INDIAN ISSUES 

Federal Funding for 

Non-Federally 

Recognized Tribes 

Report to the Honorable Dan Boren, 

House of Representatives 

April 2012 

GAO-12-348 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-348, a report to the 

Honorable Dan Boren, House of 

Representatives 

April 2012 

INDIAN ISSUES

Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized 

Tribes

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 nonfederally 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 nonfederally recognized tribes and

reviewed information from federal 

agencies, USAspending.gov, states, 

and other sources to identify tribes’ 

federal funding and eligibility. 

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. 

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 staterecognized 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 

View GAO recently, after GAO inquired about the issue, on February 7, 2012. -12-348. For more information, 

contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-3841 or 

mittala@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Letter 1 

Background 4

Most Non-Federally Recognized Tribes That Received Federal 

Funding Were Eligible as Nonprofit Organizations or StateRecognized Tribes 10

Federal Programs Awarded More Than $100 Million in Funding to 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes for Fiscal Years 2007 through 

2010 19

Agencies Have Funded Some Likely Ineligible Non-Federally 

Recognized Tribes, and One Agency Is in the Process of 

Enforcing Single Audit Act Requirements 23

Conclusions 28

Recommendations for Executive Action 28

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 29

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 31

Appendix II Tribes Whose Recognition Was Terminated 36

Appendix III State-Recognized Tribes 39

Appendix IV Non-Federally Recognized Tribes That Received Federal 

Funding before Fiscal Year 2007 44

Appendix V Statutes and Regulations That Explicitly Include State-Recognized 

Tribes or Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations 50

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Education 56

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

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Appendix VIII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 63

Tables

Table 1: Nonprofit and State-Recognition Status of 26 NonFederally Recognized Tribes That Received Direct Federal 

Funding, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010 12

Table 2: Statutory or Regulatory Authority of 24 Programs 

Awarding Funding to Non-Federally Recognized Tribes, 

Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010 15

Table 3: Direct Federal Funding Received by 26 Non-Federally 

Recognized Tribes, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010 20

Table 4: Twenty-four Federal Programs That Awarded Funding to 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes, Fiscal Years 2007 

through 2010 22

Table 5: Years in Non-Federally Recognized Status for 38 Tribes 

Whose Recognition Was Terminated and Subsequently 

Restored 36

Table 6: Nine Tribes in California Whose Recognition Was 

Terminated and Not Restored 38

Table 7: State-Recognized Tribes Identified by States That Are Not 

Federally Recognized, as of September 2011 39

Table 8: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes That GAO Identified as 

Having Received Federal Funding before Fiscal Year 2007 44

Table 9: Federal Programs with Explicit Statutory or Regulatory 

Authority to Fund State-Recognized Tribes and Tribes on 

or in Proximity to State Reservations or Rancherias 50
Page iii GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Abbreviations

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

DUNS Data Universal Numbering System

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

OMB Office of Management and Budget

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

April 12, 2012

The Honorable Dan Boren

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Boren:

Federal recognition of Indian tribes confers specific legal status on these 

tribes and imposes certain responsibilities on the federal government, 

such as an obligation to provide the tribes and their members with certain 

benefits. As far back as the 17th century, some tribes developed 

relationships with colonial governments by, for example, signing treaties 

or residing on reservations established by these colonial governments. 

The federal government has signed treaties with or taken other actions to 

recognize Indian tribes, although some tribes have never developed a 

formal relationship with the federal government. Changes in federal 

Indian policy throughout U.S. history have influenced which tribes are 

recognized today by the federal government. In this report, we refer to 

those groups that self-identify as Indian tribes but are not recognized by 

the federal government as non-federally recognized tribes.

1

You asked us to report on federal funding for non-federally recognized 

tribes. Accordingly, this report addresses (1) the key means by which 

non-federally recognized tribes have been eligible for federal funding and 

(2) the amount of federal funding awarded to non-federally recognized 

tribes for fiscal years 2007 through 2010, by agency and program. In 

addition, this report provides information about some cases we identified 

during our work concerning non-federally recognized tribes’ eligibility for 

funding and compliance with federal financial reporting requirements.

To address these objectives, we first compiled a list of approximately 

400 non-federally recognized tribes in the contiguous 48 states from a 

variety of information sources, such as data collected by the Department 

of the Interior (Interior), and information provided to us by officials from 

 

1

We use the term “non-federally recognized tribes” in this report in order to convey that 

these entities self-identify as Indian tribes even though Department of the Interior 

regulations use the term “Indian group” to refer to any Indian aggregation within the 

continental United States that the Secretary of the Interior does not acknowledge to be an 

Indian tribe.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

selected states.2

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 

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.

USAspending.gov and reviewed agency-provided data.3

 

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.

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 

3

In December 2007, the Office of Management and Budget launched USAspending.gov, 

a publicly accessible website containing data on federal awards, to comply with the 

requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which, 

according to a relevant Senate committee report, is intended to increase the transparency 

and accountability of federal government expenditures by providing access to information 

on federal funding awards through a single, searchable, publicly available website.
 

Page 3 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

tribe qualified for the funding it received. We limited the scope of our 

review to federal funding awarded directly to non-federally recognized 

tribes and excluded federal funding provided through loans or 

procurement contracts.

From the information we obtained from USAspending.gov and from the 

federal agencies, we compiled the total amount of federal funding 

awarded to non-federally recognized tribes for fiscal years 2007 through 

2010, by agency and program. We assessed the reliability of this 

information by, for example, testing for missing data and outliers and 

comparing USAspending.gov data against agency information and 

financial reports filed by selected non-federally recognized tribes. Where 

we identified inconsistencies in these data, we worked with 

knowledgeable agency officials to update the data set. After taking these 

steps, we concluded that the updated data set was reliable for the 

purpose of estimating the amount of funding awarded by federal agencies 

to non-federally recognized tribes for fiscal years 2007 through 2010.

During our review, as we were comparing programs’ eligibility 

requirements with the characteristics of the non-federally recognized 

tribes that received federal funding, we identified some instances where 

federal agencies had made grants to likely ineligible non-federally 

recognized tribes and where an agency had initiated actions to enforce 

federal financial reporting requirements. This report provides information 

on the three cases we identified as part of this analysis. Appendix I 

describes our scope and methodology in more detail.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 through April 2012, 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
 

Page 4 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

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.4

• 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.

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:

• Assimilation era. The Act of February 8, 1887, commonly referred to 

as the General Allotment Act or the Dawes Act, was a comprehensive 

congressional attempt to change the role of Indians in American 

society by encouraging assimilation through individual land 

ownership.5

• 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.

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.

6

 

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.

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.

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).

Background
 

Page 5 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

• Termination era. On August 1, 1953, Congress adopted House 

Concurrent Resolution 108, which established a policy of making 

Indians “subject to the same laws and entitled to the same privileges 

and responsibilities” that apply to other citizens and declared that 

Indian tribes and their members “should be freed from Federal 

supervision and control.” Subsequently, in the 1950s and 1960s, the 

federal government terminated its government-to-government 

relationships with a number of tribes. Congress has since restored 

government-to-government relationships with 38 tribes that were 

terminated during the termination era (see app. II for more information 

about terminated and restored tribes).

• Self-determination era. Since the 1970s, the federal government has 

adopted policies to promote the practical exercise of tribes’ inherent 

sovereign powers, including fostering economic development of 

Indian land and encouraging self-determination of Indian affairs. For 

example, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 

of 1975 enables federally recognized Indian tribes to administer 

certain federal programs for Indians, which were previously 

administered by the federal government on their behalf.7

In 1977, the American Indian Policy Review Commission reported that 

“[t]he distinction the Department of the Interior draws between the status 

of recognized and unrecognized tribes seems to be based merely on 

precedent—whether at some point in a tribe’s history it established a 

formal political relationship with the Government of the United States.”8

 

7

Pub. L. No. 93-638 (1975), codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 450 to 458ddd-2.

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 

8

American Indian Policy Review Commission, Final Report Submitted to Congress, 

May 17, 1977, vol. I (Washington, D.C.: 1977), at 462. The purpose of the commission 

was to conduct a comprehensive review of the historical and legal developments 

underlying the Indians’ unique relationship with the federal government to determine the 

nature and scope of necessary revisions in the formulation of policy and programs for the 

benefit of Indians.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

an administrative acknowledgment process by which Indian groups could 

submit a petition to seek federal recognition.9

Interior maintains a list of entities that have submitted a letter of intent to 

petition for federal recognition or have initiated the administrative 

acknowledgment process by submitting a complete petition. This list 

includes at least 350 entities, according to Interior’s Office of Federal 

Acknowledgment. The process of developing a complete petition is 

expensive and may take years. Consequently, as we reported in 

November 2001, and as of April 2011, most of these entities have not yet 

submitted a complete petition.10

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.

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.

11

 

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.

In addition, on January 3, 2012, Interior 

reaffirmed the Tejon Indian Tribe of California’s federal recognition, 

10GAO, Indian Issues: Improvements Needed in Tribal Recognition Process, GAO-02-49

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2, 2001).

1175 Fed. Reg. 60810 (Oct. 1, 2010); supplemented by 75 Fed. Reg. 66124 (Oct. 27, 

2010).
 

Page 7 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

making it the 566th federally recognized Indian tribe.12 Non-federally 

recognized tribes can generally seek federal recognition through Interior’s 

administrative acknowledgment process or through other means, such as

congressional action. For example, the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina—

which was the subject of legislation but not federally recognized in 

195613—petitioned Interior for recognition and has also sought recognition 

through legislation.14 As of April 29, 2011, 17 entities had been granted 

federal recognition through Interior’s administrative acknowledgment 

process, and 32 had been denied.15 Federal recognition of the 

Shinnecock Indian Nation in New York—the tribe most recently 

recognized through Interior’s administrative acknowledgment process—

became effective on October 1, 2010.16

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.

 

12Interior 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.

13Act 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).

14In 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. 

15A 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.

1675 Fed. Reg. 66124 (Oct. 27, 2010).

Non-Federally 

Recognized Tribes
 

Page 8 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally 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 staterecognized 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 staterecognized 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 nonfederally 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.

State-Recognized Tribes
 

Page 9 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized 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 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.17 Under the act, certain nonfederal entities—such as 

a state, local government, Indian tribe, or nonprofit organization—that 

expend $500,000 or more in federal awards in a fiscal year must have an 

audit conducted in accordance with Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular No. A-133 and submit a report regarding the audit to the 

Federal Audit Clearinghouse Single Audit Database.18

 

17Pub. L. No. 98-502 (1984), amended by Pub. L. No. 104-156 (1996), codified as 

amended at 31 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7507.

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.

18The U.S. Census Bureau, in the Department of Commerce, maintains the Federal Audit 

Clearinghouse Single Audit Database that contains summary information on completed 

single audits, including information on the auditor, the recipient and its federal programs, 

and the audit results. It is available at https://harvester.census.gov/fac/. 

Other Self-Identified Tribes

The Single Audit Act’s 

Financial Reporting 

Requirements
 

Page 10 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Audits are to be completed and the requisite report submitted within the 

earlier of 30 days after receipt of the auditor’s report or 9 months after the 

end of the audit period. The federal agency that provides an award directly 

to the recipient (known as the federal awarding agency) is generally 

responsible for ensuring that audits for the federal awards it makes are 

completed and reports are received in a timely manner and in accordance 

with OMB Circular No. A-133. In cases of continued inability or 

unwillingness to have an audit conducted, OMB Circular No. A-133 directs 

federal agencies to take appropriate actions using sanctions such as:

• withholding a percentage of federal awards until the audit is 

completed satisfactorily,

• withholding or disallowing overhead costs,

• suspending federal awards until the audit is conducted, or

• terminating the federal award.

Of the list of about 400 non-federally recognized tribes that we compiled, 

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.

Most Non-Federally 

Recognized Tribes 

That Received 

Federal Funding Were 

Eligible as Nonprofit 

Organizations or 

State-Recognized 

Tribes
 

Page 11 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

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).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.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.)

 

19For 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.

20GAO, Nonprofit Sector: Significant Federal Funds Reach the Sector through Various 

Mechanisms, but More Complete and Reliable Funding Data Are Needed, GAO-09-193

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 2009), and Nonprofit Sector: Increasing Numbers and Key 

Role in Delivering Federal Services, GAO-07-1084T (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2007).

For Fiscal Years 2007 

through 2010, 26 NonFederally Recognized 

Tribes Received Federal 

Funding
 

Page 12 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Table 1: Nonprofit and State-Recognition Status of 26 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes That Received Direct Federal 

Funding, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010

Tribe name City State Nonprofita State recognizedb Status in Interior’s administrative 

acknowledgment processc

Accohannock Indian Tribe Marion Station MD  Petitioner #149. Letter of intent 

submitted on Jan. 18, 1995.

American Indian Council of 

Mariposa County (petitioned as 

Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation)

Mariposa CA  Petitioner #82. Petition under active 

consideration since Nov. 1, 2010.

Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and 

Chippewa Indians, Inc.

Brutus MI  Petitioner #101. Denied, effective 

Jan. 23, 2007.

Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb Zwolle LA   Petitioner #37. Letter of intent 

submitted on July 2, 1978.

Coharie Tribe of North Carolina Clinton NC   Petitioner #74. Letter of intent 

submitted on Mar. 13, 1981.

Duwamish Tribe Seattle WA  Petitioner #25. Denied, effective 

May 8, 2002.

Eel River Tribe of Indiana Chalmers IN d

Euchee (Yuchi) Tribe of Indians Sapulpa OK  e

Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe of North 

Carolina

Hollister NC   Petitioner #63. Letter of intent 

submitted on Nov. 27, 1979.

Lower Muskogee Creek Tribe Whigham GA  f Petitioner #8. Denied, effective 

Dec. 21, 1981.

Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina Pembroke NC   Petitioner #65. Deemed ineligible to 

apply on Oct. 23, 1989.

Mashpee Wampanoag Tribeg Mashpee MA   Petitioner #15. Recognized, 

effective May 23, 2007.

MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians Mount Vernon AL h f Petitioner #86. Denied, effective 

Nov. 26, 1999.

Nanticoke Indian Association Millsboro DE   Petitioner #40. Requested petition 

be placed on hold on Mar. 25, 1989.

Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of 

New Jersey

Bridgeton NJ  i Petitioner #127. Letter of intent 

submitted on Jan. 3, 1992.

Occaneechi Band of Saponi Nation 

of North Carolina

Mebane NC   Petitioner #148. Letter of intent 

submitted on Jan. 6, 1995.

Powhatan Renape Nation Rancocas NJ i Petitioner #171. Letter of intent 

submitted on Apr. 12, 1996.

Saponi Nation of Missouri Mahenips 

Band

Willow Springs MO  Petitioner #220. Letter of intent 

submitted on Dec. 14, 1999.

Sappony (High Plains Indians, 

petitioned as Indians of Person 

County)

Roxboro NCj   Petitioner #95. Letter of intent 

submitted on Sept. 7, 1984.

Shinnecock Indian Nationg Southampton NY  f Petitioner #4. Recognized, effective 

Oct. 1, 2010.
 

Page 13 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Tribe name City State Nonprofita State recognizedb Status in Interior’s administrative 

acknowledgment processc

St. Francis/Sokoki Band of 

Abenakis of Vermont Abenaki Tribal 

Council

Swanton VT  Petitioner #68. Denied, effective 

Oct. 1, 2007.

Tuscarora Nation of Indians of the 

Carolinas

Newell NC  Petitioner #286. Letter of intent 

submitted on Dec. 21, 2004.

United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya 

Nation

Guntersville AL   Petitioner #246. Letter of intent 

submitted on Nov. 8, 2001.

United Houma Nation Golden 

Meadow

LA   Petitioner #56. Proposed negative 

finding published Dec. 22, 1994.

Waccamaw Siouan Tribe of North 

Carolina

Bolton NC   Petitioner #88. Letter of intent 

submitted on June 27, 1983.

Wesget Sipu Fort Kent ME  Petitioner #256. Letter of intent 

submitted on June 4, 2002.

Total 24 14

Sources: The Internal Revenue Service for information about nonprofit status, state officials for information about state-recognition 

status, and GAO analysis of information from Interior’s Office of Federal Acknowledgment for petitioner status.

Note: This table does not include non-federally recognized tribes outside the contiguous United 

States, such as those in Alaska or Hawaii. 

a

Non-federally recognized tribes that were organized as nonprofits at any time in fiscal years 2007 

through 2010 are indicated by a check mark. 

b

Non-federally recognized tribes that were state recognized at any time in fiscal years 2007 through 

2010 are indicated by a check mark. 

c

Status of the entity’s efforts to petition for federal recognition through Interior’s administrative 

acknowledgment process as of April 29, 2011. 

d

This entity may be associated with petitioner #304 (Eel River Tribe Inc. of Indiana), located in 

Lafayette, Indiana, which submitted a letter of intent to petition on September 13, 2006. 

e

This entity may be associated with petitioner #121 (Yuchi Tribal Organization), which was denied 

acknowledgment, effective March 21, 2000. 

f

This state-recognized tribe also has a state reservation, according to state officials we spoke with, 

and therefore would be eligible to receive funding from those federal programs that are authorized to 

fund tribes located on or in proximity to state reservations. 

g

Two federally recognized Indian tribes—the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Shinnecock Indian 

Nation—received federal funding during this period before the effective date of their federal 

recognition—May 23, 2007, and October 1, 2010, respectively. Both of these entities were state 

recognized for some or all of the period of our review, and the Shinnecock Indian Nation has a state 

reservation. Therefore, the Shinnecock Indian Nation would have been eligible to receive funding 

from those federal programs that are authorized to fund tribes located on or in proximity to state 

reservations. 

h

According to the Internal Revenue Service, this non-federally recognized tribe’s nonprofit status was 

automatically revoked, effective May 15, 2010, because the entity had not submitted required 

nonprofit tax return information for 3 consecutive years. 

i

With respect to two entities in New Jersey—the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey and 

the Powhatan Renape Nation—a number of sources, including the 2010 Census and the entities’ 

websites, imply that they are state-recognized tribes. Nevertheless, it is the official position of the 

state of New Jersey that there are not, and were not during the period of our review, any staterecognized tribes in that state. 

j

This entity is also located in Virgilina, VA. 
 

Page 14 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Of the 26 non-federally recognized tribes that received federal funding 

over the 4-year period, 2—Eel River Tribe of Indiana and the Powhatan 

Renape Nation—were neither nonprofits nor state-recognized tribes at 

any time in fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Federal grants awarded to 

these two entities are described later in this report.

As of April 29, 2011, at least 24 of the 26 non-federally recognized tribes 

have pursued, or expressed an interest in pursuing, federal recognition 

through Interior’s administrative acknowledgment process. Of these 

24 entities, 13 have submitted letters of intent to petition for federal 

recognition and have advanced no further in the process, 5 have been 

denied, 2 have received federal recognition, 1 had a proposed negative 

finding published in December 1994, 1 has been under active 

consideration since November 2010, 1 was deemed ineligible to apply 

through the administrative acknowledgment process, and 1 requested 

that its petition be placed on hold.

We identified 24 federal programs that provided funding to the 26 nonfederally 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 staterecognized tribes on state reservations. See table 2 for information on the 

24 programs, including their assigned number from the Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). This catalog is administered by the 

General Services Administration, and it provides information on federal 

domestic assistance programs, including grant programs.21

 

21The 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 

 (See also 

app. V for a list of all federal programs with explicit statutory or regulatory 

authority to fund state-recognized tribes.) Some of these 24 programs 

were also authorized to fund other eligible entities, and in some cases 

non-federally recognized tribes could have received funding if they met 

the eligibility requirements for the other entities.

https://www.cfda.gov. 

For Fiscal Years 2007 

through 2010, 24 Federal 

Programs Provided 

Funding to Non-Federally 

Recognized Tribes
 

Page 15 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

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

Years 2007 through 2010

Agency and program

CFDA 

number(s)a Nonprofits

State-recognized 

tribes

Department of Agriculture

Rural Housing Preservation Grants 10.433  b

Rural Business Enterprise Grantsc 10.769 

Department of Commerce

Grant Program for Community Alert Systems 11.468

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Rural Housing and Economic Development 14.250 

Economic Development Initiative-Special Project, Neighborhood Initiative 

and Miscellaneous Grantsd 14.251

Indian Community Development Block Grant Program 

(includes Recovery Act funding)

14.862

14.886

b 

Indian Housing Block Grants (includes Recovery Act formula and 

competitive grants)

14.867

14.882

14.887

e

Department of the Interior

Cultural Resources 15.946 f

Department of Labor

Native American Employment and Training (includes Recovery Act funding) 17.265 g g

Department of the Treasury

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (includes Recovery Act 

funding)

21.020

Department of Education

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.060 h

American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program 84.250 i

Small, Rural School Achievement Program 84.358A

Department of Health and Human Services

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 93.568 

Community Services Block Grant Program (includes Recovery Act funding) 93.569

93.710



Community Services Block Grant Program (discretionary awards) 93.570 

Administration for Native Americans’ Improvement of the Capability of 

Tribal Governing Bodies to Regulate Environmental Quality

93.581 

Administration for Native Americans’ Preservation and Enhancement of 

Native American Languages Programj

93.587 

Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals 93.593 

Head Start (includes Recovery Act funding) 93.600

93.708


 

Page 16 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Agency and program

CFDA 

number(s)a Nonprofits

State-recognized 

tribes

Administration for Native Americans’ Social and Economic Development 

Strategies Programj

93.612 

Environmental Protection Agency

Surveys, Studies, Investigations, Training and Special Purpose Activities 

Relating to Environmental Justicek 66.309

Corporation for National and Community Service

Retired and Senior Volunteer Program 94.002 

Volunteers in Service to America 94.013 

Total 24 programs 11 programs 6 programs

Sources: GAO and agency legal research.

a

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) details program descriptions for more than 

2,000 federal assistance programs, and a unique CFDA number is assigned to each program. At least 

some federal programs that awarded funding appropriated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) have a unique CFDA number to track Recovery Act funds. The table above 

includes relevant CFDA numbers for each program—including those for Recovery Act funding. CFDA 

numbers for funds appropriated in whole or in part by the Recovery Act are italicized.

b

Eligible recipients include Indian tribes that were eligible under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 

1972. To have been eligible under the act, Indian tribes needed a “recognized governing body which 

performed substantial governmental functions.” We identified six currently non-federally recognized tribes 

that received funding under this act: (1) Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe, (2) Mattaponi Tribe, (3) Paucatuck 

Eastern Pequot, (4) Pamunkey Indian Tribe, (5) Poospatuck (Unkechauge) Indian Nation, and 

(6) Schaghticoke Tribal Nation. All six of these non-federally recognized tribes are state recognized, and 

none of them received funding during the 4-year period covered by our review. We identified five federally 

recognized tribes that received funding under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 before they 

became federally recognized, including the Shinnecock Indian Nation.

c

This program is authorized to fund Indian tribes on state reservations. 

d

The Shinnecock Indian Nation, a state-recognized tribe before becoming a federally recognized 

Indian tribe on October 1, 2010, received an Economic Development Initiative grant from the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development because of congressional direction in a committee 

report accompanying an appropriations act. 

e

To be eligible, a state-recognized tribe’s housing authority must also have had a contract with the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Housing Act of 1937 before October 26, 

1996, and received funding under that contract between October 26, 1991, and October 26, 1996. 

f

The National Park Service has authority to enter into cooperative agreements with private nonprofit 

organizations and other entities. 

g

To be eligible, a state-recognized tribe or tribal organization must serve individuals who were eligible 

under section 401 of the Job Training Partnership Act. 65 Fed. Reg. 49373 (Aug. 11, 2000). In 

addition, the tribe or tribal organization must have legal status as a government or as an agency of a 

government, or private non-profit corporation in order to be eligible. 

h

To be eligible, a state-recognized tribe must represent not less than one-half of the eligible Indian 

children who are served by a local educational agency that has not established a required Indian 

parents committee. 

i

To be eligible, a tribe must be both state recognized and have a state reservation. 

j

Categories of eligible organizations also include incorporated non-federally recognized tribes. 

k

The Environmental Protection Agency awards environmental justice grants pursuant to research and 

development provisions in various statutes, such as the Clean Water Act and the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act. For example, the Clean Water Act authorizes research, investigation, and 

demonstration grants to public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, organizations, and 

individuals. Although eligible grantees vary among the statutes, none of the statutes explicitly 

authorize funding to non-federally recognized tribes or state-recognized tribes. 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Examples of the 24 federal programs that awarded funding to nonfederally recognized tribes in the 4-year period and that are authorized to 

fund nonprofit organizations that meet all applicable eligibility 

requirements include the following: 

• the Rural Business Enterprise Grants program, administered by the 

Department of Agriculture, which has statutory authority to fund public 

bodies, including Indian tribes on state reservations, and private 

nonprofit corporations for measures designed to finance and facilitate 

development of small and emerging private business enterprises, 

among other measures;

• the Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals program, 

administered by the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS), which has statutory authority to enter into agreements with 

nonprofits for the purpose of conducting projects that provide

technical and financial assistance to private employers that assist 

them in creating jobs for low-income individuals; and

• the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program, administered by the 

Corporation for National and Community Service, which has statutory 

authority to make grants to or contract with nonprofits to support 

programs for certain volunteer service projects for senior citizens.

Six of the 24 programs were not authorized to fund either nonprofits or 

state-recognized tribes, but non-federally recognized tribes received 

funding under these programs for other reasons. For example, the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Economic 

Development Initiative-Special Project program awarded funding to the 

Shinnecock Indian Nation as a result of congressional direction in a 

committee report accompanying an appropriations act before the tribe 

was federally recognized.22

 

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

2009).

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 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

as local education agencies, and the Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe of North 

Carolina received a grant because it is so organized.

The other three programs that were not authorized to provide funding to 

nonprofits or state-recognized tribes were authorized to provide funding to 

the following types of entities:

• Under the Department of Commerce’s Remote Community Alert 

Systems Program, eligible grant recipients include “tribal 

communities” that meet certain requirements.23

• The 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 Eel River Tribe of 

Indiana received funding through this program.

• 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 

 

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

availability.
 

Page 19 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

also state recognized may have been eligible to apply for some funding 

as either a nonprofit or a state-recognized tribe. In these cases, we did 

not attempt to determine the basis on which the funding was awarded.

Federal agencies awarded more than $100 million in funding to the 

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.

Federal Programs 

Awarded More Than 

$100 Million in 

Funding to NonFederally Recognized 

Tribes for Fiscal Years 

2007 through 2010
 

Page 20 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

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

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year

Tribe name 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

Lumbee Tribe of North Carolinaa $16,575 $15,039 $27,190 $19,979 $78,782

MOWA Band of Choctaw Indiansb 636 723 2,080 829 4,268

Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe of North Carolinac 1,180 994 1,104 849 4,128

Coharie Tribe of North Carolina 676 681 930 587 2,874

United Houma Nation 421 433 503 748 2,104

Accohannock Indian Tribe 500 986 441 1,926

Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarbd 385 395 416 425 1,621

Waccamaw Siouan Tribe of North Carolina 331 419 416 351 1,517

Lower Muskogee Creek Tribe 357 366 366 375 1,463

Shinnecock Indian Natione 186 790 976

Euchee (Yuchi) Tribe of Indians 118 192 316 122 747

Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Inc. 91 128 126 122 467

Tuscarora Nation of Indians of the Carolinas 96 134 152 382

St. Francis/Sokoki Band of Abenakis of Vermont Abenaki Tribal Council 80 78 78 78 314

Wesget Sipu 146 160 306

Eel River Tribe of Indiana 99 175 274

American Indian Council of Mariposa County (petitioned as Southern 

Sierra Miwuk Nation)

12 170 78 260

Sappony (High Plains Indians, petitioned as Indians of Person County) 225 225

Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey 185 23 208

Powhatan Renape Nation 200 200

Duwamish Tribe 107 70 177

Occaneechi Band of Saponi Nation of North Carolina 130 130

United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation 21 77 98

Saponi Nation of Missouri Mahenips Band 65 65

Nanticoke Indian Association 41 41

Mashpee Wampanoag Tribef 33 33

Total $22,198 $20,926 $34,720 $25,743 $103,588

Source: GAO analysis of data from USAspending.gov as of December 14, 2011.

Notes: (1) This table does not include non-federally recognized tribes in states outside the contiguous 

United States, such as Alaska or Hawaii. (2) Totals may not add because of rounding. (3) Some of 

the funding identified in the table was used to provide services to members of federally recognized 

Indian tribes and Native Hawaiians. For example, non-federally recognized tribes that receive Native 

American Employment and Training grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements must provide 

services to meet the needs of Indians, Alaska Natives, or Native Hawaiians in the area served by the 

non-federally recognized tribe. 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

a

This table row includes funding awarded to incorporated entities, such as the Lumbee Regional 

Development Association, Inc.; the Lumbee Land Development, Inc.; and the Lumbee Revitalization 

and Community Development Corporation. 

b

This table row includes funding awarded to the MOWA Choctaw Housing Authority. 

c

This table row includes funding awarded to the Haliwa-Saponi Tribal School. 

d

The Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb received funding on behalf of the Intertribal Council of Central 

Louisiana, Inc.—a consortium of two state-recognized tribes—which also included the Four Winds 

Cherokee. 

e

The Shinnecock Indian Nation received federal recognition through Interior’s administrative 

acknowledgment process, effective October 1, 2010. This table includes only funding the tribe 

received before the effective date of its federal recognition. 

f

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe received federal recognition through Interior’s administrative 

acknowledgment process, effective May 23, 2007. This table includes only funding the tribe received 

before the effective date of its federal recognition. 

Similarly, as shown in table 4, nearly all the federal funding we identified 

as having been awarded to the 26 non-federally recognized tribes over 

the 4-year period was awarded by a small number of federal programs. 

Specifically, 95 percent of the funding was awarded by seven federal 

programs in four agencies. Each of these programs awarded a total of 

more than $1.5 million to non-federally recognized tribes during the 

period. About 67 percent (nearly $69 million) of the funding we identified 

was awarded by HUD’s Indian Housing Block Grants program.24 Five 

non-federally recognized tribes have received funding through this 

program: the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina (see sidebar), the MOWA 

Band of Choctaw Indians, the Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe of North 

Carolina, the Coharie Tribe of North Carolina, and the Waccamaw Siouan 

Tribe of North Carolina. To determine funding amounts for all federally 

recognized Indian tribes and eligible non-federally recognized tribes, the 

program uses a formula that considers factors such as the population and 

housing conditions of tribal communities. Program funds are used to 

support such activities as housing development.

 

24Most program recipients are federally recognized Indian tribes. Overall, funding to nonfederally recognized tribes accounted for about 2.7 percent of the more than $2.6 billion in 

program funds awarded over the 4-year period.
 

Page 22 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

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

through 2010

Dollars in thousands

Program Agency

Number of 

unique 

recipients

Funds

awarded

Indian Housing Block Grants (includes Recovery Act formula and 

competitive grants)

Housing and Urban Development 5 $68,887

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Health and Human Services 5 7,074

Head Start (includes Recovery Act funding) Health and Human Services 1 7,029

American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program Education 4 5,915

Native American Employment and Training (includes Recovery 

Act funding)

Labor 4 4,411

Administration for Native Americans’ Social and Economic 

Development Strategies Program 

Health and Human Services 13 3,626

Community Services Block Grant Program (includes Recovery Act 

funding)

Health and Human Services 5 1,764

Administration for Native Americans’ Preservation and 

Enhancement of Native American Languages Program 

Health and Human Services 3 732

Community Services Block Grant Program (discretionary awards) Health and Human Services 1 686

Indian Community Development Block Grant Program (includes 

Recovery Act funding)

Housing and Urban Development 1 600

Rural Housing and Economic Development Housing and Urban Development 1 590

Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals Health and Human Services 1 500

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (includes 

Recovery Act funding)

Treasury 1 283

Cultural Resources Interior 1 260

Remote Community Alert Systems Program Commerce 1 274

Administration for Native Americans’ Improvement of the 

Capability of Tribal Governing Bodies to Regulate Environmental 

Quality

Health and Human Services 1 219

Economic Development Initiative-Special Project, Neighborhood 

Initiative and Miscellaneous Grants

Housing and Urban Development 1 190

Rural Housing Preservation Grants Agriculture 1 186

Small, Rural School Achievement Program Education 1 92

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies Education 1 90

Rural Business Enterprise Grants Agriculture 1 80

Retired and Senior Volunteer Program Corporation for National and 

Community Service

1 63

Volunteers in Service to America Corporation for National and 

Community Service

1 25

Surveys, Studies, Investigations, Training and Special Purpose 

Activities Relating to Environmental Justice

Environmental Protection Agency 1 10

Total 26 $103,588

Sources: GAO analysis of data from USAspending.gov as of December 14, 2011, and agency-provided data.

Note: Totals may not add because of rounding. 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

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.

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.”25

Although this program is designed to enhance the availability of 

vocational rehabilitation services to Indians living on and near 

reservations, many of whom have been poorly served by state 

agencies,

26

 

2529 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B), 741(a) (emphasis added). 

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.

26See 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”). 

Agencies Have 

Funded Some Likely 

Ineligible NonFederally Recognized 

Tribes, and One 

Agency Is in the 

Process of Enforcing 

Single Audit Act 

Requirements

Under Its American Indian 

Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services Program, 

Education Funded NonFederally Recognized 

Tribes That Appear to 

Have Been Ineligible
 

Page 24 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

The applicable statutory definition of reservation says:

“The term ‘reservation’ includes Indian reservations, public domain Indian allotments, 

former Indian reservations in Oklahoma, and land held by incorporated Native groups, 

regional corporations, and village corporations under the provisions of the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act.”27

Education told us that under its long-standing interpretation of this 

definition,28 “reservation” includes not only the four categories enumerated 

in the statute, but also “a defined and contiguous area of land where there 

is a concentration of tribal members and in which the tribe is providing 

structured activities and services, such as the tribal service areas identified 

in the tribe’s grant application.” Education’s interpretation allows a tribe to 

self-define “reservation” by designating any area and providing structured 

services to tribal members there. Rules of statutory construction weigh 

against this interpretation. Under the noscitur a sociis rule, words grouped 

in a list should be given related meaning.29 Courts rely on this rule “to avoid 

ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its 

accompanying words, thus giving unintended breadth to the Acts of 

Congress.”30

 

2729 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”). 

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 

28The department did not provide us with any documentation of this long-standing 

interpretation, and this interpretation differs from the department’s regulatory definition. 

The regulatory definition states that “[r]eservation means”—rather than “includes”—the 

four categories enumerated in the statute. See 34 C.F.R. § 371.4.

29See, e.g., Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, 494 U.S. 26, 36 (1990).

30Gutafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 575 (1995) (citing Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & 

Co., 367 U.S. 303, 307 (1961)).
 

Page 25 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

contrast, have been delineated by the tribes themselves, which have then 

applied for federal grants on the basis of these self-created geographic 

areas. This approach essentially transforms the grant program into one 

for “Indian tribes no matter where they are located, to provide assistance 

to disabled Indians no matter where they reside.” Such an outcome is not 

what Congress intended or enacted.

In addition, the statute’s use of both the term “reservation” and “tribal 

service area” undercuts Education’s interpretation because it suggests 

Congress did not believe a tribal service area is simply a type of 

reservation. The statute authorizes the department to make grants to 

certain governing bodies of Indian tribes on federal and state reservations 

and, elsewhere, discusses how Indians with disabilities living on or near a 

reservation or tribal service area are to be provided vocational 

rehabilitation services.31 If the term “reservation” included the term “tribal 

service area,” Congress would not have referred to them separately in 

section 101(a)(11)(F)(ii) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended in 

1998.32

 

31Education 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. 

32See, e.g., Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular 

Systems, Inc., 131 S.Ct. 2188, 2196 (2011); Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. U.S. Dept. 

of Interior, 228 F.3d 82, 88 (2000) (courts disfavor interpretations of statutes that render 

language superfluous).
 

Page 26 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

The state-recognition status of some non-federally recognized tribes in 

New Jersey has been called into question.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.34

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.

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.

35

 

33Alexa 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).

The Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape’s application repeatedly stated that it 

34A third concurrent resolution was also passed in 1979 regarding the Ramapough 

Mountain Indians. 

3542 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).

HHS Funded Two 

Ineligible Non-Federally 

Recognized Tribes in 

New Jersey
 

Page 27 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

was state recognized and included the concurrent resolution from the 

1980s as evidence of state recognition. Agency officials told us they did not 

take any additional steps to verify that the entity was in fact state 

recognized; they also said they have had regular contact with state officials 

about the awards, and those state officials never told them that the tribe 

was not state recognized. On the basis of this statement in the grant 

application, the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey received 

two grants totaling $44,405 from the Community Services Block Grant 

Program—one in fiscal year 2007 and one in fiscal year 2010.

Regarding the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program, the 

Powhatan Renape Nation presented itself as state recognized in a letter 

submitted with its grant application. Agency officials stated that the entity’s 

state-recognition status would have been verified when it started receiving 

program funding about 30 years ago. During the 4-year period of our 

review, the Powhatan Renape Nation received $200,342 from the LowIncome Home Energy Assistance program in fiscal year 2007.

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 

HHS Has Taken Some 

Initial Steps in Response to 

the Accohannock Indian 

Tribe’s Noncompliance

with the Single Audit Act
 

Page 28 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

letter. More recently, after we began inquiring about the issue, the agency 

sent the entity an Audit Deficiency Notice via certified mail on February 7, 

2012. According to agency officials, because the Accohannock Indian 

Tribe is not a current grantee, the agency has limited enforcement 

options. Nevertheless, agency officials stated they plan to continue to 

pursue their administrative options to encourage the Accohannock Indian 

Tribe to meet its federal financial reporting obligations.

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

can be a difficult and confusing task, as is trying to determine which entities 

have state reservations. No official consolidated list of state-recognized tribes 

or state reservations exists, and states have varying policies and procedures 

for providing state recognition. Nevertheless, Education provided funds 

under the American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program to 

state-recognized tribes that were not located on state reservations but rather 

had self-defined tribal service areas, raising substantial questions about the 

tribes’ eligibility for the funding, and HHS provided funds to two non-federally 

recognized tribes in New Jersey as state-recognized tribes that are not 

officially recognized by the state. Finally, when entities expend $500,000 or 

more in federal funds in a fiscal year, they are required to comply with the 

reporting requirements of the Single Audit Act. The Accohannock Indian 

Tribe did not comply with those requirements for 2009. In response, HHS 

has begun taking administrative steps to encourage the Accohannock Indian 

Tribe to meet its federal financial reporting obligations.

We are making the following three recommendations.

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 

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 29 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

action as necessary. In doing so, the agency should consult with the 

state of New Jersey to determine whether the state has officially or 

formally recognized the tribes and treats them as state recognized.

• Continue to pursue the Accohannock Indian Tribe’s noncompliance 

with the Single Audit Act and take appropriate action as necessary.

We provided a copy of our draft report to the Departments of Agriculture, 

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 staterecognized 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, 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 30 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

expanding the universe of Indians eligible to receive vocational 

rehabilitation services to those living “near” a reservation does not alter 

what qualifies as a “reservation.” Moreover, Congress’s use of both 

“reservation” and “tribal service area” undercuts Education’s interpretation 

because it suggests Congress did not believe a tribal service area is 

simply a type of reservation.

HHS agreed with the two recommendations involving its activities and 

stated that it will seek to clarify with the state of New Jersey the status of 

the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey and the Powhatan 

Renape Nation. HHS also stated that it will continue to address issues 

related to compliance with the Single Audit Act related to the 

Accohannock Indian Tribe. (See app. VII for HHS’s written comments.) 

The Departments of Agriculture, Education, the Interior, and HHS also 

provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as 

appropriate. The Departments of Energy and Labor had no comments.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

Secretaries of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human 

Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, and Labor; 

appropriate congressional committees; and other interested parties. The 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix VIII.

Sincerely yours, 

Anu K. Mittal

Director, Natural Resources 

and Environment
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

This review’s objectives were to address (1) the key means by which nonfederally recognized tribes have been eligible for federal funding and 

(2) the amount of federal funding awarded to non-federally recognized 

tribes for fiscal years 2007 through 2010, by agency and program. In 

addition, this report provides information about some cases we identified 

during our work concerning non-federally recognized tribes’ eligibility for 

funding and compliance with federal financial reporting requirements.

Because no comprehensive list of non-federally recognized tribes exists, 

we first compiled a list of about 400 such tribes in the contiguous 

48 states.1

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 

 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.

 

1

We excluded Alaska and Hawaii because of the unique circumstances in those states. In 

addition to the 225 federally recognized tribes in Alaska, Alaska Native corporations were 

created pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act but are not federally 

recognized tribes and some federal programs have explicit authority to fund them. As a 

result, including Alaska would have required extensive and different research and legal 

analysis on how federal programs treat Alaska Native corporations. Hawaii enacted 

legislation in July 2011 to provide for and implement the recognition of the Native 

Hawaiian people by means and methods that will facilitate their self-governance. The 

Attorney General of Hawaii has identified over 160 federal laws explicitly addressing 

Native Hawaiians. See Can Congress Create a Race-Based Government? The 

Constitutionality of H.R. 309 and S. 147, Hearing Before the House Subcomm. on the 

Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 6, 60-80 (2005). Native 

Hawaiians are not eligible to apply for federal recognition through Interior’s administrative 

acknowledgment process, and as a result, Interior’s list of entities that have submitted a 

letter of intent to petition for federal recognition does not include information about 

Hawaiian entities that may self-identify as tribes. Like the situation in Alaska, including 

Hawaii would have required extensive and different research and legal analysis on how 

federal programs treat Native Hawaiians.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

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 staterecognized tribes that were not also federally recognized. As part of our 

contact with these 15 states, in addition to inquiring about any staterecognized tribes, we also asked about whether they were aware of any 

other non-federally recognized tribes within their borders. For the other 

33 states, we relied largely on information provided by these states to 

Interior’s Indian Arts and Crafts Board. According to this information, 

these states had identified no state-recognized tribes within their borders. 

We spot-checked this information by contacting 20 states for which we 

were able to identify a state official who could respond to our questions, 

and 9 of these states responded to our inquiry and confirmed that they did 

not have any state-recognized tribes.2

To address both objectives of this review, we obtained and reviewed 

statutes and agency documents; searched databases such as 

USAspending.gov and the Single Audit Database; analyzed agencyprovided 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 staterecognized 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 nonfederally recognized tribes that we identified as having received funding 

during the 4-year period (7 out of 26), including three of the top four 

recipients of federal funds during the period. We included Virginia 

because of its proximity to Washington, D.C., and because tribes in the 

state have received federal funding in the past.

 

2

The 15 states we identified as possibly having state-recognized tribes were the 12 states 

listed in table 7 plus California, New Jersey, and Ohio. The additional 9 states responding

to our inquiry were Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, 

Oklahoma, and Texas.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

To identify which non-federally recognized tribes had received federal 

funding during the period 2007 through 2010 and which programs had 

provided this funding, we searched publicly available funding data from 

USAspending.gov and agency-provided data. USAspending.gov, a 

publicly accessible website containing data on federal awards, was 

launched in December 2007 to comply with the requirements of the 

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.3

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 nonstate-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.

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.

For each non-federally recognized tribe we identified, we searched 

USAspending.gov and agency-provided data on relevant identifying 

information, including tribal names provided by Interior for petitioners and 

 

3

Pub. L. No. 109-282, 120 Stat. 1186 (2006).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

by state officials for state-recognized tribes and other non-federally 

recognized tribes in their states. Where possible, we used available 

information such as tribal names and addresses to identify each entity’s 

Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number—a nine-digit number 

assigned by Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., to identify each physical location for 

businesses. Entities such as non-federally recognized tribes may have 

multiple DUNS numbers, and we took steps to identify all relevant DUNS 

numbers by, for example, searching Dun & Bradstreet’s records for 

additional DUNS numbers associated with a particular entity, such as a 

previous DUNS number where applicable. We then searched 

USAspending.gov and agency-provided data on tribal names and DUNS 

numbers to compile an updated data set on federal funding awarded by 

federal agencies in the 4-year period to the non-federally recognized 

tribes we identified.

To determine the amount of federal funding awarded for fiscal years 2007 

through 2010 to non-federally recognized tribes, we used the information 

that we obtained from USAspending.gov and agency-provided data. We 

supplemented USAspending.gov data with agency-provided data from 

(1) all seven programs that we identified as each having awarded a total 

of more than $1.5 million in funding to non-federally recognized tribes in 

the 4-year period and (2) some additional programs administered by 

these agencies. Some programs awarded funding appropriated through 

the annual appropriation process as well as funding appropriated by the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Although the Catalog 

of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)4

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 nonfederally recognized tribes in the 4-year period to discuss how they collect 

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.

 

4

CFDA details program descriptions for more than 2,000 federal assistance programs and 

assigns a unique CFDA number to each program. See http://www.cfda.gov. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

and maintain these data, and contacted knowledgeable agency officials to 

resolve any inconsistencies in these data sources. For example, by 

reviewing single audits completed by the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, 

we identified an award that was not listed in USAspending.gov; we

contacted agency officials to confirm the amounts awarded by fiscal year 

and program and to determine why the award was not listed. An agency 

official stated that the award was not listed in USAspending.gov because 

it was below the reporting threshold required by the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. On the basis of information 

provided by the agency, we were able to include the award in our updated 

data set. After taking these steps, we concluded that the updated data set 

was reliable for the purpose of estimating the amount of federal funding 

awarded by federal agencies to non-federally recognized tribes for fiscal 

years 2007 through 2010. After collecting this information, we compared 

the characteristics of each non-federally recognized tribe with applicable 

program eligibility requirements, and we checked for compliance with the 

financial reporting requirement in the Single Audit Act, as amended.5

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.

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 conducted this performance audit from June 2011 through April 2012, 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

5

Pub. L. No. 98-502 (1984), amended by Pub. L. No. 104-156 (1996), codified as 

amended at 31 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7507.
Appendix II: Tribes Whose Recognition Was 

Terminated

Page 36 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

This appendix provides information about tribes whose relationship with 

the United States was terminated. These tribes are not eligible to petition 

for federal recognition through the Department of the Interior’s 

administrative acknowledgement process, but may have their recognition 

restored by other means.1

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

Restored

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.

Restored tribe State Date terminated Date restored

Years nonfederally 

recognized

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin WI Apr. 30, 1961 Dec. 22, 1973 12.65

Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California CA Sept. 3, 1965 June 29, 1977 11.83

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon OR Aug. 13, 1956 Nov. 18, 1977 21.28

Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma OK Aug. 3, 1959 May 15, 1978 18.79

Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma OK Aug. 2, 1959 May 15, 1978 18.80

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh 

Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band 

of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)

UT Mar. 1, 1957 Apr. 3, 1980 23.11

Wiyot Tribe, California (formerly the Table Bluff Reservation— 

Wiyot Tribe)

CA Apr. 11, 1961 Sept. 21, 1981 20.46

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon OR Aug. 13, 1956 Nov. 22, 1983 27.29

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw 

Indians of Oregon

OR Aug. 13, 1956 Oct. 17, 1984 28.20

Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, California CA July 16, 1966 Feb. 13, 1985a 18.59

Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria, 

California

CA Nov. 11, 1965 Feb. 13, 1985a 19.27

Blue Lake Rancheria, California CA Sept. 22, 1966 Feb. 13, 1985a 18.41

Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California CA Apr. 11, 1961 Feb. 13, 1985a 23.86

Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California CA Aug. 1, 1961 Feb. 13, 1985a 23.55

 

1

For information on how federal recognition has been restored for these tribes see 

enclosure II of GAO, Indian Issues: BLM’s Program for Issuing Individual Indian 

Allotments on Public Lands Is No Longer Viable, GAO-07-23R (Washington, D.C.: 

Oct. 20, 2006), and appendix II of GAO, Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act: After Almost 20 Years, Key Federal Agencies Still Have Not Fully 

Complied with the Act, GAO-10-768 (Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2010).

Appendix II: Tribes Whose Recognition Was 

Terminated 
Appendix II: Tribes Whose Recognition Was 

Terminated

Page 37 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Restored tribe State Date terminated Date restored

Years nonfederally 

recognized

Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California CA Dec. 30, 1965 Feb. 13, 1985a 19.14

Elk Valley Rancheria, California CA July 16, 1966 Feb. 13, 1985a 18.59

Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California CA Dec. 8, 1966 Feb. 13, 1985a 18.20

Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California CA Aug. 1, 1961 Feb. 13, 1985a 23.55

Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California CA Feb. 18, 1966 Feb. 13, 1985a 19.00

Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California CA Feb. 18, 1966 Feb. 13, 1985a 19.00

Pinoleville Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California CA Feb. 18, 1966 Feb. 13, 1985a 19.00

Potter Valley Tribe, California CA Aug. 1, 1961 Feb. 13, 1985a 23.55

Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley Reservation 

of California

CA Jan. 20, 1967 Feb. 13, 1985a 18.08

Redding Rancheria, California CA June 20, 1962 Feb. 13, 1985a 22.67

Redwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California CA Aug. 1, 1961 Feb. 13, 1985a 23.55

Smith River Rancheria, California CA July 29, 1967 Feb. 13, 1985a 17.56

Klamath Tribes, Oregon OR Aug. 13, 1961 Aug. 27, 1986 25.05

Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas TX July 1, 1955 Aug. 18, 1987 32.15

Ponca Tribe of Nebraska NE Oct. 27, 1966 Oct. 31, 1990 24.03

Guidiville Rancheria of California CA Sept. 3, 1965 Sept. 6, 1991 26.02

Lytton Rancheria of California CA Aug. 1, 1961 Sept. 6, 1991 30.12

Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California CA Sept. 3, 1965 Sept. 6, 1991 26.02

Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California CA June 2, 1967 Apr. 17, 1992 24.89

Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South Carolina) SC July 2, 1960 Oct. 27, 1993 33.34

United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of 

California

CA Aug. 18, 1967 Oct. 31, 1994 27.22

Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians of California CA Apr. 11, 1961 Nov. 2, 1994 33.58

Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California CA Feb. 18, 1966 Dec. 27, 2000 34.88

Wilton Rancheria, California CA Sept. 22, 1964 June 8, 2009 44.74

Sources: GAO analysis of information reported in GAO-07-23R, GAO-10-768, and the Federal Register. 

a

We use February 13, 1985, as the restoration date because it is the date of publication of the first list 

of federally recognized tribes, by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), to 

include the tribe. Under section 7 of the court-approved stipulated agreement settling Tillie Hardwick 

v. United States, No. C-79-1710-SW (N.D. Cal. 1983), tribes involved in the litigation were to be 

recognized by the Secretary of the Interior and included on BIA’s Federal Register list of recognized 

tribal entities pursuant to 25 C.F.R. § 83.6(b) (1983). Although the court approved the stipulated 

agreement on December 27, 1983, the Secretary did not publish a notice in the Federal Register

regarding the settlement and restoration until June 11, 1984, and the BIA list of federally recognized 

tribes was not published until February 13, 1985. 
Appendix II: Tribes Whose Recognition Was 

Terminated

Page 38 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

For a variety of reasons, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive list 

of all existing tribes whose recognition was terminated and not restored. 

For example, some tribes located in western Oregon and terminated in 

1956 appear to have been historic tribes that once resided in that area 

but were no longer organized as tribes at the time of their termination, 

according to the Department of the Interior.2

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

Nonetheless, we identified 

nine tribes in California whose recognition was terminated and not 

restored and therefore are non-federally recognized tribes (see table 6).

Terminated tribe Date terminated Federal Register termination notice

Cache Creek Rancheria Apr. 11, 1961 26 Fed. Reg. 3073

Mark West Rancheria Apr. 11, 1961 26 Fed. Reg. 3073

Ruffeys Rancheria Apr. 11, 1961 26 Fed. Reg. 3073

Strawberry Valley Rancheria Apr. 11, 1961 26 Fed. Reg. 3073

Alexander Valley Rancheria Aug. 1, 1961 26 Fed. Reg. 6875

Indian Ranch Rancheria Sept. 22, 1964 29 Fed. Reg. 13146

Nevada City Rancheria Sept. 22, 1964 29 Fed. Reg. 13146

El Dorado Rancheria July 16, 1966 31 Fed. Reg. 9685, 9686

Mission Creek Reservation July 14, 1970 35 Fed. Reg. 11272, 11273

Source: GAO analysis of BIA data and Federal Register notices.

Note: Pub. L. No. 88-419, § g, 78 Stat. 390, 391 (1964), authorized the Secretary of the Interior to sell 

any rancheria or reservation lying wholly within the state of California that was unoccupied as of 

January 1, 1964. From 1965 through 1967, the Secretary sold the unoccupied Colfax, Taylorsville, 

and Strathmore rancherias. 

 

2

Pub. L. No. 83-588, 68 Stat. 724 (1954); 21 Fed. Reg. 6244 (Aug. 18, 1956).
Appendix III: State-Recognized Tribes

Page 39 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

This appendix provides information on state-recognized tribes. We 

identified 12 states that had state-recognized tribes. Officials in these 

12 states identified 61 state-recognized tribes that are not federally 

recognized, as of September 2011 (see table 7). Some states—such as 

California and Texas—have acknowledged non-federally recognized

tribes in their states but have not officially identified these entities as state 

recognized, according to officials we spoke with.

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

State and tribe name Status in Interior’s administrative acknowledgment processa

Alabama

Cherokees of Northeast Alabama Petitioner #77. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 23, 1981.

Cher-O-Creek Intra Tribal Indians (Cherokees of Southeast 

Alabama)

Petitioner #107. Letter of intent submitted on May 27, 1988.

Echota Cherokees of Alabama Petitioner #321. Letter of intent submitted on June 10, 2009.

Ma-Chis Lower Alabama Creek Indian Tribe Petitioner #87. Denied, effective Aug. 22, 1988.

MOWA Band of Choctaw Indiansb Petitioner #86. Denied, effective Nov. 26, 1999.

Piqua Shawnee Tribe c

Star Clan of Muscogee Creeks of Pike County c

United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation Petitioner #246. Letter of intent submitted on Nov. 8, 2001.

Connecticut

Golden Hill Paugussett Tribeb Petitioner #81. Denied, effective Mar. 18, 2005.

Paucatuck Eastern Pequotb Petitioner #35 and petitioner #113. Denied, effective Oct. 14, 2005.

Schaghticoke Tribal Nationb Petitioner #79. Denied, effective Oct. 14, 2005.

Delaware

Lenape Indian Tribe of Delaware c

Nanticoke Indian Association Petitioner #40. Requested petition be placed on hold on Mar. 25, 1989.

Georgia

Cherokee of Georgia Tribal Council c

Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee Indians, Inc.d Petitioner #41. Petition ready, waiting for active consideration since 

June 9, 2003.

Lower Muscogee Creek Tribeb Petitioner #8. Denied, effective Dec. 21, 1981.

Louisiana

Adai Caddo Tribe Petitioner #138. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 13, 1993.

Bayou Lafourche Band of the Biloxi-Chitimacha 

Confederation of Muskogees

Petitioner #56A. Proposed negative finding published May 30, 2008.

Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb Petitioner #37. Letter of intent submitted on July 2, 1978.

Clifton Choctaw Tribal Reservation, Inc. Petitioner #30. Letter of intent submitted on Mar. 22, 1978.

Appendix III: State-Recognized Tribes
Appendix III: State-Recognized Tribes

Page 40 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

State and tribe name Status in Interior’s administrative acknowledgment processa

Four Winds Cherokee c

Grand Caillou/Dulac Band of the Biloxi-Chitimacha 

Confederation of Muskogees

Petitioner #56A. Proposed negative finding published May 30, 2008.

Isle de Jean Charles Band of the Biloxi-Chitimacha 

Confederation of Muskogees

Petitioner #56A. Proposed negative finding published May 30, 2008.

Louisiana Choctaw Tribe c

Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe Petitioner #56B. Proposed negative finding published May 30, 2008.

United Houma Nation Petitioner #56. Proposed negative finding published Dec. 22, 1994.

Massachusettse

Chappaquiddick Wampanoag Petitioner #310. Letter of intent submitted on May 21, 2007.

Chaubunnagungamaug Nipmucks f

Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe c

Nipmuc Nation Hassanamisco Band Petitioner #69A. Denied, effective Jan. 28, 2008.

Pocasset Wampanoag Tribe Petitioner #153. Letter of intent submitted on Feb. 1, 1995.

Seaconke Wampanoag Tribe c

Montana

Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana Petitioner #31. Denied, effective Oct. 27, 2009.

New York

The Poospatuck (Unkechauge) Indian Nationb c

North Carolina

Coharie Tribe of North Carolina Petitioner #74. Letter of intent submitted on Mar. 13, 1981.

Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe of North Carolina Petitioner #63. Letter of intent submitted on Nov. 27, 1979.

Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina Petitioner #65. Deemed ineligible to apply on Oct. 23, 1989.

Meherrin Indian Tribe Petitioner #119a. Letter of intent submitted on Aug. 2, 1990.

Occaneechi Band of Saponi Nation of North Carolina Petitioner #148. Letter of intent submitted on Jan. 6, 1995.

Sappony (High Plains Indians, petitioned as Indians of 

Person County)

Petitioner #95. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 7, 1984.

Waccamaw Siouan Tribe of North Carolina Petitioner #88. Letter of intent submitted on June 27, 1983.

South Carolina

Beaver Creek Indians Petitioner #184. Letter of intent submitted on Jan. 26, 1998.

Edisto Natchez Kusso Tribe of South Carolina (petitioned 

as Four Holes Indian Organization, Edisto Tribal Council)

Petitioner #23. Letter of intent submitted on Dec. 30, 1976.

Pee Dee Indian Tribe of South Carolina Petitioner #152. Letter of intent submitted on Jan. 30, 1995.

Pee Dee Nation of Upper South Carolina Petitioner #296. Letter of intent submitted on Dec. 14, 2005.

Santee Indian Organization Petitioner #53. Letter of intent submitted on June 4, 1979.

Waccamaw Indian People (petitioned as The ChicoraWaccamaw Indian People)Petitioner #144. Letter of intent submitted on Oct. 5, 1994.

Wassamasaw Tribe of Varnertown Indians c
Appendix III: State-Recognized Tribes

Page 41 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

State and tribe name Status in Interior’s administrative acknowledgment processa

Vermont

Elnu Abenaki Tribe c

Nulhegan Band of the Coosuk Abenaki Nation c

Virginia

Cheroenhaka (Nottoway) Petitioner #264. Letter of intent submitted on Dec. 30, 2002.

Chickahominy Indian Tribe Petitioner #168. Letter of intent submitted on Mar. 19, 1996.

Eastern Chickahominy Petitioner #241. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 6, 2001.

Mattaponi Tribeb Petitioner #157. Letter of intent submitted on Apr. 4, 1995.

Monacan Indian Nation Petitioner #161. Letter of intent submitted on July 11, 1995.

Nansemond Petitioner #244. Letter of intent submitted on Sept. 20, 2001.

Nottoway of Virginia c

Pamunkey Indian Tribeb Petitioner #323. Letter of intent submitted on June 29, 2009.

Patawomeck c

Rappahannock Tribe Petitioner #61. Letter of intent submitted on Nov. 16, 1979.

Upper Mattaponi Petitioner #62. Letter of intent submitted on Nov. 26. 1979.

Sources: Information provided by state officials for tribe name and GAO analysis of information from Interior’s Office of Federal 

Acknowledgment for petitioner status.

Notes: The table lists only state-recognized tribes as of September 2011. Maryland officially 

recognized two non-federally recognized tribes (Piscataway Conoy Tribe and Piscataway Indian 

Nation) in January 2012 by executive order as authorized by state law. The Piscataway Conoy Tribe 

includes the Piscataway-Conoy Confederacy and Sub-Tribes and Cedarville Band of Piscataway. 

a

Status of the entity’s efforts to petition for federal recognition through Interior’s administrative 

acknowledgment process, as of April 29, 2011, where we were able to confirm, on the basis of 

matching name and address, that the state-recognized tribe and petitioning group are the same 

entity. Because entities may have changed addresses since petitioning for federal recognition, this list 

may not be comprehensive. 

b

This state-recognized tribe has a state reservation, according to an official we spoke with. State 

officials in five states reported that a total of eight non-federally recognized tribes have state 

reservations in those states, but this list may not be comprehensive. 

c

On the basis of the names and addresses we were able to identify for this entity, we were unable to 

positively match it with any entity that has petitioned for federal recognition through Interior’s 

administrative acknowledgment process. 

d

According to Georgia’s Council on American Indian Concerns, four groups have claimed to be the 

state-recognized Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, which was recognized in 1993. Furthermore, 

according to Interior’s Office of Federal Acknowledgment, at least two groups have represented 

themselves as petitioner #41 (Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokees, Inc.). In November 2007, the 

Council on American Indian Concerns formally recommended to the Governor and the General 

Assembly that the state officially identify the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee Indians, Inc. (located 

at P.O. Box 607, Dahlonega, GA) as the true and legitimate state-recognized Georgia Tribe of 

Eastern Cherokee. As of February 2012, no further actions had been taken on this matter, according 

to a state official we spoke with. 

e

Massachusetts considers the listed entities to be state-recognized tribes but has not established a 

formal recognition process, according to an official we spoke with from the Massachusetts 

Commission on Indian Affairs. 

f

This entity may be associated with petitioner #69B (Chaubunagungamaug Band of the Nipmuck 

Nation, Webster/Dudley), which was denied acknowledgment, effective Jan. 28, 2008. 
Appendix III: State-Recognized Tribes

Page 42 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

We cross-checked the information we received from state officials with 

information included in (1) a 2008 law review article,1 (2) the 2010 

Census,2 and (3) correspondence between the states and Interior’s Indian 

Arts and Crafts Board.3

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:

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.

• 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 staterecognized tribes in New Jersey, and the 2010 Census data counted 

two state-recognized tribes.

• We did not include any entities from California and Ohio in table 7. 

The officials whom we spoke with from those states indicated that 

their states had not established processes for officially recognizing 

tribes. The 2010 Census data and the correspondence with Interior’s 

Indian Arts and Crafts Board also confirmed that those states have no 

 

1

Alexa Koenig and Jonathan Stein, “Federalism and the State Recognition of Native 

American Tribes: A Survey of State-Recognized Tribes and State Recognition Processes 

across the United States,” 48 Santa Clara L. Rev. 79 (2008).

2

For the 2010 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau identified state-recognized tribes in 

11 states. Six of these 11 states include at least one state-recognized tribe with a state 

reservation, according to the 2010 Census data. For each state-recognized tribe without a 

state reservation, Census delineated a tribal land area referred to as a State Designated 

Tribal Statistical Area. A Census map of state-recognized tribes and their tribal land areas 

can be found at 

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/aian2010_wall_map/aian_wall_map.html. 

3

The Indian Arts and Crafts Board provided correspondence from all 50 states on the topic 

of state-recognized tribes.
Appendix III: State-Recognized Tribes

Page 43 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

state-recognized tribes. On the basis of legislative resolutions in 

California and Ohio that were not signed by the states’ governors, the 

2008 law review article counted two state-recognized tribes in 

California and one state-recognized tribe in Ohio.

• We included six entities for Massachusetts in table 7 on the basis of

the designation provided by a state official. The official also stated that 

Massachusetts does not have an established formal process for 

granting state recognition and that these entities are acknowledged by 

Massachusetts as historic tribes. The 2008 law review article included 

the same entities as state-recognized tribes, while the 2010 Census 

counted only one entity in Massachusetts as state recognized. In 

correspondence with Interior’s Indian Arts and Crafts Board, dated 

November 16, 2000, the state provided a list of the historic tribes but 

also stated “[t]here are no officially state recognized tribes.” 

Some of the state-recognized tribes listed in table 7—such as the 

Mattaponi Tribe and the Pamunkey Indian Tribe—were recognized by 

colonial governments and considered state recognized since the 

beginning of statehood, while others became state recognized more 

recently, according to state officials we spoke with. For example, the two 

state-recognized tribes in Vermont were recognized in 2011, according to 

an official in that state. In some instances, state governments 

acknowledged a group long before officially designating it as a staterecognized 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.
Appendix IV: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

That Received Federal Funding before Fiscal 

Year 2007 

Page 44 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

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 City State Nonprofita State recognizedb

Status in Interior’s 

administrative 

acknowledgment processc

Adai Caddo Tribe Robeline LA   Petitioner #138. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Sept. 13, 1993.

Amah Mutsun Band of 

Ohlone/Costanoan Indians

Woodside CA Petitioner #120. Petition 

ready, waiting for active 

consideration since 

Sept. 15, 2003.

Amonsoquath Tribe of Cherokee West Plains MO  Petitioner #155. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Feb. 17, 1995.

The Bear Creek Band of Michigan 

Ottawa Indians, Inc.

Hopkins MI d

Beaver Creek Indians (funded as 

Beaver Creek Band of Pee Dee 

Indians)

Lexington SC   Petitioner #184. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Jan. 26, 1998.

Brothertown Indian Nation (also funded 

as Brotherton Indian Nation)

Fond du Lac WI  Petitioner #67. Proposed 

finding issued 

Aug. 17, 2009.

Chaloklowa Chickasaw Indian People Hemingway SC  Petitioner #259. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Aug. 14, 2002.

The Chi-cau-gon Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa of Iron County

Iron River MI  Petitioner #183. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Feb. 12, 1998.

Chicora Indian Tribe of South Carolina Loris SC  Petitioner #134. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Feb. 10, 1993.

Chinook Indian Tribe/Chinook Nation Chinook WA  Petitioner #57. Denied, 

effective July 12, 2003.

Clifton Choctaw Tribal Reservation, Inc. Clifton LA   Petitioner #30. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Mar. 22, 1978.

Appendix IV: Non-Federally Recognized 

Tribes That Received Federal Funding before 

Fiscal Year 2007
Appendix IV: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

That Received Federal Funding before Fiscal 

Year 2007 

Page 45 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Tribe name City State Nonprofita State recognizedb

Status in Interior’s 

administrative 

acknowledgment processc

Coastal Band of Chumash Buellton CA  Petitioner #80. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Mar. 25, 1982.

Costanoan-Rumsen Carmel Tribe Chino CA  Petitioner #143. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Aug. 24, 1994.

Croatan-Peedee Indian People Williston SC  d

Dunlap Band of Mono Indians Fresno CA  Petitioner #92. Letter of 

intent to resubmit petition on 

Aug. 9, 2005.e

Edisto Natchez Kusso Tribe of South 

Carolina (petitioned as Four Holes 

Indian Organization, Edisto Tribal 

Council)

Ridgeville SC   Petitioner #23. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Dec. 30, 1976.

Fernandeno/Tataviam Tribe Sylmar CA  Petitioner #158. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Apr. 24, 1995.

Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians of 

California

Beaumont CA  Petitioner #201. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Nov. 3, 1998.

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation San Gabriel CA  Petitioner #140. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Mar. 21, 1994.

Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee 

Indians

Dahlonega GA d

Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee 

Indians, Inc.f

 

Dahlonega GA   Petitioner #41. Petition 

ready, waiting for active 

consideration since 

June 9, 2003.

Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe New Haven CT  Petitioner #81. Denied, 

effective Mar. 18, 2005.

Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians Grand Rapids MI  Petitioner #146. Petition 

ready, waiting for active 

consideration since 

Mar. 29, 2007.

Hatteras Tuscarora Tribe (Unknown) NC g

Konkow Valley Band of Maidu Oroville CA  Petitioner #197. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Aug. 20, 1998.

Lipan Apache Band of Texas, Inc. San Antonio TX  Petitioner #211. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

May 26, 1999.

Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of 

Montana

Great Falls MT   Petitioner #31. Denied, 

effective Oct. 27, 2009.
Appendix IV: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

That Received Federal Funding before Fiscal 

Year 2007 

Page 46 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Tribe name City State Nonprofita State recognizedb

Status in Interior’s 

administrative 

acknowledgment processc

Lost Cherokee of Arkansas & Missouri Conway AR  Petitioner #204. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Feb. 10, 1999.

Mackinac Bands of Chippewa and 

Ottawa Indians

Hessel MI  Petitioner #186. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

May 13, 1998.

Mattaponi Tribe West Point VA   Petitioner #157. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Apr. 4, 1995.

Meherrin Indian Tribe Winton NC   Petitioner #119A. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Aug. 2, 1990.

Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota 

Community

Mendota MN  Petitioner #169. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Apr. 11, 1996.

Miami Nation of Indians of the State of 

Indiana, Inc.

Peru IN  Petitioner #66. Denied, 

effective Aug. 17, 1992. 

Monacan Indian Nation Madison 

Heights

VA   Petitioner #161. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

July 11, 1995.

Muscogee Nation of Florida (funded as 

Florida Tribe of Eastern Creek Indians)

Bruce FL  Petitioner #32. Petition 

ready, waiting for active 

consideration since 

Jan. 29, 2003.

Nipmuc Nation Hassanamisco Band 

(funded as Nipmuc Indian Development 

Corporation)

South Grafton MA   Petitioner #69A. Denied, 

effective Jan. 28, 2008.

Nor-Rel-Muk Wintu Nation (formerly 

Hayfork Band)

Weaverville CA  Petitioner #93. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Jan. 5, 1984.

Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old 

Louisiana Territory

Columbia MO  Petitioner #100B. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Feb. 19, 1992.

Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indians of 

Missouri and Arkansas

Clinton MO  Petitioner #100. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

July 26, 1985.

Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation Monterey CA  Petitioner #132. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Dec. 3, 1992.

Pamunkey Indian Tribe King William VA  Petitioner #323. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

June 29, 2009.

Paucatuck Eastern Pequot North 

Stonington

CT   Petitioner #35 and petitioner 

#113. Denied, effective 

Mar. 18, 2005.
Appendix IV: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

That Received Federal Funding before Fiscal 

Year 2007 

Page 47 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Tribe name City State Nonprofita State recognizedb

Status in Interior’s 

administrative 

acknowledgment processc

Pee Dee Indian Tribe of South Carolina McColl SC   Petitioner #152. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Jan. 30, 1995. 

Piedmont American Indian Association Simpsonville SC  Petitioner #198. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Aug. 20, 1998.

Piro/Manso/Tiwa Indian Tribe of Pueblo 

of San Juan de Guadalupe (funded as 

Tiwa Tribe and Turtle River Nation, 

Inc.)

Las Cruces NM  Petitioner #5. Petition under 

active consideration since 

Jan. 4, 2010.

Piscataway-Conoy Confederacy and 

Sub-Tribes, Inc.

La Plata MD  h Petitioner #28. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Feb. 22, 1978.

Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe Montegut LA   Petitioner #56B. Proposed 

negative finding published 

May 30, 2008.

Pokanoket Tribe of the Wampanoag 

Nation

Bristol RI  Petitioner #145. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Oct. 5, 1994.

Pokanoket/Wampanoag Federation/ 

Wampanoag Nation/Pokanoket Tribe 

and bands

Warwick RI  Petitioner #187. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Jan. 5, 1998.

The Poospatuck (Unkechauge) Indian 

Nation

Mastic NY  d

Rappahannock Tribe Indian Neck VA   Petitioner #61. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Nov. 16, 1979.

San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Oceanside CA  Petitioner #96. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Oct. 18, 1984.

Santee Indian Organization Holly Hill SC   Petitioner #53. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

June 4, 1979.

Schaghticoke Tribal Nation Derby CT  Petitioner #79. Denied, 

effective Oct. 14, 2005.

Snohomish Tribe of Indians Edmonds WA Petitioner #12. Denied, 

effective Mar. 9, 2004.

Steilacoom Tribe Steilacoom WA  Petitioner #11. Denied, 

effective June 17, 2008.

Strawberry Valley Rancheria (funded as 

Strawberry Valley Native Cultural 

Protective Association)

Oroville CA i

Swan Creek Black River Confederated 

Ojibwa Tribes, Inc.

Saginaw MI  Petitioner #135. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

May 4, 1993.
Appendix IV: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

That Received Federal Funding before Fiscal 

Year 2007 

Page 48 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Tribe name City State Nonprofita State recognizedb

Status in Interior’s 

administrative 

acknowledgment processc

Talimali Band, The Apalachee Indians 

of Louisiana

Libuse LA  Petitioner #166A. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Feb. 5, 1996.

Todds Valley Miwok-Maidu Cultural 

Foundation

Foresthill CA  j

Tuscarora Nation of North Carolina Maxton NC  Petitioner #102. Determined 

ineligible to petition on 

Oct. 23, 1989.

United Cherokee Indian Tribe of 

Virginia

Madison 

Heights

VA  Petitioner #224. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Aug. 3, 2000.

The Waccamaw Indian People 

(petitioned as the Chicora-Waccamaw 

Indian People)

Aynor SC   Petitioner #144. Letter of 

intent submitted on 

Oct. 5, 1994.

Western Cherokee Nation of Arkansas 

and Missouri

Mena AR  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. 
Appendix IV: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

That Received Federal Funding before Fiscal 

Year 2007 

Page 49 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

g

This entity may be associated with petitioner #34 (Hatteras Tuscarora Indians), which was 

determined ineligible to petition on October 23, 1989. According to Interior’s Office of Federal 

Acknowledgment, the group merged with the Tuscarora East of the Mountains (petitioner #215) on 

March 22, 2004. 

h

Maryland officially recognized the Piscataway Conoy Tribe and Piscataway Indian Nation in January 

2012 through executive orders, as authorized by state law. The Piscataway Conoy Tribe includes the 

Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and subtribes and the Cedarville Band of Piscataway. 

i

Strawberry Valley Rancheria was terminated on April 11, 1961. Groups which are, or the members of 

which are, subject to congressional legislation terminating or forbidding the federal relationship are 

not eligible to petition for federal recognition through Interior’s administrative acknowledgement 

process but may seek federal recognition through other means. 

j

The foundation was created by descendants of the Colfax Rancheria and the Foresthill/Todds Valley 

area, according to a website maintained by the Colfax-Todds Valley Consolidated Tribe. The 

Secretary of the Interior sold the unoccupied Colfax Rancheria in the late 1960s. 

In addition to the 64 non-federally recognized tribes listed in table 8, we 

were able to identify that all of the 26 non-federally recognized tribes 

having received funding in fiscal years 2007 through 2010 also received 

funding before fiscal year 2007, except two—Eel River Tribe of Indiana 

and Wesget Sipu. Cumulatively, counting the post- and pre-2007 periods, 

we identified 117 non-federally recognized tribes that have received 

federal funding—26 in fiscal years 2007 through 2010, 64 additional 

unique non-federally recognized tribes before fiscal year 2007, and 

27 additional federally recognized tribes that received funding before the 

effective date of their recognition.
Appendix V: Statutes and Regulations That 

Explicitly Include State-Recognized Tribes or 

Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations

Page 50 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

This appendix provides information on various statutory and regulatory 

provisions that authorize federal programs to provide federal funding for 

non-federally recognized tribes.

1

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

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.

Agency and program Legal citation

Staterecognized 

tribesa

Tribes on 

state 

reservations

Tribes located on, or 

in proximity to, a 

state reservation or 

rancheriab

Department of Agriculture

Community Facilities Loans 7 U.S.C. § 1926(a)(1);

7 C.F.R. §§ 3575.2, 

3575.20(c)(4) 



Water and Waste Facility Loans and Grants 7 U.S.C. § 1926(a)(1), (2) 

Rural Business Opportunity Grants 7 U.S.C. § 1926(a)(11);

7 C.F.R. § 4284.620(a)



Section 306C WWD Loans and Grants 7 U.S.C. § 1926c(a)(1);

7 U.S.C. § 1926c(e)(1)(A), (B)



Business and Industry Loan Guarantees 7 U.S.C. § 1932(a) 

Rural Business Enterprise Grants 7 U.S.C. § 1932(c);

7 C.F.R. § 1942.305(a)(1)



Food Stamp Program 7 U.S.C. §§ 2012(v), 2020(d);

7 C.F.R. § 271.2

c

 

1

The Department of Justice has raised constitutional concerns with legislation that 

provides government benefits to individuals who are not members of, or closely affiliated 

with, a federally recognized Indian tribe. According to the department, under the Supreme 

Court’s decisions, a substantial likelihood exists that legislation providing special benefits 

to individuals of Indian or Alaska Native descent who do not have a clear and close 

affiliation with a federally recognized tribe would be regarded by the courts as creating a 

racial preference subject to strict constitutional scrutiny, rather than a political preference 

subject to rational basis review. See Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 518-22 (2000); 

Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551-555 (1974). In the event legislation is regarded as 

awarding government benefits on the basis of a racial classification, it would be 

constitutional only if it is supported by a factual record demonstrating that its use of racebased criteria to award the benefits at issue is “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” 

government interest.

Appendix V: Statutes and Regulations That 

Explicitly Include State-Recognized Tribes or 

Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations
Appendix V: Statutes and Regulations That 

Explicitly Include State-Recognized Tribes or 

Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations

Page 51 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Agency and program Legal citation

Staterecognized 

tribesa

Tribes on 

state 

reservations

Tribes located on, or 

in proximity to, a 

state reservation or 

rancheriab

Food Distribution Program 7 U.S.C. §§ 2012(v), 

2013(b)(2)(B); 

7 C.F.R. §§ 271.2, 253.2

c

Department of Education

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local 

Educational Agencies

20 U.S.C. §§ 7422(c)(1), 

7491(3)(A)



Special Programs for Indian Children 

(demonstration grants)

20 U.S.C. §§ 7441(b), 

7491(3)(A)



Professional Development for Teachers and 

Education Professionals

20 U.S.C. §§ 7442(b)(3), 

7491(3)(A)

d

National Research Activities 20 U.S.C. §§ 7451(b), 

7491(3)(A)



Grants to tribes for education administrative 

planning and development

20 U.S.C. §§ 7455(a), 

7491(3)(A)



Improvement of Educational Opportunities 

for Adult Indians

20 U.S.C. §§ 7456(a), 

7491(3)(A)



Capacity Building for Traditionally 

Underserved Populations

29 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B), 

718(b)(2), (3)



National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research’s research and 

other covered activities

29 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B), 

764(a)(1)



Rehabilitation Service Administration’s 

Special Demonstration Programs

29 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B), 

773(b)(2)(A)



Projects with Industry 29 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B), 

795(a)(2)



American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services Program

29 U.S.C. §§ 705(19)(B), 

741(a);

34 C.F.R. §§ 371.2, 371.4(b)

e e

Department of Energyf

Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income 

Persons Program

42 U.S.C. §§ 3002(27), 

6862(6), 6863(d)



Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Native Americans’ Social 

and Economic Development Strategies

Programg

42 U.S.C. § 2991b(a);

45 C.F.R. § 1336.33(a)(1)(iii)

Administration for Native Americans’ 

Preservation and Enhancement of Native 

American Languages Programg

42 U.S.C. § 2991b-3;

45 C.F.R. § 1336.33(a)(1)(iii)

Administration for Native Americans’ 

Improvement of the Capability of Tribal 

Governing Bodies to Regulate 

Environmental Qualityh

42 U.S.C. § 2991b(d);

45 C.F.R. § 1336.33(a)(4)(ii)


Appendix V: Statutes and Regulations That 

Explicitly Include State-Recognized Tribes or 

Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations

Page 52 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Agency and program Legal citation

Staterecognized 

tribesa

Tribes on 

state 

reservations

Tribes located on, or 

in proximity to, a 

state reservation or 

rancheriab

Administration for Native Americans’ 

Mitigation of Environmental Impacts to 

Indian Lands Due to Department of Defense 

Activitiesh

Pub. L. No. 103-139, § 8094A 

(1993);

45 C.F.R. § 1336.33(a)(3)(ii)



Grants for state and community programs 

on aging

42 U.S.C. §§ 3002(27), 

3021(a)(2)(C) 



Older Individuals’ Protection from Violence 

Projects Grants Program

42 U.S.C. §§ 3002(27), 

3002(54), 3032b



Community Innovations for Aging in Place 

Grant Programs

42 U.S.C. §§ 3002(27), 

3002(54), 3032k(a)(1)(A)



Native American Organization and Elder 

Justice Program

42 U.S.C. §§ 3002(27), 

3002(54), 3058aa



Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 42 U.S.C. § 8623(d)(1);

45 C.F.R. § 96.48(b)



Community Services Block Grant Program 42 U.S.C. § 9911 

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Indian Housing Block Formula Grants 25 U.S.C. §§ 4103(13), 4111 i

Title VI Loan Guarantee Program 25 U.S.C. §§ 4103(13), 4191(a) i

Department of Labor

Native American Employment and Training 29 U.S.C. § 2911(b)(2);

20 C.F.R. 668.200(c), (d);

65 Fed. Reg. 49294, 49373 

(Aug. 11, 2000)

j

Older American Community Service 

Employment Program

42 U.S.C. §§ 3056(b), 3002(27) 

Total 17 8 6 

Sources: GAO and agency legal research.

Note: This table includes federal programs with explicit statutory or regulatory authority to fund staterecognized 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. 
Appendix V: Statutes and Regulations That 

Explicitly Include State-Recognized Tribes or 

Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations

Page 53 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

g

Categories of eligible organizations also include incorporated non-federally recognized tribes. 

h

Categories of eligible organizations also include incorporated non-federally recognized and staterecognized tribes. 

i

To be eligible, a state-recognized tribe must also have had a contract with the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development under the Housing Act of 1937 before October 26, 1996, and received 

funding under that contract between October 26, 1991, and October 26, 1996. 

j

Although the regulations do not identify state-recognized tribes as specifically eligible for designation 

based solely upon such status, the regulations establish the status of state-recognized tribal grantees 

under the repealed Job Training and Partnership Act as “Indian-controlled organizations in order to 

continue the eligibility of individuals who were eligible under that act as a result of being members of 

state-recognized tribes.” 

In addition to the statutes and regulations included in table 9, other 

statutes and regulations also explicitly include state-recognized tribes. 

For example:

• State-recognized tribes are eligible to participate in the Small 

Business Administration’s section 8(a) business development 

program. This program is one of the federal government’s primary 

means for developing small businesses owned by socially and 

economically disadvantaged individuals.

• The Indian Arts and Crafts Act, as amended, authorizes Indian groups 

that have been formally recognized as Indian tribes by a state 

legislature or by a state commission or similar organization 

legislatively vested with state tribal recognition authority to bring 

lawsuits against persons who offer for sale or sell a good in a manner 

that falsely suggests it is Indian produced. Under the act, it is unlawful 

to offer or display for sale or to sell any good in a manner that falsely 

suggests it is Indian produced, an Indian product, or the product of a 

particular Indian or Indian tribe or Indian arts and crafts organization 

resident in the United States. Under the act and its implementing 

regulations, an Indian is an individual who is a member of an Indian 

tribe—a federally or state-recognized tribe—or who is certified by an 

Indian tribe as a non-member Indian artisan.

• Regulations implementing the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act authorize museums and federal agencies to transfer 

control of culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains in 

their possession or control to non-federally recognized Indian tribes 

under certain circumstances.
Appendix V: Statutes and Regulations That 

Explicitly Include State-Recognized Tribes or 

Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations

Page 54 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Additionally, Agriculture’s Rural Housing Preservation Grants program 

and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Indian 

Community Development Block Grant Program have explicit statutory or 

regulatory authority to fund certain non-federally recognized tribes.2

Specifically, eligible grant recipients under this statute and regulation 

include any Indian tribe which had been eligible under the State and Local 

Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972.3 The act, which was repealed in 1986, 

established a trust fund in the U.S. Treasury for a revenue-sharing 

program among federal, state, and local governments, which included 

Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages having a recognized governing 

body which performs substantial governmental functions. The act did not 

define Indian tribe, but the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA), in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, developed a 

list of tribes and villages eligible to participate in the revenue-sharing 

program.4

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 

BIA officials were not able to locate a copy of this list.

 

2

In addition, two other programs—HUD’s Rural Housing and Economic Development 

program and the Department of Labor’s Youthbuild program—previously had explicit 

statutory or regulatory authority to fund eligible recipients under the State and Local Fiscal 

Assistance Act of 1972. From fiscal year 1999 through 2002, HUD’s definition of Indian 

tribe for the purposes of its Rural Housing and Economic Development program included 

eligible recipients under the act. Until 2006, when the authorizing statute was amended, 

the applicable statutory definition of Indian tribe for the YouthBuild program also included 

eligible recipients under the act.

3

Pub. L. No. 92-512 (1972), amended by Pub. L. No. 94-488 (1976); Pub. L. No. 96-604 

(1980); and Pub. L. No. 98-185 (1983), repealed by Pub. L. No. 99-272, tit. XIV, 

§ 14001(a)(1), 100 Stat. 82, 327 (1986).

4

GAO, Changes Needed in Revenue Sharing Act for Indian Tribes and Alaskan Native 

Villages, GAO/GGD-76-64 (Washington, D.C.: May 27, 1976). According to our May 1976 

report, BIA area offices used Bureau of the Census criteria to define a government with 

substantial governmental functions. The criteria were that the government (1) be 

organized, and possess some type of corporate powers; (2) have governmental character, 

indicated by officers that are popularly elected or appointed by public officials; and 

(3) possess substantial autonomy, such as the power to raise a portion of its revenue from 

resources it controls and to administer its activities independently of external 

administrative controls.
Appendix V: Statutes and Regulations That 

Explicitly Include State-Recognized Tribes or 

Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations

Page 55 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

became federally recognized.5

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.

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.

 

5

The six state-recognized but not federally recognized tribes that received revenuesharing 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.
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Education

Page 56 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Education
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department

of Education

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

of Education

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

of Education

Page 59 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 60 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

Appendix VII: Comments from the 

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

of Health and Human Services

Page 61 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services 

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

Acknowledgments

Page 63 GAO-12-348 Non-Federally Recognized Tribes 

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

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.

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(361298)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (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 www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.