Report (2021-10-29)

Summary

A U.S. Government Accountability Office report to congressional committees, GAO-22-104349, dated October 29, 2021, on how the Departments of the Interior and the Treasury administered CARES Act funds for tribes. The report describes a $453 million Operation of Indian Programs appropriation that Interior distributed through existing programs and an $8 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund Tribal Set-Aside that Treasury distributed through a new program in two tranches. It finds that tribes took fewer steps to access Interior's funds, that Treasury faced greater challenges and delays, and that selected tribes said Treasury used certain allocation data without consulting them. GAO makes two recommendations, including that Treasury update its tribal consultation policy, and states that Treasury agreed. Appendixes include Treasury's comments.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

October 2021

COVID-19
Lessons Learned from
Interior and Treasury’s
Administration of
CARES Act Funds
Could Improve
Federal Emergency
Relief to Tribes

GAO-22-104349


October 2021

COVID-19

Highlights of GAO-22-104349, a report to
congressional committees.

Lessons Learned from Interior and Treasury’s
Administration of CARES Act Funds Could Improve
Federal Emergency Relief to Tribes

Why GAO Did This Study

What GAO Found

GAO has previously found that COVID19 disproportionately harmed the
public health and economies of tribal
nations in the U.S. In March 2020, the
CARES Act appropriated over $9
billion for federal programs for tribes
and their members—this amount
included $8 billion for Treasury’s CRF
Tribal Set-Aside and $453 million for
Interior’s OIP (CARES Act funds).

The Department of the Interior distributed the CARES Act Operation of Indian
Programs (OIP) appropriation through existing programs while the Department of
the Treasury had to set up a new program to distribute the Coronavirus Relief
Fund (CRF) Tribal Government Set-Aside. This resulted in tribes taking fewer
steps to access and use Interior’s OIP appropriation than Treasury’s program.

The CARES Act includes a provision
for GAO to report on its ongoing
monitoring and oversight efforts related
to the COVID-19 pandemic. This report
is part of that body of work. It examines
(1) approaches Interior and Treasury
took to distribute CARES Act funds to
tribes and steps necessary for tribes to
access and use these funds, and (2)
challenges the agencies and selected
tribes faced and lessons learned that
could improve future federal
emergency relief to tribes.
To do this work, GAO reviewed agency
documents and interviewed federal
agency officials, representatives of
three tribal organizations and two
academic research centers—selected
for their work related to CARES Act
funds—and officials from seven
selected tribes that accessed CARES
Act funds from the agencies.

What GAO Recommends
GAO is making two recommendations,
including that Treasury update its tribal
consultation policy to include direction
to consult tribes on data the agency is
considering for use in decisions that
have tribal implications. The
Department of the Treasury agreed
with GAO’s recommendations.
View GAO-22-104349. For more information,
contact Anna Maria Ortiz at (202) 512-3841 or
ortiza@gao.gov.

•

•

Interior. The CARES Act required that Interior make at least $400 million of
the OIP appropriation available to meet the direct needs of tribes. Interior
disbursed these funds through two existing programs based on tribal
enrollment. As a result, tribes needed to take few administrative steps to
access and use funds.
Treasury. The CARES Act created the CRF as a new program. The CRF
appropriation included an $8 billion Tribal Set-Aside. Treasury did not have a
preexisting allocation methodology or mechanisms for disbursing this funding
to tribes, so it had to develop them before it could make payments. Treasury
distributed the CRF Tribal Set-Aside in two tranches, using multiple allocation
methodologies. Treasury asked tribes to take several administrative steps to
access and use CRF payments. For example, tribes had to submit two
rounds of data to receive both tranches of CRF payments.

Agencies and selected tribes faced various challenges regarding the CARES Act
OIP appropriation and CRF Tribal Set-Aside. Treasury faced greater challenges
than Interior, and was delayed distributing CRF payments to tribes. For example:
•
•

•

Treasury officials said the work needed to develop distribution formulas
consistent with the CARES Act contributed to delays in CRF disbursements
to tribes.
Selected tribes told GAO that Treasury used certain data in one of its
allocation methodologies without consulting with tribes about the data and
their limitations. Such consultation could have allowed the agency to make
changes or address tribes’ concerns prior to making payments using the
data. Consequently, certain tribes did not receive emergency relief in a timely
manner to address pandemic needs.
Selected tribal organizations, academic researchers, and tribes said that
adjusting to Treasury’s changing guidance on allowable uses of funds further
delayed tribes’ implementation of projects and increased their administrative
burden.

Treasury has applied some lessons learned to its administration of a subsequent
relief program established by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. For
example, Treasury improved its communication to tribes on allowable use of
funds. However, Treasury has not formalized other lessons learned into its tribal
consultation policy. Specifically, Treasury’s tribal consultation policy does not call
for the agency to consult with tribes on data it is considering using to make policy
decisions with tribal implications. Until Treasury updates its policy, it risks using
data without a meaningful dialogue with tribes about any limitations of the data.
This deprives Treasury of information that tribes could provide about how to
address data limitations and may increase the risk that programs might not be as
effective at meeting tribes’ needs in a timely manner.
United States Government Accountability Office


Contents

Letter

1
Background
Tribes Had to Take Fewer Steps to Access and Use CARES Act
Funds under Interior’s Distribution Approach than Treasury’s
Agencies and Tribes Faced Various Challenges Regarding
CARES Act Funds, but Lessons Learned Could Improve Future
Federal Emergency Relief to Tribes
Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments

5
11
30
46
47
47

Appendix I

Comments from the Department of the Treasury

50

Appendix II

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

51

Figures
Figure 1: Timeline for Department of the Interior’s CARES Act
Operation of Indian Programs Appropriation and
Department of the Treasury’s Coronavirus Relief Fund
Figure 2: Timeline of Department of the Interior’s Administration of
CARES Act Operation of Indian Programs Appropriation
Figure 3: Timeline of Department of the Treasury’s Administration
of the Coronavirus Relief Fund Tribal Set-Aside
Figure 4: Timeline of Coronavirus Relief Fund Tribal Set-Aside
Deadlines and Guidance Materials

Page i

10
17
25
37

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


Abbreviations
ANCs
AI/AN
ARP Act
BIA
CRF
CSFRF
FAQ
HUD
IHBG
NAFOA
OIG
OMB
OIP

Alaska Native regional and village corporations
American Indian or Alaska Native
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Coronavirus Relief Fund
Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund
Frequently Asked Questions
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Indian Housing Block Grant
Native American Finance Officers Association
Office of Inspector General
Office of Management and Budget
Operation of Indian Programs

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Page ii

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


Letter

441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548

October 29, 2021
Congressional Committees
In the United States, the COVID-19 pandemic caused catastrophic loss of
life and substantial damage to the economy, disproportionately harming
the public health and economies of tribal nations. In December 2020, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that American
Indian and Alaska Native populations had higher rates of COVID-19
cases and associated deaths compared with the non-Hispanic White
population. 1 In addition, many tribal governments faced severe revenue
shortfalls because tribal enterprises in the hospitality and energy sectors
were adversely affected by the pandemic. Tribal governments often
depend heavily on revenue from tribal enterprises in these sectors to
support health care, public safety, and other essential services for their
members.
To address the national public health and economic threats posed by
COVID-19, the CARES Act appropriated $2 trillion in March 2020, at least
$9 billion of which was for federal programs that serve Indian tribes and
their members. 2 This $9 billion included an $8 billion appropriation for the
Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) Tribal Government Set-Aside, 3
administered by the Department of the Treasury. The CRF Tribal SetAside was to be disbursed to tribal governments, which could use it to
offset costs related to either the pandemic’s direct effects (e.g., public

1Arrazola, J., M.M. Masiello, S. Joshi, et al., “COVID-19 Mortality among American Indian

and Alaska Native Persons – 14 States, January-June 2020,” Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report, vol. 69, no. 49 (Dec. 11, 2020).

2We reported on these appropriations in June 2020; see GAO, Covid-19: Opportunities to
Improve Federal Response and Recovery Efforts, GAO-20-625 (Washington, D.C.: June
25, 2020). For purposes of this report, the term “tribes” refers to Indian tribes that have
been recognized by the government of the United States. As of September 2021, there
were 574 such tribes.
3In this report, we refer to the CRF Tribal Government Set-Aside as the CRF Tribal SetAside.

Page 1

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


health needs) or its indirect effects (e.g., harm to individuals or
businesses as a result of COVID-19 pandemic-related closures). 4
The $9 billion also included a $453 million appropriation for the
Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for Operation of
Indian Programs (OIP)—an existing appropriation account that funds
many BIA activities. 5 Interior’s OIP appropriation was to prevent, prepare
for, and respond to COVID-19; not less than $400 million of this
appropriation was to be made available to meet the direct needs of
tribes. 6
The CARES Act provides for oversight of CRF funds and the broader
federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the CARES
Act requires Treasury’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) to conduct
monitoring and oversight of the receipt, disbursement, and uses of CRF
payments. 7 The CARES Act also includes a provision for GAO to conduct
monitoring and oversight of the use of funds made available to prepare
for, respond to, and recover from the pandemic. 8 In addition, the Chair
and Ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs
and Federal Management asked us to review the federal government’s
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including federal efforts for tribal
governments.
4The CRF received a total appropriation of $150 billion. The CARES Act required

Treasury to disburse the CRF to states, local governments, tribal governments, the District
of Columbia, and U.S. territories. Of the $150 billion, $8 billion was set aside for tribal
governments and $3 billion was set aside for the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.
Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 5001, 134 Stat. 281, 501-504 (2020) (codified as amended at 42
U.S.C. § 801).

5The remaining amount of the approximately $9 billion was appropriated for various

programs. See the Assistance for Tribal Entities enclosure in GAO-20-625.

6Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. at 546.
7Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 5001, 134 Stat. at 503-504. Treasury’s OIG was also given

authority to recoup funds in the event that the Inspector General determines a recipient of
a CRF payment failed to comply with the Uses of Funds requirements of subsection
601(d) of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 801(d)).

8Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 19010, 134 Stat. at 579-81. We regularly issue government-wide

reports on the federal response to COVID-19. For example, see GAO, COVID-19:
Continued Attention Needed to Enhance Federal Preparedness, Response, Service
Delivery, and Program Integrity, GAO-21-551 (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2021). Our next
government-wide report was issued October 27, 2021, and is available on GAO’s website
at https://www.gao.gov/coronavirus.

Page 2

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


This is our second report addressing Interior and Treasury’s
disbursement of CARES Act funds to tribes. 9 In June 2020, we reported
that Treasury completed CRF payments to tribes 7 weeks after the
statutory deadline to do so. 10 We also reported that challenges we
identified in our past work on other issues that affect tribes, such as
challenges related to tribal consultation and infrastructure in tribal
communities, could impede the federal government’s ability to effectively
support tribes’ COVID-19 response. 11
This report examines (1) approaches that Interior and Treasury took to
distribute CARES Act funds to tribes and the steps necessary for tribes to
access and use these funds, and (2) challenges that agencies and
selected tribes faced regarding these funds, and lessons learned that
could improve future federal emergency relief to tribes. 12
To examine the approaches Interior and Treasury took to distribute
CARES Act funds to tribes, we reviewed the CARES Act to identify
statutory requirements for CARES Act funds. We also reviewed agency
guidance and other documents that describe the agencies’ processes for
distributing CARES Act funds. We then analyzed agency data on the
distribution of these funds. We assessed the reliability of these data by (1)
reviewing the data for obvious errors and anomalies, (2) reviewing related
documentation, and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about
the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of confirming when the agencies issued OIP and CRF Tribal
Set-Aside payments. We also interviewed Interior and Treasury officials
about their administration of CARES Act funds, and interviewed Treasury
OIG officials about their oversight of the CRF.

9We first reported on these agencies’ disbursement of CARES Act funds to tribes in June

2020. See GAO-20-625. In this second report, we refer to the CARES Act OIP
appropriation and the CRF Tribal Set-Aside together as CARES Act funds.

10GAO-20-625.
11GAO, Tribal Consultation: Additional Federal Actions Needed for Infrastructure Projects,
GAO-19-22 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 20, 2019); Drinking Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Agency Needs Assessment and
Coordination on Tribal Projects, GAO-18-309 (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2018); Tribal
Broadband: FCC Should Undertake Efforts to Better Promote Tribal Access to Spectrum,
GAO-19-75 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2018).
12This report does not examine how tribes used the CARES Act funds they received.

Page 3

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


To obtain information on the steps necessary for tribes to access and use
CARES Act funds, we reviewed agency guidance and other documents
for accessing, using, and reporting on CARES Act funds. We also
interviewed officials from Interior, Treasury, and Treasury OIG, as well as
representatives from three relevant tribal stakeholder organizations and
two academic research centers. 13 We selected the tribal stakeholder
organizations because they were active in assisting tribes with navigating
the CARES Act funding and reporting process, and we selected the
academic research centers because they conducted research on the
CARES Act funds that we examine in this work. To learn about different
experiences tribes had accessing and using CARES Act funds, we
interviewed officials from a nongeneralizable sample of seven tribes that
received CARES Act funds. 14 We selected these tribes because they
served different-sized member populations across different geographic
locations and were willing to meet with us. The findings from our
interviews with selected tribal stakeholder organizations and tribes cannot
be generalized to tribes we did not select and interview, but can provide
examples that illustrate selected tribes’ experiences with CARES Act
funds.
To examine challenges agencies and tribes faced regarding CARES Act
funds for tribes, we interviewed officials from Interior, Treasury, and
Treasury OIG; representatives from the three selected tribal stakeholder
organizations and two academic research centers; and officials from our
sample of seven selected tribes about challenges they faced with CARES
Act funds. We conducted a content analysis of interview statements to
identify any themes or commonly cited challenges among those we
interviewed.
To identify lessons learned to improve future federal emergency relief to
tribes, we reviewed our prior work and relevant reports from Interior and
Treasury’s Offices of Inspector General, as well as documents from the
13We interviewed representatives from the following tribal stakeholder organizations: the
National Congress of American Indians, Native American Finance Officers Association,
and the Self-Governance Communication and Education Tribal Consortium. We also met
with representatives from these academic research centers: the Harvard Project on
American Indian Economic Development and the Native Nations Institute for Leadership,
Management, and Policy.
14We interviewed officials from the following tribes: Cherokee Nation; Citizen Potawatomi
Nation, Oklahoma; Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa
Indians, Michigan; Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes; Turtle Mountain Band
of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc.

Page 4

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


selected tribal stakeholder organizations and academic research centers.
We then interviewed officials from Interior, Treasury, and Treasury OIG;
representatives from selected tribal stakeholder organizations and
academic research centers; and officials from our sample of seven
selected tribes about aspects of the agencies’ implementation that went
well and areas for improvement. We compared the findings from our
analysis and interviews with agency documents and policies, CARES Act
requirements, and federal standards for internal controls for information
and communication and risk assessment. 15
We conducted this performance audit from May 2020 to October 2021 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.

Background
Federal Program Delivery
to Tribes

Through treaties, statutes, and historical relations with tribes, the United
States has undertaken a unique trust responsibility to protect and support
tribes and their members. 16 Federal law requires federal agencies to
provide a variety of services and benefits to tribes and their members.
Federal programs and services for tribes may be delivered directly to the
tribe by the federal government (direct service), or tribes may choose to
administer certain federal programs under a self-determination contract or

15GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014).

16Through treaties, statutes, and historical relations with Indian tribes, the United States
has undertaken a unique trust responsibility to protect and support Indian tribes and
Indians. Indian Trust Asset Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 114-178, § 101(3), 130 Stat. 432
(2016) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 5601(3)). The fiduciary responsibilities of the United States
to Indians are also founded in part on specific commitments made through written treaties
and agreements securing peace, in exchange for which Indians have surrendered claims
to vast tracts of land, which provided legal consideration for permanent, ongoing
performance of federal trust duties. Id. at § 101(4).

Page 5

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


self-governance compact. 17 Each tribe decides whether, and to what
extent, to pursue self-determination contracts or self-governance
compacts. As of March 2020, 569 of 574 tribes had a self-determination
contract or self-governance compact to take over the administration of
one or more federal programs from Interior, according to Interior officials.
BIA and other components of Interior have various responsibilities related
to self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts. BIA is
responsible for negotiating and approving each self-determination
contract and its associated annual funding agreement, and for making
disbursements to the tribes. Interior’s Office of Self-Governance is
responsible for administrating self-governance compacts. BIA and the
Office of Self-Governance are overseen by Interior’s Office of the
Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs, which is responsible for policy for
Interior programs that serve tribes and their members.
Tribes generally maintain their own information on their membership,
expenditures, and other characteristics. However, in certain instances,
some federal agencies maintain centralized data for specific purposes.
For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
maintains data it uses to administer the Indian Housing Block Grant
(IHBG) program. The IHBG data contain three types of population data:
(1) U.S. Census data on the number of people who identify as American
Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN), a racial classification; (2) tribal
enrollment data; and (3) BIA’s total resident service area (service area)
population data. HUD uses these data to calculate the number of people
who identify as AI/AN and live within the tribe’s assigned formula area for
the IHBG program (formula area population). 18 Tribes that do not
participate in the program do not have a formula area population. To help
ensure HUD’s data are accurate for the purposes of the IHBG program,
17Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, as

amended, federally recognized tribes can enter into self-determination contracts and selfgovernance compacts with Interior to take over administration of certain federal programs
previously administered on their behalf. Pub. L. No. 93-638, 88 Stat. 2203 (codified as
amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 5301-5423). Self-determination contracts allow tribes to assume
responsibility for managing the program’s day-to-day operations, with BIA providing
technical oversight to ensure the tribe meets contract terms. Self-governance compacts
transfer administration of the program to tribes and provide the tribes with some flexibility
in program administration.

18HUD assigns formula areas to tribes but tribes can request that HUD expand or redefine
their formula area if the tribes are providing substantial housing services elsewhere. See
24 C.F.R. § 1000.302.

Page 6

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


tribes may challenge certain data HUD uses to make allocations for the
program. 19
To strengthen the United States’ government-to-government relationship
with tribes, Executive Order 13175 calls for federal agencies to have an
accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by tribal
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal
implications. 20 A subsequent 2009 presidential Memorandum on Tribal
Consultation directed agency heads to submit to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), after consultation with tribes, detailed
plans of actions that agencies would take to implement the policies and
directives of Executive Order 13175. 21 According to two White House
reports, many agencies developed or updated tribal consultation policies
as a result of the 2009 memorandum. 22 Interior and Treasury both have
tribal consultation policies. A January 26, 2021 presidential Memorandum
on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships
directed every executive department and agency to develop a detailed
plan of actions to implement the policies and directives of Executive
Order 13175, after consulting with tribal nations and tribal officials. 23
Interior and Treasury each hosted tribal leader consultations on the
agency’s consultation policies, and both agencies submitted detailed
plans to OMB in April 2021.

19On an annual basis, tribes may challenge certain data—including U.S. census and tribal
enrollment data—that are used in the IHBG formula. 24 C.F.R. § 1000.336(a). Tribes have
until March 30 of each year to submit challenges to certain data in consideration for the
upcoming fiscal year.
20Exec. Order No. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,

§ 5(a), 65 Fed. Reg. 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000). Policies that have tribal implications refers to
regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or
actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. Id. at § 1(a).

21Executive Office of the President, Presidential Memorandum on Tribal Consultation,
2009 Daily Comp. Pres. Docs. 887 (Nov. 5, 2009).
22Executive Office of the President, 2016 White House Tribal Nations Conference
Progress Report, A Renewed Era of Federal-Tribal Relations (Washington, D.C.: January
2017), and 2015 White House Tribal Nations Conference Progress Report, Building
Prosperous & Resilient Tribal Nations (Washington, D.C.: August 2016).
23Executive Office of the President, Memorandum, Tribal Consultation and Strengthening
Nation-to-Nation Relationships, 86 Fed. Reg. 7491 (Jan. 29, 2021).

Page 7

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


COVID-19 Impacts on
Tribes and Federal Relief

As we have reported, tribes have faced long-standing infrastructure
challenges, such as limited access to safe drinking water and wastewater
disposal, overcrowded and substandard homes, and limited access to
broadband internet service. 24 These infrastructure challenges contribute
to health disparities for AI/AN individuals compared with other
Americans—disparities that have been exacerbated by the COVID-19
pandemic. For example, we reported in March 2021 that AI/AN individuals
were hospitalized because of COVID-19 at a rate 3.6 times that of nonHispanic white individuals. 25 We also reported that limited access to
broadband on tribal lands has negatively impacted access to telehealth,
remote education for students, economic opportunities, and tribal
government operations. 26
Further, the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected tribes
because of its impact on tribal government finances. Tribal governments
typically do not have access to traditional tax bases, which means that
tribes must overwhelmingly rely upon their enterprise profits, earned
through their ownership of businesses, as their primary form of
governmental finance. 27 Many of these businesses are in the leisure and
hospitality sector—one of the sectors hardest hit by pandemic-related
restrictions.
In June 2020, we reported on CARES Act appropriations for federal
programs that serve tribes and their members. 28 The largest
appropriations we identified were a $453 million appropriation to BIA for
24See, for example, GAO, Native American Housing: Additional Actions Needed to Better
Support Tribal Efforts, GAO-14-255 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 27, 2014); GAO-18-309; and
GAO-19-75. We made 25 recommendations in these reports. As of September 3, 2021,
agencies had implemented 10.
25GAO, COVID-19: Sustained Federal Action Is Crucial as Pandemic Enters Its Second

Year, GAO-21-387 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2021).

26GAO, Indian Education: Schools Need More Assistance to Provide Distance Learning,
GAO-21-492T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2021); GAO-20-625; and GAO-19-75.
27To meet the needs of their citizens beyond what can be addressed with transfers of
limited federal funds, state and local governments can levy traditional income, sales,
property, fuel, use, and other taxes. Income taxes are generally not sufficient for lowincome tribes, and property taxes are often not a viable option since reservation lands are
commonly owned by a tribe itself or held in trust by the federal government. Eric C.
Henson, Megan M. Hill, Miriam R. Jorgenson, and Joseph P. Kalt, Policy Brief 4:
Emerging Stronger than Before: Guidelines for the Federal Role in American Indian and
Alaska Native Tribes’ Recovery from the COVID‐19 Pandemic, Harvard Project on
American Indian Economic Development and Native Nations Institute (July 24, 2020).
28GAO-20-625.

Page 8

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


Operation of Indian Programs (OIP) and an $8 billion appropriation to
Treasury for the CRF Tribal Set-Aside, which we discuss in further detail
below.
•

BIA’s OIP appropriation. OIP is a preexisting appropriation account
that receives annual appropriations and funds many of BIA’s activities,
including Aid to Tribal Government and Welfare Assistance. Aid to
Tribal Government provides funds to tribes to support general tribal
government operations and programs. Welfare Assistance provides
funds to tribes or their members for adult care, emergency assistance,
and burial assistance, among other things, when no comparable
financial assistance or social services are available from other
governmental sources. The CARES Act required that not less than
$400 million of the $453 million the act appropriated for OIP be made
available to meet the direct needs of tribes. This appropriation was
available for obligation until the end of fiscal year 2021.

•

Treasury’s CRF Tribal Set-Aside. The CARES Act created the CRF
as a new program with states, the District of Columbia, territories, and
local and tribal governments as recipients. Treasury is responsible for
implementing the CRF program, including making disbursements to
eligible recipients and developing guidance about allowable uses of
funds. The CARES Act required the Secretary of the Treasury to
determine, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and tribes,
the amount each tribal government would receive from the CRF Tribal
Set-Aside based on tribal governments’ (including tribally owned
entities) increased expenditures relative to their aggregate
expenditures in fiscal year 2019 and in such a manner the Secretary
determines appropriate to ensure that all of the CRF Tribal Set-Aside
was distributed. 29 The CARES Act also required Treasury to disburse
the CRF no later than April 26, 2020—30 days after the CARES Act
was enacted.
The CARES Act required CRF recipients to use the funds to cover
only those costs that (1) are necessary expenditures incurred due to
the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) were not
accounted for in the budget that had been most recently approved as
of March 27, 2020; and (3) were incurred between March 1, 2020, and
December 30, 2020. However, on December 27, 2020, the

29In contrast, the CARES Act required Treasury to make CRF allocations to states, local
governments, the District of Columbia, and territories based on population, with a
minimum payment for states of $1.25 billion.

Page 9

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 amended the CARES Act to
extend the deadline for CRF recipients to incur costs by 1 year, to
December 31, 2021 (see fig. 1). 30
Figure 1: Timeline for Department of the Interior’s CARES Act Operation of Indian Programs Appropriation and Department of
the Treasury’s Coronavirus Relief Fund

The CARES Act requires Treasury’s OIG to conduct monitoring and
oversight of the receipt, disbursement, and use of the CRF. 31 If Treasury’s
OIG determines that a tribal government failed to comply with the
statutory restrictions on uses of the CRF, the CARES Act requires that
the amount of funds used in violation be considered a debt owed to the
federal government. 32
About a year after the CARES Act was enacted, the American Rescue
Plan Act of 2021 (ARP Act) appropriated $900 million for BIA for a variety
of purposes, such as tribal housing improvement, tribal government

30Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. N, tit. X, § 1001, 134 Stat. 1182, 2145 (2020).
31Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. at 503-504 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 801(f)(1)).
32Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. at 504 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 801(f)(2)).

Page 10

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


services, and public safety, among others. 33 The ARP Act also
appropriated $20 billion for the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund
(CSFRF) Tribal Government Set-Aside to mitigate the fiscal effects
stemming from the public health emergency with respect to COVID-19. 34
The ARP Act requires $1 billion of the Tribal Government Set-Aside to be
allocated equally among each tribal government and $19 billion to be
allocated as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury. Recipients can
use payments from the CSFRF only for costs incurred by December 31,
2024, for four specific purposes stemming from the fiscal effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic. 35

Tribes Had to Take
Fewer Steps to
Access and Use
CARES Act Funds
under Interior’s
Distribution Approach
than Treasury’s

33Pub. L. No. 117-2, § 11002, 135 Stat. 4, 241-242. Specifically, the ARP Act appropriated

$100 million for tribal housing improvement; $772.5 million for tribal government services,
public safety and justice, social services, child welfare assistance, and other related
expenses; $7.5 million for related federal administrative costs and oversight; and $20
million to provide and deliver potable water.

34Pub. L. No. 117-2, § 9901, 135 Stat. 4, 223-228 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 802). The ARP
Act appropriated $219.8 billion for the CSFRF to make payments to states, territories, the
District of Columbia, and tribal governments, and $50 million for Treasury’s costs of
administering the fund.
35Specifically, payments from the fund can be used only to (1) respond to the public health
emergency with respect to COVID-19 or its negative economic impacts; (2) provide
premium pay to eligible workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 public
health emergency; (3) provide government services to the extent of the reduction in
revenue of such government due to the COVID-19 public health emergency relative to
revenues collected in its most recent full fiscal year prior to the emergency; and (4) make
necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure. Id. at § 9901.

Page 11

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


Interior Distributed CARES
Act Funds through
Existing BIA Programs
Based on Tribal
Enrollment, and Most
Tribes Could Access the
Funds without Taking
Additional Steps

On April 13, 2020, Interior announced it would disburse $400 million of
the $453 million CARES Act OIP appropriation through two existing BIA
programs—$380 million through Aid to Tribal Government and $20 million
through Welfare Assistance. Interior announced this approach 17 days
after enactment of the CARES Act and began making payments to tribes
on the same day. According to Interior officials, Interior chose to distribute
the majority of the appropriation as Aid to Tribal Government because
such aid is a relatively flexible source of funding, and tribes could use it to
address their varied COVID-19 response needs. Interior also announced
it would hold an additional $20 million of the $453 million appropriation in
temporary reserve to address unexpected surges in need. 36
Tribal consultation. Interior officials we interviewed said they chose not
to consult with tribes about Interior’s administration of the CARES Act OIP
appropriation, primarily because they wished to expedite the payments
during the pandemic emergency. Interior officials further stated they were
concerned that tribal leaders might confuse the OIP appropriation with
Treasury’s CRF Tribal Set-Aside if Interior were to consult tribes about
the OIP appropriation. Interior officials led the joint tribal consultation with
Treasury for the CRF Tribal Set-Aside, and they told us they considered
tribal input from that consultation when determining how to allocate the
OIP appropriation. According to Interior officials, several tribes raised
concerns to Interior about its decision not to consult tribes about
allocation of the CARES Act OIP appropriation, but other tribes
appreciated how quickly Interior distributed payments from the
appropriation. Representatives from selected tribal stakeholder
organizations and officials from selected tribes we interviewed expressed
mixed sentiments about Interior’s decision; some had concerns that
Interior did not consult tribes to learn about their needs and preferences,
while others emphasized the need to disburse payments quickly.
Allocation methodologies. Interior officials told us the agency
assembled a team of senior officials to develop simple, equitable
allocation formulas that would allow Interior to quickly disburse payments
to tribes. The team of senior officials considered several factors on which
to base payments—including tribal enrollment, Tribal Priority Allocation

36Interior’s April 13, 2020, announcement stated BIA would direct the remaining $33

million towards needs related to facility deep cleaning, quarantine of inmates, overtime
costs, and IT investments to enhance telework capabilities and wifi connectivity.

Page 12

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


base funding, 37 tribal land base, and economic status—and ultimately
decided tribal enrollment was the most equitable and efficient factor
because all tribes have an enrolled membership. 38 According to Interior
officials, Interior used tribal enrollment data from HUD’s IHBG data. 39 In
the case of tribes that did not have enrollment data in HUD’s IHBG listing,
the BIA region serving those tribes provided the necessary enrollment
information. 40
Interior used the enrollment data to allocate the CARES Act OIP
appropriation in the following ways:
•

Interior allocated the $380 million for Aid to Tribal Government by
grouping tribes into 20 funding levels based on each tribe’s enrollment
numbers in the IHBG data. Tribes with the lowest enrollment received
a minimum payment of $61,000, and tribes with the highest
enrollment received a maximum payment of $4 million.

•

To allocate the $20 million in Welfare Assistance, Interior used
enrollment data to determine pro rata payments to tribes, with a
minimum payment of $1,000.

37Tribal Priority Allocation base funding is the amount of tribal priority allocation funds a
tribe is entitled to receive on an annual basis, according to Interior officials. The original
amounts of such funding are primarily based on a historical tribal shares process, and pro
rata increases are applied to the base funding levels when additional funds are
appropriated.
38Interior officials decided not to use the other factors considered to make allocations
because not all tribes receive Tribal Priority Allocation base funding, not all tribes have a
land base, and reliable data on economic status were not readily available, according to
Interior officials.
39The IHBG data contain three types of population data: (1) U.S. Census data on the
number of people who identify as AI/AN, a racial classification; (2) tribal enrollment data—
which Interior used to allocate the CARES Act OIP appropriation; and (3) BIA’s total
resident service area (service area) population data. HUD uses these data to calculate the
number of people who identify as AI/AN and live within the tribe’s assigned formula area
for IHBG (formula area population). Tribes that do not participate in IHBG do not have a
formula area population. The IHBG program includes an annual process for tribes to
challenge certain data used in the formula or appeal HUD formula determinations.
According to Interior officials, IHBG data were the only updated centralized source of tribal
enrollment data available at the time the CARES Act OIP funds were appropriated.
40According to Interior officials, some BIA regional offices had tribal enrollment data
readily available for tribes within their region, but those that did not contacted tribal
enrollment offices to obtain the data. Interior then verified the enrollment data by reviewing
the data for obvious errors (such as zero members) and conducted outreach to tribes as
needed.

Page 13

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


For the $20 million that Interior held in reserve for unexpected surges in
need, Interior officials decided by July 2020 that needs were great across
all of Indian country and used most of the reserve for payments to tribes.
Specifically, Interior equally distributed about $18 million among BIA’s 12
regional offices and directed these offices to work with the tribes in their
regions to determine how to allocate the reserve funds. The regions
varied in their allocation approaches, such as pro rata or equal payments
among the tribes in the region, and payments targeted to selected tribes
based on emergency need. Most of the remaining portion—about $1.7
million—was used to raise the minimum Aid to Tribal Government
payment to tribes from $61,000 to $100,000.
Steps for tribes to access relief. Under Interior’s approach to
distributing the CARES Act OIP appropriation, tribes that had a selfdetermination contract or self-governance compact that already included
Aid to Tribal Government and Welfare Assistance could receive these
funds without having to take additional steps. When Interior began
administering the CARES Act OIP appropriation, most tribes (553 of 574)
had such a self-determination contract or self-governance compact, and
21 did not, according to Interior officials. 41
Tribes that received disbursements through a self-determination contract
or self-governance compact could then choose to reprogram the funds
from Aid to Tribal Government and/or Welfare Assistance to another
Tribal Priority Allocation account, so long as the funds were used solely to
prepare for, prevent, and respond to COVID-19. 42 Tribes seeking to
reprogram OIP payments had to take additional administrative steps to
complete the process, which led to a delay of up to 2 days in accessing
the payment, according to Interior officials.
Twenty-one tribes had existing contracts or compacts that did not include
Aid to Tribal Government or Welfare Assistance and thus had two options
41If a tribe does not have a self-determination contract or self-governance compact that

includes Aid to Tribal Government or Welfare Assistance, BIA provides those programs’
services to the tribe or its members as a direct service.

42There are 25 Tribal Priority Allocation programs within eight categories: 1) Tribal
Government, 2) Human Services, 3) Trust – Natural Resources Management, 4) Trust –
Real Estate Services, 5) Public Safety and Justice, 6) Community and Economic
Development, 7) Executive Direction and Administrative Services, and 8) Bureau of Indian
Education. According to Interior officials, a tribe might choose to reprogram CARES Act
OIP payments if the tribe received a small payment for a program that the tribe did not
already operate and determined it would be more efficient to reprogram the funds to an
existing tribal program.

Page 14

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


for receiving disbursements from the CARES Act OIP appropriation,
according to Interior officials: (1) receive their allocation of the CARES Act
OIP appropriation as direct services from their BIA office or (2) modify or
amend their existing contract or compact to include Aid to Tribal
Government or Welfare Assistance to access their allocations of the
appropriation. Interior officials told us that of the 21 tribes, 10 chose to
receive their Welfare Assistance CARES Act OIP allocation as direct
services from their BIA office, and the remaining 11 chose to modify or
amend their existing contracts.
Tribes that amended or modified their existing contract or compact had to
pass a tribal resolution to adopt the new agreement and then submit
required paperwork to Interior before receiving payments from their
CARES Act OIP allocation. According to Interior officials, the length of
time it took for Interior to process the required paperwork ranged from 1
day to 4 months for some remote tribes in Alaska. Interior officials told us
they used administrative flexibilities, such as allowing electronic
signatures on documents, to speed up the process and adapt to the
reality that many tribal governments were shut down because of the
pandemic.
Appropriation availability, allowable uses, and reporting. The CARES
Act OIP appropriation was available for Interior to obligate until
September 30, 2021. For most tribes, Interior obligated the appropriation
by including a tribe’s allocation in a self-determination contract or selfgovernance compact. Once obligated in a contract or compact, the funds
are available to the tribe until expended and must be used to prevent,
prepare for, or respond to coronavirus. For direct service tribes, their
allocation was held at BIA regional offices and obligated when tribes
submitted claims for eligible costs incurred to prevent, prepare for, or
respond to coronavirus. Interior officials said they allocated a total of $417
million of the $453 million CARES Act OIP appropriation to tribes. 43 As of
July 20, 2021, Interior officials said they had obligated $415.3 million to
tribes and expended $403.8 million—$382.3 million expended through
Aid to Tribal Government and $21.5 million through Welfare Assistance.
In July 2020, Interior issued guidance through a Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ) document that stated its standard reporting
requirements for tribes with self-determination contracts and self43According to Interior documentation, the remaining funds were allocated for facility deep

cleaning, quarantine of inmates, overtime costs, and IT investments to enhance telework
capabilities and wifi connectivity.

Page 15

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


governance compacts also applied to CARES Act OIP disbursements
through those agreements. However, the agency provided waivers for
some Welfare Assistance regulatory reporting requirements. Interior
officials told us they also extended the deadline for tribal recipients for
which they had oversight to submit statutorily required audits, 44 in
accordance with OMB guidance. Interior directed tribes to identify
expenditures from the CARES Act OIP appropriation payments
separately in their standard reports, to illustrate the segregation of these
expenditures from expenditures of annual appropriation OIP payments.
Interior’s July 2020 FAQs also responded to specific questions from tribes
about allowable expenditures from the CARES Act OIP appropriation. 45
Figure 2 shows the timeline of Interior’s administration of the CARES Act
OIP appropriation, including Interior’s disbursement of funds and
guidance to tribes.

44Under the Single Audit Act, entities that receive federal financial assistance and expend
$750,000 or more in federal awards in a fiscal year are required to undergo a single audit,
which is an audit of the entity’s financial statements and federal awards, or a programspecific audit, for the fiscal year. 31 U.S.C. § 7502(a); 2 C.F.R. § 200.501. OMB issued
guidance that identified temporary exceptions to grant management requirements federal
agencies could make available to their grantees, as the agencies deemed appropriate and
to the extent permitted by law. Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum on
Administrative Relief for Recipients and Applicants of Federal Financial Assistance
Directly Impacted by the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) due to Loss of Operations, M-2017 (Mar. 19, 2020). The guidance said agencies with oversight for single audits should
allow recipients with fiscal year-ends through June 30, 2020, to have an additional 6
months to file their single audit submissions. Subsequent OMB guidance said agencies
with oversight for single audits should allow recipients with fiscal year-ends from July 31,
2020, through September 30, 2020, to have an additional 3 months to file their single
audit. For more information on federal agencies’ use of these exceptions, see GAO,
Grants Management: OMB Should Collect and Share Lessons Learned from Use of
COVID-19-Related Grant Flexibilities, GAO-21-318 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2021).
45As of August 2, 2021, the FAQs Interior issued in July 2020 were still in effect.

Page 16

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


Figure 2: Timeline of Department of the Interior’s Administration of CARES Act Operation of Indian Programs Appropriation

Treasury Distributed the
CRF Tribal Set-Aside
Using Multiple Allocation
Methodologies, and Tribes
Had to Submit Additional
Data to Access the Funds

The CARES Act required the Secretary of the Treasury to determine, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and tribes, the amount to be
paid from the CRF Tribal Set-Aside to each tribal government, based on
increased expenditures of tribal governments or tribally owned entities
relative to aggregate fiscal year 2019 expenditures and in such a manner
the Secretary determines appropriate to ensure that all of the CRF Tribal
Set-Aside was distributed. In contrast to Interior, Treasury did not have a
preexisting program structure or mechanisms for disbursing funds to
tribes. As a result, Treasury had to develop an allocation methodology
and disbursement mechanism before it could disburse any payments
from the CRF Tribal Set-Aside.
Tribal consultation. In early April 2020, Interior and Treasury conducted
two joint national tribal consultation sessions by phone to obtain input
from tribal leaders on the allocation methodology for the CRF Tribal SetAside. Treasury officials told us that Interior’s Office of the Assistant
Secretary – Indian Affairs was the lead on the consultation and that
Treasury had limited involvement in planning or preparing the
consultation agenda. According to Interior’s summary of the consultation,
the agencies received approximately 440 written comments from tribal
leaders covering a wide range of topics, in addition to comments made
during the telephone consultation sessions. Tribal leaders discussed the
advantages and disadvantages of various factors they identified for

Page 17

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


potential use in the CRF Tribal Set-Aside allocation methodology. Such
factors included population, land base, demonstrated impact from the
pandemic, geographic location and associated costs of living, tribal
employees, and tribal expenditures. Many tribal leaders also discussed
the need for flexibility in allowable uses of CRF Tribal Set-Aside
payments so that each tribe could address its unique circumstances in
response to the COVID-19 emergency, according to Interior’s summary.
Interior officials told us that after the consultation sessions, Interior and
Treasury discussed the factors tribes identified and decided that, in the
absence of existing quality federal data on these factors, the agencies
would solicit additional data from tribes. Treasury’s initial data request
directed tribes to use a web portal to submit data on enrollment, land
base, persons employed by the tribe, and tribal expenditures to inform its
allocation methodology. Treasury also solicited bank account details and
other information as part of the first data request, to facilitate payments to
tribes. Tribes were to certify the accuracy of the data they submitted;
these data were due 4 days after Treasury launched the web portal.
Interior’s regional BIA officials reached out to tribes about submitting the
requested data to Treasury, according to Interior officials. 46 After the initial
consultation sessions about potential allocation factors, Interior and
Treasury did not conduct further consultation with tribes about the data
Treasury planned to use in its allocation methodologies.
Allocation methodologies. On May 5, 2020, Interior and Treasury
announced the agencies’ plan for Treasury to disburse the $8 billion CRF
Tribal Set-Aside in two tranches—60 percent in the first tranche based on
IHBG formula area population data, with a minimum payment of
$100,000, and 40 percent in the second tranche, based on employment
46In April 2020, Treasury provided Interior with tribal data so the BIA could confirm that
tribes had submitted the required information to receive CRF Tribal Set-Aside payments
from Treasury. In October 2020, Interior OIG found that some BIA regional officials shared
these tribal data, including financial details on tribal expenditures, the number of tribal
members, and the names and email addresses of tribal points of contact, to officers of
tribes outside the federal government. Interior OIG found that the BIA regional officials’
actions were inconsistent with Interior guidance, but found no evidence suggesting that
Interior or Treasury employees intentionally released the confidential tribal information.
Interior OIG made a recommendation to help Interior ensure proper identification and
handling of potentially confidential tribal information and prevent future improper
disclosures of this information. See U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector
General, Management Advisory – Recommendation for Identifying, Protecting, and
Ensuring Proper Handling of Tribal Data and Information, Case Number 20-0463
(Washington, D.C.: October 2020).

Page 18

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


and expenditures data for tribes and tribally owned entities. According to
Treasury, tribal population was expected to correlate with the amount of
tribal governments’ increased expenditures related directly to the public
health emergency. The agencies announced this approach the same day
that Treasury began making the first tranche of payments to tribes—9
days after the statutory deadline of April 26, 2020, for making payments
from the CRF. 47

First Tranche of the CRF Tribal
Set-Aside

To allocate the first tranche based on population, Treasury used a federal
data source—HUD’s IHBG formula area population data—instead of the
tribal enrollment data it received from tribes. 48 In documents and
interviews, Treasury officials stated three primary reasons for this
decision:
•

A federal data source could provide for more uniform
measurement across tribes and faster disbursement of funds.
Treasury officials believed that tribal enrollment data did not provide a
consistent measurement of need across tribes because tribes have

47On April 30, 2020, several tribes sued the Secretary of the Treasury over the delay in
CRF Tribal Set-Aside payments. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Mnuchin, No.
20-cv-01136 (D.D.C.). On May 11, 2020—6 days after Treasury began disbursing the
Tribal Set-Aside—the federal district judge declined to issue an order directing the
Secretary to immediately disburse the entire CRF Tribal Set-Aside. On June 12, 2020,
Treasury began distributing the remaining CRF Tribal Set-Aside but withheld $679 million
because of the potential for an adverse decision in another lawsuit over the CRF Tribal
Set-Aside. On June 15, 2020, the judge ordered Treasury to disburse the $679 million no
later than June 17, 2020. Treasury began disbursing the $679 million by the deadline.
48As discussed previously, the IHBG data contain three types of population data: (1) U.S.
Census data on the number of people who identify as AI/AN, a racial classification; (2)
tribal enrollment data, which Interior used to allocate the CARES Act OIP appropriation;
and (3) BIA’s total resident service area (service area) population data. HUD uses these
data to calculate the number of people who identify as AI/AN and live within the tribe’s
assigned formula area for IHBG (formula area population).

Page 19

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


different requirements for enrollment. 49 Additionally, Treasury officials
encountered problems with the data submitted by tribes, such as
incomplete or duplicated submissions. According to Treasury officials,
senior Interior and Treasury officials agreed that using population data
from an existing federal formula would provide more uniform
measurement and allow Treasury to disburse some of the CRF Tribal
Set-Aside more quickly while Treasury developed a formula to
allocate the remainder.
•

The CRF would be used to address local health care needs.
Treasury determined that tribal enrollment—including enrollment data
from the IHBG program that Interior used to allocate the OIP
appropriation—was not the most appropriate basis for CRF Tribal SetAside payments because tribal enrollment does not distinguish
members living within the tribe’s jurisdiction from those living outside
that area. Treasury officials told us that this distinction of geographic
location was relevant because they believed the CRF would primarily
be used to address local health care needs resulting from the
pandemic. 50 According to Treasury, IHBG formula area population
data—which reflects the AI/AN population associated with a specific
geographic area assigned to each tribe, known as a formula area—
corresponded broadly with the population of the area of a tribal
government’s jurisdiction and where tribes provide services. Treasury
also noted that IHBG formula area population data included

49Tribes have inherent authority to determine requirements for membership in the tribe;
however, some tribes’ enrollment is subject to requirements in federal law or treaty. See
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 72 (1978) (“a tribe’s right to define its own
membership for tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence as an
independent political community”); Smith v. Babbitt, 875 F. Supp. 1353, 1361 (D. Minn.
1995), judgment aff’d, appeal dismissed in part, 100 F. 3d 556 (8th Cir. 1996) (“a sovereign
tribe’s ability to determine its own membership lies at the very core of tribal selfdetermination; indeed, there is perhaps no greater intrusion upon tribal sovereignty than
for a federal court to interfere with a sovereign tribes’ membership determinations);
Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 249 F.2d 915, 920 (10th Cir. 1957) (“[t]he Courts have
consistently recognized that in the absence of express legislation by Congress to the
contrary, a tribe has complete authority to determine all questions of its own membership
as a political entity”). Consequently, enrollment requirements vary from tribe to tribe.
50Tribes may still provide enrolled tribal members with services or benefits if those
members do not reside on or near land under their tribes’ jurisdiction. These tribes’ total
population served would be undercounted in a formula focused on local health care
needs.

Page 20

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


adjustments to address overlapping formula areas. 51 Treasury
reasoned that the IHBG formula area population data could serve as a
proxy for increased expenditures for tribes’ health care needs.
However, a year after it distributed the first tranche, Treasury
acknowledged that, in certain instances, IHBG formula area
population data may prove insufficient in estimating a tribal
government’s increased expenditures. For example, the IHBG formula
area population data would not reflect increased expenditures for
tribes that provide COVID-related assistance to enrolled members
living outside of the tribe’s jurisdiction or for tribes that do not have a
formula area and therefore have a formula area population of zero. 52
•

HUD’s IHBG program allows tribes to review and challenge IHBG
data. Treasury stated that tribal governments were familiar with the
IHBG data and had already been provided the opportunity to
scrutinize and challenge the accuracy of these data. Specifically,
HUD’s IHBG program includes a process for tribes to challenge
certain data used in the formula or appeal HUD formula
determinations. However, because the IHBG formula area population
data are one component of a formula with several factors designed so
that tribes receive an equitable share of the appropriation for
development and operation of low-income housing, tribes would have
reviewed the data in that context and not for the purpose of allocating
CRF Tribal Set-Aside payments. Additionally, the IHBG data did not
contain formula area population data for some tribes because they do
not participate in the IHBG program. HUD provided population figures
for these tribes at Treasury’s request. Treasury did not provide tribes
an opportunity to challenge the IHBG formula area population data for
the purposes of allocating the CRF Tribal Set-Aside. In June and July

51According to Treasury officials, one advantage to using the IHBG formula area
population was that it accounted for overlapping formula areas in Alaska, which helped
Treasury avoid double-counting populations across Alaska Native villages—which are
federally recognized tribes—and regional and village Alaska Native Corporations—which
are for-profit corporations established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act as vehicles for distributing the settlement’s land and monetary benefits to Alaska
Natives.
52Tribes do not have a formula area if they do not have a reservation or other geographic
area over which they are responsible for the provision of services.

Page 21

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


2020, three tribes sued Treasury over its use of IHBG formula area
population data to make CRF Tribal Set-Aside allocations. 53

Second Tranche of the CRF
Tribal Set-Aside

On May 14, 2020, Treasury issued guidance to tribes to complete a
second data request for the allocation of the remaining 40 percent of the
CRF Tribal Set-Aside. The second data request sought more detailed
information on tribal employment and expenditures along with supporting
documentation. It also specified the sources from which tribes were to
compile the data. Treasury officials continued a process they used for the
first data request, in which Treasury officials monitored whether tribes
were able to file their submissions and, in conjunction with Interior and a
tribal stakeholder organization, conducted outreach to ensure all tribes
had the ability to submit data if they chose to. 54 Treasury subsequently
extended the deadline twice, with a final deadline of June 6, 2020.
On June 12, 2020, Treasury announced the allocation methodology for
the remaining 40 percent (the second tranche) of the CRF Tribal Set53In June and July 2020, three lawsuits were filed in federal district court in Washington,
D.C. (Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation v. Mnuchin), Oklahoma (Shawnee Tribe v.
Mnuchin), and Florida (Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. Mnuchin) challenging
Treasury’s use of the IHBG formula area population data to make CRF Tribal Set-Aside
allocations as arbitrary and capricious. In June 2020, in the Prairie Band of Potawatomi
Nation case, the federal district judge declined to enjoin Secretary of the Treasury from
disbursing the remaining 40 percent of the CRF Tribal Set-Aside. Prairie Band of
Potawatomi Nation v. Mnuchin, No. 20-cv-01491 (D.D.C. June 11, 2020). The tribe
appealed the decision but the appeals court dismissed the case at the tribe’s request in
July 2020. Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation v. Mnuchin, No. 20-5171, 2020 WL
4931697 (D.C. Cir. July 16, 2020). In September 2020, the Miccosukee Tribe case was
transferred to the federal district court in Washington, D.C. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of
Florida, No. 20-cv-02792 (D.D.C.). The Shawnee Tribe lawsuit was also transferred to the
federal district court in Washington, D.C., which ruled in September 2020 that Treasury’s
allocation determination was not subject to judicial review. Shawnee Tribe v. Mnuchin, No.
20-cv-1999, 2020 WL 5440552 (D.D.C. Sept. 10, 2020). However, in January 2021, the
appeals court ruled that federal courts could review Treasury’s allocation methodology
and remanded the case to the district court to do so. Shawnee Tribe v. Mnuchin, 984 F.3d
94 (D.C. Cir. 2021). In 2021, the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation filed a new lawsuit
challenging Treasury’s use of the IHBG formula area population data. Prairie Band of
Potawatomi Nation v. Yellen, No. 21-cv-00012 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2021). The federal district
judge consolidated all three lawsuits into one, which, as of October 19, 2021, was still
pending before the district court. Shawnee Tribe v. Mnuchin, No. 20-cv-1999 (D.D.C.).
54For example, Treasury officials told us that their CARES Act team operated two email
boxes for coordinating with tribal governments on the CRF Tribal Set-Aside and, for the
second data request, assigned each tribe a case manager who reached out through
emails, phone calls, and text messages to make sure tribes’ data submissions were
complete. Treasury officials told us they continued to work with tribes to address missing
or incomplete documentation beyond the extended deadlines for the second data request,
and on June 10, 2020, Treasury decided to stop accepting additional submissions.

Page 22

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


Aside—30 percent based on the employment data of tribes and tribally
owned entities, and 10 percent based on total tribal government
expenditures for the 2019 fiscal year. Treasury began disbursing
payments for this second tranche on the same day as the announcement.
Steps for tribes to access relief. Tribes had to take several
administrative steps to access CRF Tribal Set-Aside payments.
Specifically, for both tranches of funding, tribes had to collect and submit
a variety of data and supporting documentation through Treasury’s web
portal in relatively short periods of time to meet Treasury’s deadlines.
Treasury officials said the deadlines were intended to help the agency
meet its goals of (1) getting funds out expeditiously and (2) maximizing
tribal participation. 55
Treasury decided that tribes that had not met Treasury’s deadline for its
first data request would not be eligible to receive a CRF Tribal Set-Aside
payment for either tranche. As a result, eight of 574 tribes did not receive
any payments from the CRF Tribal Set-Aside, according to Treasury
officials. In addition, 15 of 574 tribes received a payment from the first
tranche but did not receive a payment from the second tranche because
they did not complete data submissions for the second tranche or
withdrew their submissions. According to Treasury officials, two tribes
informed Treasury that they did not wish to apply for the CRF Tribal SetAside and did not offer the reason, and Treasury officials did not ask
these tribes or the other tribes why they did not file data submissions.
One tribal official told us that her tribe did not submit data to apply for the
second tranche because of confusion about the information required.
Requirements for disbursement deadlines, allowable uses, and
reporting. The CARES Act required Treasury to disburse the CRF no
later than April 26, 2020, and specified that states, territories, and local
and tribal governments could use CRF disbursements for certain costs

55According to Treasury officials, these goals were in tension with each other. Specifically,
Treasury needed to have complete allocation factor information for all participating tribes
so that it could calculate each tribe’s individual share of the tranche. These officials said
that Treasury needed to establish a deadline for data submissions so that they could start
making payments as soon as possible. Treasury officials said that the agency decided to
distribute two tranches so that they could get at least a portion of the funds out to
recipients more quickly. As noted previously, to maximize tribal participation, Treasury
extended its data submission deadlines and conducted direct outreach to tribes that had
not responded.

Page 23

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


incurred between March 1, 2020, and December 30, 2020. 56 Treasury
met the statutory deadline as to states, the District of Columbia,
territories, and eligible units of local governments, but completed most of
its CRF Tribal Set-Aside disbursements to tribes by June 17, 2020—more
than 7 weeks after the CARES Act deadline to do so. 57 Treasury officials
told us that a number of factors contributed to the agency’s delay in
distributing payments, including the work necessary to interpret the
statute and develop distribution formulas. Treasury officials further stated
that the agency had challenges contacting certain tribes and obtaining
complete data submissions, and Treasury ultimately extended its
deadlines for data submissions to facilitate disbursal of payments to as
many tribes as possible. Figure 3 shows the timeline of Treasury’s
administration of the CRF Tribal Set-Aside, including Treasury’s
communication with tribes, deadlines for tribes to submit data, and
payments to tribes.

56On December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 amended the
CARES Act to extend the deadline for CRF recipients to incur costs by 1 year, to
December 31, 2021.
57GAO-20-625. As mentioned above, a federal district court judge ordered Treasury to

distribute most of the CRF Tribal Set-Aide by June 17, 2020. Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians v. Mnuchin, No. 20-cv-01136 (D.D.C. June 15, 2020). As explained
below, Treasury did not distribute allocations to regional and village Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act corporations and certain other amounts.

Page 24

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


Figure 3: Timeline of Department of the Treasury’s Administration of the Coronavirus Relief Fund Tribal Set-Aside

Treasury’s initial disbursements from the CRF Tribal Set-Aside did not
include the portion—approximately $500 million of the $8 billion
appropriation—that Treasury allocated to Alaska Native regional and

Page 25

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


village corporations (ANCs). 58 Treasury, in consultation with Interior’s
Office of the Solicitor, interpreted the definition of Indian tribes used in the
CARES Act as including ANCs, making them eligible to receive payments
from the CRF Tribal Set-Aside. However, several tribes sued Treasury
over this interpretation, and the federal courts enjoined Treasury from
disbursing the allocation to ANCs while the lawsuit was pending. 59 On
June 25, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ANCs are Indian tribes
under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and
thus are eligible for disbursements from the CRF Tribal Set-Aside. 60
Treasury began making payments to ANCs on August 6, 2021.
In using the CRF payments, tribes were to follow Treasury guidance,
which changed over time, sometimes without those changes being clearly
communicated to tribes. In April 2020, Treasury issued its initial guidance
to CRF recipients on the agency’s interpretation of the CARES Act
provision on use of CRF payments, as well as a FAQ document, but
updated these documents several times into fall 2020. 61 In particular,
Treasury updated its CRF guidance on such allowable uses twice (in
June and September), and updated its FAQs seven times between May
and October. According to Treasury officials, these updates were in
response to recipient requests for clarity and refinement.
As we previously reported, for several months Treasury disseminated the
updated materials to CRF recipients primarily by posting information on
its website without clearly communicating to recipients that the
58ANCs are for-profit corporations established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act as vehicles for distributing the settlement’s land and monetary benefits to
Alaska Natives. For more information about ANCs, see GAO, Regional Alaska Native
Corporations: Status 40 Years after Establishment, and Future Considerations,
GAO-13-121 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 13, 2012). In April 2021, Treasury reduced the
allocation to ANCs to approximately $450 million because of court decisions recognizing
that the agency’s decision to use the HUD IHBG formula area population data for the
allocation to tribes had the potential to undercount the number of people tribes are
serving.
59Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Mnuchin, No. 20-cv-1002 (D.D.C.)
April 27, 2020); Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Mnuchin, No. 20-5204
(D.C. Cir. Sept. 14, 2020).
60Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, 594 U.S. _ (2021).
61The CARES Act specified that the CRF could only be used for four purposes, while the
CARES Act OIP could be used for any activity to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the
coronavirus. Treasury’s guidance included the agency’s interpretation of the four purposes
specified in the statute.

Page 26

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


information had been updated. 62 For example, Treasury initially did not
alert individual CRF recipients when it updated its guidance, and it did not
identify which information was new or revised in the updated materials
posted to the Treasury website. These updates included a May 4, 2020,
FAQ update that stated CRF recipients should conduct needs
determinations for financial assistance payments to individuals and a
June 30, 2020, update clarifying the period in which costs must be
incurred by CRF recipients to be eligible. On August 10, 2020, Treasury
for the first time directly notified CRF recipients about its newly updated
FAQs and clearly identified which information in the guidance was new. 63
Treasury continued to identify the new information for the three remaining
updates to its guidance materials.

Treasury OIG Oversight of
CRF Use

As previously discussed, the CARES Act required Treasury’s OIG to
conduct monitoring and oversight of the receipt, disbursement, and uses
of CRF payments. Treasury’s OIG provided guidance to CRF recipients
on reporting deadlines, reporting processes, and record retention
requirements. It also conducted outreach and oversaw CRF recipient
reporting.
•

Provided reporting guidance. In July 2020, Treasury’s OIG outlined
its reporting and record retention requirements for CRF recipients
through two memoranda, including the CRF reporting process and
schedule. 64 The OIG directed CRF recipients to provide an interim
report by July 17, 2020, and, starting in September 2020, to submit
detailed quarterly reports through a GrantSolutions portal. 65 On
August 31, 2020, the OIG issued guidance for CRF quarterly

62GAO, COVID-19: Federal Efforts Could Be Strengthened by Timely and Concerted

Actions, GAO-20-701 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2020).

63As discussed in GAO-20-701, Treasury began notifying CRF recipients of its guidance
updates after a meeting with GAO officials in which Treasury’s lack of communication was
discussed.
64Treasury OIG’s memoranda explained that the reporting and record retention
requirements it established are essential for the exercise of its responsibility to monitor
and oversee the receipt, disbursement, and use of CRF payments and to recover funds in
the event that it is determined a recipient failed to comply with the requirements of 42
U.S.C. § 801(d).
65GrantSolutions is a grant and program management federal shared service provider.
The first detailed CRF report due September 21, 2020, covered the 4-month period of
March 1, 2020, through June 30, 2020, which Treasury OIG refers to as “cycle 1.” All
subsequent reports covered a 3-month calendar quarter.

Page 27

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


GrantSolutions report submissions and the OIG’s monitoring and
review procedures. 66 In August 2020, Treasury’s OIG also issued an
FAQ document that indicated CRF recipients could apply for a
reporting extension and that Treasury OIG would assess the requests
on a case-by-case basis. The OIG subsequently updated the
reporting FAQs three times between September 2020 and March
2021, in response to CRF recipients’ questions and to reflect updated
Treasury guidance. 67 These FAQs were separate from the FAQs
Treasury developed regarding allowable uses of the CRF.
•

Conducted outreach to tribal recipients. Treasury OIG officials told
us they addressed several questions from tribal governments and
organizations about the use and reporting of CRF payments. 68 In
addition, they partnered with a tribal organization—the Native
American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA)—to present a
webinar to tribes about CRF reporting requirements. To encourage
timely submissions, Treasury OIG sent email reminders to all CRF
recipients 5 days before each quarterly reporting deadline, and
another email reminder 1 day before the deadline, according to
Treasury OIG officials. Although reporting extensions are available to
CRF recipients, Treasury OIG officials told us they did not publicize
the option to request an extension, aside from a response in Treasury
OIG’s CRF reporting FAQs. They said they did not include information
on extensions in reminder emails because they thought offering such
an option up front would lead to a large number of requests.

•

Oversaw CRF recipient reporting and spending. Treasury OIG
officials told us that they monitored CRF recipients’ compliance with
reporting requirements and found that tribal government CRF
recipients’ reporting timeliness and accuracy improved over time as
the agency increased its outreach to tribes. Specifically, in the first
reporting cycle, 32 percent of tribal government CRF recipients were
deemed noncompliant with reporting requirements—i.e., having failed

66According to its guidance, Treasury OIG used GrantSolutions quarterly submission
reviews to monitor CRF recipients’ reporting progress, determine outreach needs, and
assess whether submissions were timely and followed instructions.
67Treasury OIG revised its CRF FAQs related to reporting and recordkeeping on
September 21, 2020, November 25, 2020, and March 2, 2021. The March 2021 version
was updated to reflect the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 amendment to extend
the deadline for CRF recipients to incur costs to December 31, 2021.
68Inquiries from tribal governments included policy questions and unique questions about
eligible uses of CRF Tribal Set-Aside for tribally owned enterprises such as casinos and
hotels.

Page 28

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


to report complete information, or at all—according to Treasury OIG
data. For the second reporting cycle, Treasury OIG officials increased
outreach to tribes to remind them about the requirements and provide
technical assistance. In some instances tribes were not aware of the
reporting requirements, while others had experienced challenges
related to staff capacity or technology that prevented them from
meeting the reporting deadline. By the fifth cycle, tribal CRF
recipients’ reporting noncompliance decreased to 21 percent. 69
To oversee CRF recipients’ compliance with CRF use requirements,
Treasury OIG officials told us they follow up on complaints of potential
misuse of funds, conduct ongoing monitoring of CRF recipients’ use of
funds through quarterly report reviews, and conduct desk reviews. 70
Treasury OIG officials told us they received numerous complaints alleging
fraud related to the CRF or misuse of funds for noneligible activities, and
they contacted all CRF recipients that were the subject of complaints to
obtain more information and discuss CRF eligible uses, if necessary. As
of August 2021, Treasury OIG had initiated one desk review for one CRF
Tribal Set-Aside recipient, and zero audits.
We asked Treasury OIG officials whether tribes’ use of the CRF Tribal
Set-Aside would be evaluated based on the Treasury guidance in place at
the time the tribes incurred costs, or based on final Treasury guidance
that may not have been issued until after CRF recipients incurred costs—
particularly considering the multiple revisions of Treasury’s FAQ guidance
from May through October 2020. Treasury OIG officials said they assess
each instance of potential noncompliance on a case-by-case basis and
did not have a standardized approach, but would take into consideration
whether CRF guidance was not released or was not clear at the time a
tribe used its CRF Tribal Set-Aside funds.
69In the third reporting cycle, Treasury OIG officials realized that in several instances they
needed to update their points of contact for personnel who should input data in the
GrantSolutions portal, and worked with Interior OIG to access BIA’s Tribal Leaders
Directory to identify appropriate contacts. Additionally, in spring 2021, Treasury’s Tribal
Affairs and Office of General Counsel worked with approximately 40 tribal recipients that
were noncompliant with CRF reporting requirements to try to provide additional
assistance, according to Treasury officials.
70Desk reviews evaluate the CRF recipient’s documentation supporting the uses of CRF
payments and assess risk of unallowable use of funds. According to Treasury OIG, desk
reviews may result in a site visit to the CRF recipient for a more in-depth review or a
recommendation for audit.

Page 29

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


Treasury OIG officials told us that tribes, more than other CRF recipients,
have faced a variety of extenuating circumstances that have impacted
some tribes’ ability to meet CRF reporting deadlines. In particular, tribes
have been more likely to need CRF reporting extensions compared to
other government entities, and they cited extenuating circumstances in
their extension requests that included office shutdowns because of
COVID-19 outbreaks, internet connectivity issues, and weather events
such as wildfires. For the first three quarterly reporting cycles, 19 percent
of tribal government CRF recipients were granted a reporting extension—
generally from 1 to 7 days. 71 Reporting extensions for tribal government
CRF recipients decreased to 7 percent for the fourth reporting cycle and
increased to 10 percent in the fifth reporting cycle. 72 Treasury officials
attributed the large volume of reporting extension requests from tribal
governments to the limited staff resources and infrastructure of some
tribes, especially tribes that are small and/or more remote. 73

Agencies and Tribes
Faced Various
Challenges
Regarding CARES
Act Funds, but
Lessons Learned
Could Improve Future
Federal Emergency
Relief to Tribes
71Treasury OIG officials told us that they usually grant extensions of 1 to 7 days but

sometimes allow an extension into the next reporting cycle for certain issues, such as a
tribe experiencing turnover among personnel responsible for submittal.
72Treasury OIG granted CRF reporting extensions to between 0 and 9 percent of other
government entities for CRF quarterly reporting cycles 1 through 5.
73According to Treasury OIG officials, they have not denied any extension requests since

the first quarterly reporting cycle, when Treasury OIG denied eight extension requests for
using a form letter that did not include specific details regarding the tribes’ need for an
extension. In those instances, Treasury OIG officials communicated their decision to deny
the request and stated that the tribe would be considered noncompliant if the tribe did not
submit its quarterly report by the due date. Treasury OIG did not notify the tribes that they
could resubmit their extension request with additional information about need, and none of
the tribes resubmitted their requests, according to Treasury OIG officials.

Page 30

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


Treasury Faced Greater
Challenges Than Interior
and Experienced Delays
Distributing CARES Act
Funds to Tribes

According to officials we interviewed from Interior and Treasury, the
agencies faced various challenges that slowed distribution of CARES Act
funds to tribes, particularly funds from the CRF Tribal Set-Aside
administered by Treasury. These officials identified challenges in the
following areas:
•

Statutory language. Interior and Treasury officials said that the
CARES Act was insufficiently specific regarding the CRF Tribal SetAside, and Treasury officials said the work necessary to interpret the
statute and develop distribution formulas consistent with the statute
contributed to delays in CRF disbursements to tribes. For example,
Treasury officials said the statute did not specify how Treasury should
determine tribal governments’ increased expenditures relative to their
fiscal year 2019 expenditures. In addition, as discussed earlier,
litigation resulted in the Supreme Court determining that ANCs were
included in the statute’s definition of Indian tribes and thus eligible to
receive payments from the CRF Tribal Set-Aside. 74

•

Distribution mechanisms. Interior officials said that the agency’s
decision to distribute the CARES Act OIP appropriation through BIA’s
Aid to Tribal Government and Welfare Assistance programs meant
that the agency needed to take extra steps when certain tribes wanted
to reallocate these CARES Act funds to different programs in their
contracts and compacts. According to Interior officials, these extra
steps delayed disbursement from the CARES Act OIP appropriation
by up to 2 days. Treasury faced greater challenges in distributing
CARES Act funds to tribes because it had not previously implemented
a statute that required the agency to make disbursements directly to
tribes, according to Treasury officials. Treasury officials said that they
were surprised to learn that BIA did not already have mechanisms in
place to distribute checks to tribes. According to Treasury officials,
since this infrastructure did not exist, they initially did not know whom
to contact for certain tribes. Treasury thus had to create a new
distribution mechanism, along with allocation methods and
procedures, which Treasury officials said delayed distribution of the
funds.

74Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, 594 U.S. _ (2021).

Page 31

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


•

Obtaining sufficient and reliable tribal enrollment data. Interior
officials said that they did not maintain tribal enrollment data for all
574 tribes and it was a challenge to obtain and verify enrollment data
from different sources, such as HUD’s IHBG enrollment data. 75
According to Interior officials, some BIA regions had tribal enrollment
data readily available for tribes within their regions, but for those that
did not, BIA regional officials had to reach out to tribal enrollment
offices to obtain the data.

•

Staff capacity. Officials from Interior and Treasury said it was
challenging to administer CARES Act funds while their agencies
adapted to working from home because of the pandemic. In addition,
officials from Treasury said that the CRF was not intended to be an
ongoing source of funding, and Treasury did not create a CRF
program office or dedicate program staff to administer the CRF.
Moreover, according to Treasury officials, the CARES Act CRF
appropriation was not available to pay for administrative expenses,
such as salaries of Treasury employees, so Treasury had to set up
and administer the CRF in a short time frame with existing staff
resources. Treasury officials also said they faced administrative
challenges meeting tribes’ customer service needs for the CRF, such
as helping tribes with limited internet connectivity submit data.

•

Treasury’s limited experience working with tribes. According to
Treasury officials, the agency had some experience working with
tribes on tax issues but had not implemented a large program to make
payments to tribes prior to the passage of the CARES Act.
Additionally, at the time Treasury began administering the CRF Tribal
Set-Aside, it did not have an official staff position for working with
tribes and it did not have staff with tribal expertise managing the CRF
Tribal Set-Aside. Consequently, Treasury officials did not have indepth knowledge of tribal governments and how they operate to make
informed policy decisions when implementing the CRF Tribal SetAside. For example, Treasury officials said they spent about 2 weeks
following up with each tribe to better understand their data

75The enrollment data that tribes submitted to Treasury were not available at the time
Interior needed this information. As discussed above, Interior started distributing OIP
payments to tribes on April 13, 2020, and Treasury’s deadline for tribes to submit data to
determine CRF Tribal Set-Aside allocations, including tribal enrollment data, was April 17,
2020.

Page 32

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


submissions. 76 Additionally, Treasury officials told us that they
believed that tribes’ increased expenditures would be greatest within a
tribe’s local area and, therefore, population within tribes’ formula
areas was a more appropriate proxy for increased expenditures than
tribal enrollment data. 77 However, this belief does not take into
account that many tribes provide services to members that do not live
in their local formula area and the relative share of population would
be undercounted for such tribes. 78 Additionally, some tribes have a
formula area population of zero in the IHBG data because they do not
have a reservation or other area where they are responsible for the
provision of services. According to Treasury officials, they were aware
of the limitations of using IHBG formula area population data and took
steps to address them, such as requesting additional data on
population from HUD for those tribes that had a zero population in the
IHBG data. 79 However, Treasury did not discuss with tribes how the
agency would address these known limitations; doing so could have
allowed the agency to make changes or address issues prior to
making payments using the data.
•

Communication. Treasury officials said that missing, incorrect, or
outdated contact information in BIA’s Tribal Leaders Directory created
a need to search for appropriate tribal contacts for communication
about the CRF Tribal Set-Aside. Treasury officials said the directory
did not have email addresses for 73 of the tribes and that Treasury
received automatic error messages from some of the addresses in the
directory. Treasury officials said they followed up through a mix of
phone calls and email, and that doing so was complicated because

76As previously mentioned, Treasury officials then determined that certified tribal
enrollment data collected from tribes did not provide a consistent measure to be used as a
basis for estimating tribes’ increased expenditures because tribes’ criteria for enrolling
members vary. Tribes have inherent authority to determine requirements for membership
in the tribe; however, some tribes’ enrollment are subject to requirements in federal law or
treaty. Consequently, enrollment requirements vary from tribe to tribe.
77As previously mentioned, Treasury officials said that a benefit of using the IHBG formula
area population data as a proxy for increased expenditures was that it helped them avoid
double-counting population for CRF recipients in Alaska. Specifically, the IHBG formula
includes a process for identifying overlapping service areas.
78According to Treasury officials, this policy judgment that use of funds would be focused
in local areas is not inconsistent with the fact that many tribes provide services outside
those areas.
79Treasury officials said that one advantage of using the IHBG formula area population
data from the IHBG program formula was that HUD had engaged in negotiated rulemaking
with tribes to develop the formula.

Page 33

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


certain tribal officials were not working in their offices during the
pandemic. To address this challenge, Treasury officials said they
worked with BIA and NAFOA to communicate with tribes, which
officials said they considered very helpful because these entities had
existing relationships and experience working with tribes.

Tribes Described a Variety
of Challenges Accessing
and Using Treasury’s CRF
Tribal Set-Aside

According to officials from five of the tribes we selected to interview, 80
they experienced minimal difficulty accessing and using payments from
BIA’s OIP appropriation, but representatives from selected tribal
organizations and officials from selected tribes identified several
challenges with accessing and using payments from Treasury’s CRF
Tribal Set-Aside. Specifically:
•

Agency officials’ limited understanding of tribes. Treasury’s
interactions with tribes reflected a limited knowledge about tribes and
how they operate, according to representatives from all of the
selected tribal stakeholder organizations, representatives from both
academic research centers, and officials from five of the selected
tribes. For example, a representative from one tribal organization said
that the Treasury officials participating in the consultations did not
show an understanding of the government-to-government relationship
between the United States and tribes or respect for tribal sovereignty.
In addition, officials from one tribe we interviewed said that people
more familiar with how tribes operate would have known that the
questions in Treasury’s initial data request were problematic. 81
According to these officials, after Treasury asked tribes to upload a lot
of information into the online portal, the agency quickly realized that
the questions were entirely too broad to provide the information the
agency wanted about so many different tribes; Treasury later revised
its questions in a second data request. An official from another tribe
we interviewed said that having to educate Treasury on tribal
jurisdiction and policy issues was an insurmountable problem. For
example, the official said that Treasury did not seem familiar with the
intricacies of how tribes’ funding and revenue generation works, which
the official said was apparent when Treasury would issue a new

80As discussed earlier, we selected these tribes because they received CARES Act funds

and served different-sized member populations across different geographic locations and
were willing to meet with us. This sample is nongeneralizable and, therefore, we cannot
speak to the perspectives of any tribes we did not interview.
81Treasury officials said that BIA recommended the initial data request. However, Interior

officials said that senior officials in the Office of the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs
directly handled all of the policy decisions and coordination with Treasury.

Page 34

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


version of its use of funds guidelines without notice and in response to
numerous inquiries from tribes. Further, one tribal official told us that
Treasury OIG officials requested sensitive information about tribal
revenue and use of funds that the official said were not related to the
tribe’s use of its CRF Tribal Set-Aside payment.
•

Disputed CRF funding allocation methodology. Representatives
from all of the selected tribal stakeholder organizations,
representatives from both academic research centers, and officials
from five of the selected tribes raised concerns about Treasury’s use
of IHBG formula area population data to allocate the first tranche of
the CRF Tribal Set-Aside. These IHBG data reflected a population of
zero or a low population that approaches zero for certain tribes,
affecting the amount these tribes received from the CRF Tribal SetAside. Additionally, tribal officials told us that enrollment is a better
measure of need because many tribes provide services and
assistance to tribal members that live outside their immediate service
area. Officials from one tribe we interviewed said the IHBG formula
area population data reflected about half of their tribe’s enrollment,
and officials we interviewed from two other tribes said that the IHBG
data reflected about a third of their total enrollment. 82 As discussed
earlier, three tribes sued Treasury over the use of the IHBG formula
area population data, and those lawsuits were pending as of October
19, 2021.

•

Unclear or changing CRF guidance. Adjusting to Treasury’s
changing guidance on allowable uses of funds further delayed tribes’
implementation of projects and significantly increased their
administrative burden, according to representatives from all of the
selected tribal organizations and academic research centers, and
officials from five of the selected tribes. Officials from four selected
tribes said that without authoritative guidance from Treasury when
tribes first received CRF Tribal Set-Aside payments, the tribes faced a
substantial risk to commit to expenditures because they would have to
repay the funds if those expenditures were later determined
unallowable. Officials from one of these tribes said Treasury’s

82According to Treasury officials, the specific fraction of a tribe’s enrollment represented
by the IHBG formula area population was not necessarily indicative of how much funding
a tribe should have received if Treasury had used enrollment as the allocation factor,
because tribal allocations were relative to each other. Treasury officials said that they
addressed this issue in April 2021 with reallocations. However, because the funds
available for reallocation were limited, Treasury only provided additional payments to
those tribes with disparities in the population-to-enrollment ratio above the 85th percentile
range.

Page 35

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


different iterations of guidance had a chilling effect on many tribes,
which were concerned that expenditures that at the time were
consistent with Treasury’s CRF guidance would later be deemed
unallowable by a subsequent version. 83 Officials from one tribe we
interviewed said that because of the pandemic, tribes’ general funds
were already low on cash, so the tribe was concerned that it would not
have the reserves to pay back Treasury if required to do so. In certain
instances tribes delayed decisions about how to use the CRF Tribal
Set-Aside while they sought clarity on the changing guidance to
ensure compliance. For example, one tribal official said that his tribe
invested an inordinate amount of time, effort, and legal fees to verify
proposed expenditures were allowable, and by the time they received
clarification from Treasury, only 2 to 3 months remained before the
original statutory deadline for incurring costs. Additionally, officials
from three selected tribes said that Treasury’s changing guidance
added requirements for use of CRF payments. For example,
Treasury’s October 2020 update to its FAQ document about the CRF
included a new statement that recipients must justify the use of CRF
payments to acquire property or equipment by first determining that
they cannot meet their needs in a cost-effective manner by leasing
property or equipment or by improving property already in their
possession. Officials from one selected tribe said they perceived this
update as an added requirement to conduct a cost analysis to justify
each use of funds, which would require time and resources when the
tribe was operating at extremely limited capacity and managing a
crisis. These tribal officials said they saw nothing in the CARES Act
requiring cost efficiency or analyses, and they believed the CARES
Act was purposely silent on this point since, during an emergency
such as a pandemic, costs may increase because of increased
demands for certain goods such as personal protective equipment. 84
Figure 4 shows the timeline of Treasury’s issuance of guidance and FAQs
for CRF recipients, and the deadlines for tribes to submit data to Treasury
and quarterly reports to Treasury’s OIG.

83Officials from associations representing state and local governments also told us CRF

recipients have reported a lack of clarity in Treasury guidance on the eligible use of funds.
GAO-20-701.
84According to Treasury officials, “cost-effective” was based on their interpretation of the
CARES Act requirement that the CRF be used for “necessary expenditures.”

Page 36

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


Figure 4: Timeline of Coronavirus Relief Fund Tribal Set-Aside Deadlines and Guidance Materials

•

Short time frames to plan and incur costs. Treasury completed
CRF Tribal Set-Aside payments to tribes more than 7 weeks after the
CARES Act disbursement deadline and announced the allocation
methodology on the same day the agency issued the first tranche of
CRF Tribal Set-Aside payments. Treasury’s delayed disbursements

Page 37

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


resulted in a shorter window of time for tribes to plan for and incur
costs before the original statutory deadline of December 30, 2020, to
incur costs. Officials from one tribe also said that, given the delay, the
tribe could not send the first relief payments to families from the CRF
Tribal Set-Aside until late August 2020 because the tribe had to give
people time to apply for relief based on their situations. The tribal
officials said that this was a long time for people to wait when they
were “starving and deciding between purchasing medicine and paying
the electric bill.” Moreover, officials from one tribe said that by the time
Treasury’s guidance seemed fairly stable, tribes only had one quarter
to spend the money. 85
•

Burdensome CRF reporting requirements. Tribes experienced
administrative burden in meeting the CRF quarterly reporting
deadlines because several of the reporting requirements differed from
tribes’ typical reporting practices, according to representatives from a
selected tribal stakeholder organization, representatives from both
selected academic research centers, and officials from four of the
selected tribes. For example, officials from four of the tribes we
interviewed said that the majority of their grants require semiannual
reporting or annual reporting, with 45-day time periods for reporting—
not the 10 days stated in Treasury OIG CRF reporting guidance. 86
Given the additional administrative burden and the loss of
administrative capacity through attrition and, in some cases, death
from COVID-19, officials from selected tribes said that they believed
that tribes were set up to fail. Officials from one tribe said that the
CRF reporting was unnecessarily time consuming because of the
manual entry requirement and limited functionality of the Treasury
OIG’s reporting portal. 87 In particular, these officials said their tribe’s

85Figure 4 shows that Treasury last updated its answers to FAQs to supplement guidance
for CRF allowable uses on October 19, 2020. This final update to the FAQs was issued
after two of the deadlines for CRF recipients to submit quarterly reports of COVID-19related costs to Treasury’s OIG.
86The CARES Act requires certain recipients to submit to agencies and the Pandemic

Response Accountability Committee within 10 days of the end of each calendar quarter a
report containing information on amounts received and projects or activities for which
funds were expended or obligated, among other things. Pub. L. No. 116-136, §
15011(b)(2), 134 Stat. 281, 541 (2020). Treasury OIG incorporated this provision’s 10-day
deadline into its CRF reporting guidance because tribes’ submissions to the OIG are
transmitted to the committee and serve as these statutorily required reports.

87Treasury OIG officials told us that the GrantSolutions portal allows for data uploads but
this feature was not made available to tribal governments because of the volume of
recipients.

Page 38

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


first CRF quarterly report was about 350 pages long, and their second
quarterly report was about 380 pages long and took two tribal staff a
week to prepare—time they said could have been spent on other
important tasks during the pandemic. Moreover, officials from this
tribe said that Treasury OIG officials told them they could report data
from the prior quarter as part of the next report. However, the tribal
officials said Treasury OIG’s reporting portal would not accept
submissions outside the reporting time frame and that the system did
not allow tribes to explain data submitted as part of the extension. 88

Lessons Learned Could
Improve Future Federal
Emergency Relief to
Tribes

Interior and Treasury officials, representatives from selected tribal
organizations, and officials from selected tribes told us about lessons
learned from several aspects of the agencies’ administration of CARES
Act funds that could inform future federal emergency relief to tribes. Some
lessons reflect aspects of the agencies’ implementation that went well,
and in certain cases, the agencies have already applied lessons learned.
Other lessons learned relate to areas that could be improved for future
relief to tribes.
Aspects of agency implementation that went well. Certain aspects of
Interior’s implementation of BIA’s CARES Act OIP appropriation went well
and are lessons learned about the benefits of using existing mechanisms
to distribute emergency relief to tribes, according to agency officials,
representatives from selected tribal stakeholder organizations, and
officials from five of the selected tribes. For example, Interior officials said
distributing OIP payments using a preexisting program structure allowed
the agency to provide relief to tribal governments more quickly because it
did not have to develop new distribution or reporting mechanisms.
Additionally, the CARES Act OIP payments could be used for any activity
to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, which Interior officials
said provided tribes greater latitude to meet their unique pandemicrelated needs and circumstances. Tribes with self-determination contracts
or self-governance compacts had further flexibility to reprogram funds
across different programs to meet their pandemic needs. Lastly, Interior’s
reporting requirements for CARES Act OIP payments made through selfdetermination contracts used existing reporting mechanisms and

88Treasury officials said they worked with Treasury’s OIG to help explore several reporting

mechanisms. The officials said they selected GrantSolutions because most tribes had at
least some familiarity with the reporting system.

Page 39

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


schedules that tribes were accustomed to and could meet without
additional administrative burden during a crisis.
For Treasury, representatives from tribal stakeholder organizations and
agency officials said that Treasury’s partnership with NAFOA to provide
outreach to tribes was particularly helpful. Specifically, Treasury worked
with NAFOA to disseminate information about the CRF Tribal Set-Aside
to tribal contacts and help ensure eligible tribes had relevant information
to complete the application process and better understand allowable uses
of CRF Tribal Set-Aside payments. Treasury OIG officials told us they
also partnered with NAFOA to answer questions, disseminate
information, and present a webinar on CRF reporting requirements.
Additionally, for the second tranche of CRF payments, Treasury officials
said the agency increased its tribal outreach efforts by assigning each
tribe a case manager who followed up with tribes to ensure applications
were complete.
Lessons learned that have been applied. Treasury officials stated that
Treasury incorporated certain lessons learned from its administration of
the CRF for its subsequent administration of the American Rescue Plan
Act of 2021’s (ARP Act) Coronavirus State Fiscal Relief Fund (CSFRF)
Tribal Government Set-Aside, established after the CARES Act. Officials
from four of the selected tribes said that the changes Treasury made to its
administration of the ARP Act Fund were welcome improvements over its
administration of the CRF. For example:
•

Increasing opportunities for tribes to provide input for the
allocation methodology for these funds and using tribes’ selfcertified enrollment data as a factor for disbursement. For
example, Treasury hosted five region-based tribal consultations on
the CSFRF Tribal Government Set-Aside to gather perspectives from
tribal leaders on allocation methodologies, the use of funds, and
administrative functions such as reporting and compliance. According
to Treasury officials, the regional consultations allowed more tribal
participation and provided Treasury with a better understanding of
regional perspectives. Additionally, Treasury decided to use selfcertified enrollment data as one of the factors for disbursement
because the agency determined that these data helped account for
tribes that provide services to members that live outside their local
area.

•

Increasing infrastructure for communications and technical
support to tribes to access and use funds. For example, Treasury
developed a dedicated webpage for tribal governments to access

Page 40

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


information about the CSFRF Tribal Government Set-Aside. Treasury
also held multiple information sessions about the Tribal Government
Set-Aside that drew thousands of participants, according to Treasury
officials. 89
•

Providing tribes an opportunity to comment on allowable uses.
For example, Treasury released an Interim Final Rule on allowable
uses of the CSFRF prior to disbursing payments. 90

•

Adding staff with extensive experience working with tribes.
According to Treasury officials, the Office of Recovery Programs has
a tribal team with tribal policy, organization, government, and
enterprise experience to support the deployment of tribal funds. As of
October, 2021, this team consisted of one detailee, one Policy
Advisor, and a Senior Advisor. Treasury officials told us the Office of
Recovery Programs previously had an additional Senior Advisor on
detail, and has a Memorandum of Understanding with the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration Tribal Broadband
Connectivity Program for the Capital Projects Tribal Set-Aside.

•

Increasing the amount of time to prepare quarterly reports.
Recipients of payments from the CSFRF must submit quarterly
reports within 30 days of quarter’s end instead of within the 10 days of
quarter’s end for CRF reports. 91 However, officials from one of the
selected tribes said quarterly reporting requirements for the CSFRF
could still impose administrative burden on tribes, as substantial
resources are needed to meet quarterly reporting requirements.
These officials identified opportunities to improve future federal
reporting requirements, including semiannual or annual reporting and
a reporting deadline 45 days after quarter’s end, consistent with
requirements they said exist for the majority of grants tribes receive.

89For example, on June 30, 2021, Treasury held an information session for tribes on
CSFRF. Treasury officials told us the session included information on reporting and
compliance to familiarize tribes with the reporting process. Treasury also has a dedicated
section on its website for reporting and compliance for tribes.
9086 Fed. Reg. 26786 (May 17, 2021).
91The ARP Act requires states, territories, and tribal governments receiving payments

from the fund to provide periodic reports to the Secretary of the Treasury with a detailed
accounting of their use of funds and any other information the Secretary may require. 42
U.S.C. § 802(d)(2). The interim final rule Treasury issued requires states, territories, and
tribal governments to submit one interim report and quarterly project and expenditure
reports through December 31, 2026, within 30 days of each quarter’s end. In contrast,
Treasury’s OIG established reporting requirements for CRF recipients based on the
CARES Act requirement for certain recipients to submit reports to agencies and the
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee within 10 days of each calendar quarter.

Page 41

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


•

Adopting a reporting system with greater functionality than
GrantSolutions. Specifically, Treasury will accept CSFRF reports
through a new reporting system that allows users to upload data in
batches rather than through manual entry.

Regarding statutory language, a lesson learned is providing clarity about,
for example, tribal eligibility and having more time to spend relief funds,
according to Treasury officials, representatives from all of the selected
tribal stakeholder organizations and academic research centers, and
officials from five of the selected tribes. Representatives from tribal
organizations and officials from selected tribes said that the statutory
language establishing the CSFRF reflected welcome improvements over
the statutory language establishing the CRF Tribal Set-Aside. For
example, the ARP Act specified that only tribal governments that are
governing bodies of federally recognized tribes were eligible for the
CSFRF Tribal Government Set-Aside, and thus excluded ANCs. Clarity
on eligibility in the statute helped avoid litigation over agencies’
interpretation of ANCs’ eligibility. In contrast, litigation over ANCs’
eligibility for the CRF Tribal Set-Aside resulted in Treasury holding
approximately $450 million of CRF Tribal Set-Aside for over 16 months
before disbursing it. The ARP Act also provides a longer time frame for
recipients to use payments from the CSFRF—over 3 years to incur costs,
instead of the original 10 months for the CARES Act’s CRF. The longer
time frame provides tribes with more time to plan projects to maximize the
cost-effectiveness of relief spending.
Another lesson learned is the importance of maintaining ongoing
relationships between agencies and tribes, according to agency officials,
representatives from selected tribal stakeholder organizations and
academic research centers, and officials from five of the selected tribes.
Interior and Treasury were among the federal agencies that submitted
plans to OMB outlining actions the agencies would take to improve tribal
consultation and coordination with tribal governments. 92 Interior and
Treasury developed their action plans based on consultation with tribal
leaders on tribal consultation policies. Both Interior’s and Treasury’s plans
include action items to update the agencies’ tribal consultation policy,
educate agency officials and staff on matters related to tribes, and

92These plans were due to OMB before April 26, 2021.

Page 42

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


maintain up-to-date tribal contact information. 93 Interior officials said
having readily available, reliable tribal enrollment data is critical to serving
tribes and their members. In April 2021, following consultation with tribes,
Interior began collecting enrollment data from tribes, which the agency
intends to maintain to inform allocations at the Office of the Assistant
Secretary – Indian Affairs and potentially other federal agencies. The
actions identified in Interior’s and Treasury’s plans address certain
challenges that representatives from tribal stakeholder organizations and
officials from selected tribes identified to us.
Areas for improvement. Treasury officials said a lesson learned is that
tribal consultations were critical to better understanding tribes’ needs and
concerns—particularly because Treasury had not previously worked with
tribes on this scale. Yet, Treasury used IHBG formula area population
data in its CRF Tribal Set-Aside allocation formula without consulting with
tribes about its plans to use the IHBG data to make the allocations.
Treasury officials said they did not consult with tribes about these plans
because tribes had provided input on the IHBG data as part of the IHBG
program’s negotiated rulemaking. Treasury’s tribal consultation policy
does not specifically direct agency officials to consult about potential data
sources that may be used to make decisions.
However, agencies are to consult with tribes on policies that have tribal
implications, and Treasury’s tribal consultation policy calls for a
meaningful dialogue on policies. 94 In addition, federal standards for
internal control for information and communication state that management
should use quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives, and
federal standards for internal control for risk assessment state that
management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to
93Interior’s plan contains six action items: 1) establish a centralized consultation website,

2) identify technology to improve notice to tribes, 3) update consultation policy, 4) educate
Interior officials and staff on tribes, 5) establish a Secretary’s Tribal Advisory Committee,
and 6) review specific policies/processes tribes identified as inhibiting consultation for
rescission or revision. Treasury’s plan has three focus areas, each of which contain
multiple action items: 1) update the tribal consultation policy and procedures for
conducting tribal consultation, 2) improve Treasury awareness and accountability for
holding tribal consultation, and 3) communication and outreach.

94Executive Order 13175 defines “policies that have tribal implications” as regulations,
legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between
the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes.

Page 43

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


achieving the defined objectives. 95 In this case, the IHBG formula area
population data Treasury used were not quality information for making
CRF Tribal Set-Aside allocations. As discussed, in April 2021, Treasury
acknowledged that IHBG formula area population data may typically be
helpful in estimating a tribal government’s increased expenditures, but in
certain circumstances these data may prove insufficient. 96
In addition, tribes may serve enrolled members regardless of their
location; however, the data Treasury used are data on the number of
people who identify as AI/AN and live within the tribe’s assigned formula
area for IHBG. Representatives from two of the selected tribal
organizations, representatives from both academic research centers, and
officials from four of the selected tribes we interviewed said the IHBG
formula area population data did not accurately reflect the population
tribes serve. In addition, officials from three of the selected tribes said that
tribes did not have an opportunity to discuss with Treasury their concerns
about the appropriateness of using these data for allocating the CRF
Tribal Set-Aside. Until Treasury develops a policy to consult with tribes
about data it is considering for use in making decisions, Treasury risks
using data without engaging in a meaningful dialogue with tribes about
any limitations of the data and how to address such limitations—not only
depriving Treasury of information tribes could provide, but also potentially
increasing the risk of litigation. In the case of the CRF Tribal Set-Aside,
using the IHBG formula area population data as a proxy for increased
expenditures resulted in litigation and delays in disbursements. In
response to this litigation, Treasury officials said the agency allocated an
additional $75.7 million to 88 tribes from the remaining CRF Tribal SetAside in April 2021—almost a year after its initial payments to tribes.
However, Treasury stated it would provide additional payments only to
tribes with the most substantial disparities—the top 15 percent of tribes in
a ranked list—because there were limited funds available for
reallocation. 97 Consequently, these tribes did not receive emergency relief
to help address the pandemic in a timely manner, as Congress intended.

95GAO-14-704G.
96Moreover, as discussed earlier, the IHBG formula area population data are one

component of a complex formula so that tribes receive an equitable share of the
appropriation for development and operation of low-income housing.

97Treasury calculated each tribe’s ratio of IHBG formula area population to enrollment and

then subtracted the ratio from 1. The top 15 percent of tribes as ranked by the resulting
population-to-enrollment ratio were eligible for an additional payment.

Page 44

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


Another lesson learned that representatives from selected tribal
organizations and officials from selected tribes shared with us is the
importance of transparent, two-way communication. Representatives from
a selected tribal stakeholder organization, representatives from both
academic research centers, and officials from four of the selected tribes
said they learned about Treasury’s final CRF Tribal Set-Aside allocation
methodology when Treasury announced it publicly and had started
making payments. Treasury officials noted that Interior produced
transcripts of the joint Interior-Treasury tribal consultation sessions that
informed Treasury’s CRF policy decisions. 98 However, representatives
from selected tribal stakeholder organizations and officials from four of
the tribes we interviewed said that Treasury’s communications explaining
its allocation methodology decisions were not transparent. Specifically,
the representatives and tribal officials said that Treasury’s communication
about its methodology was not two-way, because tribes were notified
after Treasury had made its decisions and started making payments to
tribes. Treasury officials said they did not initiate communication with
tribes to notify them about how tribal input was considered in the CRF
Tribal Set-Aside decision-making process, but they did respond to
specific inquiries from tribes and tribal organizations.
Treasury’s tribal consultation policy states that consultation will inform
Treasury’s development of regulation, published guidance, and other
policy statements or actions. The policy states that the consultation
process should develop transparent dialogue involving the appropriate
participants. However, Treasury does not have procedures documented
in its tribal consultation policy for how and when it will communicate with
tribes about how the agency considered tribal input in its decision-making
and the basis for any agency decisions; such procedures would enhance
transparency. In our March 2019 report on certain federal agencies’ tribal
consultation efforts, we found that without including in policy the
importance of communicating with tribes about how their input from
project consultations was considered, agency officials may not be aware
of expectations to communicate how agencies used tribal input and may
not do so consistently. 99 As mentioned previously, Treasury modified its
approach for developing the methodology for distributing the CSFRF
Tribal Government Set-Aside and its guidance on allowable uses
98Transcripts of both joint Interior-Treasury tribal consultations are available on Interior’s

website. The transcript of the April 2, 2020, joint Interior-Treasury tribal consultation is
available on Treasury’s website.

99GAO-19-22.

Page 45

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


compared to its approach for the CRF Tribal Set-Aside. Agency officials
said these modifications increased tribes’ opportunities to provide
comments on Treasury’s decisions. Although increased opportunities to
comment are a positive development, they are not transparent dialogue
unless followed by communication from Treasury about how the agency
considered tribal input in its decision-making and about the basis for
agency decisions. 100 By documenting procedures for how and when
Treasury will communicate with tribes about how Treasury considered
tribes’ input and the basis for agency decisions, Treasury could have
better assurance that the agency will consistently be transparent and
accountable in communicating with tribes about how Treasury considered
tribes’ input in agency decision-making going forward and as staff and
administrations change.

Conclusions

COVID-19 has had a devastating impact on American’s health and wellbeing, with disproportionately high impacts on AI/AN individuals and
tribes. In response to the unprecedented crisis, the CARES Act
appropriated at least $9 billion for federal programs serving tribes and
their members. In some cases, such as Interior’s OIP appropriation, these
appropriations were for existing programs. In other cases, the CARES Act
established new programs to provide emergency relief, such as
Treasury’s CRF Tribal Set-Aside, that needed to be implemented quickly,
under difficult circumstances, and without prior agency experience
providing direct assistance to tribes.
Tribes reported several challenges accessing and using Treasury’s CRF
Tribal Set-Aside, which impacted some tribes’ ability to receive payments
and increased administrative burden when tribes’ capacity was already
strained. Treasury has recognized several lessons learned and applied
some of them to its implementation of CSFRF assistance to tribes, such
as increasing opportunities for tribal consultation on its allocation
methodology. However, Treasury has not formalized these lessons
learned into its tribal consultation policy. Until Treasury does so, it runs
the risk that these lessons learned may be lost as staff and
administrations change.

100For example, Treasury held five regional consultations when developing its allocation

methodology, and Treasury officials said the agency held informational sessions and
briefings with tribal stakeholders on Treasury’s implementation of the CSFRF.

Page 46

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


Recommendations for
Executive Action

We are making the following two recommendations to Treasury:
The Secretary of the Treasury should document in the agency’s tribal
consultation policy that Treasury will consult with tribes on data the
agency is considering for use in policy decisions with tribal implications,
including consulting on how to identify any data limitations and address
them, as appropriate. (Recommendation 1)
The Secretary of the Treasury should document in the agency’s tribal
consultation policy how and when agency officials are to communicate
with tribes about how tribal input from consultation was considered in
agency decision-making, and provide the basis for any agency decisions.
(Recommendation 2)

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to Interior and Treasury for review and
comment. Treasury provided written comments, which are reproduced in
appendix I, and stated that it agreed with the findings and
recommendations in our report. Treasury also provided technical
comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Interior responded by
email that they did not have comments on the draft report.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretaries of the Interior and the Treasury, and other
interested parties. In addition, the report is 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 ortiza@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 II.

Anna Maria Ortiz
Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Page 47

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


List of Addressees
The Honorable Patrick Leahy
Chairman
The Honorable Richard Shelby
Vice Chairman
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Ron Wyden
Chairman
The Honorable Mike Crapo
Ranking Member
Committee on Finance
United States Senate
The Honorable Patty Murray
Chair
The Honorable Richard Burr
Ranking Member
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
United States Senate
The Honorable Gary C. Peters
Chairman
The Honorable Rob Portman
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Kyrsten Sinema
Chair
The Honorable James Lankford
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Government Operations and Border Management
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

Page 48

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro
Chair
The Honorable Kay Granger
Ranking Member
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Republican Leader
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson
Chairman
The Honorable John Katko
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security
House of Representatives
The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney
Chairwoman
The Honorable James Comer
Ranking Member
Committee on Oversight and Reform
House of Representatives
The Honorable Richard E. Neal
Chairman
The Honorable Kevin Brady
Republican Leader
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives

Page 49

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


Appendix I: Comments from the Department
of the Treasury
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of
the Treasury

Page 50

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Anna Maria Ortiz, (202) 512-3841 or OrtizA@gao.gov

Staff
Acknowledgements

In addition to the contact named above, Lisa Van Arsdale (Assistant
Director), Jack Granberg (Analyst in Charge), Cindy Gilbert, Cynthia
Norris, Dan C. Royer, Stuart Ryba, Jeanette M. Soares, and Michelle R.
Wong made key contributions to this report.

(104349)

Page 51

GAO-22-104349 Interior and Treasury’s COVID-19 Response to Tribes


GAO’s Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative
arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the
federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public
funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government
is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through our website. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence. You can also subscribe to
GAO’s email updates to receive notification of newly posted products.

Order by Phone

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and
distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether
the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering
information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard,
Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or Email Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs

Contact FraudNet:
Website: https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/fraudnet
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700

Congressional
Relations

A. Nicole Clowers, Managing Director, ClowersA@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, Washington,
DC 20548

Public Affairs

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548

Strategic Planning and
External Liaison

Stephen J. Sanford, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814,
Washington, DC 20548

Please Print on Recycled Paper.

File and source

File

22-104349-covid-19-lessons-learned-from-interior-and.pdf

Size

1,802,783 bytes

SHA-256

c3e5a3b9e152c539b92afd3e8578bd15a9635b3bcc28484ca070274c0f837087

Our copy

22-104349-covid-19-lessons-learned-from-interior-and.pdf

Original

www.gao.gov