U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–503 PDF 2015

CHILD PROTECTION AND THE 

JUSTICE SYSTEM ON THE 

SPIRIT LAKE INDIAN RESERVATION 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND 

ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 

Serial No. 113–77 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Vance M. McAllister, LA 

Bradley Byrne, AL 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Katherine M. Clark, MA 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS 

DON YOUNG, AK, Chairman 

COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, HI, Ranking Democratic Member 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 .............................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Ca ́ rdenas, Hon. Tony, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 4 

Cramer, Hon. Kevin, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

North Dakota ................................................................................................ 2 

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska . 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Black, Michael S., Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department 

of the Interior, accompanied by Darren Cruzan, Director, BIA Office 

of Justice Services ......................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 13 

Chang, Joo Yeun, Associate Commissioner, Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Washington, DC .............................................................. 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 23 

Fineday, Anita, JD, MPA, Managing Director, Indian Child Welfare 

Program, Casey Family Programs, Seattle, Washington .......................... 47 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 49 

Question submitted for the record ........................................................... 52 

McDonald, Leander R., Ph.D., Chairman, Spirit Lake Tribe, Fort Totten, 

North Dakota, accompanied by Melissa Merrick-Brady, Interim 

Director for Spirit Lake Social Services, Fort Totten, North Dakota ....... 37 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 41 

McDonald, Molly, Devils Lake, North Dakota ............................................... 43 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 45 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record: 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 70 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON CHILD PROTECTION AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ON THE 

SPIRIT LAKE INDIAN RESERVATION 

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:50 p.m., in room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Young, Cramer, LaMalfa; and 

Ca ́ rdenas. 

Mr. YOUNG. Subcommittee will come to order. Chairman notes 

the presence of a quorum. The Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska 

Native Affairs is meeting today to hear testimony on the child protection and justice system on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), opening statements will be limited 

to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the subcommittee so we 

may hear from the witnesses. However, I ask unanimous consent 

to include any other Member’s opening statement in the hearing 

record, if submitted to the clerk by the close of the business today. 

[No response.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Hearing no objections, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. YOUNG. The subcommittee scheduled this hearing at the request of our colleague, Mr. Cramer of North Dakota, because of the 

alarming child abuse and neglect problems that have plagued the 

Spirit Lake Sioux Reservation. Because this hearing concerns his 

constituents, I would like to defer the remainder of my time, after 

I read my statement, the opening statement, to Mr. Cramer, after 

I briefly note my grave concern about the state of child health, 

safety, and protection on the reservation. 

In my review of records Federal agencies provided to committee 

staff, it does not appear that Federal officials and tribal law enforcement have given allocations of abuse and neglect of Spirit 

Lake Indian children the kind of timely and serious attention that 

were clearly warranted. It took two Federal whistleblowers, one of 

whom the Obama administration attempted to punish, to flag these 

crimes for the media before the media agencies dedicated the necessary resources and personnel to respond. 

I do note there has been a change in the tribe’s leadership, and 

that Chairman McDonald is trying to right the ship. In his statement, Chairman McDonald states, ‘‘The time for placing blame on 

2 

the tribe has passed. We are not the same reservation we were in 

2012. We have a plan. Now we need the means to make it happen.’’ 

I commend the Chairman for his forward thinking. The change 

in leadership may not serve as an excuse to ignore the solemn obligation of the Federal and tribal governments to serve justice to 

those who harm and pose a threat to the children. And this is one 

thing I am very passionate about emphasizing. This is about the 

children. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS

The subcommittee scheduled this hearing at the request of our colleague, Mr. 

Cramer of North Dakota, because of the alarming child abuse and neglect problems 

that have plagued the Spirit Lake Sioux Reservation. Because this hearing concerns 

his constituents, I’d like to defer the remainder of my time for an opening statement 

to Mr. Cramer after I briefly note my grave concern about the state of child health, 

safety, and protection on this Reservation. 

In my review of records Federal agencies provided to committee staff, it does not 

appear that Federal officials and tribal law enforcement have given allegations of 

abuse and neglect of Spirit Lake Indian children the kind of timely and serious attention that were clearly warranted. 

It took two Federal whistleblowers, one of whom the Obama administration attempted to punish, to flag these crimes for the media before agencies dedicated the 

necessary resources and personnel to respond. 

I do note there has been a change in the tribe’s leadership and that Chairman 

McDonald is trying to right the ship. In his statement, Chairman McDonald states, 

‘‘The time for placing blame on the tribe has passed. We are not the same reservation that we were in 2012. We have a plan. Now we need to means to make it happen.’’ 

I commend the Chairman for his forward-thinking. But I would respectfully observe that we cannot forget the recent past. There must be justice served on those 

who harmed or posed a threat to children. 

I now yield to the Gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Cramer. 

Mr. YOUNG. And I now yield the remaining of my time to Mr. 

Cramer, and he may consume. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEVIN CRAMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Chairman Young, Ranking Member 

Ca ́ rdenas, and distinguished members of the Indian and Alaska 

Native Affairs Subcommittee. Welcome to this subcommittee oversight hearing, ‘‘Child Protection and the Justice System on the 

Spirit Lake Indian Reservation,’’ and thank you to all of the witnesses that are here today. 

Today is the fulfillment of my promise to have a public hearing 

regarding the Bureau of Indian Affairs responsibility over the 

Spirit Lake tribal social services program. Since the BIA also has 

final accountability over the law enforcement system, I believe this 

is an excellent opportunity to be informed of the status of their efforts. 

To provide a brief background, in April 2012 a whistleblower by 

the name of Dr. Michael Tilus, Director of Behavioral Health at the 

Spirit Lake Health Center, reported an ‘‘epidemic’’ of child abuse 

within the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation, at the same time indicating a loss of confidence in tribal leadership and their ability to 

3 

protect vulnerable children. In his report he cited numerous cases 

of negligence by Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services. The only formal 

recognition of Dr. Tilus’s report was a reprimand by his superiors. 

Although this formal report was later rescinded, Dr. Tilus was 

transferred off the Spirit Lake Reservation, and is now stationed 

in Montana. Although in my opinion, his presence here today 

would provide invaluable insights, his supervisors declined to 

honor his invitation. 

Thomas Sullivan, a colleague of Ms. Chang, from the Administration for Children and Families, published from June 2012 until late 

March 2013 13 mandated reports detailing almost 100 incidents of 

abuse and professional misconduct by the BIA and Spirit Lake 

Tribal Social Services. As with Dr. Tilus, Mr. Sullivan’s presence 

was also requested here today, but denied. 

Although neither Dr. Tilus or Mr. Sullivan ever received recognition by their superiors, they did receive validation on October 2012 

in the form of the Spirit Lake Nation’s voluntary retrocession of 

their 628 authority to administer social services programs on the 

reservation, making the Bureau of Indian Affairs not only the primary law enforcement authority on the Spirit Lake Reservation, 

but for Child Social Services as well. 

Unfortunately, there continue to be repeated reports of abuse 

and deaths on the reservation. It is my understanding the BIA 

knew since spring of 2012 that Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services 

was failing to safeguard the health and safety of Indian children, 

yet waited until the fall of 2012 before officially taking over their 

program. There are numerous reports in that timeframe of dead or 

injured children as a result of abuse. It would be unfortunate if the 

protection of those children was secondary to other motivations. 

I expect the committee to be briefed on BIA’s almost 2-year process of improving the welfare of my constituents, most importantly 

the children of Spirit Lake. I agree with the Chairman—it is about 

the children. 

We should also be apprised of the BIA’s exit strategy in regard 

to social services, and what is the standard they hope to achieve 

on Spirit Lake before the tribe can again take over these responsibilities. 

Additionally, what, if anything, is the BIA doing to address the 

repeated allegations of a lack of accountability for the child welfare 

and law enforcement services provided to the citizens? Our hearings, like today, are public. All of our votes are public. My duty carries with it a requirement to respond to media and constituents to 

take account for my decisions. Yet, I continuously hear complaints 

by media attempting to cover Spirit Lake of an utter lack of accountability to produce information. 

As early as last year, a local television reporter covering Spirit 

Lake was assaulted with a BIA officer nearby providing no support 

to the victim. 

We are honored to have here today Chairman Russ McDonald of 

the Spirit Lake Nation. During the last year I have appreciated 

working with Chairman McDonald after he took office. I hope today’s hearing will assist the Chairman and the Spirit Lake Nation 

in addressing the many challenges associated with this important 

issue. 

4 

We also have here today former Judge Molly McDonald. Judge 

McDonald served 2 years on the Spirit Lake tribal court, overseeing not only the criminal docket, but social services as well. Her 

prior experience with the judicial system, not only tribal but the 

U.S. Federal court system as well, during her tenure as a probation 

agent, will provide this subcommittee with concrete facts and objectives in order to facilitate not just protection for the children of 

Spirit Lake, but justice for past victims. 

I am hopeful today’s hearing will put a bright-enough spotlight 

on the situation in Spirit Lake to bring about the meaningful and 

urgent actions we owe these children. 

With that, I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Ca ́ rdenas. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TONY CA ́ RDENAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Young. I 

would also like to start by thanking our witnesses. I want to thank 

you so much for taking time out of your schedule to bring forth 

your knowledge and experience, so that we can better understand 

this issue. 

Today’s hearing is about an important topic: child abuse. Child 

abuse is wrong, period. And, as a society, we must ensure our 

young ones are protected at all times. 

In 2012, reports began to surface, alleging that child abuse was 

rampant on the Spirit Lake Reservation in North Dakota. These 

stories were covered by national press outlets and led to Federal 

investigations into the situation on that reservation. 

At today’s hearing I am looking forward to hearing testimony 

from our Federal agencies dealing with this crisis to see what they 

are doing to remedy the situation and to ensure Spirit Lake children are protected. 

As tough as an issue as this is, anyone who would use the tragedy of the Spirit Lake situation for political gain, or who would use 

it to make the case that tribes cannot manage their own affairs, 

or should not be respected as sovereigns, is seriously misguided. No 

one cares more for Native American children more than their tribes 

and their Indian families. 

Let us not forget that for over a century the United States and 

the States actively sought to kidnap Indian children in order to civilize them. In 1978, Congress repudiated these practices by enacting the Indian Child Welfare Act, which recognized the fact that 

Indian communities, while culturally distinct from mainstream society, are more capable of providing for their young than anyone 

else. 

The committee is holding this hearing at the request of my colleague, Congressman Cramer, and he has said that legislation may 

be needed to deal with this issue. I agree with Congressman 

Cramer. Legislation is certainly needed to deal with various issues 

in Indian Country. But when we discuss legislation that would affect tribes, we have to be careful to get our facts straight. 

First, tribes are inherently sovereign. This is a fact that was recognized by our founding fathers, and that is enshrined in the U.S. 

5 

Constitution. The United States did not grant sovereignty to tribes; 

it recognized it. So, when we craft legislation aimed at aiding 

tribes, we have to do it from that standpoint. Any measures which 

would erode a tribe’s sovereignty are an anathema to established 

Federal Indian policy. 

Second, social ills run rampant in impoverished communities, 

and are not confined to communities of color or Indian reservations. 

Let us not forget that communities all across the United States 

deal with similar problems. I am concerned because some fringe 

groups are using the situation in Spirit Lake to make the case that 

tribes cannot manage their own affairs, and that tribal communities are not fit to raise their own children. Capitalizing on this 

crisis is sickening. And, as elected leaders, we have a duty to make 

policy based on sound research and congressional precedent, not on 

the attenuated claims of fringe elements. 

We also must concede that violence against women and violence 

against children is inextricably linked. That is why I am puzzled 

that the same Members of Congress that fought so hard against 

provisions in the Violence Against Women Act that would enable 

tribes to protect their own communities are now turning their attention to Indian child welfare. 

Progress is being made on the Spirit Lake Reservation. Back in 

October of 2012, the tribe made the decision to retrocede child protection services to the BIA. New tribal leadership took the helm 

last fall, and in February a new social services director was appointed. Both are here with us today, and the tribe is using the lessons of the past to work with the State and Federal partners to 

chart a positive course forward to protect the children of Spirit 

Lake. DoJ and BIA police have stepped up their commitment to arrest and prosecute individuals who harm kids at Spirit Lake. The 

perpetrators involved in the 2011 and 2013 child deaths are both 

behind bars. 

Of course, challenges remain. Both the tribe and the BIA continue to face barriers to recruit and retain qualified staff, due to 

the reservation’s remoteness, poor housing options, and bad publicity. Tight Federal budgets and a maze of jurisdictions and bureaucracy complicate this process, and many community members 

are skeptical, and continue to fear that kids are not as safe as they 

should be. Federal, State, and tribal officials all must take responsibility and work together. 

I appreciate the recent collaboration between everyone, and look 

forward to hearing your efforts to build a high-quality foster care 

system at Spirit Lake. I am also interested to learn what has been 

done to overcome the biggest barriers to your work, and what 

Congress can do to remove some of those barriers. 

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman for the gentleman’s information. 

I did vote for the provisions for Violence Against Women. I want 

you to know that. I wasn’t one of those that didn’t vote for it, and 

worked hard to make sure they were included. 

The first panel is Michael Black, Director of Bureau of Indian 

Affairs. Michael, welcome back. He is accompanied by Darren 

6 

Cruzan, Director of BIA Office of Justice Services and the Staff of 

Office of Indian Services. 

We also welcome Joo Yeun Chang, Associate Commissioner, 

Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health 

and Human Services. 

Thank you, you may be seated. I think you all know the rules, 

how this is going to work. You have 5 minutes. If you are doing 

something really good, I may let you go a little longer. If not, I will 

shut you down. And then, when you get done, we will have the full 

panel, and there will be questions. 

I will probably have to leave and come back and leave and come 

back. We have another hearing at the other end of the hall that 

I have to be at for questions too. But Mr. Cramer will chair the 

meeting when I am not here. 

And, with that, I believe we will have Mr. Michael Black, 

Director of the Indian Affairs, to proceed with his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. BLACK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 

INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY DARREN CRUZAN, DIRECTOR, BIA OFFICE 

OF JUSTICE SERVICES 

Mr. BLACK. Good afternoon, Chairman Young, Ranking Member, 

and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Make sure you use the microphones, guys. Just that 

little button in front. I forget it, too. 

Mr. BLACK. All right. Well, again, good afternoon, Chairman 

Young, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony for the Department of the Interior on child protection and the justice system on 

the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. 

It is important to focus on Spirit Lake at this time, because it 

is an example of the serious challenges that many Indian reservations are facing. Throughout the country, protection of children is 

a top priority for Federal, State, tribal, and local governments. In 

a time of limited resources, however, challenges remain in Indian 

Country and in many States. 

Sequestration inflicted additional challenges on Indian Country 

in 2013, cutting over $6.2 million from BIA human services, and 

$17 million from BIA public safety and justice. Sequestration cuts 

for social services alone were equivalent to eliminating 15 social 

service workers of tribal and BIA-operated programs. The 2014 

budget passed by Congress restores many of these cuts inflicted by 

sequestration, but resources remain constrained, making it difficult 

to meet all of our needs in Indian Country. 

For that reason, the President’s 2015 budget includes critical increases for both BIA human services and law enforcement to support families and communities. The 2015 budget proposes the 

Tiwahe Initiative, with an increase of $11.6 million in social services and job training programs to address inter-related problems of 

child and family welfare, poverty, violence, and substance abuse in 

tribal communities. Tiwahe is the Lakota word for family. Through 

this initiative, social services and job training programs will be integrated and expanded to provide culturally appropriate programs 

7 

to assist and empower families and individuals through economic 

opportunity, health promotion, family stability, and strengthened 

communities. 

Funding the Tiwahe Initiative is vital to addressing the significant challenges faced by children on Spirit Lake Reservation and 

Indian Country as a whole. We urge Congress to take this request 

seriously. 

The Spirit Lake Indian Tribe faces significant challenges in restoring a stable and well-functioning social services program. The 

BIA stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the tribe, as it attempts to 

meet these significant challenges. 

To the tribe’s credit, the leadership at Spirit Lake has been aggressive in seeking guidance, and reforming its programs. It has, 

for example, sought assistance from the Casey Family Programs, 

ACF, and the BIA, in order to reform and improve all facets of 

their social services programs, from foster care to tribal courts. In 

seeking improvements, the tribal leadership has not shied away 

from scrutiny. 

In addition to formal or informal program reviews, and support 

by Casey Family Programs and ACF in recent weeks and months, 

the tribe has obtained an extensive on-the-ground review of its policing programs by the BIA Office of Justice Services, and it has 

also undergone an extensive tribal court assessment in the last several months. It is also working with BIA to prioritize specific needs 

for training and technical assistance for all court personnel. 

Though addressing a systemic restructuring of the programs will 

take time, the leadership at Spirit Lake has embraced the need for 

improvements, and has sought assistance in many corners. Such efforts provide confidence that the tribe is a good partner, and that 

there is a strong will to address the problems at the tribal level. 

Since October 1, 2012, the BIA has had responsibility for the social services programs previously contracted by the tribe. The tribe 

continues to operate a title IV–E program funded by ACF through 

the State of North Dakota with a Tribe-State agreement for foster 

care placements. The BIA foster care program actively works to 

transfer children to services under the tribe’s 4E program, provided 

the children meet the criteria for the program. 

Hiring permanent staff at Spirit Lake has proven to be a challenge for BIA for several reasons. Similar to many States across 

the country, both our BIA programs in this region and in the State 

of North Dakota reported a shortage of qualified social worker applicants. We have seen this repeatedly in hiring certifications with 

no applicants at all, or unsuitable applicants. We have increased 

our efforts at Spirit Lake by offering bonuses and expanded outreach to non-Indian candidates. Yet, despite these efforts, we have 

experienced instances where the best candidate was selected, only 

to have the individual later withdraw or fail to satisfy the background check. 

Another challenge has been the lack of available housing in the 

area. And, finally, unsubstantiated allegations of publicity regarding the Spirit Lake Reservation, even with significant improvements that have been made since retrocession, has significantly 

hindered permanent hiring. 

8 

As a result, the BIA continues to detail staff to cover the advertised positions at Spirit Lake. And given all the factors noted 

above, the Department is also pursuing contracting options to provide longer-term stability until the program can be permanently 

staffed. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on the issue of 

child protection and the justice system on Spirit Lake Indian 

Reservation. The Department is committed to doing its part to ensure the safety and protection of the children of Spirit Lake and 

at other reservations throughout the country. I would be glad to 

answer any questions the subcommittee may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. BLACK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Chairman Young, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the subcommittee, 

my name is Michael Black and I am the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA). Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony for the Department of 

the Interior (Department) on ‘‘Child Protection and the Justice System on the Spirit 

Lake Indian Reservation.’’ 

It is important to focus on Spirit Lake because it is an example of the serious 

challenges that many Indian reservations are facing. Throughout the country, protection of children is a top priority for Federal, State, tribal, and local governments. 

In a time of limited resources, however, challenges remain in Indian country and 

in many States. Sequestration inflicted additional challenges on Indian country in 

FY2013—cutting over $6.2 million from BIA Human Services and $17 million from 

BIA Public Safety and Justice. Sequestration cuts for social services alone were the 

equivalent of eliminating 15 social services workers at tribal and BIA operated programs. As sequestration took back millions of dollars from these areas, the Spirit 

Lake Tribe retroceded social services to the BIA. 

The Fiscal Year 2014 Budget passed by Congress restores many of the cuts inflicted by sequestration, with BIA Human Services funding at Fiscal Year 2012 levels and BIA Public Safety and Justice receiving an increase of $3.7 million over 

Fiscal Year 2012 levels. Despite restoring some of those cuts, resources remain constrained, making it difficult to meet all of our needs in Indian country. 

For that reason, the President’s Fiscal Year 2015 Budget includes critical increases for both BIA Human Services and BIA Public Safety and Justice. To support 

Native American families and communities, the 2015 budget proposes the Tiwahe 

Initiative, with an increase of $11.6 million in social services and job training programs to address the interrelated problems of child and family welfare, poverty, violence, and substance abuse in tribal communities. Tiwahe is the Lakota word for 

‘‘family.’’ Through this initiative, social services and job training programs will be 

integrated and expanded to provide culturally appropriate programs to assist and 

empower families and individuals through economic opportunity, health promotion, 

family stability, and strengthened communities. Funding the Tiwahe Initiative is 

vital to addressing the significant challenges faced by children on the Spirit Lake 

Reservation and elsewhere in Indian country. We urge Congress to take this request 

seriously. 

To promote public safety and tribal community resilience, the 2015 budget request 

also includes resources to build on BIA Law Enforcement’s recent successes in reducing violent crime. A pilot program will be implemented to lower repeat incarceration rates in tribally operated jails on three reservations—Red Lake in Minnesota, 

Ute Mountain in Colorado and Duck Valley in Nevada—with a new Priority Goal 

to lower repeat incarcerations by a total of 3 percent by September 30, 2015. The 

Alternatives to Incarceration Strategy will seek to address underlying causes of repeat offenses, such as substance abuse and lack of adequate access to social service 

support, through intergovernmental and interagency partnerships. The critical 

needs of Indian country are evident both at Spirit Lake and elsewhere. The 

Department calls upon this committee to fully support the President’s Budget on 

these critical issues so that tribal communities have the necessary tools to protect 

Indian children. 

9 

SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS TO SUPPORT IMPROVEMENTS AT SPIRIT LAKE

The Spirit Lake Indian Tribe (Tribe) faces significant challenges in restoring a 

stable and well-functioning social services program. The BIA stands shoulder-toshoulder with the Tribe as it attempts to meet these significant challenges. To the 

Tribe’s credit, the leadership at Spirit Lake has been aggressive in seeking guidance 

in reforming its programs. For example, it has sought assistance from Casey Family 

Programs and the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

In seeking improvements, the tribal leadership has not shied away from scrutiny. 

In addition to formal or informal program reviews and support by Casey Family 

Programs and ACF in recent weeks and months, the Tribe has obtained an extensive on-the-ground review of its policing programs by the BIA Office of Justice 

Services (BIA OJS). It has also undergone an extensive BIA tribal court assessment 

in the last several months, and is working with the BIA OJS, Division of Tribal 

Justice Support, to prioritize specific needs for training and technical assistance for 

all court personnel. 

Though addressing programmatic challenges will take time, the leadership at 

Spirit Lake has embraced the need for improvements and has sought assistance in 

many corners. Such effort provides confidence that the Tribe is a good partner and 

that there is a strong will to address the problems at the tribal level. 

BACKGROUND OF SPIRIT LAKE SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAM

Prior to October 1, 2012, the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe operated the Social Services 

programs under a P.L. 93–638 contract with the Federal Government. Beginning in 

August of 2011, the Tribe operated the programs under a Corrective Action Plan 

(CAP), which required the Tribe to address activities that were identified in its 

yearly contract review as required under the P.L. 93–638 contracting requirements. 

Leading up to October 1, 2012, the Tribe had a year to complete the CAP in order 

to maintain operation of the Social Services programs under its P.L. 93–638 contract. The BIA monitored the Tribe’s Social Services programs and provided it with 

technical assistance to assist the Tribe with maintaining these programs. Despite 

these efforts, tribal social services continued to experience areas of poor performance. With likely incompletion of the CAP, the Tribe chose to retrocede those 

P.L. 93–638 contracted Social Services programs to BIA. The Tribe retained operation of the 477, Welfare Assistance, and ICWA programs. 

Since October 1, 2012, the BIA has had responsibility for the Social Services programs once contracted by the Tribe. The Tribe also operates a Title IV–E program 

funded by ACF through the State of North Dakota with a tribal-State agreement 

for foster care placements. The children placed under the IV–E North Dakota State 

agreement are not subject to BIA supervision since care, control, and custody lie 

with the Tribe and the Tribe is responsible for oversight on those foster care placements. The BIA foster care program actively works to transfer children to services 

under the Tribe’s IV–E agreement with the State of North Dakota, provided the 

children meet the criteria for the Tribe’s IV–E program. 

As of June 11, 2014, there are 26 children in foster homes, 63 children in relative 

care, and 8 in other placements, such as group homes, treatment, etc. It is important to note that there are a total of 97 children that are in the care, control, and 

custody of the BIA. Regardless of the nature of the placements, the BIA Social Services Program works closely with the Tribe and its Tribal Court to ensure care and 

custody of the children is properly addressed in every case. 

Immediately after the retrocession on October 1, 2012, the BIA Social Services 

Program took the following actions: 

• Detailed 12 Social Workers to the Tribe to assist at different periods of the 

transition during the first 30 days of operation after retrocession. 

• Established a new office, including work space for staff, set up for computers, 

telephone lines, phones, fax machines, and on-call cell phones. 

• Advertised six positions for the BIA Social Services program. 

• Collaborated with the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribal Court to establish care and 

control of children in custody, identify the children in placement, and obtain 

court records. 

• Partnered with the Tribe to develop a protocol for Title IV–E and IV–B 

(Family Preservation) to assist with establishing an agreement between the 

two programs regarding transferring of cases. 

• Inventoried stored case files to determine files needing to be archived and 

files related to active cases. 

10 

• Collaborated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Red River Advocacy 

Center, and BIA OJS to complete forensic interviews. 

• Attended meetings with the Spirit Lake Tribal Council in order to network 

services. 

• Worked with the Department of Justice to complete fingerprinting for children, aged 14 and older, that the BIA would have care and control over and 

all adults living in the home with them. 

The continuing work of the BIA Social Services Program includes: 

• Providing child protection, child welfare assistance, case management, emergency assistance, burial assistance, and family and community services, as 

well as supervising Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts; 

• Receiving, reviewing, and investigating reports of alleged child abuse and/or 

neglect; 

• Maintaining and managing current and active case files for 97 children, as 

well as coordinating services for children and families, making referrals, conducting permanency planning, and supervising visits; 

• Participating in child protection and multi-disciplinary teams and hosting 

team meetings to review on a regular basis child abuse and neglect cases; 

• Hiring two additional in-house social services personnel and working to recruit and hire four more; and 

• Rotating 19 social workers from other BIA agencies to the Fort Totten Agency 

at various intervals since October 1, 2012, to provide support and expertise 

during the tribal program’s transition to BIA management. 

The continuing work of the BIA OJS includes: 

• Working with the BIA Fort Totten Agency and Federal law enforcement (U.S. 

Attorney’s Office and Federal Bureau of Investigations in North Dakota) on 

child safety and protection at Spirit Lake; 

• Training BIA social services staff in the use of mobile fingerprinting units 

and assisting with the fingerprinting of foster parents; 

• Investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect at Spirit Lake; 

• Continuing to work with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office in North Dakota on all active Spirit Lake cases; and 

• Providing tribal court tribal advocacy training for tribal judges, public defenders and prosecutors on cases dealing with sexual assault of children. 

BIA OJS, Division of Tribal Justice Support (TJS), also conducted a comprehensive tribal court assessment for the Spirit Lake Nation’s Tribal Court. The assessment resulted in recommendations to assist with Tribal Court staffing, Tribal Code 

development, and Tribal Court Training. In addition, BIA OJS/TJS provided: 

• Immediate funding to the Spirit Lake Nation to assist with staffing needs 

within the Tribal Court: positions have been funded to assist in Child Welfare 

matters in the Tribal Court: (a) Family Services Indian Child Welfare 

Presenter, (b) Guardian Ad Litems (2 GAL Positions), (c) Juvenile Public 

Defender. 

• A Tribal Court Bench Book; and Desk Book for Practicing Lawyers and funding for Code development. 

• Funding for a Child Protection Title IV/E training opportunity for the Tribe’s 

juvenile tribal court judge. 

STAFFING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AT THE SPIRIT LAKE SIOUX

TRIBE

Hiring permanent staff at Spirit Lake has proven to be a challenge for BIA for 

several reasons. Similar to many States across the country, both our BIA programs 

in this region and the State of North Dakota report a shortage of qualified social 

worker applicants. We have seen this repeatedly in hiring certifications with no applicants at all or unsuitable applicants. We have increased our efforts at Spirit Lake 

by offering bonuses and expanding outreach to non-Indian candidates. Despite these 

efforts, we have experienced instances where the best candidate was selected, only 

to have the individual later withdraw or fail to satisfy the background check. 

Another challenge has been the lack of available housing in the area. Finally, unsubstantiated allegations and publicity regarding the Spirit Lake Reservation, even 

with the significant improvements that have been made since retrocession, have significantly hindered permanent hiring. As a result, the BIA continues to detail staff 

to cover the advertised positions at Spirit Lake. Given all the factors noted above, 

11 

the Department is pursuing contracting options to provide longer term stability 

until the program is permanently staffed. 

When fully staffed, the BIA Social Service program at Spirit Lake includes six 

permanent positions. These six positions are as follows: 

1—Supervisory Social Worker: Manages all program element operations 

and supervises social services staff; assists with investigations and case 

management, as needed; assists on call as needed; acts as liaison to other 

Federal, State, county and tribal agencies and partners. 

3—Child Welfare Specialists: Two of these positions are focused on child 

protection/abuse and neglect investigations; and one of these positions is focused on case management for monitoring and services such as home visits 

for foster care and relative placements and safety plans. 

1—Social Services Representative: Tracks and screens new abuse and neglect reports; coordinates court activities, home visits and other assistance 

as needed. 

1—Social Services Assistant: Assists with all phone and walk-in traffic, 

filing, and all other administrative tasks. 

Presently, the Supervisory Social Worker has been selected with a reporting date 

of June 30, 2014, and two of the Child Welfare Specialist positions are advertised. 

Currently, there are 14 sworn law enforcement positions at the BIA Fort Totten 

Agency. These 14 positions include the Chief of Police and 2 Special Agent Investigator positions. There is one vacant police officer position. The Tribe has one certified officer hired for a tribal police officer position. There is a second tribal officer 

position, which is vacant. These two tribal police officer positions will support the 

BIA staff at Spirit Lake. The BIA Fort Totten Agency has also received a full time 

experienced Law Enforcement Assistant to provide administrative support. 

The BIA OJS conducted an initiative to assist the BIA Fort Totten Agency with 

identifying and correcting mandatory BIA-OJS handbook compliance deficiencies, as 

well as program leadership and first line supervision mentoring. This initiative was 

led by the BIA OJS Assistant Director, along with supervisors and agents from 

other agencies. Evidence, Police Reports, case load, scheduling and communications 

issues were of primary concern. Training in these areas was provided along with 

best practice recommendations. 

Regular weekly meetings were established between the local BIA OJS management and the Tribal Chairman to discuss program activities as well as to ensure 

that communication is improved and pending investigations are briefed regularly. 

A BIA OJS Special Agent has been assigned to monitor/work child abuse and child 

sexual assault cases for the BIA Fort Totten area. He has direct contact with Social 

Services three to five times per week. There are currently six open ‘‘960 Reports for 

Child Abuse and Child Sexual Abuse’’: three of these are FBI cases and three are 

BIA cases. 

PROCESS AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS

Since retrocession, the BIA has adopted a number of significant procedures and 

resource partnerships that not only ensure safety and protection of children, but 

also engage the community in family preservation activities designed to reduce instances of abuse. In addition, the efforts at Spirit Lake also allowed program and 

BIA staff to filter through some of the unsubstantiated cases through improving 

mandatory reporting methodologies in coordination with other key partners such as 

the medical facilities and school systems. The mandatory reporter methodologies 

alone have resulted in a 40 percent drop in child abuse and neglect reports. The 

methodologies have also resulted in reports with information which facilitates a 

more rapid and thorough investigation strategy. For the past few months, the number of referrals has maintained even levels of approximately 50–80 per month. 

BIA protocols have been established for all key social services processes. Staff detailed to Spirit Lake either know or are trained on the proper protocols for investigations, case management, foster care, and all other key social services processes. 

This standardization has led to more consistent and thorough processing and results 

across the board. Most importantly, both foster care placements and abuse and neglect reports are documented and tracked through a concise system. Training has 

been coordinated and completed internally and through other State and Federal 

Agency partners to improve services at Spirit Lake. 

Currently, the Social Services program operates under a 12-week set of detail assignments, which establishes coverage for all vacant positions. The number of 

detailees to Spirit Lake is reduced as permanent hiring for vacant positions take 

12 

place. The BIA will continue to aggressively pursue hiring for these vacant positions 

until all positions are filled. 

The BIA also has other highlights of the positive improvements and efforts at 

Spirit Lake, which include: 

• The BIA Social Services program continues to collaborate with the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, Red River Advocacy Center, and BIA OJS to complete forensic interviews for children who report instances of mental, physical, 

or sexual abuse. 

• The BIA staff has worked on encoding data and uploading documentation for 

cases into the Financial Assistance and Case Management System (FASSCMS) that is utilized by all BIA Social Services programs for thorough tracking. 

• The BIA staff is performing 24-hour per day on-call Child Protective Services 

as of October 1, 2012, and has partnered with BIA OJS, Office of Law 

Enforcement Services to assist with investigations of referrals of allegations 

of child abuse and/or neglect. 

• Since November 1, 2012, the Social Services program has assumed the responsibility of leading bi-weekly Child Protection Team (CPT) meetings, 

which allow multiple local agencies to staff particular cases to best coordinate 

physical and mental health services for children in the BIA’s care and custody. The members of this team are: BIA Social Services, Spirit Lake Tribal 

Social Services, Ramsey and Benson County Social Services staff, school district staff, Indian Health Service staff, and local counseling and family services providers. The meetings are usually held the 1st and 3rd Thursday of 

every month. All members of this team sign confidentiality statements. 

• Since November 1, 2012, the Social Services staff participates in the MultiDisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings coordinated through the Department of 

Justice’s U.S. Attorney’s office to address those cases which are the subject 

of criminal investigation and prosecution in either Federal or tribal court. 

Members of this team consist of: BIA Social Services, FBI, U.S. Attorney, 

Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services, the Tribal prosecutor, BIAOJS, Office of 

Law Enforcement Services, Spirit Lake Tribal Victim’s Assistance program, 

and Red River Advocacy (an organization conducting forensic interviews of 

children). The next meeting is not yet scheduled, but meetings will likely be 

every 4–6 weeks depending on the volume of forensic interviews. All members 

of this team sign confidentiality agreements. 

• On November 30, 2012, the BIA Great Plains Regional Office, Human 

Services, BIA Fort Totten Agency Social Services, Spirit Lake Tribal Social 

Services, and the University of North Dakota’s Children and Family Services 

Training Center co-presented mandatory reporter training to the Spirit Lake 

community. The BIA also recently offered a refresher course in mandatory reporting and processes for filing a thorough abuse and neglect report at 

Candeska Cikana (Little Hoop) Community College on April 29, 2014. 

• Since June 2012, the Social Services Coalition (SSC) meets approximately 

once a month to communicate and collaborate on providing effective delivery 

of social service-related programs. Members of this coalition include all local 

State, county, Federal, and tribal social service entities; representatives from 

State district, tribal, and Federal courts; Law Enforcement; the Victim’s 

Assistance program; the Tribal Council; and area leaders. The SSC works on 

interagency services coordination and communication, inter-agency community events like Child and Family Wellness Fairs, and other community 

issues related to social services, as they arise. 

• On January 8, 2013, the BIA Great Plains Region and BIA OJS provided fingerprint training to Tribal and BIA Social Services staff at the BIA Fort 

Totten Agency. The Agency has received three mobile fingerprinting units 

that the social services staff has begun to use for in-home fingerprinting of 

adults in foster and relative placement homes. 

• On March 12, 2013, a Child and Family Wellness Fair was held in Fort 

Totten, North Dakota, where resource providers shared information with the 

Tribe’s community members on topics such as domestic violence prevention 

and services. 

• The BIA has been participating in the Tribe’s 5-year strategic planning process in May and June 2014 for receipt of Title IV–B funding to offer a variety 

of child and family services. The plan has widespread stakeholder buy-in and 

all service providers will benefit from expanded family services available in 

the community. The Native American Training Institute from Bismarck, 

North Dakota is facilitating the planning and application process. 

13 

CONCLUSION

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on the issue of ‘‘Child Protection 

and the Justice System on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation.’’ The Department is 

committed to doing its part to ensure the safety and protection of children at the 

Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe. I would be glad to answer any questions the subcommittee 

may have. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO MICHAEL BLACK, BUREAU OF INDIAN

AFFAIRS

Question 1. Please provide the name of the tribal social services employee who 

recommended placing the two twin girls in the home of their step-grandmother, 

Hope Louis Tomahawk Whiteshield? Is he/she an employee of the BIA? Please provide all other instances where this tribal social services employee placed children 

in foster homes who subsequently experienced documented abuse, neglect, injury 

and/or death. Please redact as necessary to protect the identity of minors. 

Answer. Mr. Paul Hutchinson, Director, Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services and 

Ms. Irenice Noseep, Spirit Lake Tribal ICWA Director are the individuals who recommended the placement. Both persons were employed by the Spirit Lake Tribe at 

the time and were not (nor have they ever been) employed by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs. Additionally, both persons are no longer working for the Spirit Lake Tribe. 

As this placement was accomplished using tribal transfer of jurisdiction under 

ICWA, any records of these employees placing children would have to be obtained 

from the Spirit Lake Tribe. 

Question 2. As stated during the hearing, please provide a spreadsheet indicating 

the status of investigations regarding the allegations of Thomas Sullivan in his 

mandated reports. Please redact as necessary to protect the identity of minors. 

Answer. Spreadsheet is attached. 


88503.004.eps 88503.005.eps
14 

Question 3. What capacity does the BIA possess to enter into or encourage joint 

aide agreements with surrounding government entities to help augment the available resources for Spirit Lake? Has the Spirit Lake tribe entered into such agreements with the surrounding ND State and/or county entities? Have they done so in 

the past? If so, why not presently? 

Answer. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has been working to develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Spirit Lake Tribe to bring all components of 

the Spirit Lake Child Welfare system into a more unified system. This includes an 

effort to co-locate BIA and Spirit Lake Tribe child protection, foster care, and ICWA 

services under one roof to increase communication and collaboration to protect Spirit 

Lake children. We are actively seeking portable space that will serve our space 

needs for this endeavor through the collaboration of our BIA Housing staff and facilities staff. We are in preliminary discussions about including the local county, 

which is already using a tribal building as a satellite office. 

BIA is also working closely with the tribe to incorporate technical assistance from 

Casey Family Programs to strengthen overall child welfare practices. The BIA has 

been participating in the planning meetings and participating in child welfare training needs to ensure the agencies are working together and closing any gaps between 

systems. The proposed draft MOA formalizes our efforts to share training and information, as well as encourages the development of unified processes and procedures 

for operations mindful of the ultimate plans for eventual tribal re-assumption of all 

programs once the tribe has completed its long-term capacity building efforts. 

Although, BIA has not had any formal written agreements in the past with the 

surrounding government agencies, BIA has been participating in the Spirit Lake 

Coalition Meetings and new Spirit Lake Children’s Coordinating Council with representation from the Ft. Totten Agency, Regional level and Central Office level. The 

BIA also participates in the multi-disciplinary teams which review cases for possible 

prosecution and other efforts, such as collaborative community family services fairs 

or outreach and training regarding suicide prevention or substance abuse. 

Question 4. As stated by the Interim Director for Spirit Lake Social Services during the June 24, 2014 hearing, there could be as many as 30 or more children still 

unaccounted for as the result of alleged improper placements. What kind of investigation was done in regard to these allegations? Could you please provide the work 

product regarding your investigation(s) to this committee? If no investigation was 

undertaken, please provide an explanation as to why not. Please redact as necessary 

to protect the identity of minors. 

Answer. The Spirit Lake Tribe has hired an individual who has been conducting 

the investigation into the allegation that a certain number of children remain unaccounted for as a result of improper placements. This figure has been reported in the 

media as ranging from 30 to 100 children, primarily by Ms. Betty Jo Krenz, a licensed social worker and mandatory reporter. Mr. Thomas Sullivan has also repeated these allegations as a self-identified mandatory reporter. Both individuals, 

as mandatory reporters, have a responsibility to file mandatory reports through the 

proper process at this location, which starts with the filing of a formal report of 

abuse and neglect (also known as a 960 report form in North Dakota). Law Enforcement interviewed Mr. Sullivan directly to receive any information in his possession 

about specific instances of abuse and neglect and Mr. Sullivan has not provided a 

specific list with identifying information regarding victims and/or perpetrators to the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has provided the background information requested 

by the tribal investigator of these allegations. Any information specific to the tribal 

investigation would need to be made to the Spirit Lake Tribe. The Bureau of Indian 

Affairs urges Representative Cramer and any other individuals receiving such reports to strongly encourage and insist that those individuals immediately come to 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Social Services and file an official report of abuse and neglect, particularly any mandatory reporters, who are required by law to do so. They 

can do so in person or over the phone at any time. 

Question 5. When acquiring new BIA personnel for the Spirit Lake Tribe, what 

role does the tribe play in such hiring decisions? 

Answer. The Spirit Lake Tribe has given permission to the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs to waive Indian preference in hiring to assist in filling positions. Tribe does 

not play a role in the selection process of new Social Services staff of Bureau of 

Indian Affairs at Agency locations. 

Question 6. Please provide the jurisdictional breakdown between the BIA and the 

tribe regarding Social Services on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. Do yon have 

15 

authority to assume all responsibility for social services programs on the Spirit Lake 

reservation? 

Answer. The Bureau of Indian Affairs provides child protective services as well 

as initial and emergency foster care placement and case management and will continue to do so until, at some later date, the tribe successfully contracts those functions. In order to do so, it must be able to demonstrate sufficient capacity. 

The tribe has an IV–E agreement with the State to provide foster care for children meeting Title N–E eligibility requirements. Although the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs would make emergency placements based on suspected or substantiated 

cases of abuse and neglect, all Title IV–E eligible cases would normally be transferred to Tribal Social Services Foster care. The transfer of these cases is not happening due to the lack of staff resources at Tribal Social Services. 

The tribe operates a broad range of social services programs not involving child 

protective services and foster care which are either self-funded or funded through 

other Federal sources. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has the authority to intervene 

to ensure child safety. 

Question 7. What efforts have you made to address the lack of accountability of 

your agents on the Spirit Lake as expressed by Molly McDonald during the June 

24, 2014 hearing? 

Answer. BIA has consulted with Labor Relations to address performance and conduct issues with staff. Several Officers/Agents have resigned/retired and are no 

longer with the agency, one has voluntarily stepped down to a lesser grade. Additionally we conduct case file reviews locally every 45 days to ensure cases are progressing appropriately. 

Question 8. During the June 24, 2014 hearing, there was discussion regarding a 

BIA Special Investigator and reports of purported domestic abuse inflicted by him 

against his wife. Have these allegations been investigated by the BIA? Were formal 

charges ever filed? If not, please provide an explanation. 

Answer. Raised in the Sullivan Allegation labeled 38J: ‘‘This was investigated and 

the wife was interviewed by law enforcement. She advised she was never abused 

or assaulted and that she put the language in the letter that way because she was 

mad at the other female and wanted to get her fired.’’ No charges were filed in this 

case and the investigation is closed based upon the admission of the wife to falsifying this information. 

Question 9. Does the BIA currently have an office of Ombudsman program to 

serve as an intermediary between tribal members and the BIA? Is it possible to create such a position within your existing authority? 

Answer. The BIA does not have an office of Ombudsman program. The BIA currently has twelve (12) Regions located throughout the United States and each 

Region has a Regional office and several agency offices. These offices assist in the 

local administration of BIA programs for tribes and for tribal members. Tribes and 

tribal members living on or off Indian lands can contact their local agency or 

Regional office regarding the administration of BIA programs. These BIA Regional 

and agency offices currently assist as the direct link between tribes and tribal members and the BIA. 

Question 10. Patricia Denice White alleges her infant grandson was improperly 

returned to the child’s drug dependent mother by Tribal Court without adequate 

safeguards in place to protect the child from future harm. Please inform this committee of all steps taken to insure the safety of this child. 

Answer. The child referenced in this question is under the care, control and custody of the BIA Social Services program and is placed in a relative environment 

with the maternal grandmother. The placement is also subject to protective strategies which include the mother going through drug and alcohol abuse treatment. At 

this time, it appears that the mother is doing well with all treatments and complying with random and scheduled visits with a staff social worker. 

Question 11. Is it true, on or about June 24, 2014, two BIA Law Enforcement 

Officers allegedly responded to the home of Patricia Denice White? If true, is it also 

correct the same officers failed to validate any facts which purportedly initiated the 

purpose of their visit? It is alleged your Officer’s presence at the home of Ms. White 

was initiated due to Ms. White and her daughter Britnee Iceman’s participation in 

the June 24, 2014 hearing. Please respond to this allegation. What have your officers done to investigate the source of this information for making a false report to 

police (or similar crime)? 

16 

Answer. We received only one report in our automated records management system regarding Patricia Denice White, which was reported on May 24, 2014 and listed a Denise White. There are no reports on the radio log regarding Denise White/ 

Patricia Denice White matching that date. There were no IMARS entries for 

Brittany Iceman or Patricia Denice White. 

On May 24, 2014 a female called requesting an officer to come to her residence 

because of a potential domestic incident between her nephew and his girlfriend. Dispatch relayed the information to the on duty officer. The reporting party called back 

and canceled the call for service. 

Question 12. According to the Grand Forks Herald, on or about November 28, 

2013 seven additional BIA Law Enforcement Officers were assigned to the Spirit 

Lake Tribe. What was the purpose of their assignment? How long were these officers ultimately deployed to the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation? Why this period of 

time? 

Answer. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Justice Services senior leadership has 

developed and ultimately implemented a ‘‘Corrective Action Support Team’’ (CAST) 

philosophy to assist OJS District and Agency management assess critical programmatic issues. CAST will take immediate action to correct very specific challenges when needed. The primary goal of CAST is to ensure no material weaknesses 

exist in agency level operations. OJS senior management arrived at the Fort Totten 

Agency to conduct an assessment of critical operational functions. 

In addition to the analytical review aspect of this initiative, the CAST was able 

to provide real time coaching to employees and managers on a large variety of topics 

and disciplines. Leadership mentoring was afforded to the Chief of Police and the 

Police Lieutenants over the CAST period. 

The CAST deployment was approximately 2 weeks long. This allowed for specific 

corrections and or compliance activities undertaken at the agency. 

Question 13. When my office receives reports of inadequate conduct or investigation by your law enforcement or Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services, whom should 

we contact on their behalf? Is there someone specifically in your Aberdeen Office I 

and my constituent’s questions should be referred to? 

Answer. For issues related to the Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services, the tribe 

would be the contact. 

For issues related to law enforcement see contact information below: 

Chief of Police Raymond Cavanaugh, Fort Totten Agency Chief of Police, Fort 

Totten, ND, (701) 766–4231 

Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Jeremiah Lonewolf, District I Office Aberdeen, 

SD, (605) 226–7347 

Special Agent in Charge, Mario Redlegs, District I Office, Aberdeen, SD (605) 226– 

7347 

Question 14. Do your law enforcement officers have squad video installed in their 

police vehicles? If so, do all your Law enforcement officers receive training in regard 

to their use? Are your law enforcement officers mandated to use their squad video 

during all investigations? Why or why not? 

Answer. Uniformed Police Officers have the WatchGuard Camera System installed in their police unit. BIA OJS works with the Indian Police Academy and the 

Watch Guard Company to provide training to law enforcement officers. In-Car Video 

usage is addressed in the BIA/OJS Handbook 2nd Edition under Section 2–25 In 

Car Video (See Attached). 

17 


88503.001.eps
18 


88503.002.eps
19 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Michael. 

Just a moment. Ms. Chang. 

STATEMENT OF JOO YEUN CHANG, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER, CHILDREN’S BUREAU, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. CHANG. Thank you. Good afternoon. Chairman Young and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify 


88503.003.eps
20 

today. The Administration is committed to partnering with Spirit 

Lake to improve child safety and child well-being on the Spirit 

Lake Reservation, and we are grateful to you for having this hearing and bringing attention to the issues affecting the delivery of 

child welfare services at Spirit Lake Nation. My name is Joo Yeun 

Chang, and I am the Associate Commissioner of the Children’s 

Bureau in the Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services. 

The Bureau administers the Federal foster care and adoption assistance programs, as well as a range of prevention and postpermanency initiatives. We also provide technical assistance and 

training on a range of child welfare topics to States, counties, and 

tribes. Today I would like to talk about three things. The first is 

the Administration for Children and Families’ role in supporting 

child welfare at Spirit Lake. The second is our observations for our 

most recent trip to Spirit Lake. And finally, a summary of our recommendations to the tribe. 

ACF provides financial support for social services, primarily 

through Titles 4B and 4E of the Social Security Act. These funds 

are available to States, tribes, and territories, and can be used to 

cover a range of child welfare services, from prevention to foster 

care, adoption, and guardianship. The Spirit Lake Tribe is a direct 

Title 4B grantee, and receives title IV–E foster care and adoption 

assistance funding indirectly through an agreement with the State 

of North Dakota. 

In addition to financial support, ACF also provides technical assistance and training on a range of child welfare topics, including 

organizational and workforce development, prevention, and permanency in child welfare. We have a dedicated national resource center for tribes, as well as a number of subject matter resource 

centers, including a few that have worked with the Spirit Lake 

Tribal Social Service Agency over the years. 

In response to allegations of child abuse and neglect on the Spirit 

Lake Reservation, ACF has, in the last 7 years, conducted a series 

of investigations and assessments, and has issued recommendations on how to address these issues. 

Most recently, on April 9 and 10 of this year, I, along with some 

of my colleagues at ACF, including Lillian Sparks Robinson, 

Commissioner of the Administration on Native Americans, and 

Marrianne McMullen, ACF’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

External Affairs, conducted a listening session at Spirit Lake. We 

met with a range of stakeholders, including current and former 

Social Service staff, current and former tribal court judges, BIA 

staff, school administrators, as well as State and county social service officials. The goal of our listening session was to get a better 

understanding of the current structure of social services at Spirit 

Lake, including the division of roles and responsibilities between 

the tribe and the BIA post-retrocession, and to develop recommendations for improvement. Much of what we found during 

this most recent visit is consistent with our previous assessments. 

The most urgent issue facing child welfare practice at Spirit 

Lake is the lack of adequate staff to meet minimum standards of 

practice in both child protection and foster care casework. In addition, we encourage the development of a uniform operations manVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:51 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\03 INDIAN & ALASKA\03JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88503.TXT DARLEN
21 

ual that covers activities including investigation, and a child 

welfare practice model. 

We also noted the need to develop a data and tracking system 

to enable both the tribe and the BIA to understand who it is that 

they are serving, the needs of children in their care, the case goals, 

and to ensure that they are able to track child outcomes over time. 

We also note the importance of recruiting and training foster 

care and kinship homes, as well as increasing community engagement and communication. 

A new recommendation focuses on the need to clarify roles and 

responsibility between the tribe and BIA, while maintaining consistent policies across both organizations to ensure seamless transfer of responsibilities back to the tribe. Following the return of 

BIA-funded programs in 2012, BIA has assumed most child welfare 

services, including child protection services, investigations, initial 

placement decisions, and ongoing case management of non-IV–E 

cases. 

I want to conclude by saying that, although challenges remain, 

we want to acknowledge the strengths that exist at Spirit Lake 

that we think can be the building blocks to transform this child 

welfare system. Perhaps the most notable strength is the commitment of new leadership under Chairman McDonald and the work 

of the BIA. We also acknowledge the commitment of the community and its neighbors to persist in efforts to keep children at Spirit 

Lake safe from harm. 

We recently shared our observations and recommendations with 

the Chairman, and welcome an opportunity to work with the Spirit 

Lake Tribe, BIA, and community stakeholders to implement these 

recommendations. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chang follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOO YEUN CHANG, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER, CHILDREN’S

BUREAU, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Chairman Young and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me 

to testify. The Administration is very concerned about child safety and well-being 

at the Spirit Lake Reservation. We are grateful to you for having this hearing and 

bringing more attention to the issues affecting the delivery of child welfare services 

at Spirit Lake Nation. 

I am Joo Yeun Chang, Associate Commissioner of the Children’s Bureau. I have 

worked as a national advocate on child welfare policies both as a senior staff attorney at the Children’s Defense Fund and immediately prior to my appointment to 

the Bureau, I worked at Casey Family Programs Foundation where I worked closely 

with State and local child welfare agencies. In my current role, I oversee the 

Federal foster care and adoption assistance programs as well as a range of prevention and post-permanency initiatives. 

Today, I will speak about the Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) 

role in supporting child welfare services at Spirit Lake and our work to date. I will 

also discuss our observations from our most recent trip to Spirit Lake and finally, 

I will provide a summary of some recommendations. 

ACF’S ROLE IN SUPPORTING CHILD WELFARE SERVICES AT SPIRIT LAKE AND OUR WORK

TO DATE TO ADDRESS THE NUMEROUS CHALLENGES FACING SPIRIT LAKE

The Administration for Children and Families provides financial support for social 

services on the reservation through funds from title IV–B and IV–E of the Social 

Security Act to eligible States, tribes, and territories for the provision of child welfare-related services to children and their families. The Spirit Lake Tribe of North 

22 

Dakota is a title IV–B grantee and receives title IV–E dollars through an agreement 

with the State of North Dakota. 

Title IV–B funds are available to promote the development and expansion of coordinated child and family services programs that use community-based agencies, 

family support services, family preservation services, adoption promotion and support services, and time-limited family reunification services. Title IV–B is a formula 

grant under which Spirit Lake has received approximately $320,000 since 2011. 

Title IV–E of the Social Security Act provides funds for States and tribes to provide foster care, transitional independent living programs for children, guardianship 

assistance, and adoption assistance for children with special needs. Only the public 

agency or tribe designated to provide a program of foster care is eligible to apply 

for and receive direct title IV–E funding. Individuals and private entities may apply 

to the title IV–E agency as sub-grantees or contracted providers. Spirit Lake has 

not applied and is therefore not eligible to receive direct title IV–E funding. They 

do, however, have an agreement with the State of North Dakota to administer foster 

care and adoption assistance payments for eligible children and youth at Spirit 

Lake. 

ACF provides technical assistance and training on a range of child welfare issues 

from prevention to post-permanency. We have a dedicated National Resource Center 

for tribes as well as subject matter resource centers who have worked with the Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services (SLTSS). 

FINDINGS FROM OUR MOST RECENT FACT FINDING TRIP TO SPIRIT LAKE

In response to allegations of child abuse and neglect on the Spirit Lake Reservation, ACF has conducted a series of investigations and assessments, followed by recommendations on how to address issues facing the Spirit Lake Tribal Social 

Services. 

Between 2007 and 2014, ACF was involved in the following four reviews of the 

Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services department: 

1. National Resource Center for Organizational Improvement (NRCOI), April 30 

to May 3, 2007 

2. North Dakota IV–E file review, January 17–20, 2012 

3. National Resource Center for Tribes, Organizational Assessment, November 

2012–February 2014; and 

4. North Dakota IV–E file review, May 7–8, 2013 

Most recently, on April 9 and 10, 2014 ACF leadership, including Lillian Sparks 

Robinson, Commissioner of the Administration on Native Americans, Marrianne 

McMullen, ACF’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for External Affairs and I conducted 

listening sessions at Spirit Lake. The listening sessions included meetings with a 

range of stakeholders from the Spirit Lake tribal child welfare system, including 

current and former social workers, current and former juvenile judges, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) staff, school district staff, North Dakota State and county 

human services staff, and law enforcement. The goal of the listening session was 

to better understand the current structure of social services at the Spirit Lake 

Reservation including the division of roles and responsibilities between the tribe and 

BIA to offer recommendations for improvement. 

Many of the findings and related recommendations from ACF’s most recent visit 

are similar to those contained in the previous assessments. A new recommendation 

focuses on the need to clarify roles and responsibilities between the tribe and BIA 

while maintaining consistent policies and practices to ensure seamless transfer of 

responsibilities back to the tribe. Following the return of the BIA funded programs 

from the tribe back to BIA, a process known as retrocession, BIA assumed responsibility for most child welfare activities including investigations of abuse and/or 

neglect as well as foster care services for children who are not eligible for title IV– 

E reimbursements. The tribe maintained responsibility for placement and care of 

children who, at the time of retrocession, were in foster care and receiving Federal 

reimbursement for a portion of their out-of-home costs through a title IV–E agreement with the State of North Dakota. At the time of retrocession, this represented 

approximately one-third of the foster care population. In addition the tribe provides 

services and supports related to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). 

Although there have been some improvements since the tribe retroceded many 

child welfare functions to BIA, a number of gaps remain. The most urgent issue facing child welfare practice at the Spirit Lake Reservation is the lack of adequate staff 

to meet minimum standards of practice in both child protection/investigation and 

foster care casework. 

23 

In addition, a common theme that emerged from the ACF listening session and 

the previous four reviews was the lack of specific protocols and procedures to direct 

and guide staff activities on a range of child welfare activities from child maltreatment investigations, assessment, placement, and foster care services to the delivery 

of services in the community. The lack of documentation extends from safety assessments and plans to services provided to families. This results in an inability to support active efforts to provide case management to families. 

Previous reviews also noted the lack of comprehensive assessments for cases involving placement in out of home care. Comprehensive assessments lead to well 

thought-out and individualized case plans. Previous reviews found little evidence of 

case management, supportive services, or minimal, reasonable efforts to reunite 

families. In addition, the lack of available supportive services and foster home placements has led to fragmented cases with little to no direction. Of the homes that 

were licensed, many lacked the appropriate documentation of background checks, 

home studies, and licenses. BIA has addressed some of these issues for BIA social 

services, most notably the safety checks prior to placement. However, we recommend that BIA and the tribe develop short-term and long-term staffing solutions 

and jointly develop a policies and procedures manual. 

SUMMARY OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on information gathered to date, ACF has identified seven priority recommendations to be addressed through a coordinated action plan between SLTSS, 

BIA, and other stakeholders including the team at HHS, and State and county child 

welfare agencies. 

The seven priority recommendations are: 

1. Develop a comprehensive strategy to support the development of a short- and 

long-term workforce; 

2. Create a uniform process for conducting and documenting investigations; 

3. Develop a basic operations manual outlining policies and procedures for child 

welfare case services, including investigations; 

4. Develop and implement a data tracking/information system that would enable 

the tribe to manage its caseload and understand who is being served, their 

needs and case goals and track case outcomes; 

5. Develop and implement a plan for recruitment of foster/kinship homes; 

6. Provide training for the Tribal Court on requirements of title IV–E funding; 

and 

7. Increase community engagement and increase communication. 

Although challenges remain, we want to acknowledge the strengths that exist at 

Spirit Lake that can be harnessed to transform its child welfare system. Perhaps 

the most important strength is the commitment of new leadership under Chairman 

McDonald and the work of the BIA. We also acknowledge the commitment of the 

community and its neighbors to persist in efforts to keep its children safe from harm 

and able to grow and thrive in adulthood. We recently shared our observations and 

recommendations with the Chairman and welcome an opportunity to work with the 

Spirit Lake Tribe, BIA, and community stakeholders to implement them. 

The Administration also looks forward to working with you to address this crucial 

issue and improve services to Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HON. KEVIN CRAMER TO JOO YEUN

CHANG, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER, CHILDREN’S BUREAU, ADMINISTRATION FOR

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

Question 1. Please provide this panel with any and all performance reviews for 

Thomas Sullivan. 

Answer. Staff from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will be 

in touch with your staff to discuss this sensitive personnel material. 

Question 2. Is it true that Thomas Sullivan has been recognized for his work to 

prevent Child Abuse and Neglect of American Indian Children? Specifically, did he 

receive a certificate of appreciation from the Montana Wyoming Tribal Leaders 

Council? 

24 

Answer. In a memo accompanying his 2010 personnel review, Mr. Sullivan said 

that he received this award. The Administration for Children & Families (ACF) has 

no other record of such an award. 

Question 3. Is it true Thomas Sullivan helped to design, develop and test in 10 

States a pediatric consultation program directed to improving the effectiveness and 

efficiency of Project Head Start’s health care program? As the result of his efforts, 

did the American Academy of Pediatrics agree to operate this program nationally, 

resulting in highly effective consultation being provided to Head Start programs by 

board-certified pediatricians in every community in this country? 

Answer. Tom Sullivan has served as ACF’s Regional Administrator in Region 8 

since 2002. His work with ACF has been in the Region 8 States of Colorado, 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. ACF has no records 

indicating that he undertook the work described above while at ACF. I have no direct knowledge of his work prior to serving with ACF or of work he has performed 

outside of Region 8. 

Question 4. Did Thomas Sullivan help evaluate the operation of the Watts 

Neighborhood Health Center in south-central Los Angeles when it first opened, 

helping to close a loophole which assisted the Center in recovering financially? 

Answer. Tom Sullivan has served as ACF’s Regional Administrator in Region 8 

since 2002. His work with ACF has been in the Region 8 States of Colorado, 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. ACF has no records 

indicating that he undertook the work described above while at ACF. I have no direct knowledge of his work prior to serving with ACF or of work he has performed 

outside of Region 8. 

Question 5. Did Thomas Sullivan work with a Community Board representing 

Chelsea, MA, helping to design and direct a survey of the health needs of the community and then negotiate with the General Director of Massachusetts General 

Hospital on behalf of the Community Board for the establishment of a health center 

in that community on terms including how the center’s progression to opening would 

be staged, what services would be offered, hours of operation etc.? As the result of 

his efforts, is the health care center in question providing desperately needed services for the very poor residents of that community? 

Answer. Tom Sullivan has served as ACF’s Regional Administrator in Region 8 

since 2002. His work with ACF has been in the Region 8 States of Colorado, 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. ACF has no records 

indicating that he undertook the work described above while at ACF. I have no direct knowledge of his work prior to serving with ACF or of work he has performed 

outside of Region 8. 

Question 6. Is it true Mr. Sullivan consolidated Federal staff from three different 

offices in a single office with regulatory responsibility for monitoring the health and 

safety of nursing homes and intermediate care facilities in New England, ultimately 

developing and implementing a policy of unannounced inspections which has improved the quality of service of nursing homes and institutional health care providers? 

Answer. Tom Sullivan has served as ACF’s Regional Administrator in Region 8 

since 2002. His work with ACF has been in the Region 8 States of Colorado, 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. ACF has no records 

indicating that he undertook the work described above while at ACF. I have no direct knowledge of his work prior to serving with ACF or of work he has performed 

outside of Region 8. 

Question 7. Did Mr. Sullivan work collaboratively with an Air Force General and 

his reserve staff to design and implement a plan to conduct weekend health fairs 

all across metropolitan Boston staffed by Air Force medial and administrative personnel providing basic medical care to people who, in some cases, had not been seen 

by a physician in years? 

Answer. Tom Sullivan has served as ACF’s Regional Administrator in Region 8 

since 2002. His work with ACF has been in the Region 8 States of Colorado, 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. ACF has no records 

indicating that he undertook the work described above while at ACF. I have no direct knowledge of his work prior to serving with ACF or of work he has performed 

outside of Region 8. 

Question 8. Did Mr. Sullivan conduct a major evaluation of the Oklahoma system 

for delivering services to people with developmental disabilities, demonstrating 

higher quality care could be provided at lower total cost in small community resiVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:51 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\03 INDIAN & ALASKA\03JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88503.TXT DARLEN
25 

dences than in large, isolated institutions? Did Mr. Sullivan provide expert witness 

testimony regarding these efforts in Federal Courts, lead seminars for White House, 

OMB congressional and executive branch staff and testify before State legislative 

committees in New England and Oklahoma? 

Answer. Tom Sullivan has served as ACF’s Regional Administrator in Region 8 

since 2002. His work with ACF has been in the Region 8 States of Colorado, 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. ACF has no records 

indicating that he undertook the work described above while at ACF. I have no direct knowledge of his work prior to serving with ACF or of work he has performed 

outside of Region 8. 

Question 9. Considering these facts, and in light of the testimony of Chairman 

McDonald who indicated he offered Mr. Sullivan a chance to work with the Spirit 

Lake Tribe, why does the Administration for Children and Families not feel Mr. 

Sullivan should have an expanded, and more critical role, in your agencies’ efforts 

on Spirit Lake? 

Answer. The issues of child safety, child protection, and foster care are child 

welfare issues. Within HHS and the ACF, the Children’s Bureau within the Administration on Children, Youth and Families has responsibility for overseeing child 

welfare. Established in 1912, the Children’s Bureau is the oldest Federal agency for 

children. The Children’s Bureau provides matching funds to States, tribes, and communities to help them operate every aspect of their child welfare systems—from prevention of child abuse and neglect to adoption—and the information systems necessary to support these programs. The Children’s Bureau seeks to provide for the 

safety, permanency, and well-being of children through policy guidance, grants to 

support and evaluate services, and productive partnerships with States, tribes, and 

communities. In addition, the Bureau makes major investments in staff training, 

technology, and innovative programs. 

Within the Children’s Bureau, oversight of child welfare practice and interagency 

collaborations are managed at the highest level by the Associate Commissioner. The 

Bureau’s central office staff, located in Washington, DC, and regional staff work together to provide child welfare policy and practice guidance to States and tribes. 

Prior to an ACF reorganization in 2006–07 during the Bush administration, regional administrators had direct supervisory authority over regional program directors and, consequently, regional program work. Since the reorganization, regional 

program managers (such as for the Children’s Bureau) began reporting directly to 

program directors at headquarters. Regional administrators such as Tom Sullivan 

assumed different duties. The primary responsibilities of the regional administrator 

include: providing regional ACF leadership through representing ACF on Federal coordinating bodies and by maintaining strong and positive relationships with State, 

tribal territory, and local government partners, as well as with university, philanthropic, and other community partners; leading high-priority cross-cutting initiatives for the agency, such as Affordable Care Act outreach and anti-human trafficking initiatives; providing administrative support for all ACF regional offices and 

staff; leading emergency preparedness and response efforts; and providing for communications support, from local stakeholder communication to maintaining the regional Web site. 

Regardless of personal interest in a program area, it would not be appropriate for 

Mr. Sullivan or any regional administrator to assume the responsibilities of the 

Children’s Bureau for child welfare work. This would also apply to other ACF program work, such as child support enforcement, Head Start, and Child Care. This 

specific program work is done by each program office, each of which has a director 

at the Federal headquarters. 

ACF has made clear to Tom Sullivan that he has the freedom in his personal capacity to express his views on Spirit Lake. ACF has encouraged him to report any 

and all allegations of abuse and neglect to the appropriate parties including law enforcement. ACF has also made clear to Mr. Sullivan that the Children’s Bureau has 

responsibility over these matters, and, to the extent that he has official matters to 

discuss, he should raise them with the Children’s Bureau. 

The Children’s Bureau is leading this effort for ACF and manages the work with 

both the tribal leadership and the tribal social services staff. The Children’s Bureau 

also is the principal liaison with the State of North Dakota, the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, and the Department of Justice to address child protective issues at Spirit 

Lake. The Bureau has child welfare staff from within the Bureau, as well as national tribal child welfare experts, involved in the work of child protection at Spirit 

Lake. 

26 

Question 10. Considering Dr. Tilus was initially reprimanded for his efforts to improve the conditions for vulnerable children and adults on Spirit Lake, has HHS 

implemented any reforms to encourage behavior like that exhibited by Dr. Tilus? 

Answer. Dr. Tilus is not an employee of ACF, and I am not in a position to comment on any agency or departmental actions undertaken with respect to him. To 

the extent that you are asking more generally about agency efforts to encourage employees to speak without fear of retribution, ACF requires all employees to take annual training on the No Fear Act, which includes information about the rights of 

whistleblowers and the legal protections afforded them, and sends out periodic notices to remind employees to take this mandatory training. 

Question 11. During your testimony it is my understanding you indicated Thomas 

Sullivan had not been to the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. In subsequent conversations I have been informed that he actually has, at least on several occasions. 

In light of this information, would you like to take this opportunity to amend your 

testimony? 

Answer. When I testified, it was my understanding that Mr. Sullivan had not 

visited Spirit Lake. 

I have since learned that he has traveled to Spirit Lake on the three occasions 

listed below. Two of the trips are documented in the government travel reservation 

system GOVTRIP and the third (December 7–10, 2010) is reported by Mr. Sullivan. 

1. November 14–17, 2010—Tom Sullivan met with the executive director of the 

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Center at the University of North Dakota 

and then visited the Fetal Alcohol Clinic on the Spirit Lake Reservation. 

2. December 7–10, 2010—Tom Sullivan attended a meeting with FEMA to 

address human service needs arising from the flooding in Devils Lake, ND. 

3. July 5–9, 2011—Tom Sullivan reviewed flood damage and met with the social 

services director. 

Mr. YOUNG. I want to thank the panel. I appreciate your testimony. After this hearing is over, if there isn’t improvement, we will 

have another one. But it won’t be just a hearing. 

Mr. Black, I take this a little personally. Your statement, you relate Spirit Lake’s Tribe social services problem to sequestration. 

But those problems were occurring before sequestration. Why do 

you think and why do you link sequestration to the tribe’s problems when it happened before? 

You know, I have heard this sequestration excuse, Mr. Black— 

every time there is a problem, it is sequestration. And thank God 

for George Bush and sequestration, otherwise you guys wouldn’t 

have anything to stand on. So why do you link that, when these 

occurred before sequestration? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, I apologize for the misunderstanding, sir. I am 

not equating, or wasn’t trying to equate sequestration to the problems that are faced out there at Spirit Lake. As you stated, a lot 

of the problems happened long before sequestration. 

I guess the point I was trying to emphasize is the fact that, at 

a time when we were reassuming the program, and trying to deal 

with some of the shortfalls that we had out there, sequestration 

just became a barrier to us getting to fully where we need to be 

with the program and stuff, and getting fully staffed out there. So 

it was just another impact on our efforts to try and reform the program. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. That is why I wanted to clarify that, because, 

you know, again, we like to blame things for that when this was 

occurring ahead, and you have admitted that in your testimony, so 

that is good. 

27 

The Bureau was supposed to submit a report to the House and 

Senate committees in jurisdiction on the progress of efforts and advocacy of child placement and judicial review by the tribe and the 

Bureau. That was passed in—I believe the Appropriation Act of 

2014. Are you working on that? Where is the report? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir. We are currently still working on that. We 

have just completed a number of different reviews, including the 

review of our law enforcement program, the tribal court system, as 

well as our social services program, and we will be getting that report submitted. 

Mr. YOUNG. The 638 contract documents I have reviewed show 

that the April 20, 2012—that the BIA Great Plains Region officials 

reported high-risk findings at the Fort Totten Agency that pose an 

immediate danger to the health, safety, and well-being of children, 

either in placement or referred to protective services. These findings stem from the BIA February and March 12 site visit to the 

reservation. The tribe failed to eliminate these high risks to the 

children. But again, the agency allowed the tribe to continue operating a contract for 7 months, since the problem was identified, before the tribe voluntarily retroceded the contract on October 1, 

2012. 

The question is they receded the contract. Can they go back into 

this contract again? What is the criteria? They receded it, so they 

really weren’t acknowledging there was anything wrong. 

Mr. BLACK. Yes. And you are correct, sir. The tribe did voluntarily retrocede the program. But it was following a year-long process of a review that identified a number of corrective actions that 

needed to take place. And, as you stated, there were follow-up reviews in March, April, in August, as well as, I personally led a 

strike team out there, including my Deputy Director for Trust 

Services and Indian Services that summer, around July or August, 

to sit down and meet personally with the tribe. We attempted to 

provide them as much technical assistance as we could, to bring 

the program back to where it needed to be. Coming that September 

is when that decision by the tribe was made to retrocede the program back to BIA. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. 

Mr. BLACK. As far as their ability to come back and contract the 

program again, there would be nothing that would prevent that 

from them, other than the fact that when that time comes, if it 

comes, and the tribe indicates they are interested in contracting 

the program again, we would be evaluating the tribe’s capacity, the 

situation with the program as it stands when that happens, and 

then we would be reviewing it at that point. 

Mr. YOUNG. How large is this tribe? 

Mr. BLACK. Pardon me? 

Mr. YOUNG. How large is this tribe? 

Mr. BLACK. You mean as far as the number of members? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BLACK. I don’t know, right off the top of my head, sir, I 

apologize. 

Mr. YOUNG. The reason I am asking that question is it is my understanding that there are—and I know that—this is my Ranking 

Member—there is a desire of self-determination, which I support, 

28 

desire of self-governance, which I support. But there is also, my understanding, a shortage of qualified people that, in fact, can take 

and are eligible for taking care of a child. 

If that is the case, I would like to know that, because—and this 

goes back to the children. This is the common denominator, the 

children. And I don’t really have much truck with the tribe who 

won’t take care of their own children. I have been very hostile in 

my career about—because I live with them. And someone messes 

up, he got punished the right way. There is no reason to abuse a 

child. I see I have my officer sitting there, but that is the way I 

ran my shop. And my people backed me up. There is no reason for 

a child that cannot protect himself or herself to be abused, to be 

raped, have incest, be beaten and starved. That is unacceptable. I 

personally won’t tolerate it. 

Ms. Chang, what is your interface with the BIA on this? You are 

a different agency, correct? 

Ms. CHANG. We are. We are part of the Administration for 

Children and Families and—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Have you been out there? 

Ms. CHANG. I have. I have been out there, and we have been 

working closely with BIA since our visit in April. 

Mr. YOUNG. And you have made progress? 

Ms. CHANG. I think that we, as a community, have been making 

progress in trying to figure out what the issues are, and how we 

can address them. 

Certainly, sir, your issue about identifying appropriate families 

to care for children who are vulnerable is a critical issue, not only 

at Spirit Lake, but, quite frankly, across the country. Identifying, 

training, and licensing resource families or foster families, as you 

might call them, is an issue that all child welfare agencies at the 

State, county, and tribal level really struggle with. 

But the good news is that we do have some strategies about how 

you can recruit them and train appropriate families, so that there 

is a place for kids to go if they can’t remain in their homes. So we 

are encouraged by a desire to work on these issues. 

Mr. YOUNG. I am going to suggest that we have a follow-up report from Mr. Black and yourself in 6 months. And if I hear of one 

child at Spirit Lake that went through that litany what I said, then 

there is going to be more of a longer-term period of a hearing. Because this is good words, it doesn’t necessarily accomplish something. 

Mr. Black, this is not your problem. You are spending all this 

money going to my State, trying to recognize and put in land trust 

on tribes, supposedly to have them improve the violence on children and the violence on women. And yet you have this going on 

in Spirit Lake. Where is the rationale? If you follow what I am saying, where is the rationale of doing that? 

That is supposed to stop this violence in children according to 

you, the Department, and the violence on women. And yet we have 

this going on in Spirit Lake, has been a reservation you have been 

in charge for a long time—or the agency has. Do they add up? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, I am not sure if I am quite following the correlation, Mr. Chairman, but—— 

29 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, the proposed fee to trust was based upon stopping the violence and the mistreatment of children in Alaskan 

tribes. And now yet we have an existing tribe and reservation that 

this has been going on. If you wanted to spend the money, I would 

suggest you spend it in Spirit Lake. I mean just an idea. I just 

want you to think about it. 

Mr. BLACK. OK. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Cramer, would you mind—excuse me. He is 

going to chair. You are going to—Mr. Cramer, you have to chair for 

me, because I have to go down the hall—I will be back. 

Mr. CRAMER [presiding]. Recognize Mr. Ca ́ rdenas. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you, Chairman Cramer. Mr. Black, I want 

to commend you for taking on a responsibility that at times must 

feel like a thankless job. Any time a group of human beings is trying to help another group of human beings, yet you are dealing 

with communities that have been at the brink of genocide being exercised on them, you are talking about communities that, even 

when that was—those efforts of such, where they are actually killing human beings just because of who they are, when that stopped, 

then you had other activities such as taking their children away 

from them, trying to demean them to the point where they say, 

‘‘You are not fit to raise your own children,’’ when you are dealing 

with communities like that, it must be extremely difficult to try to 

act like things are normal there, or that we can apply certain 

norms in those communities. 

I have a question for you as to when—in dealing what you are 

dealing with in your opening statement, you talked about resources. Do you feel as though you have been afforded the adequate 

resources to address, in particular, this particular issue at this sovereign nation? 

Mr. BLACK. You know, quite honestly, sir, I would have to say 

no, I don’t think that we have the resources that are really necessary, not only at Spirit Lake, but across the country, to deal with 

child protection issues, social services, law enforcement, and all of 

the other programs that we deliver. 

As an example for Spirit Lake, we have been detailing anywhere 

from 12 to 19 different people on various bases up there to fulfill 

some of those permanent staff that we haven’t been able to hire. 

And, there again, that is just an additional burden on our resources. It is also an additional burden on those other reservations 

and tribes that we have to take that staff from in order to fulfill 

the needs at Spirit Lake. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. And when you are talking about trying to attract 

appropriate staff, I mean, you are not just trying to find people to 

answer phones, or you are not trying to find people who are just 

going to do jobs that perhaps any American could do if they were 

out of work. You are talking about people with degrees, you are 

talking about people with expertise. Is that what you are talking 

about? You are talking about people like—with doctorate degrees, 

et cetera? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir. I am talking about people with masters in 

social work, people with experience in dealing with child protection 

and child issues and stuff. 

30 

And right now, as I stated in my testimony, there is a serious 

shortage of those types of qualified applicants. And then, you know, 

this is not an easy situation to walk into, I think. So that challenge, I think, might be somewhat daunting for some of the folks 

that we are looking to really try and recruit and hire out there. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Now, let me understand. When you say it is 

daunting, are you giving a—— 

Mr. BLACK. I am saying—— 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. You said it could be daunting. I am asking you 

a question. Are you giving up? 

Mr. BLACK. No, sir. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. I just want to be clear about that. 

Mr. BLACK. In no way, shape, or form. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Because I have been in some of these committees 

where, when somebody says something like that, and they are just 

being honest and truthful about how daunting the situation is, 

sometimes I see them get attacked as though they are giving up, 

as though they are not trying. So I just want to make that clear. 

Mr. BLACK. Absolutely not. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Are you using every effort that you have available to try to contribute to solving this problem? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir, we are. We have been reaching out across 

the country to all of our BIA regional offices. We are looking at— 

we have been talking with ACF, Casey Family, anybody we can to 

bring the resources and personnel to bear on this issue. We are 

even reaching a point now we are talking to other tribes that have 

social work programs that have been successful, and trying to recruit some of them to come up and help us and identify some of 

the issues that they could help us to resolve. And partly right now 

it is really needing caseworkers on the street, right out there on 

the ground that can really address some of the issues. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK, thank you. 

Ms. Chang, over at the Administration for Children and 

Families, HHS, when you are dealing on a situation like this in a 

sovereign nation, does it complicate things a little bit compared to, 

say, doing something in maybe Detroit or Los Angeles, or somewhere else in the country? 

Ms. CHANG. Absolutely. I think it is important to recognize that 

you are working with a sovereign nation, that they have their own 

rules and ways of governance that also may be foreign to folks who 

work only with States and county-level governments. 

But the reality is that good child welfare practice is good child 

welfare practice. And the good news is that the Chairman and the 

BIA recognize that. And, as they have pointed out, as Mr. Black 

has pointed out, the big challenge here is staffing. And that can’t 

be—— 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. The biggest challenge. 

Ms. CHANG. Yes. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Many challenges, but the biggest challenge. 

Ms. CHANG. That is right. And it is a big challenge. And what 

I think it calls for are creative solutions. And they have reached 

out to us and, as he pointed out, other philanthropies and private 

organizations. And I think we can develop creative solutions to a 

very big challenge. 

31 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, and thank the panel for being here. 

And let me at the outset express some of my appreciation for being 

here, but Director Black, for your willingness to be in regular contact with me. You have been very responsive, very professional, 

and I very much appreciate it throughout our relationship. And I 

think building trust is an important part of all of this. So thank 

you for that. 

I do want to revisit a little bit of the history of this, because this 

7-month time gap that the Chairman referenced between retroceding, the tribe voluntarily retroceding, and the reassumption report that came out that said, ‘‘Hey, there is imminent danger here,’’ 

what is the technical difference between reassuming—had the BIA 

reassumed, as I understand it, the contract—versus the tribe voluntarily retroceding? What are the ramifications of those two differences, the distinctions? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, I guess the short version of that would be in 

the case we are dealing with here, the tribe voluntarily returned 

the program back to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for us to operate. 

If we were to go in and reassume the program, which was, quite 

honestly, on the table at the time in our discussions with the tribe, 

is that can somewhat become more of a longer and lengthy process, 

because we do have to notify the tribe that we are going to reassume the program, take it back from them. They have their appeal rights and, quite honestly, I have seen it in cases where it can 

go another year or longer before we actually are able to take over 

the program, once it goes through all of the appeal processes. 

So—— 

Mr. CRAMER. But it is my understanding that if there is an imminent threat, if there is an emergency situation—which I believe, 

as I recall, this was designated—couldn’t you have reassumed—— 

Mr. BLACK. We could reassume it. It is not that that wouldn’t be 

without challenges. We could do an emergency reassumption, you 

are correct, as you state, which we would just roll in and take over 

the program at that point. We would still have some wrangling, 

probably, to do over appeals. We would immediately begin operation of the program, but—— 

Mr. CRAMER. The reason I am curious about that is because during that time period there were child deaths. Now, we haven’t even 

begun to really dig into other allegations of abuse in terms of prosecutions, in terms of the number of reports. We pretty much focused on child deaths. 

So, looking back on it, I mean, do you ever regret and think 

maybe we should have been a little more urgent in our response? 

And I ask that question not just to relive history, but as we go forward, and while I appreciate the optimism of both the new Chairman and ACF, there is—in my view there is an urgency to this, 

because it seems like the only time we are hearing news out of 

Spirit Lake is when there is another dead child. 

And so, that is why things like this are—these moments are important for us to have an open dialog that provides both hope, as 

well as solutions, if that makes sense. So, I still am a little concerned about that 6- to 7-month gap, and wish we would have 

acted a little more urgently. 

32 

Let me ask this. Are you aware of the 13—I guess they are called 

mandated reports from Tom Sullivan, the HHS or IHS investigator 

that has worked on this situation, investigated it? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, I am. 

Mr. CRAMER. Do you know if all of his allegations—and if you 

have read them, as I have, you know that they are quite—there is 

a lot there, and they are quite provocative, quite serious, to say the 

least. Have any of them been investigated, any of these allegations? 

Mr. BLACK. Sir, we have investigated, through our Office of 

Justice Services, in coordination with the U.S. Attorney, we have 

investigated every one of the allegations in the Sullivan reports. 

We have reached out to Mr. Sullivan personally, through our OJS 

staff and investigators, to try and gather information from those 

reports. And I can honestly say that every one of those has been 

put into, basically, three categories. 

Where we are unable to substantiate the allegation after further 

investigation, was there, was nothing located. Or a number of them 

that were already investigated or were currently under investigation at the time that we reviewed them. 

Mr. CRAMER. Well, given that we—I have a copy of all those, 

they are public. Could we get a copy of all the investigation reports 

that followed that trail after his allegations? 

Mr. BLACK. Sir, we would be happy to work with that. You know, 

especially when we are dealing with children here, like we are, we 

do have to protect the rights and the privacy of the children and 

the individuals involved. But we would be happy to work with you 

to generate some type of a report that we could provide you—— 

Mr. CRAMER. Well, I certainly—— 

Mr. BLACK [continuing]. That wouldn’t affect any—— 

Mr. CRAMER. You know, I certainly want to. Whatever way, if it 

requires redacting information, that is fine. If it is just kept to the 

committee—which the committee of jurisdiction does have the right 

to those kinds of reports—but I would just as soon work collaboratively with you on the best way to do that, in a way that maintains the integrity of the process. 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRAMER. Are you familiar with a recent case of a 2-monthold—it actually was an infant born 2 to 3 months ago, diagnosed 

with having meth in the system, removed from the mother, who 

was a meth addict, evidently? Has been returned to the mother, 

and just in the last week or two—are you familiar with that case, 

without naming any names? 

Mr. BLACK. I am not familiar with that case. 

Mr. CRAMER. OK. We may ask that of the next witnesses. 

My time has expired. However, I—we have any other—did you 

want to—sure, yes, yes. So, OK, with that, we are going to take another round of questions. I will recognize the Ranking Member, my 

friend. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you very much. Ms. Chang, when it comes 

to the activities that you are involved in at HHS, when you are 

dealing with a sovereign nation and you have the BIA right by 

your side, as they have jurisdiction as well over much that happens 

when it comes to Federal activity, who reports to who when it 

comes to taking further steps, and when it comes to apprising one 

33 

or the other of what you feel should be done in order to remedy 

the situations like this? Who reports to who between departments? 

Ms. CHANG. So I certainly can’t say anyone reports to me across 

agencies. I think we actually work quite well in the spirit of collaboration. We have been talking very regularly with BIA. We have 

been sharing our recommendations with the Chairman. He has 

those. And we are looking forward to continuing to work together. 

I think this has to be done in partnership. Everyone has a role 

to play. We have responsibilities, because we give funding through 

our ACF programs for a number of services. We are actively working with the tribe to make sure those dollars are being used effectively. The BIA has their responsibilities. And I think the goal here 

is to make sure that we are coordinating our services and our efforts to improve, so that they are in alignment and that they are 

actually cohesive. 

Everyone here I can say really wants the same thing, which is 

to ensure that children at Spirit Lake are safe. There certainly are 

challenges here. But the only way that we can address them is to 

work together. So we have been working very collaboratively. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. So you are saying in this situation you have been 

working in a collaborative spirit, and it appears to be working well 

when it comes to the new tribal chairman and his administration. 

And then, when it comes to BIA, HHS, and everybody else involved—— 

Ms. CHANG. Absolutely. The Chairman has been really, I think, 

outstanding in reaching out to all partners, and being willing to 

say, ‘‘What do we need to do better here,’’ and is willing to listen 

and to talk and be open. And I think, really, that is also very important, is that everyone is willing to be open and share with one 

another what is actually happening. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. And sharing what is happening is one thing, 

but actually charting a course for taking proactive actions, whether 

it is deciding that—say you do—you are fortunate to find another 

MMW or a psychologist or somebody who is willing to be hired, et 

cetera. Who is involved in that decision as to who gets picked, et 

cetera? 

What I am getting at is how long does it take between knowing 

that you have something in front of you and a decision can be 

made, which is good for the solution, yet at the same time, what 

hurdles do you have to jump through before that action can be 

taken? 

Ms. CHANG. Sure. So, to Chairman Young’s point, this is certainly a very urgent issue. I think we all recognize that. Some of 

the recommendations we shared with the Chairman were that 

there needs to be both short-term and long-term fixes that are put 

in place, because of the nature of that urgency. 

I think when you think about staffing, it is a little challenging 

here, because you have both tribal staff, as well as BIA staff, who 

need to be hired and recruited. Our recommendation is that they 

come together to think of a joint short-term and long-term recruitment and training plan, so that they can get the same type of folks 

in who are trained similarly, who are providing the same kind of 

services. 

34 

Because even though you have two different organizations providing services, the child ultimately is the same, and we need to 

make sure that the type of services they are getting are equal, regardless of which organization is ultimately responsible. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Well, one of the things that—whether it is Mr. 

Black or you, Ms. Chang, if you could help me understand, is there 

a barrier or a hindrance to getting good, qualified people, or good, 

qualified candidates when it comes to cultural sensitivity and understanding the particular constituency that they are hired to work 

with? 

For example, when I was in the city of Los Angeles—I don’t 

mean to sound light about it, but we had a police chief that was 

from Boston. And every once in a while I would kind of have to 

turn my ear a little bit to understand what he said. Again, that is 

not all that critical, thank God, because I didn’t work for him, I 

didn’t have to take orders from him. But when we were collaborating, and sharing information, again somebody who has perhaps 

some cultural differences, or somebody that maybe you are communicating with, and you are not catching it the first time, that can 

create difficulties. 

So, my point is are you running into problems trying to find individuals who may have the titles, yet, at the same time, unfortunately, the cultural sensitivities might be amiss? 

Mr. BLACK. I think to your point, Congressman, the cultural sensitivity, I think, is kind of almost critical and important, but the 

most important thing right now is, I think, finding those qualified 

individuals that really care about what they are doing and really 

come out there with the mission to make the lives better of the 

children there at Spirit Lake. 

I think it is important with any tribe that there is an understanding of the cultural differences. But those are things that I 

think we can teach, that we can educate those kinds of people and 

that staff in. And I think, to Ms. Chang’s point, there is—we are 

also working really close with the tribe. And at the same time we 

don’t want to compete with them for these employees, because it 

is—if one of us can get them, great. 

But we want to be able to help each other to get to that point 

where we can bring people in. There again, then that allows us to 

improve that collaboration and educate those folks as they come in 

on what they really need to know about the community, about the 

culture, and then how they can best help the children. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. Before I leave you, Mr. Black, you 

talked about unsubstantiated allegations leading to bad publicity 

and making it difficult to attract people. Do you have any specific 

allegations you can reference that are particularly both unsubstantiated and—I use the word ‘‘provocative’’ or ‘‘inflammatory’’—that 

would be creating this problem? 

Mr. BLACK. I think there probably are some of those cases within 

the report that we would be able to share with you after we get 

the chance to really sit down. But there are some of those in there, 

yes. 

Mr. CRAMER. Then one other question. Do you know the number 

of—roughly the number of either prosecutions or even charges filed 

35 

for child abuse that did not lead to a child death in, say, the last 

2 or 3 years? 

Mr. BLACK. I don’t have those numbers with me, but we can certainly coordinate with DoJ to get those numbers for you. 

Mr. CRAMER. The reason I ask that, I don’t—and this is, frankly, 

part of the problem where I live, and probably where we all live, 

is that I don’t read much about them. I don’t see much about it. 

And I think—and maybe this leads to my first question for you, 

Ms. Chang, on your site visit and what you have learned in this 

process—it seems to me that there is a lack of transparency, that 

there is—somewhere between corruption and just fear, there is a 

lack of transparency is the best way I can put it. 

I mean we have reports of TV, you know, cameramen and reporters being assaulted, BIA officers requiring them to delete their 

video files, being locked out or left out of meetings. Could you help 

me better understand that, or am I just imagining this, or have you 

observed the same thing? 

And again, not casting any allegation on why. But am I on to 

something? 

Ms. CHANG. Sure. So I certainly think that there is a great deal 

of community distrust. There is a high level of anxiety among the 

community that I witnessed when I went there on the site visit. 

And it is part of the reason why one of our recommendations to the 

Chairman is that they come up with a plan, in collaboration with 

BIA, to improve their communication and community relationships. 

We think that is critical. Because unless the community understands how BIA and the tribe is now functioning, and can understand the system, I think there will be always that heightened 

level of anxiety, which isn’t good for the community or the kids 

within that community. 

One of the recommendations we have made is that they have an 

ombudsman, who can really serve as a go-between between the 

community members and both the tribe and BIA. But part of it 

also is being transparent about what the process is. 

One of the things we learned when we went out there is that 

there is, quite frankly, not because of a lack of transparency, but 

I think because, quite frankly, everyone is so busy doing the work 

that they haven’t necessarily taken a step back to explain to the 

community, ‘‘This is how things are structured now.’’ And so, some 

people weren’t even—didn’t realize that they were supposed to send 

reports of abuse and neglect to BIA and not to the tribal social 

service agency. 

So those are some of the things that we think can be easily addressed, and really help alleviate some of the anxiety within the 

community. 

Mr. CRAMER. Ms. Chang, I assume that you have read the mandated reports by Tom Sullivan? 

Ms. CHANG. I have. 

Mr. CRAMER. OK. You know Mr. Sullivan? Do you know him? 

Ms. CHANG. I do. 

Mr. CRAMER. OK. Do you know why he wasn’t allowed to testify 

today when we requested him? 

Ms. CHANG. So I think it is important to clarify that we have 

made clear to Mr. Sullivan that the Children’s Bureau is the agenVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:51 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\03 INDIAN & ALASKA\03JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88503.TXT DARLEN
36 

cy that has responsibility on matters related to child protection, 

child welfare, and that to the extent—if he has official matters to 

discuss, we have encouraged him to bring that to the Children’s 

Bureau. 

In his personal capacity, he certainly has the right to express his 

views, and we have encouraged him, whenever he has allegations 

of abuse and neglect, to take them to the proper officials who can 

actually address those issues. 

Mr. CRAMER. I have got to be honest. What you just said or read 

sounds—it leads to suspicion by me that there is some reason that 

you didn’t want him, the person who investigated for well over a 

year and has the most intimate knowledge of it. 

I would ask—I guess I am the Chair, but, without objection, I 

would like to have his mandated reports placed into the record. 

And we can determine what—— 

Ms. CHANG. It is also my understanding that Mr. Sullivan has 

never been to Spirit Lake. He has never acted on behalf of the government in his conversations with individuals. He has never been 

part of any of our investigations or assessments. We have been on 

the ground, on the reservation, working directly with the tribe and 

with the BIA. So, I just wanted to make that point of clarification. 

Mr. CRAMER. OK. So I just want to make sure you are saying he 

has never been to Spirit Lake. 

Ms. CHANG. That is my understanding. 

Mr. CRAMER. All right. We will try to verify that before the end 

of the day. 

Ms. CHANG. Right. 

Mr. CRAMER. But I have a suspicion that are you not right on 

that. 

Mr. Chairman—OK. Well, my time has expired. Did you want 

to—OK. 

Mr. Ca ́ rdenas, did you want another round? Would you? 

[No response.] 

Mr. CRAMER. OK. Then we will dismiss this panel, realizing that 

the record will be open for 10 more days, and the members of the 

committee can submit questions in writing—will submit questions 

in writing. 

Thank you very much for your time, and we will take some time 

for the second panel to assume their positions. 

All right. We are now ready for the next panel of witnesses. I will 

introduce all of you first, and then we will call on you one at a time 

for your prepared testimony. 

First, we are very honored to be joined by Chairman Russell 

McDonald, Chairman of the Spirit Lake Tribe of North Dakota. Mr. 

Chairman, welcome. Thank you for being here. He is accompanied 

by Melissa Merrick-Brady, the Interim Director for Spirit Lake 

Social Services. My understanding is Ms. Merrick will not be providing testimony, but is available for questions. Is that accurate? 

Very good, thank you. 

Molly McDonald of Devils Lake, North Dakota. Molly is a member of and former tribal judge for Spirit Lake. Judge McDonald, 

thank you for being here. 

37 

And Anita Fineday, Managing Director of the Indian Child 

Welfare Program at the Casey Family Programs in Seattle, 

Washington. Thank you for making the trip out here. 

All of the witnesses are again reminded their complete written 

testimony will appear in the hearing record. We have all received 

it, and I assume you have all read it. And you have 5 minutes to 

summarize it. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, you may begin the testimony. Thank 

you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF LEANDER R. MCDONALD, PH.D., CHAIRMAN, 

SPIRIT LAKE TRIBE, FORT TOTTEN, NORTH DAKOTA, 

ACCOMPANIED BY MELISSA MERRICK-BRADY, INTERIM 

DIRECTOR FOR SPIRIT LAKE SOCIAL SERVICES, FORT 

TOTTEN, NORTH DAKOTA 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I would just also like 

to reserve an opportunity for Ms. Brady to—if there is any detailed 

information that we need, I might have to go to her for those questions. Thank you, sir. 

I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Don Young, Ranking 

Member, and distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to let you know about progress being made to strengthen 

the child welfare system on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. 

Our children are our top priority, and we appreciate your support 

in making sure they have access to the same services, programs, 

and opportunities to succeed as any other American child. 

We have submitted a longer testimony for the record, but we 

would like to use this opportunity to give background on who we 

are, and where we are, and ask for help with our top priorities. 

My name is Leander Russ McDonald, Chairman of the Spirit 

Lake Tribe, located in northeastern North Dakota. The Spirit Lake 

Reservation was established by the Treaty of 1867, and currently 

consists of more than 250,000 acres of land. Our treaty guarantees 

that the Federal Government will provide for the education, health, 

and welfare of the Spirit Lake Nation. All these areas have been 

historically under-funded, resulting in a lack of capacity, inadequate services, and gaps in the system. 

In October 2012, we retroceded the child protection services program back to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but nothing has 

changed, and the problems still remain. We have experienced tragic child losses as a result of these failings of the trust responsibilities, and we continue to struggle to meet the child protection 

needs of our community. 

Over the past 2 years, our tribe has been highlighted in the 

media due to child protection issues, and has struggled to recruit 

and retail child welfare and social workers, as a result. 

I recognize the fact that the tribe was slow to respond to scrutiny 

in the past. However, I have made child protection services a priority since being sworn into office as Chairman in September of 

2013. 

First and foremost, we need social workers and behavioral health 

providers through the Department of Heath and Human Services, 

and a commission corps of the U.S. Public Health Service. Short 

term, this would stabilize our system and address the immediate 

38 

need. Long term, this would give us the necessary time to develop 

a strategy, to recruit and retain the necessary professionals. 

Currently, we have only nine licensed foster care homes on the 

reservation, and a 31-child case load for the Spirit Lake social services, and an additional 11 children ready to transfer from child protection services. The Child Welfare League of America recommends 

12 cases per social worker. At this conservative estimate of 42 children, our current need for social workers, case managers, is 3.5 

full-time equivalents. We are currently funded for two, and both of 

these positions have not been filled. 

Having full-time social workers in Spirit Lake Social Services is 

our first priority. Our next major priority to deter child abuse and 

assure a safe community is a trained and adequately staffed law 

enforcement department. The ratio for our area is 2.8 law enforcement officers per 1,000 people. We have approximately 5,000 residing on our reservation. We should be staffed at 14 officers, but we 

only have 8 officers assigned to our area, with only 2 on every shift. 

We need more adequately trained law enforcement personnel, because the presence of a police force has been shown to deter crime. 

Last, we would like to provide an update on the status of our efforts to implement recommendations from our court assessment. 

The tribe has secured immediate funding from the Office of Tribal 

Justice to hire a juvenile court attorney, a guardian for minor children, and a juvenile court public defender to represent families and 

juveniles in court proceedings. 

Also, a review and update of the Spirit Lake court is necessary 

to not only assure child protection, but also the prosecution of those 

involved in substance abuse. The majority of child welfare cases 

and sexual offender cases can be either traced back to drug and alcohol use, or the influence of intoxicating substances of the offender. 

In Dakota, children are called Wakanheza, which translates to 

sacred being. They are considered sacred, as they are recognized as 

newly coming from the creator. This perspective guides us as individuals, tribal leaders, and elected officials to do everything within 

our power to develop legislation that fosters their protection and 

welfare. All of our requests would allow the tribe to implement our 

plans for improvement of the child welfare and justice systems, and 

effectively protect the children from harm. 

Thank you again for holding this hearing and granting me the 

opportunity to advocate for the children of the Spirit Lake Indian 

Reservation. I hope this represents an effort by Congress to understand the current position of the tribe, and support the furtherance 

of our progress to heal a broken system. 

I am calling on Congress to be accountable for concrete solutions 

to our problems. We are not the same reservation that we were in 

2012. We have a plan. Now we need the means to make it happen. 

I look forward to answering any questions that you might have. 

Mitakuye Owasin, all my relatives. [Speaking native language.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDonald follows:] 

39 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEANDER ‘‘RUSS’’ MCDONALD, CHAIRMAN, SPIRIT LAKE

TRIBE, FORT TOTTEN, NORTH DAKOTA

I would like to begin by thanking Don Young and distinguished members of the 

House Natural Resources Committee for the opportunity to let you know about 

progress being made to strengthen the Child Welfare System (CWS) on the Spirit 

Lake Indian Reservation. Our children are our top priority, and we appreciate your 

support in making sure they have access to the same services, programs, and opportunities to succeed as any other American child. 

My name is Leander ‘‘Russ’’ McDonald, Chairman of the Spirit Lake Tribe (SLT), 

located in northeastern North Dakota. The Spirit Lake Reservation was established 

by the Treaty of 1867 and currently consists of more than 250,000 acres of land. 

We have just over 7,200 enrolled members with more than 4,000 of these people residing on the Reservation. Spirit Lake Tribe, like many other tribes, has long suffered from chronic underfunding of programs and services. Issues of poverty and 

unemployment, loss of land, lack of housing, lack of primary and preventive health, 

and inadequate law enforcement and judicial services have led to many 

intergenerational challenges, such as disproportionately high rates of suicide and 

other child welfare needs. 

Many of these challenges have negatively impacted our Reservation and children, 

and are a result of the Federal Government’s failure to meet its trust responsibility 

to our Nation. We have experienced tragic child losses as a result of the lack of capacity and we continue to struggle to meet the child protection needs of our community. Over the past 2 years, our tribe has been highlighted in the media due to child 

protection issues and has struggled to recruit and retain child welfare and social 

workers as a result. 

On October 1, 2012, the SLT retroceded a Public Law 93–638 Child Protection 

Services (CPS) program back to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) due to the inability of the tribe to address serious deficiencies identified in a detailed corrective action plan issued by the BIA in April, 2012. Limited budgets, difficulties retaining 

qualified professionals, and lack of placement options for children in crisis are 

among the factors that have contributed to the issues that we continue to face within our community. 

I recognize the fact that the tribe was slow to respond to scrutiny in the past; 

however, I have made CPS a priority since being sworn into office as Chairman in 

September of 2013. From then until the present, a tremendous amount of time and 

effort by Spirit Lake Social Services (SLSS) and my office have been dedicated to 

collaborating with Federal, State, county, tribal, and foundation partners (Appendix 

A: Partners) to address immediate needs and take a proactive approach to building 

the necessary infrastructure through strategic planning to keep our children safe. 

As Chairman, I have come to realize the complexity of this issue and the need 

for our law enforcement, child protection services, tribal court, and tribal social services to communicate and work together to create an exemplary system. All of the 

areas have been historically underfunded at approximately 60 percent of need resulting in a lack of capacity, inadequate services, system distrust, and gaps in the 

system. We struggle to provide the most basic services, but we have achieved milestones in a positive direction. I believe that given the proper resources we could 

build a good system for our Nation. 

I am here today to report to you regarding the planning and implementation of 

a multifaceted approach to addressing these issues. This intensive process has resulted in a number of achievements from this collaboration, such as a revised Title 

IV–E transfer protocol, establishment of the Spirit Lake Social Services Coalition, 

and completion of several assessments and reports. The assessment results from the 

Administration of Children and Families (ACF) and Office of Justice Services (OJS) 

will also be used in part to help develop a map on how children’s needs will be addressed when entering the social services system. Casey Family Programs has been 

very supportive by being present and providing critical linkages to resources that 

have enhanced the overall collaborative. This work will culminate with a meeting 

being sponsored and facilitated by the Casey Family Programs at Spirit Lake on 

July 7–9, 2014. SLSS is also receiving technical assistance from Native American 

Training Institute for the development of a 5-year plan. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT

A trained and adequately staffed law enforcement department is critical as the 

front lines for the determent of child abuse and safe communities. The ratio for our 

area is 2.8 law enforcement officers per 1,000 people. We have approximately 5,000 

residing on our Reservation; therefore, we should be staffed at 14 officers. We have 

eight officers assigned to our area with two officers per shift patrolling this large 

40 

geographical and isolated rural area, even during the high crime days of Wednesday 

and Thursday. Just the presence of an adequate police force has been shown to 

deter crime. Law enforcement officers trained in documenting child abuse are also 

necessary to the larger picture of child safety. 

CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES (CPS) AND TRIBAL SOCIAL SERVICES

Currently, we have only 9 licensed foster care homes on the reservation and a 31 

child caseload for SLSS and an additional 11 children ready for transfer from CPS. 

The Child Welfare League of America recommends 12 cases per social worker. At 

this conservative estimate of 42, our current need for social workers/case managers 

is 3.5 full time equivalents (FTE). We are currently funded for two, and both of 

these positions have not been filled. Funding to increase case manager staffing and 

funding for a full time equivalent (FTE) for a foster home recruitment specialist position at $75,000, for salary and fringe, would greatly assist in increasing foster 

homes on the Reservation. 

SLSS currently uses hard copy for all files, which has previously delayed the 

placement of children due to the necessary sharing of files among agencies. We are 

in need of an electronic database system that is estimated to cost approximately 

$300,000 to purchase and $12,000 a year to maintain and operate. Staff training 

would also be necessary and is estimated to be an additional $10,000. The system 

and training would allow us to more quickly place children in safe environments relieving unnecessary delays. Every State relies on some sort of electronic database 

system. This disparity between what is available to States in comparison to tribes 

demonstrates a part of our frustration. 

Last, we ask for immediate assistance to help address urgent welfare needs by 

providing staffing of social workers and other behavioral health providers through 

6–12 month deployments through the Department of Health and Human Services 

and the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service. Short-term, this 

would stabilize our system and address the immediate need. Long-term, this would 

give us the necessary time to develop a strategy to recruit and retain the necessary 

professionals. 

We need a larger building to house all of the child welfare services, including 

child protection. We also need two program vehicles, security for our current building, community education, and continued training for staff. Negative attention from 

the press has made recruitment of providers and foster care homes especially difficult. We need help from a PR team to generate positive media coverage in an effort 

to correct public opinion on the current condition of the Reservation. While the community faces many challenges, we also have many strengths that should be similarly highlighted in the media and would go a long way in helping our community 

recruit and retain providers and promote hope. 

THE TRIBAL COURT

Third and possibly most essentially, we are currently implementing recommendations from our court assessment that are designed to improve and enhance access 

to our court and representation of those involved in court proceedings. The tribal 

court is the guardian of our sovereignty and the way through which the tribe helps 

parties in dispute, families in distress and children in need. All stakeholders rely 

on the tribal court for this solemn responsibility. Recommendations from the assessment regarding representation and the development of institutional infrastructure 

are receiving immediate attention. For example, the tribe has secured immediate 

funding from the Office of Tribal Justice to hire a juvenile court presenting attorney, 

a guardian ad litem for minor children, and a juvenile court public defender to represent families and juveniles in court proceedings. 

The tribe has also secured funding and is in the process of securing technical assistance to develop court infrastructure—including a judicial bench book, attorney 

desk book and a clerk’s manual—that will help institutionalize the processes of the 

court. Last, a review and update of the Spirit Lake Law and Order Code is necessary to not only ensure child protection, but also the prosecution of those involved 

in substance abuse. The majority of child welfare cases and sexual offender cases 

can be either traced back to drug and/or alcohol abuse or the influence of intoxicating substances of the offender. 

In Dakota, children are called Wakanheza, which translates to sacred being. They 

are considered sacred as they are recognized as newly coming from the Creator. 

This perspective guides us as individuals, tribal leaders, and elected officials to do 

everything within our power to develop legislation that fosters their protection and 

welfare. We need support in solving our problems. All of our requests would allow 

41 

the tribe to implement our plans for improvement of the child welfare and justice 

systems and effectively protect the children from harm. 

Thank you again for holding this hearing and granting me the opportunity to advocate for the children of Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. I hope this represents an 

effort by Congress to understand the current position of the tribe and support the 

furtherance of our progress to heal a broken system. I am calling on Congress to 

be accountable for concrete solutions to our problems. The time for placing blame 

on the tribe has passed. We are not the same reservation that we were in 2012. 

We have a plan. Now we need the means to make it happen. 

Mitakuye Owasin (All My Relatives). 

Appendix A: Partners 

Federal Partners 

Administration of Children and Families (ACF) 

Administration on Native Americans (ANA) 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Department of Justice (DOJ) 

Office of Justice Services (OJS) 

National Resource Center for Child Protection Services (NRCCPS) 

State Partners 

North Dakota Indian Affairs Commission (NDIAC) 

North Dakota Department of Human Services (NDDHS) 

Benson and Ramsey County Social Services 

Area law enforcement 

Area schools 

Judicial representatives 

Health services 

Non-Profit and Foundational Partners 

Casey Family Programs 

Native American Training Institute (NATI) 

Center for Native American Youth; and others 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HON. KEVIN CRAMER TO RUSS

MCDONALD, CHAIRMAN, SPIRIT LAKE TRIBE AND MELISSA MERRICK-BRADY, 

DIRECTOR, SPIRIT LAKE TRIBAL SOCIAL SERVICES

Question 1. Please provide a list of all Tribal Court child abuse charges and convictions on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation for the last 2 years. Please provide 

redactions as necessary to protect the identity of minors. 

Answer. The tribal court administrator explained their database only has charges 

not convictions. There aren’t names attached to the report. In order for them to provide the number of convictions they would have to go through all of the files manually. The database issue was addressed in the recent tribal court assessment 

conducted by the Department of Justice and funding will be provided for software 

purchase. At least a month is needed for obtaining the software and training. The 

data will then need to be entered into the system. 

The information below is based on what was readily available upon review of hard 

copy records. This question will require us more time to fully answer. 

Child Abuse/Neglect (they aren’t separated) 

2011 — 15 

2012 — 45 

2013 — 36 

2014 (Jan–June) — 19 

42 

Question 2. Patricia Denice White alleges her infant grandson was improperly returned to the child’s drug dependent mother by the Tribal Court without adequate 

safeguards to protect the child from future harm. Please address these allegations, 

and inform this committee of all steps taken to insure the safety of this child. 

Answer. Melissa Merrick-Brady, Director, Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services 

(SLTSS) reports: Denice White called regarding her grandson to Tribal Social 

Services. She shared what had been happening and I advised her to file a 960 with 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Child Protection Services (CPS), because that is how 

a child protection investigation would begin. I offered to assist with filing a 960, but 

she informed me that she had already done so. I advised her to file for custody 

through Tribal Court and she stated she was hesitant because she did not want the 

mother to be mad at her, which may keep the grandson from her. I advised her to 

go directly to BIA CPS and speak with them and to tell them what she knew. I also 

advised her also to file a 960 for every incident and if there were witnesses to have 

them file 960’s as well. I told her if she felt this was an urgent situation to call 

the police. 

Chairman McDonald: I met with Judge Cavanaugh regarding Patricia Denice 

White’s (paternal grandmother) concerns. According to Judge Cavanaugh, the Spirit 

Lake Tribe Law and Order Code seeks to reunify parent(s) with their children. A 

previous court order on the mother had court ordered her to seek assistance for her 

addiction and parenting issues. Documentation was provided to the Court that indicated she was participating in treatment and rehabilitation services. Tribal Court 

continues to maintain custody of the child and provided BIA Child Protection 

Services (CPS) with care, control and placement authority. CPS placed the child 

back with the mother with supervision being provided by the maternal grandmother 

and CPS to support reunification. CPS continues to provide safety checks on the 

child, mother, and household. 

Question 3. Will Monty J. Stensland continue to serve as your Chief Judge, notwithstanding your present knowledge regarding the status of his license to practice 

law in North Dakota and the facts leading to his suspended status? 

Answer. Chairman McDonald reported at the Oversight Hearing that Tribal 

Council had went on record to support the hiring of Mr. Stensland as Chief Judge; 

however, when the background check was provided back to Tribal Council, this decision was reversed. Mr. Stensland was never hired as Chief Judge nor was he offered 

the position. 

Question 4. How many foster care providers does the SLTSS currently require? 

Answer. Tribal Social Services: BIA currently has 132 children in placement. 

SLTSS has 32 children in placement and case management. We have 9 licensed affidavit homes on the Spirit Lake Nation. Our licensing standards limit a home to no 

more than 4 children per home. With this standard alone, Spirit Lake would need 

at a minimum of 33 licensed foster homes; therefore, we are in need of an additional 

24 homes. There are qualifiers that can change that number, for example if a foster 

home provider is elderly, the number of children they can provide for will decrease. 

A home may only be able to take one child if the child has special needs. 

Question 5. As discussed during the hearing, how many children of the Spirit 

Lake nation are currently unaccounted for? 

Answer. Tribal Social Services: All 101 children from the list received have been 

accounted for by our independent social work contractor; however, there are 3 children where direct contact has not been able to be obtained as the caregiver has not 

been available. The independent contractor began May 19, 2014 and will continue 

working until all of the children are determined safe. The independent contractor 

holds a masters in social work and is licensed in the State of North Dakota. She 

is a retired Federal employee mental health worker with over 30 years of service 

and experience. 

Question 6. Of those children recently found who are in at-risk placements, specifically the ‘‘complicated’’ scenario discussed by the interim Tribal Social Services 

Director at the June 24, 2014 hearing, is that child now in a protected environment? 

Please explain. 

Answer. The ‘‘complicated’’ scenario discussed briefly is still in process as the children are off the reservation and in another jurisdiction. A 960 has been filed in the 

county they reside. The social services agency within that county is well aware of 

the situation, but is hesitant to remove them. The mother of the children has legal 

custody and voluntarily placed the children in this home. We’ve contacted the 

National Indian Child Welfare office for guidance. Because the mother abandoned 

the children, SLTSS is going to file for custody of the children in SLT Court. Once 

43 

custody is obtained, we will forward the order to the county in which they reside 

and take care and control of the children. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Judge McDonald, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JUDGE MOLLY MCDONALD, DEVILS LAKE, 

NORTH DAKOTA 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. Good afternoon, distinguished 

Members of Congress. My name is Molly McDonald. I sincerely appreciate the time and attention you give me today to listen to my 

testimony regarding these important issues on Spirit Lake 

Reservation: child protection and the tribal justice system. 

I am an enrolled member of the Spirit Lake Tribe. I was raised 

on the Spirit Lake Reservation. I graduated from the reservation 

high school in 1987. I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1988, and was 

honorably discharged in 1992, during Operation Desert Storm. I 

earned my associate degree in criminal justice in 1997 from United 

Tribes Technical College. I went on and earned my bachelor’s degree in criminal justice at Minot State University in 2000, while 

working full-time at the North Dakota State Penitentiary as a corrections officer. 

I was hired in October of 2000 as a U.S. probation and pre-trial 

services officer for the District of North Dakota in the Devil’s Lake 

office. I was specifically hired to work with my home reservation. 

I worked hard—I worked with this agency for almost 10 years, 

where I gained a vast knowledge of the Federal justice system and 

the investigation process, from the police report to a conviction. 

In February of 2010 I was appointed as the Associate Juvenile 

Judge for the Spirit Lake Tribal Court. My appointment ended in 

March of 2012. When I accepted the appointment as Associate 

Juvenile Judge in February 2010, I was already aware of incidents 

of negligence which involved both BIA and law enforcement and— 

excuse me, and Spirit Lake tribal social services in Federal cases 

from my employment with U.S. Probation. 

One example of this is our office was supervising a juvenile from 

Spirit Lake, where we were required to do a home contact with the 

juvenile at a minimum of once a month. Every home visit, the juvenile was locked inside of his home from the outside. We had to visit 

with the juvenile through the window. Because we were mandated 

reporters, we filed a 960 after each visit. The 960 was filed with 

Ramsey County Social Services and Devil’s Lake. Ramsey County 

Social Services sent the 960 on to Spirit Lake Tribal Social 

Services. 

Over and over again the child continued to be locked in the 

home. Our office contacted the director of Spirit Lake Tribal Social 

Services, Director Kevin Dauphinais, and told him of the situation. 

He said he would begin investigating immediately. It should be 

noted the mother of this particular juvenile also worked at Spirit 

Lake Tribal Social Services. The child remained locked in the home 

throughout his supervision. This juvenile was released from superVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:51 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\03 INDIAN & ALASKA\03JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88503.TXT DARLEN
44 

vision upon his 18th birthday. He later shot and killed his aunt 

and then himself. 

When I began my appointment, there were issues with BIA law 

enforcement, which included not filing paperwork in a timely manner, not filing complaints and/or police reports, not showing up for 

trials, not completing investigations, and other problems. The court 

contacted Elmer Four Dance with the Aberdeen Regional Office, 

along with Marcus Babbit and Mario Redlegs, and a meeting was 

held at the court with these individuals, along with the officers 

from the Fort Totten Police Department. This meeting appeared to 

be successful, with all BIA law enforcement present, promising better work from their officers. However, problems continued to happen, and the court continued to document these issues through 

emails. 

Upon leaving the court in March of 2012, the issues with BIA 

law enforcement were not resolved. In February 2012, I had a 

meeting with tribal prosecutor, Joe Vetsch. Mr. Vetsch stated to me 

that there had been no improvements with BIA law enforcement 

since the time I had left the court. In fact, at that time there were 

three alleged rapes that occurred within 6 months that were reported directly to Mr. Vetsch by the victims because BIA law enforcement did not complete any reports or investigation in the 

cases. 

All three victims reported the incidents to law enforcement. Mr. 

Vetsch also stated to me that he, himself, contacted FBI for assistance on these particular cases. He was told by FBI, ‘‘We offered to 

assist BIA criminal investigator, Jeff White, but he told us he had 

these cases covered, and we didn’t want to step on anyone’s toes.’’ 

Within the first months of my appointment as Associate Juvenile 

Judge, Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services was requesting hearings 

for the foster care cases. However, when the hearings took place, 

there was no representation from Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services 

for the hearings. I met with Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services 

Director Kevin Dauphinais about this, along with other issues. Mr. 

Dauphinais assured me these issues would be taken care of, and 

it wouldn’t happen again. The court continued to have the same 

issues. It got to the point where I began dismissing the cases, and 

Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services had to refile all the cases. 

On several occasions families were coming to the court stating 

Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services removed their children from 

their homes, and they wanted to know when the hearings were 

taking place, so they could attend and work to get their children 

back. The court had no documentation of the children being removed from the home. In some cases the children were out of the 

home for a year without any documentation. 

The court attempted to contact Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services 

about these cases without success. In other cases, the court became 

aware of physical, sexual, and emotionally abused children through 

I.H.S. Clinic, I.H.S. Mental Health, and the Suicide Prevention 

Coalition, along with victim assistance where 960s were filed on 

these cases and no response from Spirit Lake Tribal Social 

Services, as far as the investigation process. 

If the proper investigations took place, the court should have 

been involved in the process by completing background checks on 

45 

the children and their guardians. The same names continuously 

came up through time, either through I.H.S. Clinic, I.H.S. Mental 

Health, or the Suicide Prevention Coalition. This indicated to me 

that the 960s filed were not being investigated. 

During my 2-year appointment as Associate Juvenile Judge, 

Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services had went through 10 workers 

who were either terminated or resigned. When a new worker was 

hired at Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services, he or she would come 

to the court and request direction on what their duties were, because the director did not properly train these individuals on how 

to do their job. 

Before I began my appointment, there was an agreement made 

between the court and Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services. In order 

to receive the State IV–E funding for foster care, the State required 

specific wording in their court orders. The court paid for an employee of Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services to get the training for 

the wording in the court orders, and Spirit Lake Tribal Social 

Services would complete their own orders. 

After I began at the court, I noticed several delays in the orders 

being completed by Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services. Even on crucial cases, the court would not receive an order for signature until 

approximately a month after a hearing. There were also many 

cases that didn’t have court orders completed, despite requests 

from the court. 

In 2011/2012, when audits were taking place by BIA and the 

State on Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services, it is suspected some of 

the Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services orders were fraudulent, 

Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services taking a signature page from an 

order that I signed, and manipulating it into another order to get 

into compliance. 

[The prepared statement of Judge McDonald follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MOLLY MCDONALD, DEVILS LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA

Good morning distinguished Members of Congress. My name is Molly McDonald. 

I sincerely appreciate the time and attention you give me today to listen to my testimony regarding these important issues on Spirit Lake Reservation; child protection 

and the tribal justice system. 

I am enrolled member of the Spirit Lake Tribe. I was raised on the Spirit Lake 

Reservation. I graduated from the reservation high school in 1987. I enlisted in the 

U.S. Navy in 1988 and I was honorably discharged in 1992 during Operation Desert 

Storm. I earned my associate degree in Criminal Justice in 1997 from United Tribes 

Technical College. I went on and earned my bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice 

at Minot State University in 2000 while working full time at the North Dakota 

State Penitentiary as a corrections officer. I was hired in October of 2000 as U.S. 

Probation & Pretrial Services Officer for the District of North Dakota in the Devils 

Lake office. I was specifically hired to work with my home reservation. I worked 

with this agency for almost 10 years where I gained a vast knowledge of the Federal 

justice system and the investigation process from the police report to a conviction. 

In February 2010, I was appointed as the Associate/Juvenile Judge for the Spirit 

Lake Tribal Court. My appointment ended in March of 2012. 

When I accepted the appointment as Associate/Juvenile Judge in February 2010, 

I was already aware of incidents of negligence which involved both BIA Law 

Enforcement and SLTSS in Federal cases from my employment with U.S. Probation. 

One example of this is our office was supervising a juvenile from Spirit Lake. We 

were required to do a home contact with the juvenile at a minimum of once a 

month. Every home visit, the juvenile was locked inside of his home from the outside. We had to visit with the juvenile through the window. Because we were mandated reporters, we filed a 960 after each visit. The 960 was filed with Ramsey 

46 

County Social Services in Devils Lake. Ramsey County Social Services sent the 960 

on to Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services. Over and over again, the child continued 

to be locked in the home. Our office contacted the director of Spirit Lake Tribal 

Social Services, Kevin Dauphinais, and told him of the situation. He said he would 

begin investigating immediately. It should be noted the mother of this particular juvenile also worked at Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services. The child remained locked 

in the home throughout his supervision. This juvenile was released from supervision 

upon his 18th birthday. He later shot and killed his aunt and then himself. 

When I began my appointment, there were issues with BIA Law Enforcement 

which included not filing paperwork in a timely manner, not filing complaints and/ 

or police reports, not showing up for trials, not completing investigations, and other 

problems. The Court contacted Elmer Four Dance with the Aberdeen Regional Office 

along with Marcus Babbit and Mario Redlegs and a meeting was held at the Court 

with these individuals along with officers from the Fort Totten Police Department. 

The meeting appeared to be successful with all BIA Law Enforcement present promising better work from their officers. However, problems continued to happen and 

the Court continued to document these issues through emails. Upon leaving the 

Court in March of 2012, the issues with BIA Law Enforcement were not resolved. 

In February 2014, I had a meeting with the tribal prosecutor, Joe Vetsch. Mr. 

Vetsch stated to me that there had been no improvements with BIA Law Enforcement since the time I had left the Court. In fact, at that time, there were three alleged rapes that occurred within 6 months that were reported directly to Mr. Vetsch 

by the victims because BIA Law Enforcement did not complete any reports or investigation in the cases. All three victims reported the incidents to law enforcement. 

Mr. Vetsch also stated to me that he himself contacted FBI for assistance on these 

particular cases. He was told by FBI ‘‘we offered to assist BIA Criminal Investigator 

Jeff White but he told us he had these cases covered and we didn’t want to step 

on anyone’s toes.’’ 

Within the first months of my appointment as Associate/Juvenile Judge, SLTSS 

was requesting hearings for the foster care cases. However, when the hearings took 

place, there was no representation from SLTSS for the hearings. I met with Spirit 

Lake Tribal Social Services Director Kevin Dauphinais about this along with other 

issues. Mr. Dauphinais assured me these issues would be taken care of and it 

wouldn’t happen again. The Court continued to have the same issues. It got to the 

point where I began dismissing the cases and SLTSS had to re-file all the cases. 

On several occasions families were coming to the Court stating SLTSS removed 

their children from their homes and they wanted to know when the hearings were 

taking place so they could attend and work to get their children back. The Court 

had no documentation on the children being removed from the home. In some cases, 

the children were out of the home for a year without any documentation. The Court 

attempted to contact SLTSS about these cases without success. In other cases, the 

Court became aware of physical, sexual and emotional abused children through 

I.H.S. clinic, I.H.S. Mental Health and the Suicide Prevention Coalition along with 

Victim Assistance where 960s were filed on these cases and no response from 

SLTSS as far as investigation process. If the proper investigations took place, the 

Court should have been involved in the process by completing background checks 

on the children and/or guardians. The same names continuously came up throughout time either through I.H.S. clinic, I.H.S. Mental Health or the Suicide Prevention 

Coalition. This indicated to me that the 960s filed were not being investigated. During my 2-year appointment as Associate/Juvenile Judge, SLTSS had went through 

10 workers who were either terminated or resigned. When a new worker was hired 

at SLTSS, he/she would come to the Court and request direction on what their duties were because the director did not properly train these individuals on how to 

do their job. 

Before I began my appointment, there was an agreement made between the Court 

and SLTSS. In order to receive the State 4E funding for foster care, the State required specific wording in court orders. The Court paid for an employee of SLTSS 

to get the training for the wording in the court orders and SLTSS would complete 

their own orders. After I began at the Court, I noticed several delays in the orders 

being completed by SLTSS. Even on crucial cases, the Court would not receive the 

order for signature until approximately a month after a hearing. There were also 

many cases that didn’t have court orders completed despite requests from the Court. 

In 2011/2012, when audits were taking place by BIA and the State on SLTSS, it 

is suspected some of the SLTSS orders were fraudulent; SLTSS taking a signature 

page from an order that I signed and manipulating it into another order to get in 

compliance. 

I discussed these issues with the prior tribal council and the present Chairman 

along with the present social worker at SLTSS. I’ve been told that I have to stop 

47 

living in the past. What about the children who have reached out for help from their 

situations? What about the 960s that were thrown away? How does the tribe intend 

to deal with this? How many more children have to die before we are willing to start 

dealing with what happened in the past? Our tribe continues to say that our children are sacred. So why are we willing to throw away their hurt and pain? 

Mr. CRAMER. Judge McDonald, I am going to cut you off at this 

point, because we have allowed you to go over quite some time. But 

there will be plenty of opportunity in the Q&A for you to finish 

your thoughts, I assure you. 

And we do have your entire written testimony submitted, as well. 

So thank you for your testimony. And thank you for your service 

to our country. 

Ms. Fineday, you are recognized. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF ANITA FINEDAY, JD, MPA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN CHILD WELFARE PROGRAM, CASEY FAMILY 

PROGRAMS, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 

Ms. FINEDAY. Good afternoon, Chairman Young. Thank you for 

inviting me to join you today, and the members of the subcommittee. I am Anita Fineday, Managing Director of the Indian 

Child Welfare Program at Casey Family Programs, the Nation’s 

largest operating foundation focused on safely reducing and ultimately preventing the need for foster care by building communities 

of hope. We are headquartered in Seattle, Washington. We operate 

nine field offices throughout the Nation, and encourage and engage 

in partnerships with child welfare leaders in all 50 U.S. States, including leaders in Indian Country. 

We believe that the goals of our Nation around securing wellbeing for all children should be to keep children safe, to prevent 

abuse and neglect, and decrease the possibility of child deaths, and 

reduce the need for foster care by strengthening vulnerable families and their communities. In my testimony today I will briefly describe Casey Family Programs’ strong history in Indian Country, 

and our work with the Spirit Lake Tribe. I will conclude with 

thoughts on opportunities to help support both Spirit Lake and 

tribes throughout this Nation in their efforts to protect their children and strengthen their families. 

If you look at my written testimony, you will see the work done 

by Casey Family Programs over our 30-year span of work in Indian 

Country, starting with the provision of direct services to children 

and families, and shifting to services to broader strategies involving systems improvement and the demonstration and sharing of 

best practices. The Indian Child Welfare Program within Casey focuses on providing technical assistance to tribes on a wide variety 

of topics. 

We share your deep concern over ongoing cases and allegations 

impacting the children and families at Spirit Lake. There is nothing that we take more seriously than working to ensure that every 

child and family in this country resides in a safe, supportive, familial environment that will foster their well-being. 

On April 25 of this year, Casey Family Programs received a letter from Spirit Lake’s tribal chairman, Mr. McDonald, requesting 

48 

our assistance to address issues in their child welfare system. Since 

that time, Casey has worked with the tribe to gather information, 

create an action plan, and initiate collaboration between the tribe, 

the State, and Federal entities. 

After meeting with Spirit Lake representatives in May, the 

agreed-upon goal was to have the tribe reassume control over all 

child welfare cases and matters involving Spirit Lake children, and 

their culture and traditions will be embodied in the Spirit Lake 

child welfare system. 

To address child safety concerns at Spirit Lake, we are supporting and participating in a range of activities, including consulting with the State of North Dakota to explore options for their 

support in reducing the current backlog of investigations and background checks; arranging trainings for local BIA workers on intake 

and safety assessment, as well as culturally relevant practice models and safety tools; convening a leadership meeting in 2 weeks for 

principal decisionmakers from the tribe, BIA, ACF, and North 

Dakota, to review plans for the improvement of child welfare at 

Spirit Lake, with the goal of a shared vision for the work. 

Since one meeting will not resolve all the issues, additional sessions will occur over the next several months. Casey Family 

Programs believes a new model is needed to serve all families and 

children in Indian Country. Since long-term foster care does not 

promote child well-being, the new model should include efforts to 

provide culturally appropriate services that allow the child to remain safely with their family, necessary infrastructure to support 

a robust child protective services system, including access to professional staff and resources, and a continuum of community child 

welfare services nearby. 

In my written testimony I have provided more details on the 

need and vision for this model. Change to this new model will require oversight and targeted resources. Federal oversight and accountability is needed. There currently is no Federal agency 

responsible for the oversight of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 

1978, creating challenges in implementation, allowing Federal resources to support best practice on safety and child well-being. 

Casey has brought the financial resources to Spirit Lake and other 

tribes to try and fill the gaps and leverage current funding, but 

tribes continue to struggle. 

The majority of tribes who receive child welfare funding from 

title IV–E do so through agreements with States, and effectiveness 

ranges widely. At the same time, it is important to highlight that 

these Federal title IV–E resources only fund foster care once a 

child is removed from their family and home. It does not fund prevention services. Tribes and States need a new model for financing 

child welfare that protects the child’s safety and serves families. It 

is time to shift Federal resources to services and supports that are 

known to promote child well-being. 

Over 20 States are using this authority provided by Congress in 

2011 to redirect Federal funding in a more effective manner to support a broader array of services that are targeted to safety and 

child well-being. Further discussion is needed on how every State 

and every tribe can make such strategic investments in better practice. 

49 

However, being honest, this issue is more than just Spirit Lake 

or even Indian Country. Congress realized this when it created the 

Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities. We 

would encourage this subcommittee to explore how to engage with 

this Commission to be sure that the issues within Spirit Lake and 

Indian Country are an important consideration in their work. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fineday follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANITA FINEDAY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN CHILD

WELFARE PROGRAM, CASEY FAMILY PROGRAMS, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

Good afternoon Chairman Young, Ranking Member Hanabusa. Thank you for 

inviting me to join you today. 

I am Anita Fineday, Managing Director of Indian Child Welfare at Casey Family 

Programs, the Nation’s largest operating foundation focused on safely reducing, and 

ultimately preventing, the need for foster care by building communities of hope. 

Headquartered in Seattle, Washington, we operate nine field offices throughout the 

Nation and engage in partnerships with child welfare leaders in all 50 U.S. States, 

including leaders in Indian Country. We believe that the goals of our Nation around 

securing well-being for all children should be to: (1) Keep children who have been 

abused and neglected safe from further harm; (2) Prevent abuse and neglect and 

decrease the possibility of child deaths; and (3) Reduce the need for foster care in 

the first place by strengthening vulnerable families and their communities. 

In my testimony today, I’ll briefly describe Casey Family Program’s strong history 

in Indian Country and the principles that guide how we engage with these communities. I’ll describe our work with the Spirit Lake tribe and conclude with thoughts 

on opportunities and areas for focus to help support both Spirit Lake and tribes 

throughout this Nation in their efforts to protect their children and strengthen their 

families. 

A LEGACY OF INVESTMENT TO BENEFIT CHILDREN IN INDIAN COUNTRY

Casey Family Programs has worked deeply in Indian Country for more than 30 

years. Early on we established partnerships with the Oglala Sioux Tribe in South 

Dakota, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, the Mandan, Hidatsa, & Arikara 

Nation in North Dakota, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe in Montana, 

the Tlingit Haida Tribe in Alaska and other tribes throughout the country. These 

partnerships included establishing child welfare offices on the Pine Ridge and 

Rosebud Reservations, caring for tribal youth in Montana and providing extensive 

technical assistance in Alaska. These efforts focused largely on direct services for 

youth residing on or near the reservation. 

Efforts were made to integrate the efforts of child welfare, juvenile justice, State 

social services, housing, employment, tribal government, and reservation leaders to 

increase safety and improve outcomes for children residing there. This work was 

founded on the following guiding principles: 

• Children belong with their families and community; 

• All children deserve to be safe; 

• All families should be provided the comprehensive supports they need to become self-sufficient and interdependent; 

• All children and families should have access to their culture and traditions; 

• Work should focus on preserving and strengthening families; 

• An emphasis on the importance of extended families in tribal communities to 

keep children safe and families strong; 

• Every family should have a home with all basic amenities such as running 

water, heat, electricity and adequate food; and 

• An emphasis on ensuring full respect for the sovereignty of each Tribal 

Nation. 

Through our work in Indian County, Casey Family Programs provided an array 

of services to children in their care which went above and beyond child welfare services. In addition to foster care and respite care, these included: 

• Alternative services to prevent removal from their home and placement in 

foster care where possible; 

50 

• Medical services not covered by Indian Health Services (IHS) or the tribe including orthodontia, vision, and substance abuse disorder treatment; 

• Case planning that involved culturally appropriate approaches and services 

designed to fit the needs of the family. This planning involved the family, 

through family group decisionmaking and crisis intervention staffing. Input 

by the youth occurred where appropriate; 

• Psychological Services when needed, including mental health assessments, 

counseling, psychotherapy, intensive care placements, chemical dependency 

evaluations and treatment; and 

• Educational Services including tutoring, educational enrichment activities, 

Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessments, funds for high school graduation costs, 

college preparation services, college tuition, and funds to defray costs while 

in college. 

Our work has always recognized and supported the development and capacity 

building efforts necessary to embed and sustain strong practice and services for families. Since the beginning of Casey Family Program’s partnerships in Indian 

Country, we have consistently invested in staff educational development and training to ensure that children received high quality, culturally responsive services. 

Foster families also receive an array of services designed to help them nurture the 

children they care for and help them prepare youth for participation in the adult 

world. We have always made and prioritized efforts to recruit American Indian staff 

to work with Native youth and to recruit American Indian families. Tribal members 

were hired as family developers to recruit, license, train and provide on-going support to American Indian families. These developers were supported to attain their 

Bachelors and Masters degrees in Social Work and, over time, were exposed to a 

broad and culturally appropriate array of training opportunities. 

As our work has evolved over the years, Casey Family Programs has moved away 

from focusing largely on direct services to broader strategies involving systems improvement and the demonstration and sharing of best practices. The foundation’s 

work in Indian Country is no exception. The work has evolved, however the guiding 

principles remain the same—safely reducing the number of children in foster care, 

reducing disparities, preserving families and communities, and improving outcomes 

for children. 

The Indian Child Welfare Program within Casey focuses on providing technical 

assistance to tribes on a wide variety of topics. Casey Family Programs works to 

provide training to both States and tribes regarding the requirements of ICWA. We 

also work to build collaboration and cooperation between tribes and States regarding best practices, capacity building and improving well-being outcomes for children, 

and have convened a National Indian Child Welfare Practice Group to draw together tribal leaders from across the country. Our foundation also convenes judicial 

roundtables bringing tribal and State court judges together to develop partnerships, 

improve communication and develop partnerships between judges to improve the 

systems. 

CASEY FAMILY PROGRAMS WORK AT SPIRIT LAKE

We join the members of this subcommittee, the Administration, and other national partners in expressing concern over ongoing cases and allegations impacting 

the children and families at Spirit Lake. There is nothing we take more seriously 

than working to ensure every child and family in this country resides in a safe, supportive familial environment that will foster their well-being. 

On April 25 of this year, Casey Family Programs received a letter from Spirit 

Lake’s Tribal Chairman Leander R. McDonald requesting our assistance to address 

issues in their child welfare system. 

Since that time, Casey has worked with the tribe to gather information, create 

an action plan, and initiate collaboration between the tribe, State, and Federal entities. The overarching vision for our work with the Spirit Lake Tribe is to ensure 

that Spirit Lake children are safe in their own homes or in tribally approved foster 

homes. 

This vision also included ensuring that the tribe would have the resources and 

capacity to effectively reassume control over all child welfare cases and matters involving Spirit Lake children, and Spirit Lake culture and traditions will be 

embodied in the Spirit Lake child welfare system. 

This vision was developed in conversations with Spirit Lake’s chairman and director of tribal social services during an initial visit by Casey staff to the reservation 

in May. Because child safety is an urgent concern at Spirit Lake, we are initially 

focusing on the completion of all outstanding BIA investigations and background 

51 

checks. Also, clarity is needed among all stakeholders about their roles and responsibilities in providing child welfare services to Spirit Lake children. 

We are currently consulting with the State of North Dakota to explore options for 

their support in reducing the current backlog of investigations and background 

checks to enhance child safety. Casey Family Programs is providing technical assistance in the development of a searchable database to support the intake process of 

cases. We are also arranging trainings for local BIA workers on intake and safety 

assessment, as well as culturally relevant practice models and safety tools. 

In terms of initiating collaboration between the various responsible entities, Casey 

Family Programs is convening a leadership engagement meeting in 2 weeks for 

principal decisionmakers from the tribe, BIA, ACF, and North Dakota to review 

plans for the improvement of child welfare at Spirit Lake. The goal of this meeting 

is secure a commitment to cooperative collaboration on defined goals, and to agree 

on a shared vision for the work. 

Immediately following the leadership meeting, Casey is facilitating a working session for representatives from these entities who are involved hands-on with child 

welfare work at Spirit Lake. The working session will kick off a multi-part mapping 

and planning process to define the ideal case flow sequence, clarify roles and responsibilities, identify root causes of barriers to implementation, and create a prioritized 

list of proposed short-term actions. 

One meeting will not solve all the issues, so additional sessions over the next several months will refine the vision, add detail, and identify and remove causes of 

delays or other issues that affect child safety and well-being. 

A vital aspect of these mapping and planning processes will be the active solicitation of guidance from tribal members on how to improve tribal child welfare. This 

will be accomplished through community meetings when information will be shared 

about progress and challenges. Tribal members will be engaged both in implementation of strategic plans and in dialog about how cultural values, attitudes, and 

experiences impact the safety and well-being of Spirit Lake children. These conversations should address attitudes toward accountability and consequences, and 

practices leading to political stability. It will be critical to address historical trauma 

impacting parenting skills and the cycle of abuse. 

Casey will continually provide technical assistance to the tribe: 

• To sustain the process of continuous improvement over time, 

• To incorporate community input in creating a comprehensive strategic plan 

for achieving its vision for the welfare of tribal youth and families, 

• To increase tribal case management and child welfare related service provision capacity, 

• To gather and analyze data for enhanced decisionmaking and improved 

practice, 

• To access available resources. 

Casey will also facilitate peer-to-peer assistance from other tribes and to encourage an exchange of ideas about currently used best practices in tribal child welfare. 

Casey’s long-term goal is that the tribe will have the full capacity to deliver child 

welfare services through more effective recruitment and retention of child welfare 

workers, increased access to funding, and improved policies and procedures. 

A NEW MODEL FOR SERVING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN INDIAN COUNTRY

1. Casey Family Programs always promotes safety and child well-being. 

Research and the strong voices of children in care clearly indicate that longterm stays in foster care do not promote child well-being. Therefore, more 

must be done to provide culturally appropriate services that allow the child 

to safely remain with their family. 

2. Developing the necessary infrastructure to support a robust child protective 

services system is essential to reach these goals. From investigation, to supporting the family, to maintaining an ongoing engagement to promote wellbeing, Spirit Lake and all tribes need quality professional staff and adequate 

resources. 

3. Best practice in child welfare shares the priority and values of Indian Country 

in keeping children with their families and within their communities. But 

safety is always paramount and it is often necessary to have a continuum of 

services to be available nearby to meet this standard of practice. 

Change to this new model will require oversight and targeted resources: 

52 

Federal oversight and accountability: Our work in child welfare often brings together public and private partners, Federal, State and tribal communities and 

national partners committed to better outcomes for families and children. In these 

discussions, it is apparent the ownership and accountability at the Federal level of 

oversight for tribal child welfare is lacking. Various Federal agendas provide a 

range of funding streams in a manner that is not streamlined or well-coordinated. 

However, there is no Federal agency responsible for the oversight of the Indian 

Child Welfare Act of 1978, creating challenges in implementation. We believe this 

type of leadership is critical at the Federal level, much as the leadership is critical 

at the tribal level. 

Allowing Federal resources to support best practice on safety and child well-being: 

The issue of resources is certainly one to explore further. We have brought the financial resources of our foundation to Spirit Lake and other tribes throughout this 

country to try to fill the gaps and leverage current funding. But tribes continue to 

struggle. The majority of tribes who receive child welfare funding from Title IV–E 

do so through agreements with States, and effectiveness ranges widely. 

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 provided tribes, for the first time, with direct access to these funds so tribes are no 

longer required to go through their State. However, since 2008, only four tribes have 

been successful in gaining direct access. Even with such access, those tribes have 

significant infrastructure challenges. We are actively working to increase this number given the importance of these resources. We are also enhancing the partnerships 

among States and tribes who have agreements to ensure they further collaborate 

toward shared goals. 

At the same time, it is important to highlight that these Federal Title IV–E 

resources only fund foster care once a child is removed from their family They do 

not fund prevention services or support services that can safely avoid removal and 

foster care placement. 

Tribes—and States—need a new model for financing child welfare that protects 

a child’s safety and serves families. It is time to shift Federal resources to services 

and supports that are known to promote child well-being. In 2011, Congress passed 

legislation to give States and tribes the opportunity to seek a waiver to use Federal 

foster care funding more effectively. Over 20 States are using this authority to redirect Federal funding to support a broader array of services that are targeted to safety and child well-being. Further discussion is needed on how every State and every 

tribe can make such strategic investments in better practice. 

In closing, we thank the subcommittee for its oversight on the specific issues of 

Spirit Lake. However, being honest, this issue is more than just Spirit Lake, or even 

Indian County. Congress realized this when it created the Commission to Eliminate 

Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities. At a different House hearing about the commission, Dr. David Sanders, our Casey Family Programs Executive Vice President for 

Systems Improvement and commission chair, acknowledged the challenge our country faces on child fatalities. Extrapolating from Federal Government statistics, every 

24 hours in America, on average about four children die as a result of child abuse 

and neglect, most of them before they reach their 5th birthday. 

We would encourage this subcommittee to explore how to engage with the 

commission to be sure the issues within Spirit Lake and Indian Country are an important consideration in their work. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I’d be happy to answer any 

questions. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HON. KEVIN CRAMER TO ANITA

FINEDAY, CASEY FAMILY PROGRAMS

Question. What precedent do you feel retaining placement of a child with their 

mother should take? In those instances where a mother is a recovering methamphetamine addict, is it better to place the child with the mother without supervision rather than placing the child in a foster home? 

Answer. As I mentioned in my testimony, Casey Family Programs has extensive 

history working with tribal communities. We believe that the goals of the Nation 

around securing well-being for all children, including Native American children, 

should be about keeping children who have been abused and neglected safe from 

further harm; preventing abuse and neglect in the first place; eliminating child 

deaths; and safely reducing the need for foster care by strengthening vulnerable 

53 

families and their communities. My testimony highlights our guiding principles on 

which we center our work. 

Safety is the priority, and there is nothing we take more seriously than ensuring 

a child should be safe. 

Congress, through the passage of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, also 

requires child welfare policy to promote permanency and well-being for children. Research and practice tells us promoting safety, permanency and well-being together 

requires a case-by-case approach. Where to place a child is a complicated question 

that requires a case-by-case decisionmaking with a clear focus on the child’s safety, 

permanency and well-being. Decisions should be based on the facts of the individual 

case with the child’s safety and well-being and the mother’s parent’s status in her/ 

his recovery and the protective factors for the specific family. The goal of the child 

welfare system should be to determine if the child can stay in their family safely 

with appropriate services and oversight, whether the child can be reunified safely 

and quickly or if another form of permanency is required. 

Federal agencies dealing with substance abuse problems, including 

methamphetamines, have developed protocols on how to evaluate child safety and 

effectively engage on a case-by-case basis. There are numerous research studies and 

guides to support child welfare staff in making these complicated decisions including 

the National Resource Center for Child Protective Services, which I have listed 

below. 

Safety Intervention in Methamphetamine Using Families: A Practice Guide 

for Safety Decisions Making and Safety Management in Child Protective 

Services, National Resource Center for Child Protective Services (2005). Available 

at: http://www.nrccps.org/PDF/FinalMethintropracticeguidemethoct05.pdf. 

Discusses a number of issues related methamphetamine use in families and strategies for intervention. 

Safety Management with Methamphetamine-Using Caregivers, National Resource Center for Child Protective Services (2004). Available at: http:// 

www.nrccps.org/PDF/Meth_IA_article.pdf. 

Discusses identifying and assessing safety threats in the initial assessment of families involved in methamphetamine use, including criteria for identifying present 

danger and impending danger, and key steps for managing safety threats 

Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 33: Treatment for Stimulant 

Use Disorders, Rawson (1999). Available at: http://adaiclearinghouse.org/ 

downloads/TIP-33-Treatment-for-Stimulant-Use-Disorders-61.pdf. 

In SAMSHA/CSAT Treatment Improvement Protocols. 

Provides practice guidelines for the treatment of stimulant use disorders, including 

the use of methamphetamines. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this question. 

Mr. CRAMER. With that, the Chair recognizes the Chair for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the witnesses. Judge and the chief, if you 

had a wand to solve this problem, what would you need, Chief? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Well, I think—Mr. Chairman, I think 

what was included in my testimony is that, first of all, we just need 

front-line workers right now. We have been trying to fill these positions for over the years, since—while I have been in office, coming 

in September, and we have had a difficult time, as a result of that. 

As a result of that, the workers that we do have are overworked, 

because they have been taking on these duties because the personnel aren’t there—— 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. But now, is it a lack of money, or a lack of personnel? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. It is a lack of personnel. 

Mr. YOUNG. Now, there are no tribal members that can do this, 

or have you looked outside the tribal members to do it, too? 

54 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. It is open. It has been open, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. And there aren’t any people—what is the pay? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. The majority of them are right around 

$20 an hour, $40,000 a year. Social workers, on the other hand, 

though, especially masters in social work, if you look at the Federal 

rates, they are right around $50,000 for masters in social work that 

is licensed. 

Mr. YOUNG. But I am looking for a solution. If you need two— 

ma’am, if you want to comment—you have got two, and you need— 

you don’t have—filled that yet. You need three-and-a-half, right? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. So how do we get there? Do we—— 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Well, I think—— 

Mr. YOUNG. We go to Thailand and get a couple people? Or what 

do we do? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Well, sir, I think what we proposed 

here in regard to the Department of Health and Human Services 

and the Commission would allow us for some emergency workers 

that could staff us up until we can get to that point and recruit 

those professionals. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. I am trying to help you here. You are on the 

right track, and I compliment you on this. 

If that is the problem, let’s figure out how we can be of help, so 

you can get that three-and-a-half, or—I don’t know how you are 

going to get half—or four. Because, again, it goes back to the children. 

So, Judge, what do you think? I mean your testimony is interesting. The lack of activity from the BIA agents themselves, the 

police force, is that correct, was it the legal force? 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Now, are they local, or are they outsiders? 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. The police officers? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. The police officers, I believe, a majority of them are from Spirit Lake. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, that is one of the problems, then, because it 

is hard to arrest your uncle and your aunt and your brother, your 

sister, your father, and your mother. 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. So how do we eliminate that? 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. I think the view that I would like this 

committee to see is that the people on the reservation have no trust 

in the law enforcement system right now. There is absolutely no 

trust because of prior practices that have been happening, even before my appointment. This has been going on for years. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, again, I understand that. And, like I say up 

in Alaska—— 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. And my—— 

Mr. YOUNG. But I am saying how do you—we had the end up 

eventually—actually, we had a great police chief, because he was 

6′6′′, and nobody would give him any bad problems. But now they 

have a problem there is no trust in the local police, they try to 

bring in the state troopers, they don’t like the state troopers. So we 

55 

have the same problem. I am just looking for a solution. What 

would you suggest? 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. My recommendation—and I have 

talked to the Chairman about this, as well—is accountability. 

There is no accountability in law enforcement, as far as our officers 

on our reservation. We are aware of what they are doing, we are 

aware of the practices that are going on, and nobody is holding 

these people accountable. Nobody is holding these officers accountable for their job. They are sworn officers to protect our people, and 

they are not doing it. 

Mr. YOUNG. Now, Chief, do you hire these people? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. No. 

Mr. YOUNG. Who hires them? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD [continuing]. These are Federal—— 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. BIA. 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD [continuing]. Bureau of Indian Affairs 

officers. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, then why don’t we fire them? We didn’t ask 

the BIA this, either. 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. There is no—as far as I know, none 

of these officers have ever been reprimanded for their duties, or 

lack of doing their duties. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I am the Chairman, I am going to ask the 

Chairman. I think we ought to fire the whole bunch, move them 

out, get somebody else. If they are not doing their job, what are 

they getting paid for? Maybe reinstate some faith within the community. 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. I agree. 

Mr. YOUNG. I am going to ask both of you—and this is his district, but you work with your congressman, and let’s see if we can’t 

solve this problem. I don’t want to have—like I say, I get very irritated when it comes to kids. And I am not putting the burden on 

you, Chief, because you are relatively new, and you have been 

there. But we can solve this. You know, get somebody in there that 

can—anybody that starts abusing kids, we—well, you got any big, 

deep holes out there that we can put them in, like Joseph had to 

go into, and leave him there a while? We might look for that solution too, you know. We will bring them out after a while and find 

out what is going on, though. 

But I want to help Chief, go ahead, and then I have to go. 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, the other piece of that, 

too, is that in regard to the lack of staff, lack of police officers, I 

have seen it—I am not disagreeing with any of Molly’s statements—— 

Mr. YOUNG. You better not, she is your sister. Go ahead. 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. I know it. But on the other side is 

that—you know, because BIA is ultimately responsible for the law 

enforcement of our reservation. But I think a piece of that is that— 

part of it is that, because of the underfunding, and the personnel 

with—it only recently came up to two police officers. It was only 

one police officer up to about 3 months ago. And so we had one person on per shift, and they didn’t have a whole lot of time off because of the lack of personnel there. 

56 

So, I think there is some other piece in regard to possible burnout that could be affecting their functionality, I guess, within—you 

know, within their positions. So I just ask that to be a consideration in regard to this—in regard to the comments that have been 

made, because I think if we are staffed up to the 14 officers that 

we do need, that I stated, then I think we would be in a better position to patrol and keep our lands safe. 

Mr. YOUNG. Last thing, Mr. Chairman. Chief, what is your main 

supply of dollars? Is it government aid, or what is it? Where is the 

money coming from for the reservation? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. The majority of the funds that we receive are Federal funds that are provided through the trust responsibility of the Federal Government. 

We also receive funds from our casino that we have, and these 

are called economic development funds. With those funds we have 

supplemented the social services program with about $325,000 this 

past fiscal year. We have also put about a quarter of a million dollars aside for additional tribal law enforcement officers to help to 

have adequate law enforcement on our lands. 

You know, so—and then, with the tribal court system, we are at 

about $300,000 down there, too. So we have contributed and supplemented these programs with tribal funds. 

Mr. YOUNG. All right, I—again, work with us, and see if we can’t 

make sure you aren’t back here again with bad publicity, and get 

the job done. And if they are not doing the job, let us know. OK? 

Mr. Chairman, I am done. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Chairman Young. With that, I recognize the Ranking Member for about 71⁄2 minutes, I can tell. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Go ahead. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. I appreciate it, but Chairman Young can speak 

as long as he wants, I am sure. 

Chairman McDonald, earlier the name Tom Sullivan was mentioned. Are you familiar with this individual? Have you heard of 

him? Do you know him in any way? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Yes, I know Mr. Sullivan. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. How do you know him? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Well, I have only met him once. But 

to answer your previous question, has he been out to our reservation before, he has. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. As in 6 months ago, 6 years ago, 60 years ago? 

I mean can you put it in context? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. It is about 6 years ago, sir. There was 

a FEMA meeting that was held that I actually helped out at, and 

he was there for that FEMA meeting, along with a lot of other officials from regional and national office that came out and responded 

to then-Chairman Pearson’s request for that assistance, or Chairperson Pearson. 

So, yes, he has been out there. But then on the other piece of 

that is—with Tom, we have had these reports out there, and I have 

seen him, but he has never sent them directly to the Office of the 

Chairman, from what I can see. I have never received them directly. In fact, Molly is the one who has been giving them to me. 

57 

But I actually got to meet with him at a Health and Human 

Services consultation down in Denver. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. How long ago? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Oh, geez, about 4 or 5 months ago. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. And there we—— 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Did you ask him for help? Did you—he seems to, 

at least on paper, claim to be knowledgeable about what has been 

going on on your reservation, et cetera. But is—let me just cut to 

the chase. How helpful has he been when it comes to not just saying what he feels has happened, or has been going on? Has he been 

solution-oriented, as far as wanting to roll up his sleeves and be 

part of the solution, as far as you can tell? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Well, sir, there have really been two 

requests for assistance from myself, personally, to him. I wrote him 

a letter asking him to—in his official capacity as a regional administer, to come in and investigate these cases that he was bringing 

up within these mandated reports for our community. I didn’t 

get—— 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Did you get a response? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. I didn’t get a response. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. So you wrote to him in writing? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Yes, I did. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. And you sent him a request in writing? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Yes. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. And you are telling this committee that he did 

not respond to you in writing? And, as far as you can tell, you have 

not received any correspondence from him—— 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. No, I—— 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS [continuing]. From you sending him that request? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Not an email, not a letter, not a response, not a phone call. 

The second—— 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. On that note, Mr. Chairman—and then thank 

you, I do appreciate what you are explaining to us. But that letter, 

can you make sure that this committee gets a copy of that letter 

that you—of request to Mr. Tom Sullivan from you, the Chairman? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. You bet. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Were you the Chairman at the time, when you 

asked him? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. So if you can get us a copy of that letter, I 

would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, thank you. OK, yes, thank you, 

go ahead. 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. The second time was at this Health 

and Human Services consultation meeting, region 8, in Denver. 

And I got to—we had the—well, we didn’t really have lunch, but 

we took the lunch break in order to visit a little bit. And because 

I had seen out there in his letters that he was advocating for the 

tribe, so I specifically asked for the meeting. And I guess the region 

granted it, and I was able to sit down with him. 

At that meeting we visited a little bit, and I asked him then— 

because he was cutting down ACF pretty good. But ACF, you know, 

had been the ones that were out there, helping us. And so, him 

58 

having said that, so what I asked him is that—I offered him a job, 

and I asked him to come and work for us. I said, ‘‘Come on out, 

Tom. Come and work for us. I will give you a job, you know, to help 

us to investigate this.’’ And he said he couldn’t do that at that time. 

So, those are the two places where I asked him to help us out, 

and there was no response the first time, and no to the second. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. So basically, you did make an effort, as the 

Chairman on behalf of your tribe, to involve this person, Tom 

Sullivan. So what I gather from you is you weren’t—you didn’t take 

offense to what he said, you trusted that he was being honest and 

just forthright about what he knew, and therefore, you wanted his 

assistance to try to solve these issues? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Yes, sir. And what I was seeing is 

that—the question I asked him—because there is a process for this, 

there is a process when we have allegation of this, and the process 

for our community is that when you—there is an allegation, and 

you do a 960 on it, and then there is an investigation conducted 

on the 960. And so, my question to him was that, ‘‘Well, here is 

the process, you are a regional administrator. You guys are kind 

of—try to keep us in check over at our level, at the local level, in 

regard to following these processes that are set up.’’ 

And my question was that, ‘‘Why didn’t you file a 960 on these 

stories that you were hearing—because some of them were pretty 

detailed—and so we could make sure that a proper investigation 

was being conducted?’’ And he said it was not in his jurisdiction. 

And so, I just wondered, because he is region 8. We fall within 

region 8, so I figured it was in his jurisdiction. But, in any event, 

there was nothing filed with the 960s on our behalf or our children’s behalf. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Mr. Chairman, could I take 5 seconds to ask 

Molly McDonald a question? 

Mr. CRAMER. Yes. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A quick question. At 

what time were you a judge over at Spirit Lake? And then, second, 

other than being a tribal member, do you have any other official 

capacity at this time with the tribe? 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. I was appointed as the Associate Juvenile Judge in February of 2010, and my appointment ended in 

March of 2012. And right now I am not working for the tribe. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. And I suspect I will either take 71⁄2

minutes, or we will have another round of questions for these two 

witnesses. 

I do want to get to something—do any of you know how many 

prosecutions there have been of child abuse in the last 2 years, 

other than the well-known child death situations? Does anybody 

have an answer to that question? 

Ms. Merrick, do you—— 

Ms. MERRICK-BRADY. I don’t have the number offhand, but I was 

part of coordinating the CTAS grant application for the tribe this 

spring, and we got numbers from the tribal court. So I have tribal 

court numbers available of the cases that went through tribal 

court. I do not have the Federal—— 

59 

Mr. CRAMER. The Federal ones. OK. If we could get those at 

some point, that would be great. Thank you. 

Judge McDonald or Chair, you don’t know any different? Because 

I want to get to the court situation a little bit, because you did 

speak specifically to it. We have a former judge here. You seem to 

want to fix that part of it. I personally think that is one of the 

major challenges. The separation of powers issue, I think, has been 

a problem in the past. I am hoping it is not now. 

So, I want to get to that. I know that, as I understand it, Judge 

Cross was recently resigned. Could somebody—perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you could speak to why Judge Cross was recently either let 

go or resigned? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Judge Cross was terminated from the 

tribe. 

Mr. CRAMER. On what grounds? And I don’t know, so I am sincerely wondering. 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Well, Tribal Council deemed it necessary to terminate her. And, myself, I need to say on record that 

I was opposed to that, and that I—— 

Mr. CRAMER. So you were—— 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. With the forethought is that there 

needs to be a separation of powers between government and our judicial system. And so, whatever those rulings were, they should 

have stood. I mean they—well, they did stand. But the termination 

should have never occurred. 

Mr. CRAMER. So was your sense, if I understand, that some of 

the Tribal Council members wanted her removed because they disagreed with her rulings? Is that possible, or a fact? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Well, the way I saw it, that was a 

public pressure. 

Mr. CRAMER. OK. 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. For them to remove her. 

Mr. CRAMER. And the public pressure came from people that she 

had sentenced, or victims, or just the general public? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. I believe they were community members who were not satisfied with her rulings. 

Mr. CRAMER. All right. Now, did the tribe recently hire a new 

chief judge for your court system? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. There was Chief—Judge Morsett was 

there, and then he resigned. 

Mr. CRAMER. OK. 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. And so now we are—— 

Mr. CRAMER. I am asking specifically about a Monty J. 

Stensland. Did you recently hire—— 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Yes, the counsel hired Monty. 

Mr. CRAMER. Counsel hired Monty Stensland? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Yes. 

Mr. CRAMER. How recently? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Oh, about a week ago. 

Mr. CRAMER. Are you aware that Mr. Stensland is currently suspended from practicing law in North Dakota? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. We realized that after the action was 

taken. 

Mr. CRAMER. OK. 

60 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. And a background check was being implemented. 

Mr. CRAMER. So the background check hadn’t been done prior to 

the offer of the job, and now you have a judge with a suspended 

license. Is there any effort to—did you know what he was suspended for? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. I only know that—from what I understood was that he was debarred, and he was suspended for—it 

sounded like some type of misrepresentation. 

Mr. CRAMER. Well, let me just read it to you right off of the 

Supreme Court Web site. His first suspension a few years ago was 

for—a 60-day suspension—and, by the way, it has been suspended 

for—over the course of 7 years now—a 60-day suspension for fraudulently signing or having another person, at his direction, sign a 

client’s name on a document and filing it with the court. 

And then, after that, two instances of fraudulently affixing a client’s name to a document and filing it with the court, failure to 

properly notify clients of a prior suspension, falsely certifying to 

this court compliance with the notification requirements, repeated 

and flagrant failure to communicate with clients, and mishandling 

and refusing to return unearned client funds. 

The Supreme Court stated his behavior ‘‘suggests a pattern of 

dishonesty to the courts and flagrant disregard of his clients’ welfare.’’ I would submit to you probably not going to be great public 

relations when this comes out. And it is your court. 

I also want to follow up on something you said, Mr. Chairman, 

toward the end of your prepared remarks. You said you—I don’t remember if you used the word ‘‘charged’’ Congress for solutions, or 

‘‘challenged’’ Congress for solutions, and I would agree, I hope that 

we can work together on some solutions. But I also want to remind 

you that, if sovereignty is in fact what we are talking about, and 

self-reliance is the goal, the best solutions are going to come from 

you, and in consultation with your friends at the Casey Foundation 

and others that want to partner with you. 

I want—I am wondering. How many victims does your victims 

advocate program handle in 1 month? And probably Ms. MerrickBrady is best able to answer. 

Could you give me a rough idea of how many victims you deal 

with in a month? And maybe that is an unfair way to put it, but 

if you could sort of help me with a general number, a caseload—— 

Ms. MERRICK-BRADY. Can you repeat the question? I had somebody—— 

Mr. CRAMER. Sure. How many victims does your victims advocate 

program handle in a month? 

Ms. MERRICK-BRADY. I—again, I didn’t bring my victim assistance numbers with me. And I am currently overseeing both programs. I want to say—I can give you some of last year’s 

numbers—— 

Mr. CRAMER. Sure. 

Ms. MERRICK-BRADY [continuing]. Just because we—and it is—— 

Mr. CRAMER. Just general. 

Ms. MERRICK-BRADY. For the year last year, we had, I believe, 

around—and again, this is from memory, a rough estimate— 

61 

around 168, total, domestic violence, sexual assault victims that 

came through our program. 

Mr. CRAMER. All right. Very good. With that, my time has expired, but we are going to do another round of questions, so I am 

going to yield to the Ranking Member for another round of questions. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Fineday, your organization works to improve foster care and 

child welfare systems across the Nation. Are child deaths a problem in and outside of Indian Country, or only in Indian Country? 

Ms. FINEDAY. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. At the 

end of my testimony I referenced a congressional commission that 

has been created, I think, because Congress, as a whole, realizes 

that this is a problem across the country. It is not a problem just 

in Indian Country. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. And when it comes to a problem that occurs in 

clusters, have you seen that arise outside of Indian Country, or 

only in Indian Country? 

Ms. FINEDAY. I think, unfortunately, it is a common occurrence 

across many communities. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. So it appears to be a human side effect, not 

necessarily a tribal issue, specifically? 

Ms. FINEDAY. I think that is correct, Congressman. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. Your written testimony includes themes of 

cultural appropriateness and tribal sovereignty. Can you please expand on those points and tell us why paying attention to these is 

so important with regard to Indian children? 

Ms. FINEDAY. Well, I think when we are looking at culturally appropriate services, it has been our experience in child welfare that 

in working with tribes, that the services are most effective with 

tribal children when those services are culturally appropriate, and 

children respond more positively when it is from their own culture 

and their own community. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. So, what you are saying is it affects the effectiveness of the actual provider of services, right, if they have 

that cultural sensitivity, or if they can learn a lot of those sensitivities quickly, they are more effective. 

Ms. FINEDAY. That is correct, Congressman. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. And I have a question to the Chairman, 

Chairman McDonald. 

Are you—what pay range is your tribe able to pay judges when 

they are judges for your courts? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. I think right now the range is from 

$60,000 to $85,000 a year. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Are you familiar at all with what judges get paid 

around the corner when they are working for the State, or Federal 

judges in your State or in your region? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. I am familiar with some older numbers, and it looks like we are competitive. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Oh, really? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. I think so. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. But I am not too sure at the State 

level. I would think—— 

62 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. I would be surprised if you are competitive. Because in order to be a judge in most jurisdictions, you have to have 

a juris doctorate. You probably needed to have been practicing, et 

cetera, et cetera. 

For example, in California, judges are paid about $180,000 a 

year. And the reason why I ask it with a question, I am not saying 

that judges are paid that amount in your State, I am just saying 

that when you look at the minimum qualifications and the amount 

of years of experience before somebody gets either appointed as 

judge, or runs for—to be a judge, or what have you, it seems as 

though the requirements and the minimum standard of requirement is much different. And I would assume much higher. 

It appears that the judges in your court are not required to have 

had to pass the bar or be active. Correct? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. I believe they are required to have 

a—— 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Yes, please shed some light on that, Molly. 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. Pursuant to our Spirit Lake law and 

order code, there is no requirement for the judge to be law-trained. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. And the reason why I ask that question is 

because it is unfortunate that the responsibilities that the tribes 

take on for themselves sometimes don’t come with equivalent funding opportunities, they don’t come with the opportunity to actually 

have equivalence thereof. 

And so, when people outside of Indian Country find out, or what 

have you, they—in my opinion, too many Americans actually think 

that it is wrong. But, wait a minute, it is not about being right or 

wrong, it is about having to deal with your responsibilities with the 

resources you may or may not even have to deal with them. And 

then many Americans take it for granted that when somebody is 

a judge down the road in some county somewhere, that they actually have a certain standard, and assume that standard. Well, that 

standard is actually able to be adhered to, because they have been 

given the resources to go ahead and hire people with those qualifications. 

But yet in Indian Country it seems as though many times tribes 

are being criticized because they don’t have people of certain degree—certain formal degrees, excuse me, and people with certain— 

like, having passed the bar, et cetera. Most Americans take that for 

granted, but what they don’t realize is many tribes—many sovereign nations don’t have the wherewithal to actually attract those 

individuals, or even keep that bar at that level. 

So, it is unfortunate. I am not saying that one can’t be a good 

person and do a good job. All I am saying is that many Americans 

judge people or what is going on in Indian Country unfairly because they don’t understand that they are not—their jurisdiction 

and their requirements and their abilities are way, way different. 

So thank you very much for shedding light, Molly, and also 

Chairman. Thank you. 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. May I add something? 

Mr. CRAMER. Please feel free. 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Mr. Chair? 

Mr. CRAMER. Yes. 

63 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. I am going to—I am in agreement with 

all that you said. And I think a lot of the issues that we are having 

is that we talk a little bit about sovereignty, and the inherent right 

of tribes as sovereign nations. It is recognized within our 

Constitution. And so, we have the rights here as being for a nation 

here within these lands. 

And with that right, and for the cessation of lands that we gave 

up, we were provided—we were to be provided these things that 

are based in our treaties, that are based on contracts with the U.S. 

Government. And it doesn’t say within the treaties that we were 

going to provide these to you inadequately. It doesn’t say that. It 

says, ‘‘We are going to provide these things to you.’’ 

And in my opinion, and when I read this, and when our forefathers, our ancestors signed on those treaties, I think that is how 

they understood it, because they wanted the—the Federal 

Government, they were taking them at their word to provide these 

things to us for the cessation of millions of acres of land. And so 

I continue to believe that. 

And in regard to sovereign status, I think we are moving in the 

right direction. I think there were things that were not happening 

within our community that needed to happen. And, as a result of 

that, based on our constitution, changes were made by our people 

within our community, and they continue to be made. 

And so—but things like Molly was sharing, these things—and I 

think what we heard throughout the testimony here today is that 

these things have been going on for quite some time. And so—but 

we are responsible now. It is our watch now. It is our responsibility 

to do this. 

So, I thank the committee here for allowing us to share these 

perspectives today. Thank you. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. Could somebody on the panel tell me 

how many foster homes there are on the reservation? Do you 

know? Qualified foster homes? 

Ms. MERRICK-BRADY. There are currently nine licensed homes on 

the reservation. 

Mr. CRAMER. And how many would you need to provide the appropriate safe haven for children in distress, in danger? 

Ms. MERRICK-BRADY. Well, right now we have—we don’t exclusively use just the tribally licensed homes. We have them placed 

also throughout the State because of the number of, like, say, sibling groups or family size of the kids that are being placed. 

I guess I was appointed on March 3, and I am coming up on my 

second 60-day appointment for this. And so I guess that was never 

a question that anybody really asked was how many do we need. 

We just know we need some. And, in fact, one of the efforts that 

we are doing is—this evening, because I am here, I am missing our 

event—is we are hosting a foster parent appreciation/recruitment 

dinner for these purposes. Our current foster homes are—you 

know, it is like a—them plus one, you know, potential foster parents. And then we are also using it as a recognition and appreciation, because we only have a little bit, and so we do appreciate 

their efforts. And they know the needs, and so we are also utilizing 

it as a venue for their site visits. 

64 

And also one of the, I guess, good PR efforts is we are also using 

it—we are hiring a photographer, because some of these children 

probably have never taken family portraits, family pictures together, including their siblings, the sibling groups. You know, we 

really are—progress is being made. 

Mr. CRAMER. What are the standards for becoming a foster parent? You know, Senator Hoeven and I each have legislation in our 

respective communities. And we are not here to necessarily talk 

specifically about it, but we want to have some sort of minimum 

standard. And you may very well meet that standard. It is basically regarding background checks for all adults in the foster home. 

Is that something that is currently done for these nine licensed—— 

Ms. MERRICK-BRADY. We currently follow the State’s practices. 

Just because of all the scrutiny, we moved toward following the 

background checks. They have to get fingerprinted, and it is every 

adult over the age of 18 that resides in the home that has to pass 

the background check. We have site visits. We have—I believe it 

is three, and one of them is unannounced. You know, there is a 

process. It is timely, but we want it to be thorough. 

Mr. CRAMER. Having been through it myself to be a licensed foster home, I can tell you it is—the scrutiny is almost uncomfortable, 

but it is very important, and we are happy to have gone through 

it. 

I want to get to a couple of specific cases, or at least one. First 

of all, several of us—and I think you, Mr. Chairman, included— 

have received a list of 136 children believed to be at risk from 

former social service worker Betty Jo Krenz. You are familiar with 

that list? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Yes. But the list I received, I think it 

was around 100. 

Mr. CRAMER. OK. And I don’t know exactly, I was sort of guessing, myself. But it is somewhere around 100 or more. 

Do you know—have you followed up, or has somebody followed 

up on that report? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Well, just—we hired on—her name 

is—well, she is Sister, but Joanne Strifle. 

Mr. CRAMER. OK, sure. 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. She is a retired masters social work 

trained, I.H.S. mental health professional. 

Mr. CRAMER. Sure. 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. And she was residing in our community, and she had great interest in this area. And so we have asked 

her to come out of retirement to help us investigate these cases. 

Mr. CRAMER. Has she found most of them, or all of them, or any 

number of them, and have any of them found to be at risk? Do you 

know? 

OK, Ms. Brady? 

Ms. MERRICK-BRADY. She is still currently employed, and still actively pursuing and finding out how many children are safe. Within 

the first week we have identified 66 of them as being safe, as, you 

know, they are either in placement, they have aged out, they have 

been adopted. And that was within the first week. 

She is working hand in hand with our ICWA manager, Chuck, 

and he is also a licensed social worker. She is being greeted, I 

65 

guess, and BIA is being cooperative with her. Also the courts are 

being cooperative with her. Everybody is focused on the safety of 

identifying—— 

Mr. CRAMER. Has she found any to be in an unsafe situation? 

Ms. MERRICK-BRADY. There have been a couple of incidents. 

Mr. CRAMER. And—— 

Ms. MERRICK-BRADY. And those were reported. She sat down 

with one of our staff members, and we did formally report. 

Mr. CRAMER. Did they—were they removed, then? 

Ms. MERRICK-BRADY. They were just—it was recent. Like real 

recent. Like last week. 

Mr. CRAMER. So they have been removed from the home? 

Ms. MERRICK-BRADY. Well, one of them is complicated. One of 

them is really complicated. So we have contacted a national office, 

because we feel like they should be removed. We don’t have—and 

they are not in our jurisdiction. That is the one that is complicated, 

that is the one where we have asked for help and, I guess, technical assistance on how best to have those children removed from 

that home. 

Mr. CRAMER. OK. That causes some concern for me, to be honest. 

I don’t know what level the danger is. I hope you do, if it is too 

complicated to take immediate action. 

Are you familiar with a case where a BIA officer assaulted his 

wife? She came to—I don’t know if it was Social Services or the 

tribe for help. Her husband was, of course, being a tribal officer, 

either heard of, or it was reported to him that she reported him, 

and resulted in an even more severe beating. Are either of you familiar with this case, or—Judge McDonald? 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. I am familiar with what you are talking about. There are two separate issues to this. 

Mr. CRAMER. OK. 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. One was a human resource issue, and 

one was an advocacy issue. I addressed it with human resources, 

I followed the process. And one of the first things that—when 

Chairman McDonald was sworn in, came into office, I briefed him 

on the whole situation. Because of confidentiality and the VAWA 

provisions, I can’t release any of that information publicly to some 

of the people who thought maybe I had done something wrong. 

Mr. CRAMER. OK. 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. But I was—the whole—there was an 

investigation because the public didn’t know all of the provisions 

and there was—the H.R. piece was a little bit more public. And 

that is where a lot of the things were out in the public, went 

wrong. And so I briefed him on everything, and I was—I did my 

job. 

Mr. CRAMER. OK. So I guess now I am a little more concerned 

than I was before I asked at the beginning of the question. 

So this officer, wife abuser, learned of her reporting it through 

some—— 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. Through her own doing. 

Mr. CRAMER. She went and told him that she squealed on him, 

or—is that what you are saying? 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. I don’t know if I can get—I can’t—— 

66 

Mr. CRAMER. No, I understand. All right. Well, we can talk 

about—— 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. I can’t—— 

Mr. CRAMER. Yes, I understand, I understand. We can talk about 

it offline, if that is what is necessary. 

You know, I want to wrap this up, and I know the Ranking 

Member has some comments, as well. But one of the things that 

I think we have all admitted—and I have said it many times— 

there is a clumsiness. We had a hearing last week in this committee, or on the Natural Resources—on the Energy Committee on 

sovereignty issues, where I have introduced a bill to try and further codify sovereignty with regard to handling of minerals on 

tribal lands. 

And what we find is that you have got bureaucracy, and then you 

have bureaucracy. And when you have two bureaucracies you have 

a worse situation than one plus one. It gets very clumsy. And I 

think we are struggling with that, to say the least. 

That said—and I think it needs to be clear that, yes, our 

Constitution recognizes and acknowledges the sovereignty of tribes, 

and Congress is the trustee. There is a trustee relationship here, 

that Congress is the trustee, that BIA is our agent in carrying that 

out, but Congress itself is the trustee. And I suspect that the reason for that is that—and maybe Chairman McDonald hasn’t heard 

me say this; his predecessor, and every other chairman in North 

Dakota has—that when there is an issue of danger, especially—and 

I agree with the Chairman on this—especially with regard to children, very little else matters, but the safety of that child, quite 

honestly. 

In fact, nothing else matters, besides the safety of that child, because that child is my constituent, like that child is your constituent. And that child’s family and the community is asking for 

help. And, as the trustee of this relationship, there are some things 

we can do, and there are some things we can’t do. And so we— 

whatever we do, we need to do it in concert, and do it together. 

So, you are sure you don’t have another round of questions you 

want to—because I don’t want to lose the moment? 

Well, we haven’t been called to vote yet, that is why I am—I 

don’t want to lose the moment, because these folks have to go. But 

why don’t—do you have some—OK, I am going to recognize the 

Ranking Member for a few more questions, as well, just because 

you all took the time and expense, and you are a long ways from 

home, and you are here, and I don’t want to miss the opportunity. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And once again, in 

case you run out of time, I want to say thank you to all of the panelists who came. I really do appreciate your expertise and your 

knowledge that you are helping to educate us, this Committee of 

Congress. And I also want to say that, of the people who have testified today, I don’t get any feeling that people who came forward to 

be part of the testimony today are in any way doing it—are in any 

way hindering wanting to do the right thing, or allowing others to 

do the right thing. So thank you very much. 

Now, this question is for Ms. McDonald. How does the tribe’s judiciary system impact the child welfare system? And what can 

Congress do to improve judicial independence? 

67 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. I still stand with accountability. Law 

enforcement, our social services, our tribal court, the decisions 

made by our tribal court are going to affect a child, especially in 

a social services case, for the rest of their lives. And the tribal court 

needs to take that seriously. 

What I have been observing since I left the court, I just believe 

that they need—they all need to work together. And I just don’t see 

that happening. Instead I am seeing the blame game. It is the tribal court’s fault, it is BIA Social Services’ fault, it is the Tribal 

Social Services’ fault, it is the Tribal Council’s fault. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Is any of what you just said to us right now, is 

any of that element of lack of attention in the proper ways have 

to do with the lack of providers, or the services that are afforded 

the tribe? 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. [No response.] 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. In other words, is it 100 percent lack of will, or 

is it a combination of some people not having the will, yet at the 

same time those who do have the will don’t have the resources to 

address it properly? 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. If you want the honest truth, with the 

Chairman sitting here, I believe a lot of these things that are happening on the tribal level is because the workers—the employees 

of the tribe are all afraid of getting fired. They are going to do 

whatever the Council tells them to do. So there is that distrust now 

in those tribal programs from people in the community. The same 

at the BIA law enforcement level. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you. 

On that note, Mr. Chairman, do you agree that more should be 

done? And, if so, what are the elements that are holding the tribe 

back from being able to make more progress faster when it comes 

to making sure that the children get justice, and families? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Well, I would like to refer back to the 

testimony provided by Ms. Chang in regard to the result—one of 

the results they found within their report was that there was a 

lack of communication going on. And I think that is one of the 

main issues that we have to resolve, and to take away these silos 

and come together in regard to addressing this issue. 

And you know, I think the thing to do, too, is—to respond to 

Molly’s comments a little bit is that we have been doing our best 

to try to create a system where you don’t have to be afraid of losing 

your job, but you can come forth and contribute to what is available out there. And I think we are moving forward on that. We 

have EPA assisting us in reviewing of our policies and procedures 

manual within the next couple weeks, and they will be out there 

to help do that. The directors have been invited to provide some 

input on that. And I think, as that strengthens, that part becomes 

strengthened, that part will be addressed. 

And we are—I think the thing is that, historically, we have been 

operating as—tribes have kind of really control of what was happening in their environments. And I think we have to continue to 

move in a positive direction, but bring forth the expertise that we 

do have. And if we don’t have that expertise, bring it in from the 

outside in order to help us build that capacity that we can build 

a stronger system in whatever area it is. 

68 

And for here, for what we are talking about today is child protection services. And these four areas that we have been talking about 

today are so important that they come together. And I think we are 

moving in that right direction. And that is why the Casey meeting 

is so important here on July 7–9, in order to bring all this together 

and give us an actual map, a visual, but also the documentation 

to support that on how we are going to address this issue for our 

children. 

So I think the work is coming together. I think that there has 

been good progress in that. And I think—but that is only a piece 

of that. We are not there yet. That is—I think half the work has 

been planning. And now we need to move forward. But we need the 

resources in order to do that, sir. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And one more comment, if I may, Chairman of the Committee. 

I think it is important for you to understand, Chairman—and 

please take this back to your colleagues at every level. Especially 

from you, the Chairman, please do not stop asking the Federal 

Government for help and resources. I know you probably feel as 

though you are frustrated and you don’t know if anybody is listening. 

But one piece of advice that I have learned, both as a business 

owner, and as a 18-year full-time elected official, every time you 

make those requests, if it is verbally, follow it up in writing. Document every single request. Do not allow yourself to get frustrated 

and think that nobody is listening. Maybe almost nobody is listening, but please, please do not stop making those requests, and 

make those requests in writing. And any time you can be specific, 

continue to double down on that communication. 

I know it is not easy. I am sure you are working your tail off. 

I am sure that, you know, there is probably not enough time in the 

day to address all the things you need to address. But when it 

comes to getting the Federal Government to recognize their responsibility, as you described your forefathers actually understood that 

the Federal Government would do, I believe that it is woefully inadequate in what is being provided. Yet, at the same time, please 

continue to document those requests. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. I am going to take 5 minutes myself, 

now, and follow up and wrap up. I want to go fairly quickly. 

One of the issues, Mr. Chairman, you raised in your testimony, 

especially your written testimony, you elaborate a bit on the need 

for good public relations. I don’t think there is any question that 

the public relations has been bad. The news has been bad because 

the situation has been bad. And so, how do we get better news out 

there? Hopefully this is part of it. You know, coming together, providing some hope, a road map, the help of the Casey Foundation. 

And Judge McDonald talked about accountability. You know, 

since you have been Chairman—remind me. The incident that I referred to earlier with the TV reporter that was assaulted, they 

were there covering a fire or something, and—or something else, 

and they saw it, and they had the camera out, and we read all 

about it. I don’t know all the facts of it, but—did that happen after 

you became Chairman? I am not accusing you of doing it. I am just 

69 

wondering—I am trying to get a sense of the timeline. And what 

do you think of that situation? 

And second, the reporter that—I read a report, and I don’t remember where it was now—I think it might have even been the 

same reporter recently was rebuked, according to this report, by 

you for reporting on the most recent child death, which I think was 

in April. 

Maybe just respond to that in general, and then let’s talk about 

how we can help create accountability through transparency. Is 

that fair? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Yes. On the—Mr. Chairman, in regard 

to the incident that occurred when—his name is Adam Ladwick. 

Mr. CRAMER. That is right—— 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. The reporter for our area. And, from 

what I understand, he was next to private property, and he was 

viewing—or shooting the burning down of a building. And the family whose building was burning down didn’t like him filming that. 

And so then, therefore, they told him to get off of private land, 

which he wasn’t, because he was on public. And the road is considered public. 

Mr. CRAMER. Sure. 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. And so—and they pretty much—from 

what I could see on a video footage from the newscast itself, is that 

he was—I don’t know if he was assaulted, but they did break his 

camera. 

And so, I think he had the opportunity, if he wanted to, to press 

charges. But I don’t know if he did or not. So—on that part of it. 

On the other one, in regard to him coming to a public meeting, 

and the child was not yet buried, and the child had passed away. 

And I had seen a news piece that he had aired the night before, 

and what he said in regard to the loss of this child—I think the 

child was 7, 8 months old—is that this was a suspicious death. And 

when it came down to it, and so the next morning he came to this 

meeting, a public meeting that we had. 

And I asked him about it, and I said, ‘‘What are you doing, calling that a suspicious death?’’ I said, ‘‘You don’t know the facts. We 

don’t know. The autopsy report hasn’t come back yet. We don’t 

know what happened here, and you are out there saying this.’’ And 

culturally—I told him, I said, ‘‘Culturally, you are wrong. Culturally, we don’t—we are not talking about—this family is in 

mourning right now. Let them mourn. And here you are putting 

this on TV and you are calling this suspicious. Now you are— 

they’re not only in mourning, but you are saying they might be responsible for the death of their child?’’ 

Mr. CRAMER. Do we know any more about that—— 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Well, several days later we found out 

it was a SIDS death when the report came out. 

You know, so I think he needed to catch hell. And I am not sorry 

that I gave it to him publicly. And so—and I am still—I still get 

along with him, we still do that, but he had to leave that meeting. 

Mr. CRAMER. He does a lot of good stories, is my understanding, 

for—— 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. Well, he needs to come out and do 

some more good stories on us. Because when we make those reVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:51 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\03 INDIAN & ALASKA\03JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88503.TXT DARLEN
70 

quests, he is not coming out to the positive things that are happening within our community, and that is what we are saying. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. In the little time we have remaining, 

I want to ask about the accusations of lost documentation and even 

shredded documents. Do you know anything—and that is about as 

much as I know about it. So I am sincerely asking. Do any of you 

know anything about these allegations, and what the status of any 

of that might be? 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. We have heard rumors. 

Mr. CRAMER. OK. 

Dr. LEANDER MCDONALD. We have heard rumors, but we—as far 

as I know, we haven’t anything solid to support that. And I don’t 

know if any of—Molly or Melissa might have more knowledge, but 

what I have heard are rumors. 

Mr. CRAMER. OK. Judge McDonald, do you know anything about 

that? 

Judge MOLLY MCDONALD. Yes. In the beginning of December of 

2011, two social workers had been recently hired—I would say 

within a week. They had came into my office, and it was before 

hearings. Social workers’ names are Jackie Bavaro and Sandy 

Ladacer. I asked them casually how it was going at Social Services, 

because they had only been there a week. They both told me that, 

for the first week at work, they had been spending from 8:00 a.m. 

until 10:00 p.m. at night shredding documents, based on the direction from Kevin Dauphinais, the Social Services director. 

Mr. CRAMER. All right. With that, my time has expired, and we 

really have gone a long time. We have been very lenient, as you 

know, so our Chairman is—prefers to dig in, as opposed to keep a 

tight schedule. I appreciate that, especially in this particular circumstance. You have all been very forthcoming, I appreciate that. 

I very much appreciate my friend, Mr. Ca ́ rdenas, who is a man 

with a very good heart, I can assure you. And I appreciate him 

very much, and I appreciate all of you being here, as well. 

And I want to thank all of the witnesses for their valuable testimony and patience this afternoon, and the members and staff, as 

well, for their participation and preparation. 

Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions. As 

we mentioned earlier, they will have 10 days. And we would ask 

you to respond to those in writing if they are provided to you. 

And then, if there is no further business to come before the subcommittee, without objection the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:58 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

Correspondence between Thomas F. Sullivan, Regional Administrator, ACF, Denver and Chairman McDonald, June 25, 2014 

Correspondence between Thomas F. Sullivan, Regional Administrator, ACF, Denver and Ms. McMullen, July 1, 2014 

71 

Letter to Congressman Kevin Cramer from Bonita Morin, Tribal 

Elder, Spirit Lake Tribe, June 28, 2014 

‘‘Mandated Reports Concerning Suspected Child Abuse on the 

Spirit Lake Reservation’’, by Thomas Sullivan (ACF), Reports I– 

XIII 

Statement of Elizabeth Sharon Morris, Chairwoman, Christian 

Alliance for Indian Child Welfare (CAICW), with various attachments 

Statement of First Focus Campaign for Children 

Statement of Betty Jo Krenz 

Various news articles submitted concerning the topic of ‘‘Child 

Abuse on the Spirit Lake Reservation’’ including submissions from: 

ABC News, The Salt Lake Tribune, NY POST 

Æ