(See app. In 1999, tribes collected about $10 billion in gambling revenue. Federal recognition is not necessarily an eligibility requirement for these programs. Process Ill Equipped to Provide Timely Response

Because of limited resources, a lack of time frames, and ineffective procedures for providing information to interested third parties, the length of time involved in reaching final decisions is substantial. The number of BIA staff assigned to evaluate petitions peaked in 1993 at 17. While resources have not kept pace with workload, the process also lacks effective procedures for addressing the workload in a timely manner. The process lacks any real timelines that impose a sense of urgency on the process. However, weaknesses in the process create uncertainty about the basis for recognition decisions, and the amount of time it takes to make those decisions impede the process from fulfilling its promise as a uniform approach to tribal recognition. There are 556 tribes on the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) most recent list of recognized tribes published in March 2000. Tribal governments had been severely weakened by earlier federal Indian policy. There has been a general increase in the number of petitions received per year since the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, which regulates Indian gambling, as shown in figure 2.
What GAO Found

The Indian gambling industry has flourished since the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988. Nearly 200 tribes generated about $10 billion in annual revenues in 1999 from their gambling operations. Because of weaknesses in the federal recognition process, the basis for tribal recognition decisions by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is not always clear and the length of time involved can be substantial. Despite an increasing workload, the number of BIA staff assigned to evaluate the petitions has fallen by about 35 percent since 1993. Just as important, the process lacks effective procedures for promptly addressing the increased workload. In particular, the process does not impose effective deadlines that create a sense of urgency, and procedures for providing information to interested third parties are ineffective. GAO summarized this report in testimony before Congress; see: Indian Issues: More Consistent and Timely Tribal Recognition Process Needed, by Barry T. Hill, Director for Natural Resources and Environment, before the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, House Committee on Government Reform. GAO-01-415T , Feb. 7 (nine pages).