Historically, the U.S. government has granted federal recognition through treaties, congressional acts, or administrative decisions within the executive branch—principally by the Department of the Interior. In a 1977 report to the Congress, the American Indian Policy Review Commission criticized the department’s tribal recognition policy. Specifically, the report stated that the department’s criteria to assess whether a group should be recognized as a tribe were not clear and concluded that a large part of the department’s policy depended on which official responded to the group’s inquiries. Nevertheless, until the 1960s, the limited number of requests for federal recognition gave the department the flexibility to assess a group’s status on a case-by-case basis without formal guidelines. However, in response to an increase in the number of requests for federal recognition, the department determined that it needed a uniform and objective approach to evaluate these requests. In 1978, it established a regulatory process for recognizing tribes whose relationship with the United States had either lapsed or never been established— although tribes may seek recognition through other avenues, such as legislation or Department of the Interior administrative decisions unconnected to the regulatory process. In addition, not all tribes are eligible for the regulatory process. For example, tribes whose political relationship with the United States has been terminated by Congress, or tribes whose members are officially part of an already recognized tribe, are ineligible to be recognized through the regulatory process and must seek recognition through other avenues. The regulations lay out seven criteria that a group must meet before it can become a federally recognized tribe. Essentially, these criteria require the petitioner to show that it is descended from a historic tribe and is a distinct community that has continuously existed as a political entity since a time when the federal government broadly acknowledged a political relationship with all Indian tribes. The following are the seven criteria for recognition under the regulatory process: (a) The petitioner has been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900, (b) A predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises a distinct community and has existed as a community from historical times until the present, (c) The petitioner has maintained political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the present, (d) The group must provide a copy of its present governing documents and membership criteria, (e) The petitioner’s membership consists of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or tribes, which combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity, (f) The membership of the petitioning group is composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North American Indian tribe, and (g) Neither the petitioner nor its members are the subject of congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbidden recognition. The burden of proof is on petitioners to provide documentation to satisfy the seven criteria. A technical staff within BIA, consisting of historians, anthropologists, and genealogists, reviews the submitted documentation and makes its recommendations on a proposed finding either for or against recognition. Staff recommendations are subject to review by the department’s Office of the Solicitor and senior BIA officials. The Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs makes the final decision regarding the proposed finding, which is then published in the Federal Register and a period of public comment, document submission, and response is allowed. The technical staff reviews the comments, documentation, and responses and makes recommendations on a final determination that are subject to the same levels of review as a proposed finding. The process culminates in a final determination by the Assistant Secretary, who, depending on the nature of further evidence submitted, may or may not rule the same was as was ruled for the proposed finding. Petitioners and others may file requests for reconsideration with the Interior Board of Indian Appeals. While we found general agreement on the seven criteria that groups must meet to be granted recognition, there is great potential for disagreement when the question before BIA is whether the level of available evidence is high enough to demonstrate that a petitioner meets the criteria. The need for clearer guidance on criteria and evidence used in recognition decisions became evident in a number of recent cases when the previous Assistant Secretary approved either proposed or final decisions to recognize tribes when the technical staff had recommended against recognition. Most recently, the current Assistant Secretary has reversed a decision made by the previous Assistant Secretary. Much of the current controversy surrounding the regulatory process stems from these cases. At the heart of the uncertainties are different positions on what a petitioner must present to support two key aspects of the criteria. In particular, there are differences over (1) what is needed to demonstrate continuous existence and (2) what proportion of members of the petitioning group must demonstrate descent from a historic tribe. Concerns over what constitutes continuous existence have centered on the allowable gap in time during which there is limited or no evidence that a petitioner has met one or more of the criteria. In one case, the technical staff recommended that a petitioner not be recognized because there was a 70-year period for which there was no evidence that the petitioner satisfied the criteria for continuous existence as a distinct community exhibiting political authority. The technical staff concluded that a 70-year evidentiary gap was too long to support a finding of continuous existence. The staff based its conclusion on precedent established through previous decisions in which the absence of evidence for shorter periods of time had served as grounds for finding that petitioners did not meet these criteria. However, in this case, the previous Assistant Secretary determined that the gap was not critical and issued a proposed finding to recognize the petitioner, concluding that continuous existence could be presumed despite the lack of specific evidence for a 70-year period. The regulations state that lack of evidence is cause for denial but note that historical situations and inherent limitations in the availability of evidence must be considered. The regulations specifically decline to define a permissible interval during which a group could be presumed to have continued to exist if the group could demonstrate its existence before and after the interval. They further state that establishing a specific interval would be inappropriate because the significance of the interval must be considered in light of the character of the group, its history, and the nature of the available evidence. Finally, the regulations note that experience has shown that historical evidence of tribal existence is often not available in clear, unambiguous packets relating to particular points in time Controversy and uncertainty also surround the proportion of a petitioner’s membership that must demonstrate that it meets the criterion of descent from a historic Indian tribe. In one case, the technical staff recommended that a petitioner not be recognized because the petitioner could only demonstrate that 48 percent of its members were descendants. The technical staff concluded that finding that the petitioner had satisfied this criterion would have been a departure from precedent established through previous decisions in which petitioners found to meet this criterion had demonstrated a higher percentage of membership descent from a historic tribe. However, in the proposed finding, the Assistant Secretary found that the petitioner satisfied the criterion. The Assistant Secretary told us that although this decision was not consistent with previous decisions by other Assistant Secretaries, he believed the decision to be fair because the standard used for previous decisions was unfairly high. Again, the regulations intentionally left open key aspects of the criteria to interpretation. In this case they avoid establishing a specific percentage of members required to demonstrate descent because the significance of the percentage varies with the history and nature of the petitioner and the particular reasons why a portion of the membership may not meet the requirements of the criterion. The regulations state only that a petitioner’s membership must consist of individuals who descend from historic tribes—no minimum percentage or quantifying term such as “most” or “some” is used. The only additional direction is found in 1997 guidelines, which note that petitioners need not demonstrate that 100 percent of their membership satisfies the criterion In updating its regulations in 1994, the department grappled with both these issues and ultimately determined that key aspects of the criteria should be left open to interpretation to accommodate the unique characteristics of individual petitions. Leaving key aspects open to interpretation increases the risk that the criteria may be applied inconsistently to different petitioners. To mitigate this risk, BIA uses precedents established in past decisions to provide guidance in interpreting key aspects of the criteria. However, the regulations and accompanying guidelines are silent regarding the role of precedent in making decisions or the circumstances that may cause deviation from precedent. Thus, petitioners, third parties, and future decisionmakers, who may want to consider precedents in past decisions, have difficulty understanding the basis for some decisions. Ultimately, BIA and the Assistant Secretary will still have to make difficult decisions about petitions when it is unclear whether a precedent applies or even exists. Because these circumstances require judgment on the part of the decisionmaker, public confidence in BIA and the Assistant Secretary as key decisionmakers is extremely important. A lack of clear and transparent explanations for their decisions could cast doubt on the objectivity of the decisionmakers, making it difficult for parties on all sides to understand and accept decisions, regardless of the merit or direction of the decisions reached. Accordingly, in our November 2001 report, we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior direct BIA to provide a clearer understanding of the basis used in recognition decisions by developing and using transparent guidelines that help interpret key aspects of the criteria and supporting evidence used in federal recognition decisions. In commenting on a draft of this report, the department generally agreed with this recommendation. To implement the recommendation, the department pledged to formulate a strategic action plan by May 2002. To date, this plan is still in draft form. Officials told us that they anticipate completing the plan soon. In conclusion, BIA’s recognition process was never intended to be the only way groups could receive federal recognition. Nevertheless, it was intended to provide the Department of the Interior with an objective and uniform approach by establishing specific criteria and a process for evaluating groups seeking federal recognition. It is also the only avenue to federal recognition that has established criteria and a public process for determining whether groups meet the criteria. However, weaknesses in the process have created uncertainty about the basis for recognition decisions, calling into question the objectivity of the process.