Indian Issues: Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
Published: 2012-04-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

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

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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.
You asked us to report on federal funding for non-federally recognized  tribes. Accordingly, this report addresses (1) the key means by which  non-federally recognized tribes have been eligible for federal funding and  (2) the amount of federal funding awarded to non-federally recognized  tribes for fiscal years 2007 through 2010, by agency and program. In  addition, this report provides information about some cases we identified  during our work concerning non-federally recognized tribes’ eligibility for  funding and compliance with federal financial reporting requirements.
To address these objectives, we first compiled a list of approximately  400 non-federally recognized tribes in the contiguous 48 states from a  variety of information sources, such as data collected by the Department  of the Interior (Interior), and information provided to us by officials from  selected states.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.
We identified, from sources including information  To determine which non-federally recognized tribes had received funding  and identify the programs that had provided funding to them for fiscal  years 2007 through 2010, we searched publicly available funding data at  USAspending.gov and reviewed agency-provided data. For each  program we identified as having awarded funding to non-federally  recognized tribes for this period, we reviewed the authorizing statutes,  program regulations, and eligibility requirements to identify the key means  by which non-federally recognized tribes would have been eligible for  federal funding from these programs. In addition, we collected information  about the organizational and legal status of each entity and compared this  information with program eligibility requirements. For example, we  determined which of these non-federally recognized tribes are also  organized as nonprofit organizations. When a non-federally recognized  tribe was eligible to receive federal funding from a program through  several means, we did not attempt to single out the means by which the  tribe qualified for the funding it received. We limited the scope of our  review to federal funding awarded directly to non-federally recognized  tribes and excluded federal funding provided through loans or  procurement contracts.
From the information we obtained from USAspending.gov and from the  federal agencies, we compiled the total amount of federal funding  awarded to non-federally recognized tribes for fiscal years 2007 through  2010, by agency and program. We assessed the reliability of this  information by, for example, testing for missing data and outliers and  comparing USAspending.gov data against agency information and  financial reports filed by selected non-federally recognized tribes. Where  we identified inconsistencies in these data, we worked with  knowledgeable agency officials to update the data set. After taking these  steps, we concluded that the updated data set was reliable for the  purpose of estimating the amount of funding awarded by federal agencies  to non-federally recognized tribes for fiscal years 2007 through 2010.
During our review, as we were comparing programs’ eligibility  requirements with the characteristics of the non-federally recognized  tribes that received federal funding, we identified some instances where  federal agencies had made grants to likely ineligible non-federally  recognized tribes and where an agency had initiated actions to enforce  federal financial reporting requirements. This report provides information  on the three cases we identified as part of this analysis. Appendix I  describes our scope and methodology in more detail.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 through April 2012,  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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. Federal Indian policy—which has undergone significant  changes since the end of the colonial era—has influenced how the  federal government has recognized and currently recognizes tribes:
Treaty, reservations, and removal era. During this period, the federal  government entered into treaties with Indian tribes to, for example,  establish peace, fix land boundaries, and establish reservations. For  some federally recognized Indian tribes, treaties provided the basis for  subsequent actions that established their recognition.
Assimilation era. The Act of February 8, 1887, commonly referred to  as the General Allotment Act or the Dawes Act, was a comprehensive  congressional attempt to change the role of Indians in American  society by encouraging assimilation through individual land  ownership. Under this policy, tribes surrendered tribally owned land  for individual allotments of land and, in some cases, surplus land was  sold to white settlers. As a result of this policy, the total amount of  tribal land in the United States was reduced by about 90 million acres.
Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. In the 1930s and 1940s, federal  Indian policies generally reflected a shift away from assimilation  policies toward increased tolerance and respect for traditional aspects  of Indian culture. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 encouraged  economic development, self-determination, cultural pluralism, and the   Specifically, the act permitted tribes to adopt  revival of tribalism. constitutions and organize into federally recognized Indian tribes,  including tribes without a common linguistic, cultural, or political  heritage that lived together on one reservation.
Act of June 18, 1934, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984 (1934) (known as the Indian Reorganization  Act or Wheeler-Howard Act).
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.
In 1977, the American Indian Policy Review Commission reported that  “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.” The commission identified 133 non-federally recognized tribes. At that  time, no administrative process was in place for these non-federally  recognized tribes to seek federal recognition. In 1978, Interior established  an administrative acknowledgment process by which Indian groups could  submit a petition to seek federal recognition.
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. 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.
GAO, Indian Issues: Improvements Needed in Tribal Recognition Process, GAO-02-49  (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2, 2001). making it the 566th federally recognized Indian tribe. Non-federally  recognized tribes can generally seek federal recognition through Interior’s  administrative acknowledgment process or through other means, such as  congressional action. For example, the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina— which was the subject of legislation but not federally recognized in  1956—petitioned Interior for recognition and has also sought recognition  through legislation. As of April 29, 2011, 17 entities had been granted  federal recognition through Interior’s administrative acknowledgment  process, and 32 had been denied. 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.
subsections: section_title: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
paragraphs: 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.
Twelve state governments officially recognize one or more non-federally  recognized tribes within their borders, according to state officials we  spoke with. Each state government determines which groups in the state,  if any, should be recognized. Some of these 12 states—such as North  Carolina and South Carolina—have formalized their procedures for  recognizing tribes, while other states—such as Massachusetts—have not.  For example, North Carolina’s Commission of Indian Affairs and South  Carolina’s Commission for Minority Affairs have promulgated regulations  outlining the process for entities seeking recognition in those states.  Furthermore, some states have established state reservations that are  not also federal Indian reservations. No federal agency maintains a list of  state-recognized tribes and their reservations, but the U.S. Census  Bureau collected information about state-recognized tribes as part of its  effort to designate American Indian Areas for the Decennial Census of  2010. The U.S. Census Bureau considers an Indian tribe to be state  recognized if it is specifically recognized by a state government through  treaty (with, for example, 1 of the original 13 colonial assemblies), state  legislation, or other formal process. (See app. III for a list of state- recognized tribes that are not federally recognized and more detailed  information about how we compiled this list.)
In some instances, representatives of state governments have  acknowledged the existence of a tribe or its members in the state, but the  state has not officially recognized the tribe. Forms of acknowledgment  may include a governor’s proclamation or legislative resolution. For  example, in March 2009 the Texas Senate and House of Representatives  each adopted a simple resolution (voted on only by the house in which it  was introduced and not sent to the Governor to sign) to commend and  recognize the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas. The resolution stated that the  tribe is the present-day incarnation of the clans, bands, and divisions  historically known as the Lipan Apaches, who have lived in Texas and  Northern Mexico for 300 years. According to Texas officials, such simple  resolutions do not go beyond the bounds and the authority of the house  that acts on it and do not officially establish any group as a state- recognized tribe. In another example, the California Native American  Heritage Commission maintains a list of organized tribal governments in  that state—including both federally recognized Indian tribes and non- federally recognized tribes. Despite acknowledging these organized tribal  governments and requiring cities and counties to consult with them under  certain circumstances, California does not have a process for officially  recognizing non-federally recognized tribes, according to a state official  we spoke with.
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.
section_title: The Single Audit Act’s Financial Reporting Requirements
paragraphs: 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. 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. OMB Circular No.  A-133 sets forth standards for obtaining consistency and uniformity  among federal agencies for the audit of nonfederal entities expending  federal awards. Audits of nonfederal entities’ financial statements and  schedule of expenditures of federal awards must be conducted by an  independent auditor in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. The report on the audit provides information about the  nonfederal entity, its federal programs, and the results of the audit.
Audits are to be completed and the requisite report submitted within the  earlier of 30 days after receipt of the auditor’s report or 9 months after the  end of the audit period. The federal agency that provides an award directly  to the recipient (known as the federal awarding agency) is generally  responsible for ensuring that audits for the federal awards it makes are  completed and reports are received in a timely manner and in accordance  with OMB Circular No. A-133. In cases of continued inability or  unwillingness to have an audit conducted, OMB Circular No. A-133 directs  federal agencies to take appropriate actions using sanctions such as: withholding a percentage of federal awards until the audit is withholding or disallowing overhead costs,  suspending federal awards until the audit is conducted, or  terminating the federal award.
section_title: Most Non-Federally Recognized Tribes That Received Federal Funding Were Eligible as Nonprofit Organizations or State-Recognized Tribes
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: For Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010, 26 Non- Federally Recognized Tribes Received Federal Funding
paragraphs: 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). 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.  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.)
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.
section_title: For Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010, 24 Federal Programs Provided Funding to Non-Federally Recognized Tribes
paragraphs: We identified 24 federal programs that provided funding to the 26 non- federally recognized tribes for fiscal years 2007 through 2010.  Specifically, of the 24 programs we identified, 11 programs were  authorized to fund nonprofits, 6 had explicit statutory or regulatory  authority to fund state-recognized tribes, 1 had authority to fund tribes  located on state reservations, and 1 was authorized to fund state- recognized tribes on state reservations. See table 2 for information on the  24 programs, including their assigned number from the Catalog of  Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). This catalog is administered by the  General Services Administration, and it provides information on federal  domestic assistance programs, including grant programs. (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.
Examples of the 24 federal programs that awarded funding to non- federally recognized tribes in the 4-year period and that are authorized to  fund nonprofit organizations that meet all applicable eligibility  requirements include the following:  the Rural Business Enterprise Grants program, administered by the  Department of Agriculture, which has statutory authority to fund public  bodies, including Indian tribes on state reservations, and private  nonprofit corporations for measures designed to finance and facilitate  development of small and emerging private business enterprises,  among other measures;  the Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals program,  administered by the Department of Health and Human Services  (HHS), which has statutory authority to enter into agreements with  nonprofits for the purpose of conducting projects that provide  technical and financial assistance to private employers that assist  them in creating jobs for low-income individuals; and  the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program, administered by the  Corporation for National and Community Service, which has statutory  authority to make grants to or contract with nonprofits to support  programs for certain volunteer service projects for senior citizens.
Six of the 24 programs were not authorized to fund either nonprofits or  state-recognized tribes, but non-federally recognized tribes received  funding under these programs for other reasons. For example, the  Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Economic  Development Initiative-Special Project program awarded funding to the  Shinnecock Indian Nation as a result of congressional direction in a  committee report accompanying an appropriations act before the tribe  was federally recognized. In another example, the Environmental  Protection Agency awards environmental justice grants pursuant to  research and development provisions in various statutes, such as the  Clean Water Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and some of these  statutes authorize broad categories of recipients, such as institutions and  organizations. In addition, the Department of Education’s (Education)  Small, Rural School Achievement Program can provide grants to entities  as local education agencies, and the Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe of North  Carolina received a grant because it is so organized.
The other three programs that were not authorized to provide funding to  nonprofits or state-recognized tribes were authorized to provide funding to  the following types of entities:
Under the Department of Commerce’s Remote Community Alert  Systems Program, eligible grant recipients include “tribal  communities” that meet certain requirements.Indiana received funding through this program.
The Eel River Tribe of
The Indian Community Development Block Grant Program is  authorized to fund Indian tribes that were eligible recipients under the  State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. As explained in  appendix V, we identified at least six non-federally recognized tribes  that have received funding under the act, as well as five federally  recognized Indian tribes that received funding before the effective  date of their federal recognition.
The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund can provide  technical assistance grants for activities that enhance the capacity of  a community development financial institution, which is an entity that  meets the following five criteria: (1) has a primary mission of  promoting community development; (2) serves an investment area or  targeted population; (3) provides development services in conjunction  with equity investments or loans, directly or through a subsidiary or  affiliate; (4) maintains, through representation on its governing board  or otherwise, accountability to residents of its investment area or  targeted population; and (5) is not an agency or instrumentality of the  United States, any state, or political subdivision of a state. The  Lumbee Revitalization and Community Development Corporation,  which was established by the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina to  foster economic development, received funding through this program.
Some non-federally recognized tribes may have been eligible for some of  the federal funding they received through several means. For example, a  non-federally recognized tribe that was organized as a nonprofit and was  also state recognized may have been eligible to apply for some funding  as either a nonprofit or a state-recognized tribe. In these cases, we did  not attempt to determine the basis on which the funding was awarded.
section_title: Federal Programs Awarded More Than $100 Million in Funding to Non- Federally Recognized Tribes for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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.
section_title: Agencies Have Funded Some Likely Ineligible Non- Federally Recognized Tribes, and One Agency Is in the Process of Enforcing Single Audit Act Requirements
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Under Its American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program, Education Funded Non- Federally Recognized Tribes That Appear to Have Been Ineligible
paragraphs: “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.”
Education told us that under its long-standing interpretation of this   “reservation” includes not only the four categories enumerated  definition, 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. 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.”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   Applied here, this rule means that to satisfy the statutory  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. 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.
section_title: HHS Funded Two Ineligible Non-Federally Recognized Tribes in New Jersey
paragraphs: The state-recognition status of some non-federally recognized tribes in  New Jersey has been called into question. 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. Concurrent resolutions are not signed by the Governor and  therefore do not have the force of law. In addition, these tribes are  referred to in a few state statutes, including the statute establishing the  New Jersey Commission on Native American Affairs. Since at least  December 2001, however, the state of New Jersey has officially taken the  position in correspondence with the Department of the Interior that these  actions do not constitute official state recognition and therefore these  tribes are not considered to be state recognized. In addition, in 2002, New  Jersey law was amended to require specific statutory authorization for the  recognition of the authenticity of any group as an American Indian tribe.  No state laws contain specific statutory authorization for state recognition  of any Indian tribe in New Jersey.
Notwithstanding this history, the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New  Jersey and the Powhatan Renape Nation continue to consider themselves,  and have represented themselves to HHS, as state-recognized tribes in  applying for funding awarded by the Community Services Block Grant  program and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program, respectively,  during the 4-year period of our review. These programs, however, are  authorized to fund only states and federally and state-recognized Indian  tribes. The Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape’s application repeatedly stated that it was state recognized and included the concurrent resolution from the  1980s as evidence of state recognition. Agency officials told us they did not  take any additional steps to verify that the entity was in fact state  recognized; they also said they have had regular contact with state officials  about the awards, and those state officials never told them that the tribe  was not state recognized. On the basis of this statement in the grant  application, the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey received  two grants totaling $44,405 from the Community Services Block Grant  Program—one in fiscal year 2007 and one in fiscal year 2010.
Regarding the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program, the  Powhatan Renape Nation presented itself as state recognized in a letter  submitted with its grant application. Agency officials stated that the entity’s  state-recognition status would have been verified when it started receiving  program funding about 30 years ago. During the 4-year period of our  review, the Powhatan Renape Nation received $200,342 from the Low- Income Home Energy Assistance program in fiscal year 2007.
section_title: HHS Has Taken Some Initial Steps in Response to the Accohannock Indian Tribe’s Noncompliance with the Single Audit Act
paragraphs: The Accohannock Indian Tribe, one of the non-federally recognized tribes  that we identified as receiving federal funds during the period of our  review, did not have an audit or submit a report for 2009 as required by  the Single Audit Act. According to HHS data, the Accohannock Indian  Tribe reported spending over $1 million in federal funds for calendar year  2009 from three different HHS programs—Community Services Block  Grant Program Discretionary Awards, Job Opportunities for Low-Income  Individuals, and Administration for Native Americans’ Social and  Economic Development Strategies Program. The entity’s expenditure of  federal funds in 2009 was more than twice the threshold that triggers the  Single Audit Act’s requirements. Unless an exception applied, the entity’s  audit report would have been due 9 months after the end of the entity’s  fiscal year, at the latest. Since the entity’s fiscal year ends on December  31, its audit report would have been due by September 30, 2010, at the  latest. As of February 7, 2012, the Accohannock Indian Tribe had not  submitted its required audit report for 2009 to the Federal Audit  Clearinghouse, which maintains the Single Audit Database.
HHS is the federal awarding agency responsible for ensuring the entity’s  compliance with the act because it is the only agency that awarded the  Accohannock Indian Tribe federal funds in 2009. The entity’s  noncompliance with the Single Audit Act was flagged, and the agency  sent a letter of inquiry to the Accohannock Indian Tribe on March 8, 2011.  According to agency officials, they did not receive a response to their  letter. More recently, after we began inquiring about the issue, the agency  sent the entity an Audit Deficiency Notice via certified mail on February 7,  2012. According to agency officials, because the Accohannock Indian  Tribe is not a current grantee, the agency has limited enforcement  options. Nevertheless, agency officials stated they plan to continue to  pursue their administrative options to encourage the Accohannock Indian  Tribe to meet its federal financial reporting obligations.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making the following three recommendations.
To ensure that grants under the American Indian Vocational  Rehabilitation Services Program are made consistent with applicable law,  we recommend that the Secretary of Education review the department’s  practices with respect to eligibility requirements and take appropriate  action with respect to grants made to tribes that do not have federal or  state reservations.
To ensure the proper award and oversight of grants by the Department of  Health and Human Services, we recommend that the Secretary of Health  and Human Services take the following two actions.
Investigate whether the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New  Jersey and the Powhatan Renape Nation met the statutory eligibility  requirements for the grants they were awarded and take appropriate  action as necessary. In doing so, the agency should consult with the  state of New Jersey to determine whether the state has officially or  formally recognized the tribes and treats them as state recognized.
Continue to pursue the Accohannock Indian Tribe’s noncompliance  with the Single Audit Act and take appropriate action as necessary.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a copy of our draft report to the Departments of Agriculture,  Education, Energy, the Interior, Labor, and HHS. In its written response,  reprinted in appendix VI, Education stated its commitment to review its  practices for determining eligibility for the American Indian Vocational  Rehabilitation Services Program and taking appropriate action, if helpful,  such as clarifying its interpretation. In addition, Education requested that  we change the phase “appropriate corrective action” in the  recommendation to simply “appropriate action.” We made that change to  the recommendation. Education’s commitment to review its practices and  take appropriate action is consistent with our revised recommendation.
While agreeing to review its practices, Education disagreed with our  finding (which was the basis for the recommendation) that state- recognized tribes without state reservations, but with self-defined tribal  service areas, are likely ineligible for the American Indian Vocational  Rehabilitation Services grant program. Education stated that its  interpretation of the term “reservation” was reasonable and that we  should defer to its interpretation. However, for the reasons detailed in the  report, we continue to have substantial questions about whether  Education reasonably interpreted the statutory definition of “reservation”  for the American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services grant program  to include tribal service areas. We note that Education’s interpretation  effectively rewrites the statute to allow tribes to unilaterally self-define a  reservation and then apply for a grant. That reading appears to go  beyond Congress’s intent and language.
In addition, Education states that its interpretation is supported by the  1998 amendments to the statute, which (1) authorized American Indian  Vocational Rehabilitation Service Program grantees to serve American  Indians with disabilities living near reservations as well as those living on  reservations, and (2) required states and American Indian Vocational  Rehabilitation Service Program grantees to enter into cooperative  agreements that, among other things, include procedures for ensuring  that American Indians with disabilities living near a reservation or tribal  service area are provided vocational rehabilitation services. However,  expanding the universe of Indians eligible to receive vocational  rehabilitation services to those living “near” a reservation does not alter  what qualifies as a “reservation.” Moreover, Congress’s use of both  “reservation” and “tribal service area” undercuts Education’s interpretation  because it suggests Congress did not believe a tribal service area is  simply a type of reservation.
HHS agreed with the two recommendations involving its activities and  stated that it will seek to clarify with the state of New Jersey the status of  the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey and the Powhatan  Renape Nation. HHS also stated that it will continue to address issues  related to compliance with the Single Audit Act related to the  Accohannock Indian Tribe. (See app. VII for HHS’s written comments.)  The Departments of Agriculture, Education, the Interior, and HHS also  provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as  appropriate. The Departments of Energy and Labor had no comments.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  Secretaries of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human  Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, and Labor;  appropriate congressional committees; and other interested parties. The  report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This review’s objectives were to address (1) the key means by which non- federally recognized tribes have been eligible for federal funding and  (2) the amount of federal funding awarded to non-federally recognized  tribes for fiscal years 2007 through 2010, by agency and program. In  addition, this report provides information about some cases we identified  during our work concerning non-federally recognized tribes’ eligibility for  funding and compliance with federal financial reporting requirements.
Because no comprehensive list of non-federally recognized tribes exists,  we first compiled a list of about 400 such tribes in the contiguous  48 states. To compile this list we relied on information from (1) the  Department of the Interior, and obtained a list of all those entities that  have submitted a letter of intent to petition for federal recognition through  the department’s administrative acknowledgment process or have  submitted a complete petition but had not received federal recognition as  of April 29, 2011; (2) selected states about state-recognized tribes; and  (3) other documents and sources that identified other self-identified tribes  that are not federally recognized.
For this review, we compiled a list of states with state-recognized tribes  that are not federally recognized. We compiled this list by gathering  information from a variety of sources, including information gathered by  Interior’s Indian Arts and Crafts Board on state-recognized tribes in all  50 states and information collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. On the  basis of this information, we identified 15 states that were most likely to  have state-recognized tribes, and we reached out to state officials in each  of these states. On the basis of our discussions with officials in these  states, we confirmed that 12 of the 15 states had state-recognized tribes.  In addition, state officials in the other 33 states had at one time told  Interior’s Indian Arts and Crafts Board that their states had no state- recognized tribes that were not also federally recognized. As part of our  contact with these 15 states, in addition to inquiring about any state- recognized tribes, we also asked about whether they were aware of any  other non-federally recognized tribes within their borders. For the other  33 states, we relied largely on information provided by these states to  Interior’s Indian Arts and Crafts Board. According to this information,  these states had identified no state-recognized tribes within their borders.  We spot-checked this information by contacting 20 states for which we  were able to identify a state official who could respond to our questions,  and 9 of these states responded to our inquiry and confirmed that they did  not have any state-recognized tribes.
To address both objectives of this review, we obtained and reviewed  statutes and agency documents; searched databases such as  USAspending.gov and the Single Audit Database; analyzed agency- provided data; and met with officials of various federal agencies, including  all six agencies with programs that have explicit statutory or regulatory  authority to fund certain non-federally recognized tribes, such as state- recognized tribes that are not also federally recognized. These agencies  are the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and  Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor. In  addition, we traveled to North Carolina and Virginia to meet with state  officials, representatives of Native American organizations, and officials  from several non-federally recognized tribes located in those states. We  selected North Carolina because it had the highest concentration of non- federally recognized tribes that we identified as having received funding  during the 4-year period (7 out of 26), including three of the top four  recipients of federal funds during the period. We included Virginia  because of its proximity to Washington, D.C., and because tribes in the  state have received federal funding in the past.
To identify which non-federally recognized tribes had received federal  funding during the period 2007 through 2010 and which programs had  provided this funding, we searched publicly available funding data from  USAspending.gov and agency-provided data. USAspending.gov, a  publicly accessible website containing data on federal awards, was  launched in December 2007 to comply with the requirements of the  Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Under  that act, federal agencies are required to report information about all  federal awards of $25,000 or more. As a result of these searches, we  determined that 26 of the about 400 non-federally recognized tribes that  we had identified had received federal funding in the 4-year period from  24 federal programs.
To determine by which means non-federally recognized tribes were  eligible to receive federal funding, we reviewed the authorizing statutes,  program regulations, and eligibility requirements for all 24 programs that  had awarded funding to the 26 non-federally recognized tribes during  fiscal years 2007 through 2010. In addition, we collected information  about the organization and legal status of the 26 non-federally recognized  tribes. For example, we searched Internal Revenue Service data to  identify which of the receiving entities were organized as nonprofits at any  time during the 4-year period. We then analyzed how each entity could  have qualified for the funding it received, by comparing the organizational  and legal status of the recipient with the statutory and regulatory authority  of the awarding program. When a non-federally recognized tribe was  eligible to receive federal funding from a program through several means,  we did not attempt to single out which means qualified the tribe for the  funding received. In those instances where we could not identify any  means by which a non-federally recognized tribe was eligible for funding  received, we contacted agency officials to determine how the entity had  qualified. For example, we contacted two agencies to determine how non- state-recognized tribes in New Jersey qualified for funding from programs  that are authorized to fund state-recognized tribes but not to fund other  non-federally recognized tribes.
For each non-federally recognized tribe we identified, we searched  USAspending.gov and agency-provided data on relevant identifying  information, including tribal names provided by Interior for petitioners and  by state officials for state-recognized tribes and other non-federally  recognized tribes in their states. Where possible, we used available  information such as tribal names and addresses to identify each entity’s  Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number—a nine-digit number  assigned by Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., to identify each physical location for  businesses. Entities such as non-federally recognized tribes may have  multiple DUNS numbers, and we took steps to identify all relevant DUNS  numbers by, for example, searching Dun & Bradstreet’s records for  additional DUNS numbers associated with a particular entity, such as a  previous DUNS number where applicable. We then searched  USAspending.gov and agency-provided data on tribal names and DUNS  numbers to compile an updated data set on federal funding awarded by  federal agencies in the 4-year period to the non-federally recognized  tribes we identified.
To determine the amount of federal funding awarded for fiscal years 2007  through 2010 to non-federally recognized tribes, we used the information  that we obtained from USAspending.gov and agency-provided data. We  supplemented USAspending.gov data with agency-provided data from  (1) all seven programs that we identified as each having awarded a total  of more than $1.5 million in funding to non-federally recognized tribes in  the 4-year period and (2) some additional programs administered by  these agencies. Some programs awarded funding appropriated through  the annual appropriation process as well as funding appropriated by the  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Although the Catalog  of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) may assign unique numbers to  track these two funding sources, we did not consider the funding as  coming from separate programs for the purposes of tallying the number of  programs that awarded funding to non-federally recognized tribes.
We took a number of steps to assess the reliability of these data. For  example, we compared USAspending.gov against information in single  audit reports filed by those non-federally recognized tribes that filed these  reports for one or more of the fiscal years included in this review. We also  tested the data for missing data and outliers, interviewed agency officials  from all seven programs that awarded more than $1.5 million to non- federally recognized tribes in the 4-year period to discuss how they collect  and maintain these data, and contacted knowledgeable agency officials to  resolve any inconsistencies in these data sources. For example, by  reviewing single audits completed by the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina,  we identified an award that was not listed in USAspending.gov; we  contacted agency officials to confirm the amounts awarded by fiscal year  and program and to determine why the award was not listed. An agency  official stated that the award was not listed in USAspending.gov because  it was below the reporting threshold required by the Federal Funding  Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. On the basis of information  provided by the agency, we were able to include the award in our updated  data set. After taking these steps, we concluded that the updated data set  was reliable for the purpose of estimating the amount of federal funding  awarded by federal agencies to non-federally recognized tribes for fiscal  years 2007 through 2010. After collecting this information, we compared  the characteristics of each non-federally recognized tribe with applicable  program eligibility requirements, and we checked for compliance with the  financial reporting requirement in the Single Audit Act, as amended. As a  result, we identified some instances where federal agencies had made  grants to likely ineligible non-federally recognized tribes and where an  agency had initiated actions to enforce federal financial reporting  requirements.
We excluded awards received by non-federally recognized tribes as  subawards from other entities, including states, because neither  USAspending.gov nor the federal agencies maintain reliable information on  subawards. We also excluded loans, procurement contracts, and tax  expenditures and did not make any effort to determine the amount of  funding received directly by individual members of non-federally recognized  tribes through, for example, scholarships awarded by federal agencies.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 through April 2012,  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Tribes Whose Recognition Was Terminated
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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. Nonetheless, we identified  nine tribes in California whose recognition was terminated and not  restored and therefore are non-federally recognized tribes (see table 6).
section_title: Appendix III: State-Recognized Tribes
paragraphs: 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.
We cross-checked the information we received from state officials with  information included in (1) a 2008 law review article, (2) the 2010  Census, and (3) correspondence between the states and Interior’s Indian  Arts and Crafts Board. Trying to reconcile differences among these  sources highlighted the difficulties inherent in trying to develop a  comprehensive list of state-recognized tribes. For example, questions  were raised about the legal status of legislative resolutions that are not  signed by a state’s governor and the significance of other types of  designations, such as “historic” or “acknowledged” tribes.
Nonetheless, except for some recent events that have occurred since the  2008 law review article was written and the 2010 Census information was  compiled, and a couple of other notable exceptions, the information that  we present in table 7 generally matches these other sources. The notable  exceptions include the following:
We did not include any entities from New Jersey in table 7. New  Jersey does not have any state-recognized tribes, according to New  Jersey officials whom we spoke with, as well as correspondence  between New Jersey officials and Interior’s Indian Arts and Crafts  Board. The 2008 law review article counted three potentially state- recognized tribes in New Jersey, and the 2010 Census data counted  two state-recognized tribes.
We did not include any entities from California and Ohio in table 7.
The officials whom we spoke with from those states indicated that  their states had not established processes for officially recognizing  tribes. The 2010 Census data and the correspondence with Interior’s  Indian Arts and Crafts Board also confirmed that those states have no  state-recognized tribes. On the basis of legislative resolutions in  California and Ohio that were not signed by the states’ governors, the  2008 law review article counted two state-recognized tribes in  California and one state-recognized tribe in Ohio.
We included six entities for Massachusetts in table 7 on the basis of  the designation provided by a state official. The official also stated that  Massachusetts does not have an established formal process for  granting state recognition and that these entities are acknowledged by  Massachusetts as historic tribes. The 2008 law review article included  the same entities as state-recognized tribes, while the 2010 Census  counted only one entity in Massachusetts as state recognized. In  correspondence with Interior’s Indian Arts and Crafts Board, dated  November 16, 2000, the state provided a list of the historic tribes but  also stated “here are no officially state recognized tribes.”
Some of the state-recognized tribes listed in table 7—such as the  Mattaponi Tribe and the Pamunkey Indian Tribe—were recognized by  colonial governments and considered state recognized since the  beginning of statehood, while others became state recognized more  recently, according to state officials we spoke with. For example, the two  state-recognized tribes in Vermont were recognized in 2011, according to  an official in that state. In some instances, state governments  acknowledged a group long before officially designating it as a state- recognized tribe. Furthermore, some state governments have procedures  for recognizing tribes today. As a result, the number of state-recognized  tribes may increase, according to state officials we spoke with.
According to some state officials and state websites, their states officially  recognize certain Indian entities, but these entities are not considered  tribes. For example, South Carolina recognizes “Native American Indian  groups,” which the state defines as a number of individuals assembled  together, which have different characteristics, interests, and behaviors  that do not denote a separate ethnic and cultural heritage today, as they  once did. That state also recognizes Native American Special Interest  Organizations, which promote Native American culture and address  socioeconomic deprivation among people of Indian origin, such as the  Little Horse Creek American Indian Cultural Center. In another example,  the state of North Carolina recognizes four Indian organizations, each of  which represents Indian communities in one or more counties.
section_title: Appendix IV: Non-Federally Recognized Tribes That Received Federal Funding before Fiscal Year 2007
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix V: Statutes and Regulations That Explicitly Include State-Recognized Tribes or Tribes on or in Proximity to State Reservations
paragraphs: This appendix provides information on various statutory and regulatory  provisions that authorize federal programs to provide federal funding for  non-federally recognized tribes. 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.
In addition to the statutes and regulations included in table 9, other  statutes and regulations also explicitly include state-recognized tribes.  For example:
State-recognized tribes are eligible to participate in the Small  Business Administration’s section 8(a) business development  program. This program is one of the federal government’s primary  means for developing small businesses owned by socially and  economically disadvantaged individuals.
The Indian Arts and Crafts Act, as amended, authorizes Indian groups  that have been formally recognized as Indian tribes by a state  legislature or by a state commission or similar organization  legislatively vested with state tribal recognition authority to bring  lawsuits against persons who offer for sale or sell a good in a manner  that falsely suggests it is Indian produced. Under the act, it is unlawful  to offer or display for sale or to sell any good in a manner that falsely  suggests it is Indian produced, an Indian product, or the product of a  particular Indian or Indian tribe or Indian arts and crafts organization  resident in the United States. Under the act and its implementing  regulations, an Indian is an individual who is a member of an Indian  tribe—a federally or state-recognized tribe—or who is certified by an  Indian tribe as a non-member Indian artisan.
Regulations implementing the Native American Graves Protection and  Repatriation Act authorize museums and federal agencies to transfer  control of culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains in  their possession or control to non-federally recognized Indian tribes  under certain circumstances.
Additionally, Agriculture’s Rural Housing Preservation Grants program  and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Indian  Community Development Block Grant Program have explicit statutory or  regulatory authority to fund certain non-federally recognized tribes.  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. 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. BIA officials were not able to locate a copy of this list.
We identified six non-federally recognized tribes—all of which were state  recognized—that received revenue-sharing payments and five federally  recognized tribes that received revenue-sharing payments before they  became federally recognized.tribes are eligible recipients of Rural Housing Preservation Grants  program funding and Indian Community Development Block Grant  Program funding.
Therefore, at least six state-recognized  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.
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.