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. 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. 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.