: Rural Business Enterprise Grants[C]; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 10.769; 
Nonprofits: [Check]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Empty]. 

Agency and program: Department of Commerce: 

Agency and program: Grant Program for Community Alert Systems; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 11.468; 
Nonprofits: [Empty]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Empty]. 

Agency and program: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

Agency and program: Rural Housing and Economic Development; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 14.250; 
Nonprofits: [Check]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Empty]. 

Agency and program: Economic Development Initiative-Special Project, 
Neighborhood Initiative and Miscellaneous Grants[D]; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 14.251; 
Nonprofits: [Empty]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Empty]. 

Agency and program: Indian Community Development Block Grant Program 
(includes Recovery Act funding); 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 14.862; 14.886; 
Nonprofits: [Empty]; 
State-recognized tribes: [B]. 

Agency and program: Indian Housing Block Grants (includes Recovery Act 
formula and competitive grants); 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 14.867; 14.882; 14.887; 
Nonprofits: [Empty]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Check][E]. 

Agency and program: Department of the Interior: 

Agency and program: Cultural Resources; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 15.946; 
Nonprofits: [Check][F]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Empty]. 

Agency and program: Department of Labor: 

Agency and program: Native American Employment and Training (includes 
Recovery Act funding); 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 17.265; 
Nonprofits: [G]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Check][G]. 

Agency and program: Department of the Treasury: 

Agency and program: Community Development Financial Institutions Fund 
(includes Recovery Act funding); 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 21.020; 
Nonprofits: [Empty]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Empty]. 

Agency and program: Department of Education: 

Agency and program: Indian Education Formula Grants to Local 
Educational Agencies; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 84.060; 
Nonprofits: [Empty]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Check][H]. 

Agency and program: American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services 
Program; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 84.250; 
Nonprofits: [Empty]; 
State-recognized tribes: i. 

Agency and program: Small, Rural School Achievement Program; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 84.358A; 
Nonprofits: [Empty]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Empty]. 

Agency and program: Department of Health and Human Services: 

Agency and program: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 93.568; 
Nonprofits: [Empty]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Check]. 

Agency and program: Community Services Block Grant Program (includes 
Recovery Act funding); 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 93.569; 93.710; 
Nonprofits: [Empty]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Check]. 

Agency and program: Community Services Block Grant Program 
(discretionary awards); 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 93.570; 
Nonprofits: [Check]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Empty]. 

Agency and program: Administration for Native Americans' Improvement 
of the Capability of Tribal Governing Bodies to Regulate Environmental 
Quality; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 93.581; 
Nonprofits: [Empty]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Check]. 

Agency and program: Administration for Native Americans' Preservation 
and Enhancement of Native American Languages Program[J]; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 93.587; 
Nonprofits: [Check]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Empty]. 

Agency and program: Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 93.593; 
Nonprofits: [Check]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Empty]. 

Agency and program: Head Start (includes Recovery Act funding); 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 93.600; 
93.708; 
Nonprofits: [Check]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Empty]. 

Agency and program: Administration for Native Americans' Social and 
Economic Development Strategies Program[J]; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 93.612; 
Nonprofits: [Check]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Empty]. 

Agency and program: Environmental Protection Agency: 

Agency and program: Surveys, Studies, Investigations, Training and 
Special Purpose Activities Relating to Environmental Justice[K]; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 66.309; 
Nonprofits: [Empty]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Empty]. 

Agency and program: Corporation for National and Community Service: 

Agency and program: Retired and Senior Volunteer Program; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 94.002; 
Nonprofits: [Check]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Empty]. 

Agency and program: Volunteers in Service to America; 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 94.013; 
Nonprofits: [Check]; 
State-recognized tribes: [Empty]. 

Total: 
CFDA number(s)[A]: 24 programs; 
Nonprofits: 11 programs; 
State-recognized tribes: 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. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 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 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.[Footnote 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 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 Programs Awarded More Than $100 Million in Funding to Non-
Federally Recognized Tribes for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010: 

Federal agencies awarded more than $100 million in funding to the 26 
non-federally recognized tribes for fiscal years 2007 through 2010. As 
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 
Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina accounted for about 76 percent of the 
federal funding that we identified. Overall, the Lumbee Tribe of North 
Carolina received more than $78 million awarded by 10 programs in six 
federal agencies during the 4-year period. Some of this funding was 
awarded to incorporated entities--such as the Lumbee Regional 
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. 

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

Tribe name: Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina[A]; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $16,575,000; 
2008: $15,039,000; 
2009: $27,190,000; 
2010: $19,979,000; 
Total: $78,782,000. 

Tribe name: MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians[B]; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $636,000; 
2008: $723,000; 
2009: $2,080,000; 
2010: $829,000; 
Total: $4,268,000. 

Tribe name: Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe of North Carolina[C]; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $1,180,000; 
2008: $994,000; 
2009: $1,104,000; 
2010: $849,000; 
Total: $4,128,000. 

Tribe name: Coharie Tribe of North Carolina; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $676,000; 
2008: $681,000; 
2009: $930,000; 
2010: $587,000; 
Total: $2,874,000. 

Tribe name: United Houma Nation; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $421,000; 
2008: $433,000; 
2009: $503,000; 
2010: $748,000; 
Total: $2,104,000. 

Tribe name: Accohannock Indian Tribe; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $500,000; 
2008: $986,000; 
2009: $441,000; 
2010: [Empty]; 
Total: $1,926,000. 

Tribe name: Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb[D]; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $385,000; 
2008: $395,000; 
2009: $416,000; 
2010: $425,000; 
Total: $1,621,000. 

Tribe name: Waccamaw Siouan Tribe of North Carolina; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $331,000; 
2008: $419,000; 
2009: $416,000; 
2010: $351,000; 
Total: $1,517,000. 

Tribe name: Lower Muskogee Creek Tribe; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $357,000; 
2008: $366,000; 
2009: $366,000; 
2010: $375,000; 
Total: $1,463,000. 

Tribe name: Shinnecock Indian Nation[E]; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $186,000; 
2008: [Empty]; 
2009: [Empty]; 
2010: $790,000; 
Total: $976,000. 

Tribe name: Euchee (Yuchi) Tribe of Indians; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $118,000; 
2008: $192,000; 
2009: $316,000; 
2010: $122,000; 
Total: $747,000. 

Tribe name: Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Inc.; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $91,000; 
2008: $128,000; 
2009: $126,000; 
2010: $122,000; 
Total: $467,000. 

Tribe name: Tuscarora Nation of Indians of the Carolinas; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $96,000; 
2008: [Empty]; 
2009: $134,000; 
2010: $152,000; 
Total: $382,000. 

Tribe name: St. Francis/Sokoki Band of Abenakis of Vermont Abenaki 
Tribal Council; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $80,000; 
2008: $78,000; 
2009: $78,000; 
2010: $78,000; 
Total: $314,000. 

Tribe name: Wesget Sipu; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: [Empty]; 
2008: [Empty]; 
2009: $146,000; 
2010: $160,000; 
Total: $306,000. 

Tribe name: Eel River Tribe of Indiana; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: [Empty]; 
2008: $99,000; 
2009: $175,000; 
2010: [Empty]; 
Total: $274,000. 

Tribe name: American Indian Council of Mariposa County (petitioned as 
Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation); 
Fiscal year: 
2007: [Empty]; 
2008: $12,000; 
2009: $170,000; 
2010: $78,000; 
Total: $260,000. 

Tribe name: Sappony (High Plains Indians, petitioned as Indians of 
Person County); 
Fiscal year: 
2007: [Empty]; 
2008: $225,000; 
2009: [Empty]; 
2010: [Empty]; 
Total: $225,000. 

Tribe name: Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $185,000; 
2008: [Empty]; 
2009: [Empty]; 
2010: $23,000; 
Total: $208,000. 

Tribe name: Powhatan Renape Nation; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $200,000; 
2008: [Empty]; 
2009: [Empty]; 
2010: [Empty]; 
Total: $200,000. 

Tribe name: Duwamish Tribe; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $107,000; 
2008: $70,000; 
2009: [Empty]; 
2010: [Empty]; 
Total: $177,000. 

Tribe name: Occaneechi Band of Saponi Nation of North Carolina; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: [Empty]; 
2008: [Empty]; 
2009: $130,000; 
2010: [Empty]; 
Total: $130,000. 

Tribe name: United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: [Empty]; 
2008: $21,000; 
2009: [Empty]; 
2010: $77,000; 
Total: $98,000. 

Tribe name: Saponi Nation of Missouri Mahenips Band; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: [Empty]; 
2008: $65,000; 
2009: [Empty]; 
2010: [Empty]; 
Total: $65,000. 

Tribe name: Nanticoke Indian Association; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $41,000; 
2008: [Empty]; 
2009: [Empty]; 
2010: [Empty]; 
Total: $41,000. 

Tribe name: Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe[F]; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $33,000; 
2008: [Empty]; 
2009: [Empty]; 
2010: [Empty]; 
Total: $33,000. 

Tribe name: Total; 
Fiscal year: 
2007: $22,198,000; 
2008: $20,926,000; 
2009: $34,720,000; 
2010: $25,743,000; 
Total: $103,588,000. 

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. 

[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. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 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. 

[Side bar: The Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina and Federal Recognition: 

The Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, located in Pembroke, North 
Carolina, was recognized by North Carolina in state legislation passed 
in 1953, but has yet to receive recognition by the federal government. 
The tribe has sought federal recognition through several mechanisms, 
including the passage of federal legislation. In 1956, legislation was 
enacted-—commonly referred to as the Lumbee Act of 1956—-that 
designated a group of Indians living in North Carolina as the Lumbee 
Indians of North Carolina; however, the act explicitly stated that it 
did not make the Indians eligible for any services performed by the 
United States for Indians because of their status as Indians and that 
none of the laws affecting Indians because of their status as Indians 
would apply to the Lumbees. In 1980, the tribe submitted a letter of 
intent to petition for federal recognition through Interior's
administrative acknowledgment process but Interior's Office of the 
Solicitor subsequently determined that the tribe was ineligible to 
apply for federal recognition through this process because the Lumbee 
Act of 1956 terminated or forbade a federal relationship with the 
Lumbees, and therefore the tribe was not eligible to petition for 
federal recognition through this process. Since that time, the tribe 
has continued to seek federal recognition through congressional 
action, and in recent years legislation has been introduced in both 
the Senate and the House of Representatives to have the federal 
government recognize the Lumbee Tribe, which would make the tribe 
eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United
States to Indians because of their status as Indians. With about 
55,000 enrolled members, the Lumbee Tribe has more enrolled members 
than most federally recognized tribes. End of side bar] 

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

Program: Indian Housing Block Grants (includes Recovery Act formula 
and competitive grants); 
Agency: Housing and Urban Development; 
Number of unique recipients: 5; 
Funds awarded: $68,887,000. 

Program: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance; 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Number of unique recipients: 5; 
Funds awarded: $7,074,000. 

Program: Head Start (includes Recovery Act funding); 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $7,029,000. 

Program: American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program; 
Agency: Education; 
Number of unique recipients: 4; 
Funds awarded: $5,915,000. 

Program: Native American Employment and Training (includes Recovery 
Act funding); 
Agency: Labor; 
Number of unique recipients: 4; 
Funds awarded: $4,411,000. 

Program: Administration for Native Americans' Social and Economic 
Development Strategies Program; 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Number of unique recipients: 13; 
Funds awarded: $3,626,000. 

Program: Community Services Block Grant Program (includes Recovery Act 
funding); 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Number of unique recipients: 5; 
Funds awarded: $1,764,000. 

Program: Administration for Native Americans' Preservation and 
Enhancement of Native American Languages Program; 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Number of unique recipients: 3; 
Funds awarded: $732,000. 

Program: Community Services Block Grant Program (discretionary awards); 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $686,000. 

Program: Indian Community Development Block Grant Program (includes 
Recovery Act funding); 
Agency: Housing and Urban Development; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $600,000. 

Program: Rural Housing and Economic Development; 
Agency: Housing and Urban Development; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $590,000. 

Program: Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals; 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $500,000. 

Program: Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (includes 
Recovery Act funding); 
Agency: Treasury; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $283,000. 

Program: Cultural Resources; 
Agency: Interior; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $260,000. 

Program: Remote Community Alert Systems Program; 
Agency: Commerce; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $274,000. 

Program: Administration for Native Americans' Improvement of the 
Capability of Tribal Governing Bodies to Regulate Environmental 
Quality; 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $219,000. 

Program: Economic Development Initiative-Special Project, Neighborhood 
Initiative and Miscellaneous Grants; 
Agency: Housing and Urban Development; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $190,000. 

Program: Rural Housing Preservation Grants; 
Agency: Agriculture; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $186,000. 

Program: Small, Rural School Achievement Program; 
Agency: Education; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $92,000. 

Program: Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies; 
Agency: Education; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $90,000. 

Program: Rural Business Enterprise Grants; 
Agency: Agriculture; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $80,000. 

Program: Retired and Senior Volunteer Program; 
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $63,000. 

Program: Volunteers in Service to America; 
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $25,000. 

Program: Surveys, Studies, Investigations, Training and Special 
Purpose Activities Relating to Environmental Justice; 
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; 
Number of unique recipients: 1; 
Funds awarded: $10,000. 

Total: 
Number of unique recipients: 26; 
Funds awarded: $103,588,000. 

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. 

[End of table] 

Agencies Have Funded Some Likely Ineligible Non-Federally Recognized 
Tribes, and One Agency Is in the Process of Enforcing Single Audit Act 
Requirements: 

During our review, we identified some instances where federal agencies 
had provided funds to non-federally recognized tribes for which grant 
eligibility is disputed and one instance where an agency is trying to 
enforce the Single Audit Act's reporting requirements. Specifically, 
when we compared the eligibility requirements for each federal program 
that provided funding to non-federally recognized tribes for fiscal 
years 2007 through 2010 with the characteristics of each entity, we 
found that Education funded some non-federally recognized tribes under 
the American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program that 
appear 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 addition, we identified one instance where HHS 
has initiated action to better ensure that a non-federally recognized 
tribe completes its required financial report under the Single Audit 
Act. 

Under Its American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program, 
Education Funded Non-Federally Recognized Tribes That Appear to Have 
Been Ineligible: 

Education awarded American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services 
Program funding to two state-recognized tribes that do not have a 
state reservation--United Houma Nation and the Lumbee Tribe of North 
Carolina--and a consortium consisting of two additional state-
recognized tribes--Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb and Four Winds 
Cherokee--that also do not have a state reservation. The statute 
establishing the program authorizes grants to the governing bodies of 
state-and federally 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."[Footnote 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,[Footnote 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. 

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."[Footnote 27] 

Education told us that under its long-standing interpretation of this 
definition,[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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."[Footnote 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 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 32] 

HHS Funded Two Ineligible Non-Federally Recognized Tribes in New 
Jersey: 

The state-recognition status of some non-federally recognized tribes 
in New Jersey has been called into question.[Footnote 33] The two non-
federally recognized tribes in New Jersey that received federal 
funding in the 4-year period covered by our review were the Nanticoke 
Lenni-Lenape 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 35] The Nanticoke Lenni-
Lenape's application repeatedly stated that it 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 Initial Steps in Response to the Accohannock Indian 
Tribe's Noncompliance with the Single Audit Act: 

The Accohannock Indian Tribe, one of the non-federally recognized 
tribes that we identified as receiving federal funds during the period 
of our 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 reported spending over $1 million in federal 
funds for calendar year 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 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. 

Conclusions: 

Determining the state-recognition status of non-federally recognized 
tribes 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. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We are making the following three recommendations. 

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 
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. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a copy of our draft report to the Departments of 
Agriculture, Education, Energy, the Interior, Labor, and HHS. In its 
written response, 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, 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 
[hyperlink, 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, 

Signed by: 

Anu K. Mittal: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 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.[Footnote 36] 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 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.[Footnote 37] 

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. 

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.[Footnote 
38] 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 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)[Footnote 39] 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 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. 
[Footnote 40] 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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Tribes Whose Recognition Was 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 acknowledgment process, but may have their 
recognition restored by other means.[Footnote 41] 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: 

Restored tribe: Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; 
State: Wisconsin; 
Date terminated: Apr. 30, 1961; 
Date restored: Dec. 22, 1973; 
Years non-federally recognized: 12.65. 

Restored tribe: Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Sept. 3, 1965; 
Date restored: June 29, 1977; 
Years non-federally recognized: 11.83. 

Restored tribe: Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon; 
State: Oregon; 
Date terminated: Aug. 13, 1956; 
Date restored: Nov. 18, 1977; 
Years non-federally recognized: 21.28. 

Restored tribe: Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; 
State: Oklahoma; 
Date terminated: Aug. 3, 1959; 
Date restored: May 15, 1978; 
Years non-federally recognized: 18.79. 

Restored tribe: Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; 
State: Oklahoma; 
Date terminated: Aug. 2, 1959; 
Date restored: May 15, 1978; 
Years non-federally recognized: 18.80. 

Restored tribe: Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of 
Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian 
Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes); 
State: Utah; 
Date terminated: Mar. 1, 1957; 
Date restored: Apr. 3, 1980; 
Years non-federally recognized: 23.11. 

Restored tribe: Wiyot Tribe, California (formerly the Table Bluff 
Reservation--Wiyot Tribe); 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Apr. 11, 1961; 
Date restored: Sept. 21, 1981; 
Years non-federally recognized: 20.46. 

Restored tribe: Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of 
Oregon; 
State: Oregon; 
Date terminated: Aug. 13, 1956; 
Date restored: Nov. 22, 1983; 
Years non-federally recognized: 27.29. 

Restored tribe: Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and 
Siuslaw Indians of Oregon; 
State: Oregon; 
Date terminated: Aug. 13, 1956; 
Date restored: Oct. 17, 1984; 
Years non-federally recognized: 28.20. 

Restored tribe: Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, 
California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: July 16, 1966; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 18.59. 

Restored tribe: Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley 
Rancheria, California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Nov. 11, 1965; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 19.27. 

Restored tribe: Blue Lake Rancheria, California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Sept. 22, 1966; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 18.41. 

Restored tribe: Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Apr. 11, 1961; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 23.86. 

Restored tribe: Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of 
California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Aug. 1, 1961; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 23.55. 

Restored tribe: Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Dec. 30, 1965; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 19.14. 

Restored tribe: Elk Valley Rancheria, California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: July 16, 1966; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 18.59. 

Restored tribe: Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Dec. 8, 1966; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 18.20. 

Restored tribe: Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Aug. 1, 1961; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 23.55. 

Restored tribe: Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Feb. 18, 1966; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 19.00. 

Restored tribe: Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Feb. 18, 1966; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 19.00. 

Restored tribe: Pinoleville Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Feb. 18, 1966; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 19.00. 

Restored tribe: Potter Valley Tribe, California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Aug. 1, 1961; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 23.55. 

Restored tribe: Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley 
Reservation of California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Jan. 20, 1967; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 18.08. 

Restored tribe: Redding Rancheria, California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: June 20, 1962; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 22.67. 

Restored tribe: Redwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Aug. 1, 1961; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 23.55. 

Restored tribe: Smith River Rancheria, California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: July 29, 1967; 
Date restored: Feb. 13, 1985[A]; 
Years non-federally recognized: 17.56. 

Restored tribe: Klamath Tribes, Oregon; 
State: Oregon; 
Date terminated: Aug. 13, 1961; 
Date restored: Aug. 27, 1986; 
Years non-federally recognized: 25.05. 

Restored tribe: Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas; 
State: Texas; 
Date terminated: July 1, 1955; 
Date restored: Aug. 18, 1987; 
Years non-federally recognized: 32.15. 

Restored tribe: Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; 
State: Nebraska; 
Date terminated: Oct. 27, 1966; 
Date restored: Oct. 31, 1990; 
Years non-federally recognized: 24.03. 

Restored tribe: Guidiville Rancheria of California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Sept. 3, 1965; 
Date restored: Sept. 6, 1991; 
Years non-federally recognized: 26.02. 

Restored tribe: Lytton Rancheria of California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Aug. 1, 1961; 
Date restored: Sept. 6, 1991; 
Years non-federally recognized: 30.12. 

Restored tribe: Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Sept. 3, 1965; 
Date restored: Sept. 6, 1991; 
Years non-federally recognized: 26.02. 

Restored tribe: Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: June 2, 1967; 
Date restored: Apr. 17, 1992; 
Years non-federally recognized: 24.89. 

Restored tribe: Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South 
Carolina); 
State: South Carolina; 
Date terminated: July 2, 1960; 
Date restored: Oct. 27, 1993; 
Years non-federally recognized: 33.34. 

Restored tribe: United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria 
of California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Aug. 18, 1967; 
Date restored: Oct. 31, 1994; 
Years non-federally recognized: 27.22. 

Restored tribe: Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians of California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Apr. 11, 1961; 
Date restored: Nov. 2, 1994; 
Years non-federally recognized: 33.58. 

Restored tribe: Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Feb. 18, 1966; 
Date restored: Dec. 27, 2000; 
Years non-federally recognized: 34.88. 

Restored tribe: Wilton Rancheria, California; 
State: California; 
Date terminated: Sept. 22, 1964; 
Date restored: June 8, 2009; 
Years non-federally recognized: 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. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 42] 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: Cache Creek Rancheria; 
Date terminated: Apr. 11, 1961; 
Federal Register termination notice: 26 Fed. Reg. 3073. 

Terminated tribe: Mark West Rancheria; 
Date terminated: Apr. 11, 1961; 
Federal Register termination notice: 26 Fed. Reg. 3073. 

Terminated tribe: Ruffeys Rancheria; 
Date terminated: Apr. 11, 1961; 
Federal Register termination notice: 26 Fed. Reg. 3073. 

Terminated tribe: Strawberry Valley Rancheria; 
Date terminated: Apr. 11, 1961; 
Federal Register termination notice: 26 Fed. Reg. 3073. 

Terminated tribe: Alexander Valley Rancheria; 
Date terminated: Aug. 1, 1961; 
Federal Register termination notice: 26 Fed. Reg. 6875. 

Terminated tribe: Indian Ranch Rancheria; 
Date terminated: Sept. 22, 1964; 
Federal Register termination notice: 29 Fed. Reg. 13146. 

Terminated tribe: Nevada City Rancheria; 
Date terminated: Sept. 22, 1964; 
Federal Register termination notice: 29 Fed. Reg. 13146. 

Terminated tribe: El Dorado Rancheria; 
Date terminated: July 16, 1966; 
Federal Register termination notice: 31 Fed. Reg. 9685, 9686. 

Terminated tribe: Mission Creek Reservation; 
Date terminated: July 14, 1970; 
Federal Register termination notice: 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. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

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: Alabama; 

Tribe name: Cherokees of Northeast Alabama; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #77. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 23, 1981. 

Tribe name: Cher-O-Creek Intra Tribal Indians (Cherokees of Southeast 
Alabama); 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #107. Letter of intent submitted on May 27, 1988. 

Tribe name: Echota Cherokees of Alabama; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #321. Letter of intent submitted on June 10, 2009. 

Tribe name: Ma-Chis Lower Alabama Creek Indian Tribe; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #87. Denied, effective Aug. 22, 1988. 

Tribe name: MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians[B]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #86. Denied, effective Nov. 26, 1999. 

Tribe name: Piqua Shawnee Tribe; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: [C]. 

Tribe name: Star Clan of Muscogee Creeks of Pike County; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: [C]. 

Tribe name: United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #246. Letter of intent submitted on Nov. 8, 2001. 

State: Connecticut; 

Tribe name: Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe[B]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #81. Denied, effective Mar. 18, 2005. 

Tribe name: Paucatuck Eastern Pequot[B]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #35 and petitioner #113. Denied, effective Oct. 14, 2005. 

Tribe name: Schaghticoke Tribal Nation[B]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #79. Denied, effective Oct. 14, 2005. 

State: Delaware; 

Tribe name: Lenape Indian Tribe of Delaware; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: [C]. 

Tribe name: Nanticoke Indian Association; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #40. Requested petition be placed on hold on Mar. 25, 1989. 

State: Georgia; 

Tribe name: Cherokee of Georgia Tribal Council; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: [C]. 

Tribe name: Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee Indians, Inc.[D]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #41. Petition ready, waiting for active consideration since 
June 9, 2003. 

Tribe name: Lower Muscogee Creek Tribe[B]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #8. Denied, effective Dec. 21, 1981. 

State: Louisiana; 

Tribe name: Adai Caddo Tribe; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #138. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 13, 1993. 

Tribe name: Bayou Lafourche Band of the Biloxi-Chitimacha 
Confederation of Muskogees; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #56A. Proposed negative finding published May 30, 2008. 

Tribe name: Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #37. Letter of intent submitted on July 2, 1978. 

Tribe name: Clifton Choctaw Tribal Reservation, Inc.; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #30. Letter of intent submitted on Mar. 22, 1978. 

Tribe name: Four Winds Cherokee; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: [C]. 

Tribe name: Grand Caillou/Dulac Band of the Biloxi-Chitimacha 
Confederation of Muskogees; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #56A. Proposed negative finding published May 30, 2008. 

Tribe name: Isle de Jean Charles Band of the Biloxi-Chitimacha 
Confederation of Muskogees; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #56A. Proposed negative finding published May 30, 2008. 

Tribe name: Louisiana Choctaw Tribe; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: [C]. 

Tribe name: Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #56B. Proposed negative finding published May 30, 2008. 

Tribe name: United Houma Nation; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #56. Proposed negative finding published Dec. 22, 1994. 

State: Massachusetts[E]; 

Tribe name: Chappaquiddick Wampanoag; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #310. Letter of intent submitted on May 21, 2007. 

Tribe name: Chaubunnagungamaug Nipmucks; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: [F]. 

Tribe name: Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: [C]. 

Tribe name: Nipmuc Nation Hassanamisco Band; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #69A. Denied, effective Jan. 28, 2008. 

Tribe name: Pocasset Wampanoag Tribe; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #153. Letter of intent submitted on Feb. 1, 1995. 

Tribe name: Seaconke Wampanoag Tribe; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: [C]. 

State: Montana; 

Tribe name: Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #31. Denied, effective Oct. 27, 2009. 

State: New York; 

Tribe name: The Poospatuck (Unkechauge) Indian Nation[B]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: [C]. 

State: North Carolina; 

Tribe name: Coharie Tribe of North Carolina; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #74. Letter of intent submitted on Mar. 13, 1981. 

Tribe name: Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe of North Carolina; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #63. Letter of intent submitted on Nov. 27, 1979. 

Tribe name: Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #65. Deemed ineligible to apply on Oct. 23, 1989. 

Tribe name: Meherrin Indian Tribe; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #119a. Letter of intent submitted on Aug. 2, 1990. 

Tribe name: Occaneechi Band of Saponi Nation of North Carolina; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #148. Letter of intent submitted on Jan. 6, 1995. 

Tribe name: Sappony (High Plains Indians, petitioned as Indians of 
Person County); 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #95. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 7, 1984. 

Tribe name: Waccamaw Siouan Tribe of North Carolina; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #88. Letter of intent submitted on June 27, 1983. 

State: South Carolina; 

Tribe name: Beaver Creek Indians; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #184. Letter of intent submitted on Jan. 26, 1998. 

Tribe name: Edisto Natchez Kusso Tribe of South Carolina (petitioned 
as Four Holes Indian Organization, Edisto Tribal Council); 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #23. Letter of intent submitted on Dec. 30, 1976. 

Tribe name: Pee Dee Indian Tribe of South Carolina; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #152. Letter of intent submitted on Jan. 30, 1995. 

Tribe name: Pee Dee Nation of Upper South Carolina; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #296. Letter of intent submitted on Dec. 14, 2005. 

Tribe name: Santee Indian Organization; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #53. Letter of intent submitted on June 4, 1979. 

Tribe name: Waccamaw Indian People (petitioned as The Chicora-Waccamaw 
Indian People); 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #144. Letter of intent submitted on Oct. 5, 1994. 

Tribe name: Wassamasaw Tribe of Varnertown Indians; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: [C]. 

State: Vermont; 

Tribe name: Elnu Abenaki Tribe; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: [C]. 

Tribe name: Nulhegan Band of the Coosuk Abenaki Nation; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: [C]. 

State: Virginia; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: [Empty]. 

Tribe name: Cheroenhaka (Nottoway); 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #264. Letter of intent submitted on Dec. 30, 2002. 

Tribe name: Chickahominy Indian Tribe; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #168. Letter of intent submitted on Mar. 19, 1996. 

Tribe name: Eastern Chickahominy; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #241. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 6, 2001. 

Tribe name: Mattaponi Tribe[B]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #157. Letter of intent submitted on Apr. 4, 1995. 

Tribe name: Monacan Indian Nation; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #161. Letter of intent submitted on July 11, 1995. 

Tribe name: Nansemond; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #244. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 20, 2001. 

Tribe name: Nottoway of Virginia; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: [C]. 

Tribe name: Pamunkey Indian Tribe[B]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #323. Letter of intent submitted on June 29, 2009. 

Tribe name: Patawomeck; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: [C]. 

Tribe name: Rappahannock Tribe; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
Petitioner #61. Letter of intent submitted on Nov. 16, 1979. 

Tribe name: Upper Mattaponi; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[A]: 
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. 

[End of table] 

We cross-checked the information we received from state officials with 
information included in (1) a 2008 law review article,[Footnote 43] 
(2) the 2010 Census,[Footnote 44] and (3) correspondence between the 
states and Interior's Indian Arts and Crafts Board.[Footnote 45] 
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 
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 "there 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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Non-Federally Recognized 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: 

Tribe name: Adai Caddo Tribe; 
City: Robeline; 
State: Louisiana; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #138. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 13, 1993. 

Tribe name: Amah Mutsun Band of Ohlone/Costanoan Indians; 
City: Woodside; 
State: California; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Empty]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #120. Petition ready, waiting for active consideration 
since Sept. 15, 2003. 

Tribe name: Amonsoquath Tribe of Cherokee; 
City: West Plains; 
State: Missouri; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #155. Letter of intent submitted on Feb. 17, 1995. 

Tribe name: The Bear Creek Band of Michigan Ottawa Indians, Inc.; 
City: Hopkins; 
State: Michigan; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Empty]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: [D]. 

Tribe name: Beaver Creek Indians (funded as Beaver Creek Band of Pee 
Dee Indians); 
City: Lexington; 
State: South Carolina; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #184. Letter of intent submitted on Jan. 26, 1998. 

Tribe name: Brothertown Indian Nation (also funded as Brotherton 
Indian Nation); 
City: Fond du Lac; 
State: Wisconsin; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #67. Proposed finding issued Aug. 17, 2009. 

Tribe name: Chaloklowa Chickasaw Indian People; 
City: Hemingway; 
State: South Carolina; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #259. Letter of intent submitted on Aug. 14, 2002. 

Tribe name: The Chi-cau-gon Band of Lake Superior Chippewa of Iron 
County; 
City: Iron River; 
State: Michigan; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #183. Letter of intent submitted on Feb. 12, 1998. 

Tribe name: Chicora Indian Tribe of South Carolina; 
City: Loris; 
State: South Carolina; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #134. Letter of intent submitted on Feb. 10, 1993. 

Tribe name: Chinook Indian Tribe/Chinook Nation; 
City: Chinook; 
State: Washington; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #57. Denied, effective July 12, 2003. 

Tribe name: Clifton Choctaw Tribal Reservation, Inc.; 
City: Clifton; 
State: Louisiana; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #30. Letter of intent submitted on Mar. 22, 1978. 

Tribe name: Coastal Band of Chumash; 
City: Buellton; 
State: California; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #80. Letter of intent submitted on Mar. 25, 1982. 

Tribe name: Costanoan-Rumsen Carmel Tribe; 
City: Chino; 
State: California; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #143. Letter of intent submitted on Aug. 24, 1994. 

Tribe name: Croatan-Peedee Indian People; 
City: Williston; 
State: South Carolina; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: [D]. 

Tribe name: Dunlap Band of Mono Indians; 
City: Fresno; 
State: California; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #92. Letter of intent to resubmit petition on Aug. 9, 
2005.[E]. 

Tribe name: Edisto Natchez Kusso Tribe of South Carolina (petitioned 
as Four Holes Indian Organization, Edisto Tribal Council); 
City: Ridgeville; 
State: South Carolina; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #23. Letter of intent submitted on Dec. 30, 1976. 

Tribe name: Fernandeno/Tataviam Tribe; 
City: Sylmar; 
State: California; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #158. Letter of intent submitted on Apr. 24, 1995. 

Tribe name: Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians of California; 
City: Beaumont; 
State: California; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #201. Letter of intent submitted on Nov. 3, 1998. 

Tribe name: Gabrielino/Tongva Nation; 
City: San Gabriel; 
State: California; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #140. Letter of intent submitted on Mar. 21, 1994. 

Tribe name: Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee Indians; 
City: Dahlonega; 
State: Georgia; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Empty]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: [D]. 

Tribe name: Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee Indians, Inc.[F]; 
City: Dahlonega; 
State: Georgia; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #41. Petition ready, waiting for active consideration since 
June 9, 2003. 

Tribe name: Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe; 
City: New Haven; 
State: Connecticut; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Empty]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #81. Denied, effective Mar. 18, 2005. 

Tribe name: Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians; 
City: Grand Rapids; 
State: Michigan; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #146. Petition ready, waiting for active consideration 
since Mar. 29, 2007. 

Tribe name: Hatteras Tuscarora Tribe; 
City: (Unknown); 
State: North Carolina; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Empty]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: [G]. 

Tribe name: Konkow Valley Band of Maidu; 
City: Oroville; 
State: California; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #197. Letter of intent submitted on Aug. 20, 1998. 

Tribe name: Lipan Apache Band of Texas, Inc.; 
City: San Antonio; 
State: Texas; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #211. Letter of intent submitted on May 26, 1999. 

Tribe name: Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; 
City: Great Falls; 
State: Montana; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #31. Denied, effective Oct. 27, 2009. 

Tribe name: Lost Cherokee of Arkansas & Missouri; 
City: Conway; 
State: Arkansas; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #204. Letter of intent submitted on Feb. 10, 1999. 

Tribe name: Mackinac Bands of Chippewa and Ottawa Indians; 
City: Hessel; 
State: Michigan; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #186. Letter of intent submitted on May 13, 1998. 

Tribe name: Mattaponi Tribe; 
City: West Point; 
State: Virginia; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #157. Letter of intent submitted on Apr. 4, 1995. 

Tribe name: Meherrin Indian Tribe; 
City: Winton; 
State: North Carolina; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #119A. Letter of intent submitted on Aug. 2, 1990. 

Tribe name: Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community; 
City: Mendota; 
State: Minnesota; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #169. Letter of intent submitted on Apr. 11, 1996. 

Tribe name: Miami Nation of Indians of the State of Indiana, Inc.; 
City: Peru; 
State: Indiana; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #66. Denied, effective Aug. 17, 1992. 

Tribe name: Monacan Indian Nation; 
City: Madison Heights; 
State: Virginia; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #161. Letter of intent submitted on July 11, 1995. 

Tribe name: Muscogee Nation of Florida (funded as Florida Tribe of 
Eastern Creek Indians); 
City: Bruce; 
State: Florida; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #32. Petition ready, waiting for active consideration since 
Jan. 29, 2003. 

Tribe name: Nipmuc Nation Hassanamisco Band (funded as Nipmuc Indian 
Development Corporation); 
City: South Grafton; 
State: Massachusetts; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #69A. Denied, effective Jan. 28, 2008. 

Tribe name: Nor-Rel-Muk Wintu Nation (formerly Hayfork Band); 
City: Weaverville; 
State: California; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #93. Letter of intent submitted on Jan. 5, 1984. 

Tribe name: Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory; 
City: Columbia; 
State: Missouri; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #100B. Letter of intent submitted on Feb. 19, 1992. 

Tribe name: Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indians of Missouri and 
Arkansas; 
City: Clinton; 
State: Missouri; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #100. Letter of intent submitted on July 26, 1985. 

Tribe name: Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation; 
City: Monterey; 
State: California; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #132. Letter of intent submitted on Dec. 3, 1992. 

Tribe name: Pamunkey Indian Tribe; 
City: King William; 
State: Virginia; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Empty]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #323. Letter of intent submitted on June 29, 2009. 

Tribe name: Paucatuck Eastern Pequot; 
City: North Stonington; 
State: Connecticut; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #35 and petitioner #113. Denied, effective Mar. 18, 2005. 

Tribe name: Pee Dee Indian Tribe of South Carolina; 
City: McColl; 
State: South Carolina; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #152. Letter of intent submitted on Jan. 30, 1995. 

Tribe name: Piedmont American Indian Association; 
City: Simpsonville; 
State: South Carolina; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #198. Letter of intent submitted on Aug. 20, 1998. 

Tribe name: Piro/Manso/Tiwa Indian Tribe of Pueblo of San Juan de 
Guadalupe (funded as Tiwa Tribe and Turtle River Nation, Inc.); 
City: Las Cruces; 
State: New Mexico; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #5. Petition under active consideration since Jan. 4, 2010. 

Tribe name: Piscataway-Conoy Confederacy and Sub-Tribes, Inc.; 
City: La Plata; 
State: Martland; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: h; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #28. Letter of intent submitted on Feb. 22, 1978. 

Tribe name: Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe; 
City: Montegut; 
State: Louisiana; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #56B. Proposed negative finding published May 30, 2008. 

Tribe name: Pokanoket Tribe of the Wampanoag Nation; 
City: Bristol; 
State: Rhode Island; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #145. Letter of intent submitted on Oct. 5, 1994. 

Tribe name: Pokanoket/Wampanoag Federation/Wampanoag Nation/Pokanoket 
Tribe and bands; 
City: Warwick; 
State: Rhode Island; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #187. Letter of intent submitted on Jan. 5, 1998. 

Tribe name: The Poospatuck (Unkechauge) Indian Nation; 
City: Mastic; 
State: New York; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Empty]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: [D]. 

Tribe name: Rappahannock Tribe; 
City: Indian Neck; 
State: Virginia; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #61. Letter of intent submitted on Nov. 16, 1979. 

Tribe name: San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians; 
City: Oceanside; 
State: California; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #96. Letter of intent submitted on Oct. 18, 1984. 

Tribe name: Santee Indian Organization; 
City: Holly Hill; 
State: South Carolina; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #53. Letter of intent submitted on June 4, 1979. 

Tribe name: Schaghticoke Tribal Nation; 
City: Derby; 
State: Connecticut; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Empty]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #79. Denied, effective Oct. 14, 2005. 

Tribe name: Snohomish Tribe of Indians; 
City: Edmonds; 
State: Washington; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Empty]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #12. Denied, effective Mar. 9, 2004. 

Tribe name: Steilacoom Tribe; 
City: Steilacoom; 
State: Washington; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #11. Denied, effective June 17, 2008. 

Tribe name: Strawberry Valley Rancheria (funded as Strawberry Valley 
Native Cultural Protective Association); 
City: Oroville; 
State: California; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Empty]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: [I]. 

Tribe name: Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes, Inc.; 
City: Saginaw; 
State: Michigan; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #135. Letter of intent submitted on May 4, 1993. 

Tribe name: Talimali Band, The Apalachee Indians of Louisiana; 
City: Libuse; 
State: Louisiana; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #166A. Letter of intent submitted on Feb. 5, 1996. 

Tribe name: Todds Valley Miwok-Maidu Cultural Foundation; 
City: Foresthill; 
State: California; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: [J]. 

Tribe name: Tuscarora Nation of North Carolina; 
City: Maxton; 
State: North Carolina; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #102. Determined ineligible to petition on Oct. 23, 1989. 

Tribe name: United Cherokee Indian Tribe of Virginia; 
City: Madison Heights; 
State: Virginia; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #224. Letter of intent submitted on Aug. 3, 2000. 

Tribe name: The Waccamaw Indian People (petitioned as the Chicora-
Waccamaw Indian People); 
City: Aynor; 
State: South Carolina; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Check]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #144. Letter of intent submitted on Oct. 5, 1994. 

Tribe name: Western Cherokee Nation of Arkansas and Missouri; 
City: Mena; 
State: Arkansas; 
Nonprofit[A]: [Check]; 
State recognized[B]: [Empty]; 
Status in Interior's administrative acknowledgment process[C]: 
Petitioner #191. Letter of 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. 

[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 acknowledgment 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. 

[End of table] 

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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Statutes and Regulations That 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.[Footnote 46] 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: 

Agency: Department of Agriculture: 

Program: Community Facilities Loans; 
Legal citation: 7 U.S.C. § 1926(a)(1); 7 C.F.R. §§ 3575.2, 
3575.20(c)(4); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Empty]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Check]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Water and Waste Facility Loans and Grants; 
Legal citation: 7 U.S.C. § 1926(a)(1), (2); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Empty]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Check]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Rural Business Opportunity Grants; 
Legal citation: 7 U.S.C. § 1926(a)(11); 7 C.F.R. § 4284.620(a); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Empty]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Check]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Section 306C WWD Loans and Grants; 
Legal citation: 7 U.S.C. § 1926c(a)(1); 7 U.S.C. § 1926c(e)(1)(A), (B); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Empty]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Check]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Check]; 
[Empty]. 

Program: Business and Industry Loan Guarantees; 
Legal citation: 7 U.S.C. § 1932(a); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Empty]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Check]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Rural Business Enterprise Grants; 
Legal citation: 7 U.S.C. § 1932(c); 7 C.F.R. § 1942.305(a)(1); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Empty]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Check]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Food Stamp Program; 
Legal citation: 7 U.S.C. §§ 2012(v), 2020(d); 7 C.F.R. § 271.2; 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Empty]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Check][C]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Food Distribution Program; 
Legal citation: 7 U.S.C. §§ 2012(v), 2013(b)(2)(B); 7 C.F.R. §§ 271.2, 
253.2; 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Empty]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Check][C]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Department of Education: 

Program: Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies; 
Legal citation: 20 U.S.C. §§ 7422(c)(1), 7491(3)(A); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Special Programs for Indian Children (demonstration grants); 
Legal citation: 20 U.S.C. §§ 7441(b), 7491(3)(A); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Professional Development for Teachers and Education 
Professionals; 
Legal citation: 20 U.S.C. §§ 7442(b)(3), 7491(3)(A); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check][D]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: National Research Activities; 
Legal citation: 20 U.S.C. §§ 7451(b), 7491(3)(A); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Grants to tribes for education administrative planning and 
development; 
Legal citation: 20 U.S.C. §§ 7455(a), 7491(3)(A); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Improvement of Educational Opportunities for Adult Indians; 
Legal citation: 20 U.S.C. §§ 7456(a), 7491(3)(A); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Check]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]; 
[Empty]. 

Program: Capacity Building for Traditionally Underserved Populations; 
Legal citation: 29 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B), 718(b)(2), (3); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation 
Research's research and other covered activities; 
Legal citation: 29 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B), 764(a)(1); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Rehabilitation Service Administration's Special Demonstration 
Programs; 
Legal citation: 29 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B), 773(b)(2)(A); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Projects with Industry; 
Legal citation: 29 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B), 795(a)(2); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program; 
Legal citation: 29 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B), 741(a); 34 C.F.R. §§ 371.2, 
371.4(b); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [E]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [E]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Department of Energy[F]: 

Program: Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income Persons Program; 
Legal citation: 42 U.S.C. §§ 3002(27), 6862(6), 6863(d); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Empty]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Check]. 

Program: Department of Health and Human Services: 

Program: Administration for Native Americans' Social and Economic 
Development Strategies Program[G]; 
Legal citation: 42 U.S.C. § 2991b(a); 45 C.F.R. § 1336.33(a)(1)(iii); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Empty]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Administration for Native Americans' Preservation and 
Enhancement of Native American Languages Program[G]; 
Legal citation: 42 U.S.C. § 2991b-3; 45 C.F.R. § 1336.33(a)(1)(iii); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Empty]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Administration for Native Americans' Improvement of the 
Capability of Tribal Governing Bodies to Regulate Environmental 
Quality[H]; 
Legal citation: 42 U.S.C. § 2991b(d); 45 C.F.R. § 1336.33(a)(4)(ii); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Administration for Native Americans' Mitigation of 
Environmental Impacts to Indian Lands Due to Department of Defense 
Activities[H]; 
Legal citation: Pub. L. No. 103-139, § 8094A (1993); 45 C.F.R. § 
1336.33(a)(3)(ii); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]; 
[Empty]. 

Program: Grants for state and community programs on aging; 
Legal citation: 42 U.S.C. §§ 3002(27), 3021(a)(2)(C); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Empty]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Check]. 

Program: Older Individuals' Protection from Violence Projects Grants 
Program; 
Legal citation: 42 U.S.C. §§ 3002(27), 3002(54), 3032b; 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Empty]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Check]. 

Program: Community Innovations for Aging in Place Grant Programs; 
Legal citation: 42 U.S.C. §§ 3002(27), 3002(54), 3032k(a)(1)(A); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Empty]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Check]. 

Program: Native American Organization and Elder Justice Program; 
Legal citation: 42 U.S.C. §§ 3002(27), 3002(54), 3058aa; 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Empty]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Check]. 

Program: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance; 
Legal citation: 42 U.S.C. § 8623(d)(1); 45 C.F.R. § 96.48(b); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Community Services Block Grant Program; 
Legal citation: 42 U.S.C. § 9911; 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Department of Housing and Urban Development; 

Program: Indian Housing Block Formula Grants; 
Legal citation: 25 U.S.C. §§ 4103(13), 4111; 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check][I]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Title VI Loan Guarantee Program; 
Legal citation: 25 U.S.C. §§ 4103(13), 4191(a); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check][I]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Department of Labor; 

Program: Native American Employment and Training; 
Legal citation: 29 U.S.C. § 2911(b)(2); 20 C.F.R. 668.200(c), (d); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Check][J]; 
65 Fed. Reg. 49294, 49373 (Aug. 11, 2000); 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Empty]. 

Program: Older American Community Service Employment Program; 
Legal citation: 42 U.S.C. §§ 3056(b), 3002(27); 
State recognized tribes[A]: [Empty]; 
Tribes on state reservations: [Empty]; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: [Check]. 

Total: 
State recognized tribes[A]: 17; 
Tribes on state reservations: 8; 
Tribes located on, or in proximity to, a state reservation or 
rancheria[B]: 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. 

[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." 

[End of table] 

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. 

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. 
[Footnote 47] 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. 
[Footnote 48] 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.[Footnote 49] 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 became federally recognized.[Footnote 50] 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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Education: 

United States Department Of Education:
Office Of Special Education And Rehabilitative Services:
The Assistant Secretary: 
400 Maryland Ave, SW: 
Washington, DC 20202-2500: 
[hyperlink, http://www.ed.gov] 

March 23, 2012: 

Ms. Anu K. Mittal: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Mittal: 

I am writing to provide the U.S. Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) with comments from the U.S. Department of Education (Department) 
on the draft report, "Indian Issues: Federal Funding for Non-Federally 
Recognized Tribes" (12-348). While the Department appreciates the work 
that went into this study, the Department respectfully disagrees with 
GAO's finding. 

Finding - Education funded ineligible non-federally recognized tribes 
under its American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program. 

The Department's interpretation of the law in question is a reasonable 
interpretation and gives appropriate meaning to all of the language 
and provisions of the law. The Department's interpretation is once 
again summarized in this response because GAO did not describe it 
fully in its draft report. It is clear from the report that GAO's 
interpretation differs from the Department's interpretation. Because, 
however, the statute is subject to different interpretations, GAO 
should accept the Department's interpretation since "statutes are to 
be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous 
provisions interpreted to their benefit," Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 
471 U.S. 759, 766 (1985). GAO's finding that certain grantees are 
ineligible is only valid if one accepts GAO's alternate interpretation 
of the term "reservation" in the American Indian Vocational 
Rehabilitative Services (AIVRS) program statute. As the agency charged 
with administering the program, however, the Department's 
interpretation should be given appropriate deference as a reasonable 
interpretation of the law. As explained below in more detail, the 
Department respectfully disagrees with GAO's finding. 

Authorized by section 121 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 
amended (29 U.S.C. 741) (the Act), the AIVRS program provides 
discretionary grants to the governing bodies of Indian tribes located 
on Federal and State reservations (and consortia of such governing 
bodies) to pay 90 percent of the costs of vocational rehabilitation 
(VR) services for American Indians who are individuals with 
disabilities residing on or near such reservations. Section 121(c) of 
the Act provides that, "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." (Emphasis added). 

Because the authorizing statute's definition is not exhaustive, using 
the term "includes" provides the Department with flexibility in 
interpreting the use of the word "reservation" in this program. The 
Department has exercised its authority to determine that, in addition 
to those lands listed in the statute, there may be other lands on 
which Indians reside that fit within a broad definition of the term 
"reservation," as used in this program.[Footnote 1] Such an 
interpretation is consistent with language in the statute that 
recognizes "tribal service areas," in addition to "reservations," (see 
section 101(a)(11)(F) of the Act discussed below), and the purposes of 
the program — to promote the provision of culturally relevant
VR services to American Indians with disabilities by the tribes 
themselves. 

In the context of this program, it has been the Department's long-
standing interpretation of the definition of "reservation" to include 
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 areas are identified by the State and 
recognized by the U.S. government in the Census data as "State 
designated tribal statistical areas" (SDTSAs), and identified in the 
tribe's application for the AIVRS program as a "tribal service area." 

Also included in the tribe's application is an assurance that the 
tribe has established or will establish a cooperative agreement with 
the state VR agency that includes the required strategies for 
collaboration and coordination of services. The cooperative agreement 
is also required by Section 101(a)(11)(F) of the Act, which requires 
the State to enter into a formal cooperative agreement with each AIVRS 
grantee to ensure collaboration and coordination in providing VR 
services to American Indians with disabilities in the State. Section 
101(a)(11)(F) specifically mentions "tribal service area" in addition 
to "reservation" when it mandates that the agreement include 
procedures for ensuring that American Indians with disabilities who 
"are living near a reservation or tribal service area" are provided VR 
services. Thus, the specific language of this provision of the statute 
clearly validates the Department's interpretation that tribes that are 
located in defined tribal service areas, in addition to those tribes 
located on state reservations, meet the eligibility requirements of 
the AIVRS program. GAO unfortunately ignores this language when 
reaching its alternative interpretation and thus, mischaracterizes the 
Department's use of the tribal cooperative agreement for determining 
eligibility. 

In addition, contrary to GAO's opinion, the Department believes the 
legislative history is consistent with, and not "at odds with," the 
Department's interpretation. The Department has reasonably interpreted 
the definition of the term "reservation," consistent with all of the 
provisions of the statute. The amendment that was offered by Senator 
Bartlett (that included a definition of "reservation" for the AIVRS 
program), discussed in the Congressional Record at 124 Cong. Rec 
S15562 (daily ed. Sept. 20, 1978), and cited by GAO on page 25 of the 
report, specifically noted that there were other Indian lands that 
would be the equivalent of a reservation, such as 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. In the statutory definition of a reservation, Congress 
chose to leave open the possibility that other Indian lands could be 
deemed the equivalent of a reservation as well. It left to the 
Department the discretion to reasonably interpret the definition of a 
reservation and the eligibility for the program. While GAO states that 
the legislative history does not suggest that the "Department had the 
authority to consider other categories of land to be reservations," 
the legislative history does not preclude this interpretation of the 
statute either. The Department's alternative legal view is a 
reasonable interpretation of the definition of the term "reservation," 
that is consistent with all of the provisions of the statute. 

The Department has consistently interpreted a "reservation" and the 
eligibility requirements of the AIVRS program in accordance with the 
purpose and language of the statute, to permit tribes to provide VR 
services to American Indians with disabilities within their tribal 
service area. However, contrary to GAO's assertion, we do not
"conflate" the eligibility requirement that a tribe have a 
"reservation" with the scope of the program the tribe can administer 
under the AIVRS program expressed by the "tribal service area." The 
Department has defined a reservation to include 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, as identified by the State and recognized by the U.S. Census 
Bureau. An SDTSA may have been identified in a tribe's application for 
the AIVRS program as a "tribal service area," but the Department 
recognizes an SDTSA as meeting the requirement of a "reservation." 

This broader interpretation of a "reservation" for eligibility 
purposes in the AIVRS program is supported by Congress' amendments to 
the program in 1998. In that year, Congress added the ability of 
eligible grantees to serve American Indians with disabilities living 
"near" the reservation as well as "on" the reservation. In addition, 
in 1998, Congress also added the specific requirement, at Section 
101(a)(11)(F) of the Act, that the State enter into a formal 
cooperative agreement with each AIVRS grantee to ensure collaboration 
and coordination in providing VR services to American Indians with 
disabilities in the State, using the term "tribal service area" as 
well as "reservation" when referring to AIVRS grantees. 

Thus, although the Department recognizes that GAO may disagree legally 
with how the Department has interpreted the term "reservation" in the 
AIVRS program, the Department's interpretation is reasonable and 
legally supportable. If GAO retains this finding, at a minimum, the 
Department requests that GAO's finding be modified to indicate that 
GAO questions the eligibility of certain non-federally recognized 
tribes because, in GAO's opinion, the Department's interpretation of 
the term "reservation," and, in turn, how the Department determines 
eligibility for the program based on that interpretation, is at odds 
with the statute and legislative history. The title of the finding 
could read, "Education Funded Non-Federally Recognized Tribes under 
Its American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program that 
GAO Concluded Are Not Eligible." GAO should recast its discussion in 
the finding in terms such as, "under GAO's alternate view, the 
Department funded certain grantees that could be considered as 
'ineligible'." 

Recommendation — 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 lake the appropriate corrective action with respect to grants made 
to tribes that do not have federal or state reservations. 

The Department requests that GAO delete the term "corrective" from its 
recommendation that the Secretary review the Department's practices 
with respect to eligibility requirements for the AIVRS program. Use of 
the term "corrective" action presupposes the outcome of such a review, 
casts doubt upon the validity of the existing AIVRS program grants, 
and could potentially compromise the delivery of VR services to
American Indians with disabilities under those grants. In spite of the 
disagreement over the legal interpretation of the statute, and as part 
of our commitment to excellence and continuous improvement, the 
Department previously committed, consistent with key elements of GAO's 
recommendation, to review our practices for determining eligibility 
for the AIVRS program, and to take appropriate action if helpful, such 
as clarifying its interpretation. The Department reiterates this 
commitment here. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report. We also are 
including technical comments with this response. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Alexa Posny: 

Footnote: 

[1] An influential commentary on Indian Law states that "since the 
decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. McGowan [302 U.S. 
535 (1938)], it has been clear that there is no magic in the word 
'reservation' and that ... the determination of this question [what is 
the meaning of the term 'reservation'] requires an ascertainment of 
the purpose underlying the particular legislation...." United States 
Department of the Interior, Federal Indian Law 609-610 (Association on 
American Indian Affairs and Oceana Publications, 3rd ed. 1972). The 
purpose of the AIVRS program statute to increase the number of tribes 
that administer their own VR programs supports the Department's 
interpretation of the term "reservation" in this program. 

[End of section] 

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

Department of Health & Human Services: 
Office of The Secretary: 
Assistant Secretary for Legislation: 
Washington, DC 20201: 

March 23, 2012: 

Anu K. Mittal: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Mittal: 

Attached are comments on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's 
(GAO) draft report entitled, "Issues: Federal Funding for Non-
Federally Recognized Tribes” (GAO-12-348). 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to review this report 
before its publication. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim R. Esquea: 
Assistant Secretary for Legislation: 

Attachment: 

[End of letter] 

General Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services (HHS) 
On The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Report Entitled, 
"Indian Issues: Federal Funding For Non-Federally Recognized Tribes" 
(GAO-12-348): 

HHS appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this GAO draft 
report. 

GAO Recommendations: 

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 takes 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 whether their 
application misrepresented their eligibility and take appropriate 
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 failure to comply 
with the Single Audit Act and take appropriate action as necessary. 

HHS Comments: 

HHS and The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is 
committed to ensuring that eligible tribes receive Federal grants and 
that these grantees fulfill their financial reporting requirement. 

Regarding the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indian issue: 

As recommended by GAO, ACF plans to work with the New Jersey State 
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) office and Low-Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) office, as well as the two New 
Jersey tribes — Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians and Powhatan Renape 
Nation — to review the tribes' eligibility. Following the 
investigation, ACF will determine and execute appropriate actions. 

ACF recognizes that there is confusion about whether New Jersey has 
recognized certain tribes. As noted in the report, the U.S. Census 
lists the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians and Powhatan Renape Nation as 
State-recognized tribes. The National Conference of State Legislatures 
[hyperlink, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/tribal/list-of-federal-
and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx#s-nj] also lists these two New Jersey 
tribes as having State recognition. 

ACF notes that at no time was information provided to ACF by New 
Jersey, the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey, the Powhatan 
Renape Nation, or any other Federal or State entity, that would call 
into question the eligibility of the two tribes. Additionally, routine
communication between ACF and the New Jersey Department of Community 
Affairs (the New Jersey CSBG Lead State agency) during fiscal years 
2007 through 2010 did not yield any information that would lead ACF to 
question the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Tribe's eligibility for funding. 

ACF plans to strengthen review processes in cases in which a tribe's 
eligibility is dependent on State recognition. ACF will confirm with 
the State LIHEAP office and/or the CSBG office that a tribe is 
officially and formally recognized by the State before funding is 
awarded. 

Regarding the Accohannock Indian Tribe's failure to comply with the 
Single Audit Act: 

As noted in the draft GAO report, ACF sent a Delinquent Audit Letter 
on February 7, 2012, to the Accohannock Indian Tribe, Inc. After 
receiving no response to the letter, a follow-up Delinquent Audit 
Letter, dated February 24, 2012, was remitted to the tribe in order to 
obtain a copy of its FY 2009 Audit Report. 

ACF has determined that the grantee did not budget for audit 
expenditures, so we are unable to take a program disallowance against 
said expenditures. Since the audit was not conducted by the grantee, 
we will notify them after a 30-day period - which began February 24, 
2012, the date of the second letter - that they are ineligible for ACF 
funding until this matter is resolved. ACF will notify HHS that this 
former grantee is delinquent in their audit submission so that other 
HHS operational divisions may be notified of their status. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Jeffery D. Malcolm 
(Assistant Director), Mariana Calderón, Colleen Candrl, Jennifer 
Cheung, Ellen W. Chu, Pamela Davidson, Emily Hanawalt, Catherine 
Hurley, Ben Shouse, and Jeanette M. Soares made key contributions to 
this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[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. 

[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. 

[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). 

[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. 

[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, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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). 

[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). 

[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 [hyperlink, 
https://harvester.census.gov/fac/]. 

[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, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-193] 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 2009), and Nonprofit Sector: Increasing 
Numbers and Key Role in Delivering Federal Services, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1084T] (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 
2007). 

[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 [hyperlink, 
https://www.cfda.gov]. 

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

[23] The term "tribal communities" is not defined in legislation or 
the notices of funding availability. 

[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. 

[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"). 

[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 "reservation 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)). 

[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). 

[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). 

[36] 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. 

[37] 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. 

[38] Pub. L. No. 109-282, 120 Stat. 1186 (2006). 

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

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

[41] 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, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-768] (Washington, 
D.C.: July 28, 2010). 

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

[43] 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). 

[44] 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 
[hyperlink, 
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/aian2010_wall_map/aian_wall_map.html]

[45] The Indian Arts and Crafts Board provided correspondence from all 
50 states on the topic of state-recognized tribes. 

[46] 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. 

[47] 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. 

[48] 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). 

[49] GAO, Changes Needed in Revenue Sharing Act for Indian Tribes and 
Alaskan Native Villages, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 

[50] 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. 

[End of section] 

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. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://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, [hyperlink, 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: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

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

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