Attorney General’s Advisory Committee 

on American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence: 

Ending Violence so Children Can Thrive 

NOVEMBER 2014 
Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on
 

American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence:
 

Ending Violence

So Children Can Thrive
 

NOVEMBER 2014 

US Senator Byron L. Dorgan (ret.)
 

Joanne Shenandoah, PhD, Iroquois
 

Dolores Subia BigFoot, PhD, Caddo Nation of Oklahoma
 

Eric Broderick, DDS, MPH
 

Eddie F. Brown, DSW, Pasqua Yaqui & Tohono O’odham
 

Valerie Davidson, JD, Yup’ik
 

Anita Fineday, JD, MPA, White Earth Band of Ojibwe
 

Matthew L. M. Fletcher, JD, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians
 

Jefferson Keel, Chickasaw Nation
 

Ron Whitener, JD, Squaxin Island Tribe
 

Marilyn J. Bruguier Zimmerman, MSW, Assiniboine-Sioux/Fort Peck Reservation
 

This project was supported by Grant No. 2013-TY-FX-K002 awarded by 

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice 

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are 

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official positions or 

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

U.S. Department of Justice
 

Eric Holder, Jr. 

Attorney General 

Karol Mason 

Assistant Attorney General 

Robert L. Listenbee Jr. 

Administrator
 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
 

This report was created as part of the Defending Childhood Initiative created by Attorney 

General Eric H. Holder, Jr. This initiative strives to harness resources from across the 

Department of Justice to: 

• Prevent children’s exposure to violence; 

• Mitigate the negative impact of children’s exposure to violence when it does occur; and 

• Develop knowledge and spread awareness about children’s exposure to violence. 
 

Members of the Advisory Committee 

Co-Chairs 

US Senator Byron L. Dorgan (ret.), Chairman of the Board of Advisors, Center for Native 

American Youth; Former U.S. Senator; Former Chairman of the US Senate Indian Affairs 

Committee 

Joanne Shenandoah, PhD (Iroquois), Composer and Singer 

Members 

Dolores Subia BigFoot, PhD (Caddo Nation of Oklahoma), Associate Professor, Department 

of Pediatrics, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Director, Native American 

Programs, University of Oklahoma 

Eric Broderick, DDS, MPH, Former Deputy Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration; Rear Admiral 

Eddie F. Brown, DSW (Pasqua Yaqui & Tohono O’odham), Executive Director, American Indian 

Policy Institute; Professor of American Indian Studies and School of Social Work, Arizona State 

University 

Valerie Davidson, JD (Yup’ik), Indian Health Advocate 

Anita Fineday, JD, MPA (White Earth Band of Ojibwe), Managing Director, Indian Child Welfare 

Program, Casey Family Programs; Formerly Chief Judge for the White Earth Tribal Nation 

Matthew L. M. Fletcher, JD (Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians), Director, 

Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law 

Jefferson Keel (Chickasaw Nation), Lieutenant Governor of the Chickasaw Nation 

Ron Whitener, JD (Squaxin Island Tribe), Affiliated Assistant Professor, University of 

Washington School of Law, Associate Judge, Tulalip Tribal Court 

Marilyn J. Bruguier Zimmerman, MSW (Assiniboine-Sioux/Fort Peck Reservation), Director, 

National Native Children’s Trauma Center, University of Montana 
Acknowledgements 

During the course of our work, the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on American 

Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence received support and assistance 

from numerous individuals and organizations to whom we would like to express our 

deepest gratitude. 

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, led 

by Administrator Robert Listenbee, provided the funding for this critical work as part of the 

Defending Childhood Initiative. We thank the department for the support it provided and its 

commitment to helping American Indian and Alaska Native children heal and thrive. 

Our technical assistance provider, the Tribal Law and Policy Institute (TLPI), organized four 

public hearings and five Listening Sessions spanning the country and they assisted with 

the organization of this report. The hearings and Listening Sessions formed the backbone 

of our inquiry. We also would like to thank the following individuals and organizations 

who made it possible, through their generosity and time, for us to convene experts and 

community members to discuss children’s exposure to violence: Salt River Pima-Maricopa 

Indian Community; Gila River Indian Community; Akimel O’odham/Pee-Posh Youth Council; 

All Nations Indian Church; National Congress of American Indians; National Indian Child 

Welfare Association; Seminole Tribe of Florida; Native Village of Napaskiak; Native Village of 

Emmonak; community of Bethel; National Indian Education Association; Little Earth of United 

Tribes; Center for Native American Youth; Casey Family Programs and the Ain Dah Yung 

Center. In addition, the following individuals provided assistance at hearings and Listening 

Sessions: Elders Jim and Bonnie Clairmont; Yago and Ina Evan; Mike Hoffman; John McDonald; 

and Vivian Korthuis. 

We also gratefully acknowledge the many individuals who helped shape our thinking about 

this work and provided us with the support to complete this challenging task, including 

Professor Alicia Lieberman, who was appointed to the Advisory Committee but not able to 

participate in the hearings, Professor Sarah Deer and Erin Bailey. 

Most importantly, this report and the work of this task force would not be what they are 

without the voices of those who shared their expertise, personal experience, passion, and 

commitment to ending American Indian and Alaska Native children’s exposure to violence 

during the course of our hearings and Listening Sessions, as well as those who submitted 

written testimony. They are acknowledged individually in a separate section of this report, 

but their contributions bear mentioning again and we are greatly indebted to them. Ending 

American Indian and Alaska Native children’s exposure to violence requires every one of us. 

The hundreds of people we heard from across this nation have demonstrated what profound 

change can occur when one person accepts the responsibility each of us has for ending this 

epidemic. On behalf of our sacred children, we thank you for your dedication. 

Letter from the Co-Chairs 

NOVEMBER 18, 2014 

Today, a vast majority of American Indian and Alaska Native children live in communities 

with alarmingly high rates of poverty, homelessness, drug abuse, alcoholism, suicide, and 

victimization. Domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse are widespread. Continual 

exposure to violence has a devastating impact on child development and can have a 

lasting impact on basic cognitive, emotional, and neurological functions. We cannot stand 

by and watch these children—who are the future of American Indian and Alaska Native 

communities—destroyed by relentless violence and trauma. This Advisory Committee was 

charged by U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. with examining these issues and making 

recommendations for change that will heal and protect American Indian and Alaska Native 

children and foster environments in which they can thrive and develop to their full potential. 

Over the course of several months this Advisory Committee listened to hours of testimony 

about the trauma and suffering endured by our Native people—past and present. We heard 

story after story of abuse, loss, and tragedy. We heard about the legacy of historical trauma 

caused by loss of home, land, culture, and language and the subsequent abuse of generations 

of Native children in American boarding schools. We heard that, through a tragic history of 

broken promises and chronic underfunding, our country has failed to meet its trust obligations 

to Native Americans and their children. 

Yet at every hearing we also heard about the desire for healing and the importance of 

restoring traditional ceremonies and ancestral wisdom as ways of returning safety, dignity, 

respect, and well-being to our Indigenous people and their children. We discovered a 

remarkable core of resilience and love of children among Native people and a sense of urgency 

about changing their communities. 

Throughout the testimony, we also heard stories of critical tribal funding that has been cut 

across sectors—housing, law enforcement, child welfare, juvenile justice, health care, and 

education—and how the lack of funding negatively impacts the children in those communities. 

And while there are state and federal programs intended to address the needs of Native 

American children and youth, the findings of this report illustrate that grant-making systems 

are cumbersome and resources for tribes are extremely limited. Too often tribes are forced to 

compete with one another for limited resources and the grant application process is subject 

to unrealistic time frames, overwhelming paperwork, and requirements that place unrealistic 

burdens on small or remote tribal communities. 

A number of the recommendations in this report require substantial investment and new 

appropriations for programs that provide critical services and care to American Indian and 

Alaska Native children. Progress will not be made until Congress passes legislation requiring 

mandatory spending for tribal children and youth. Furthermore, treaties and existing law and 
trust responsibilities demand that Congress and the Executive Branch direct sufficient funds 

to American Indian and Alaska Native Nations to bring funding into parity with the rest of 

the United States so that tribal Nations can effectively address violence in their communities, 

prevent children from being exposed to violence, and respond to those children who need 

to heal. 

This report is submitted to Attorney General Holder with a deep sense of responsibility, 

humility, commitment, and hope for change. We are extremely grateful to all the witnesses 

and others who generously shared their stories, wisdom, time, and recommendations with us. 

And we thank our fellow Advisory Committee members—an extraordinary group of people 

who have a deep commitment to American Indian and Alaska Native children. 

Joanne Shenandoah, PhD, Co-Chair 

US Senator Byron L. Dorgan (ret.), Co-Chair 
Contents

Preface 1

Executive Summary 5

Chapter 1: Building a Strong Foundation 35

Chapter 2: Promoting Well-Being for American Indian 

and Alaska Native Children in the Home 71

Chapter 3: Promoting Well-Being for American Indian 

and Alaska Native Children in the Community 93

Chapter 4: Creating a Juvenile Justice System that 

Focuses on Prevention, Treatment and Healing 109

Chapter 5: Empowering Alaska Tribes, Removing 

Barriers, Providing Resources 129

Appendices

A: Advisory Committee Short Biographies 155

B: Individuals and Organizations that Submitted Testimony 163

C: The Attorney General’s National Task Force 

on Children Exposed to Violence: Executive Summary 171

D: Indian Law and Order Commission: Executive Summary 193

E: Glossary and Acronyms 225

F: Suggested Further Readings 235

Preface
 
2 P R E F A C E 

Public Hearings 

The Advisory Committee held four public 

hearings over the course of 2013–14 in 

North Dakota, Arizona, Florida, and Alaska. 

These hearings included testimony from 

more than 150 witnesses. Thousands of 

pages of written testimony were reviewed 

for this report. 

The Attorney’s General’s Task Force on American 

Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed 

to Violence was established in 2013, based 

upon a recommendation from the Attorney General’s 

National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence. 

This American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) Task 

Force has been anchored by an Advisory Committee 

consisting of nonfederal experts in the area of AI/AN 

children exposed to violence and a federal working 

group that includes federal officials from key agencies 

involved in issues related to AI/AN children exposed 

to violence. The charge to the Advisory Committee 

on AI/AN Children Exposed to Violence (Advisory 

Committee) was to make high-level policy recommendations to Attorney General Eric Holder on ways 

to address issues around AI/AN children exposed 

to violence. 

The charter mandated that members of the AI/AN 

Advisory Committee conduct four hearings and up to 

six Listening Sessions nationwide to learn from key 

practitioners, advocates, academicians, policy makers, 

and the public about the issue of AI/AN children 

exposed to violence in the United States in and outside 

of Indian country.1 

The Advisory Committee was also directed to gather 

information on promising and evidence-based 

practices that could benefit these children and their 

communities. Finally, the Advisory Committee was 

directed to write a final report to the Attorney General 

presenting its policy recommendations. This Advisory 

Committee was charged with making recommendations to the Attorney General of the United States. 
3 

Many of the recommendations in this report are addressed to 

Congress and executive branch agencies outside the Department 

of Justice because solutions to the dire situation faced by AI/AN 

children must be comprehensive and will require efforts beyond 

the Department of Justice. Therefore, the Committee recommends 

that the Attorney General work with the Legislative and executive 

branches of government to implement the recommendations. 

The recommendations are intended to serve as a blueprint for 

preventing Al/AN children’s exposure to violence and for mitigating 

the negative effects experienced by Al/AN children exposed to 

violence across the United States and throughout Indian country. 

During 2013–14, the Advisory Committee convened four public hearings and multiple Listening Sessions across the nation to examine 

the scope and impact of violence facing AI/AN children exposed to 

violence in their homes, schools, and communities. The Advisory 

Committee heard from more than 150 witnesses. The hearings, 

attended by more than 580 people, were open to the public.2 

The primary focus of this report is the findings and recommendations that emerged from those hearings. In addition, this report 

incorporates and builds on two highly relevant reports that 

preceded it. The 2012 Report of the Attorney General’s National 

Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence3 and the 2013 Indian 

Law and Order Commission (ILOC) report, A Roadmap for Making 

Native America Safer.4 

The Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed 

to Violence held hearings throughout the country and released its 

comprehensive final report on December 12, 2012. This final report 

includes fifty-six wide-ranging recommendations. One foundational 

recommendation was to establish a separate task force or commission 

to examine the unique needs of AI/AN children exposed to violence.5 

Following the 2012 release of the Final Report of the Attorney 

General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence, a 

second highly relevant report was released by the Indian Law and 

Order Commission (ILOC). The ILOC was a bipartisan commission 

created through the 2010 Tribal Law and Order Act (Public Law 

111-211) (TLOA). The TLOA directed the commission to conduct 

a comprehensive study of the criminal justice system relating to 

Indian country and to develop recommendations on necessary 

modifications and improvements to the justice systems on the 

federal, tribal, and state levels. The final report, released in 2013, A 

P R E F A C E 
 

 

 

4 

Roadmap for Making Native America Safer,

6 was unanimously approved 

by all nine bipartisan commissioners. The goals of the ILOC report 

are directly connected to this Advisory Committee’s mission to 

address the needs of AI/AN children exposed to violence. 

The Advisory Committee believes that the recommendations in the 2012 

Final Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children 

Exposed to Violence and the 2013 Indian Law and Order Commission 

reports complement the findings and recommendations in this report 

and encourage policy makers to consult all three reports as they implement policies that will improve the lives of AI/AN children. 

Each of the five chapters in this report addresses a critical issue 

in protecting AI/AN children exposed to violence. Each chapter 

discusses the Advisory Committee’s findings based on testimony 

offered at hearings, information gleaned at Listening Sessions, and 

additional research conducted by the committee members; and each 

chapter will conclude with the Advisory Committee’s recommendations related to those findings. This report provides the Advisory 

Committee’s vision of the development of effective, culturally appropriate programs and services to protect AI/AN children exposed to 

violence. The Advisory Committee believes that the implementation of these recommendations can make lasting change across the 

nation, fulfilling its vision of Empowering Communities to Make Lasting 

and Positive Change for AI/AN Children Exposed to Violence. 

Notes 

1. Holder, Eric H., Jr., Charter for the Advisory Committee of the Attorney General’s Task Force on 

American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) Children Exposed to Violence, available at: http://www.justice. 

gov/defendingchildhood/charter-adv-comm-aian.pdf. 

2. Hearing #1: Bismarck, ND, December 9, 2013. Hearing #2: Phoenix, AZ, February 11, 2014. 

Hearing #3: Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 16–17, 2014. Hearing #4: Anchorage, AK, June 11–12, 2014. 

Listening Session #1: Phoenix,AZ, February 10, 2014. Listening Session #2: Minneapolis, MN, May 

20–21, 2014. Listening Session #3: Bethel,AK, June 9, 2014. 

3. Listenbee, Robert L., Jr., et al., Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children 

Exposed to Violence,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, December 2012. 

4. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013), available at: http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/ 

iloc/report/index.html. 

5. 5Listenbee, Robert L., Jr., et al., Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children 

Exposed to Violence,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, December 2012: 38. 

6. 6 The Indian Law and Order Commission was created in response to a mandate of the Tribal 

Law and Order Act, PL-111-211.The TLOA directed the commission to develop a comprehensive 

study of the criminal justice system relating to Indian country and to develop recommendations on 

necessary modifications and improvements to the justice systems and the federal, tribal, and state 

levels. See Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to 

the President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): vi, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html. 

P R E F A C E 
Executive Summary
 
6 

Day in and day out, despite the tremendous efforts of tribal1 

governments and community members, many of them 

hindered by insufficient funding, American Indian and 

Alaska Native (AI/AN) children suffer exposure to violence at rates 

higher than any other race in the United States. The immediate and 

long term effects of this exposure to violence includes increased 

rates of altered neurological development, poor physical and 

mental health, poor school performance, substance abuse, and 

overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system. This chronic 

exposure to violence often leads to toxic stress reactions and severe 

trauma; which is compounded by historical trauma. Sadly, AI/AN 

children experience posttraumatic stress disorder at the same rate 

as veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and triple the rate 

of the general population.2 With the convergence of exceptionally 

high crime rates, jurisdictional limitations, vastly under-resourced 

programs, and poverty, service providers and policy makers should 

assume that all AI/AN children have been exposed to violence. 

Through hearings and Listening Sessions over the course of 

2013–14, the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on American 

Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence3 examined 

the current epidemic of violence and evaluated suggestions for 

preventing violence and alleviating its impact on AI/AN children. 

This report presents the Advisory Committee’s policy recommendations that are intended to serve as a blueprint for preventing AI/ 

AN children’s exposure to violence and for mitigating the negative 

effects experienced by Al/AN children exposed to violence across 

the United States and throughout Indian country. The primary 

focus of the report is the thirty-one wide-ranging findings and 

recommendations that emerged from hearings and Listening 

Sessions. The Advisory Committee also examines the reports of 

the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to 

Violence in 20124 and the Indian Law and Order Commission (ILOC) 

in 2013,5 and incorporates some of the recommendations from 

these important reports that most strongly impact AI/AN children 

exposed to violence. 

This report contains five chapters: (1) “Building a Strong 

Foundation”; (2) “Promoting Well-Being for American Indian and 

Alaska Native Children in the Home”; (3) “Promoting Well-Being for 

American Indian and Alaska Native Children in the Community”; 

(4) “Creating a Juvenile Justice System that Focuses on Prevention, 

Treatment and Healing”; and (5) “Empowering Alaska Tribes,6 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
7 

Removing Barriers, and Providing Resources.” Each chapter 

contains a discussion of the topics, providing background information, data, examples of problems as well as promising practices, and 

the Advisory Committee’s recommendations.
 

This Advisory Committee was charged with making recommendations to the Attorney General of the United States. Many of the 

recommendations in this report are addressed to Congress and 

executive branch agencies outside the Department of Justice 

because solutions to the dire situation faced by AI/AN children 

must be comprehensive and will require efforts beyond the 

Department of Justice. Therefore, the Committee recommends 

that the Attorney General work with the legislative and executive 

branches of government to implement the recommendations. A 

summary of each chapter is presented below.
 

Chapter 1—Building a Strong Foundation 

We must transform the broken systems that re-traumatize children 

into systems where American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) 

tribes are empowered with authority and resources to prevent 

exposure to violence and to respond to and promote healing 

of their children who have been exposed. Current barriers that 

prevent tribes from leading in protecting and healing their children 

must be eliminated before real change can begin.
 

■ 1.1 Leaders at the highest levels of the executive and legislative 

branches of the federal government should coordinate and 

implement the recommendations in this report consistent with 

three core principles—Empowering Tribes, Removing Barriers,

and Providing Resources—identified by the Advisory Committee. 

There is a vital connection between tribal sovereignty and 

protecting AI/AN children. The Advisory Committee is convinced 

that state and federal governments must recognize and respect the 

primacy of tribal governments in responding to AI/AN children. 

Jurisdictional restrictions on tribes must be eliminated to allow 

Tribes to exercise their inherent sovereign authority to prevent 

AI/AN children’s exposure to violence. Resource limitations must 

be adequately addressed. The barriers that currently limit tribes’ 

response to exposure to violence must be removed. Tribes should 

be supported in this effort with the assistance, collaboration, and 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
8 

resources needed to build their capacity to fully implement and 

sustain tribal-controlled, trauma-informed prevention and treatment models and systems. These barriers must be removed in 

order to empower individual tribal communities to prevent their 

children from being exposed to violence along with sufficient 

tools to respond and promote healing in their children who have 

been exposed. 

■ 1.2 The White House should establish—no later than May 2015—a 

permanent fully-staffed Native American Affairs Office within 

the White House Domestic Policy Council. This new Native 

American Affairs Office should include a senior position specializing in AI/AN children exposed to violence. This office should be 

responsible for coordination across the executive branch of all 

services provided for the benefit and protection of AI/AN children 

and the office lead should report directly to the Director of the 

Domestic Policy Council as a Special Assistant to the President.

The Native American Affairs Office should have overall executive 

branch responsibility for coordinating and implementing the 

recommendations in this report including conducting annual 

tribal consultations. 

The Advisory Committee believes that a permanent fully-staffed 

Native American Affairs Office, including a senior position specializing in AI/AN children exposed to violence, is required in order to 

comply with the federal government’s trust responsibility and to 

effectively address the current inability of the federal government 

to serve the needs of AI/AN children exposed to violence. The new 

White House Native American Affairs Office should provide the 

essential executive branch coordination and collaboration required 

to effectively implement the recommendations in this report. 

The current “stovepipe organizational structure” of the executive 

branch restricts the flow of information and cross-organizational 

communication, making essential collaboration extremely difficult. 

The White House Native American Affairs Office should conduct 

annual consultations with tribal governments, including discussion of: 

1.	 Administering tribal funds and programs; 

2.	 Enhancing the safety of AI/AN children exposed to violence 

in the home and in the community; 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
9 

3.	 Enhancing child protection services through traumainformed practice; 

4.	 Enhancing research and evaluation to address behavioral 

health needs and explore tribal cultural interventions and 

best practices; 

5.	 Enhancing substance abuse services for caregivers and 

youth that addresses exposure to violence; and 

6.	 Evaluating the implementation status of the recommendations in this report. 

■ 1.3 Congress should restore the inherent authority of American 

Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) tribes to assert full criminal 

jurisdiction over all persons who commit crimes against AI/AN 

children in Indian country 

In May 2013, Congress passed the Violence against Women 

Reauthorization Act (VAWA).7 Among its provisions, Congress 

amended the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) to authorize “special 

domestic violence criminal jurisdiction” to tribal courts over nonIndian offenders who (1) commit domestic violence, (2) commit 

dating violence, or (3) violate a protection order. It is troubling that 

tribes have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit 

heinous crimes of sexual and physical abuse of AI/AN children 

in Indian country. Congress has restored criminal jurisdiction 

over non-Indians who commit domestic violence, commit dating 

violence, and violate protection orders. Congress should now similarly restore the inherent authority of AI/AN tribes to assert full 

criminal jurisdiction over all persons who commit crimes against 

AI/AN children in Indian country including both child sexual abuse 

and child physical abuse. 

■ 1.4 Congress and the executive branch shall direct sufficient funds 

to AI/AN tribes to bring funding for tribal criminal and civil 

justice systems and tribal child protection systems into parity 

with the rest of the United States and shall remove the barriers 

that currently impede the ability of AI/AN Nations to effectively 

address violence in their communities. The Advisory Committee 

believes that treaties, existing law and trust responsibilities are 

not discretionary and demand this action. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
10 

The Advisory Committee believes that this investment is necessary 

to create an environment in which AI/AN children, today and for 

generations to come, may thrive. This investment is not only the 

right thing to do, but is part of the legal obligations of this nation to 

those communities. In order to more effectively address the needs 

of AI/AN children exposed to violence, substantial changes must 

be made in the methods by which AI/AN tribes are able to access 

federal funding. Substantially increased levels of federal funding 

will be required. 

Funding for child maltreatment prevention and child protection 

efforts is especially limited in Indian country. Meanwhile, states 

receive proportionately more funding for prevention and child 

protection while tribes receive little to no federal support for these 

activities. Tribes are not even eligible for the two major programs 

that fund these state programs—Title XX of the Social Services 

Block Grant and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. 

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) through the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides limited funding for tribal court 

systems but the funding level is far too low. The BIA has historically 

denied any tribal law enforcement and tribal court funding to tribes 

in jurisdictions—such as Public Law 280 (PL-280) jurisdictions8

— 

where congressionally authorized concurrent state jurisdiction has 

been established. Furthermore, efforts to fund tribal justice systems 

such as the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993 (which authorized 

an additional $50 million per year in tribal court base funding) 

have repeatedly authorized increased tribal court funding, but 

the long-promised funding has never materialized in the form of 

actual appropriations. 

Since the late 1990s, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has also 

become a significant federal source of tribal justice funding. Tribes 

have utilized DOJ grant funding to enhance various and diverse 

aspects of their tribal justice systems, from tribal codes to Juvenile 

Healing to Wellness Courts (tribal drug courts) to unique tribal 

youth programs. While these grants have offered immense support, 

they are far from the consistent, tribally driven approach that is 

needed in Indian country. The Advisory Committee heard repeated 

frustration from hearing witnesses concerning the competitive 

funding approach that DOJ utilizes. 

It is important to note that DOJ funding for tribal justice systems 

has been consistently decreasing in recent years. It is particularly 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
11 

troubling that the Consolidated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS) 

grant program with the closest direct connection to AI/AN children 

exposed to violence—the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP) Tribal Youth Program (TYP)—has suffered the 

greatest decrease in funding levels. In a four-year period, OJJDP TYP 

funding has plummeted from $25 million in FY 2010 down to only 

$5 million in FY 2014. Tribes, like their state and local counterparts, 

deserve the benefit of reliability in their quest to build robust tribal 

justice systems that can adequately serve their youth. Base funding 

from resources pooled across various federal agencies would offer 

tribes the reliability and flexibility that is needed. 

AI/AN children are generally served best when tribes have the 

opportunity to take ownership of the programs and resources that 

they provide. PL-93-638 contracts, self-governance compacts, and 

PL-102-477 funding agreements, are examples of successful federal 

programs that afford tribes the option to take over the management of federal funds for an array of programs. However, currently 

none of these programs applies to the DOJ. 

1.4.A	 Congress and the executive branch shall provide recurring mandatory, not discretionary, base funding for all 

tribal programs that impact AI/AN children exposed 

to violence, including tribal criminal and civil justice 

systems and tribal child protection systems, and make 

it available on equal terms to all federally recognized 

tribes, whether their lands are under federal jurisdiction 

or congressionally authorized state jurisdiction.
 

The United States’ trust responsibility to AI/AN tribes requires 

the provision of basic governmental services in Indian country. 

Funding to fulfill this obligation, however, is currently provided in 

the discretionary portion of the federal budget despite the fact that 

the treaties that made promises to Indian tribes did not promise 

“discretionary” support and the trust responsibility is not discretionary. Because the spending is discretionary and not mandatory as 

it should be, public policies like sequestration reduce or eliminate 

programs that clearly should not be cut. 

1.4.B	 Congress shall appropriate, not simply authorize, sufficient substantially increased funding to provide reliable 

tribal base funding for all tribal programs that impact 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
12 

AI/AN children exposed to violence. This includes tribal 

criminal and civil justice systems and tribal child protection systems. At a minimum, and as a helpful starting 

point, Congress shall enact the relevant funding level 

requests in the National Congress of American Indians 

(NCAI) Indian Country Budget Request for FY 2015. 

Substantially increased levels of federal funding will be required 

to more effectively address the needs of AI/AN children exposed 

to violence. For the past ten years, NCAI has published an annual 

Indian Country Budget Request Report that reflects collaboration 

with tribal leaders, Native organizations, and tribal budget consultation bodies. That budget request should serve as a helpful starting 

point for the initial minimum levels of increased funding that will 

be needed. The annual NCAI budget reports also provide further 

insightful detail concerning a wide range of federal programs that 

will be required to implement these recommendations. 

1.4.C	 Congress shall authorize all federal agencies, beginning with the Department of Justice (DOJ), to enter into 

638 self-determination and self-governance compacts

with tribes to ensure that all tribal system funding,

including both justice and child welfare, is subject to 

tribal management. Further, the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) should fully utilize its current 

638 self-determination and self-governance authority to

the greatest extent feasible for flexible funding programs 

in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

beyond the Indian Health Service (IHS) and seek additional legislative authority where needed. 

Expanding the option for self-governance would translate to 

greater flexibility for tribes to provide critical social services within 

agencies such as the Administration on Aging, Administration 

on Children and Families, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration, and the Health Resources and Services 

Administration. HHS must work closely with tribes to strengthen 

current self-governance programs and advance initiatives that will 

streamline and improve HHS program delivery in Indian country. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
13 

1.4.D	 Congress shall end all grant-based and competitive Indian country criminal justice funding in the

Department of Justice (DOJ) and instead establish a 

permanent, recurring base funding system for tribal law 

enforcement and justice services. 

As soon as possible, Congress should end all grant-based and 

competitive Indian country criminal justice funding in the DOJ and 

instead pool these monies to establish a permanent, recurring base 

funding system for tribal law enforcement and justice services. 

Federal base funding for tribal justice systems should be made available on equal terms to all federally recognized tribes, whether their 

lands are under federal jurisdiction or congressionally authorized 

state jurisdiction. 

1.4.E	 Congress shall establish a much larger commitment 

than currently exists to fund tribal programs through 

the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs 

(OJP) and the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funding. As 

an initial step towards the much larger commitment 

needed, Congress shall establish a minimum 10 percent 

tribal set-aside, as per the Violence Against Women 

Act (VAWA) tribal set-aside, from funding for all discretionary Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and Victims of

Crime Act (VOCA) funding making clear that the tribal 

set-aside is the minimum tribal funding and not in any

way a cap on tribal funding. President Obama’s annual 

budget request to Congress has included a 7 percent 

tribal set-aside for the last few years. This is a very positive step and Congress should authorize this request 

immediately. However, the tribal set-aside should be 

increased to 10 percent in subsequent appropriations 

bills. Until Congress acts, the Department of Justice 

shall establish this minimum 10 percent tribal setaside administratively. 

After determining that AI/AN women face the highest level of 

violence in the nation—along with the highest rate of unmet 

needs—Congress set aside a percentage of VAWA funding for tribal 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
14 

governments. Since the 2005 VAWA Reauthorization, the tribal 

set-aside has been 10 percent. The Advisory Committee finds that 

the 10 percent VAWA tribal set-aside is a highly relevant precedent 

that should be applied to all discretionary OJP programs that impact 

AI/AN children exposed to violence. The same rationale applies to 

the VOCA funding, which has served as a major funding source for 

states to provide services to victims of crime since its establishment 

in 1984. However, it should be noted that this is a minimum initial 

amount with the expectation that substantially increased levels of 

funding will be forthcoming. 

1.4.F	 The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of

Interior (DOI) should, within one year, conduct tribal

consultations to determine the feasibility of implementing Indian Law and Order Commission (ILOC)

Recommendation 3.8 to consolidate all DOI tribal criminal 

justice programs and all DOJ Indian country programs and

services into a single “Indian country component” in the

DOJ and report back to the President and AI/AN Nations on

how tribes want to move forward on it. 

While the Advisory Committee is in general agreement with the 

ILOC’s Recommendation 3.8 to consolidate all DOI tribal criminal 

justice programs and all DOJ Indian country programs and services 

into a single DOJ “Indian country component,” the Advisory 

Committee recommends that tribal consultation be conducted prior 

to making such a significant and far-reaching move. 

■ 1.5 The legislative branch of the federal government along with the 

executive branch, under the direction and oversight of the White 

House Native American Affairs Office, should provide adequate 

funding for and assistance with Indian country research and 

data collection. 

Research and data collection is a critical component of developing 

effective responses to AI/AN children exposed to violence. Tribal 

governments, like every government, need the ability to track 

and access data involving their citizens across service areas and 

to accept the responsibility of gathering data. Tribal governments 

currently do not have adequate access to accurate, comprehensive 

data regarding key areas affecting AI/AN children exposed to 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
15 

violence. Even when data is gathered, it is often not shared with 

tribes. In order to remedy this situation, federal leadership is 

required and data should be co-owned with tribes.
 

Tribal Nations also need access to research initiatives that will help 

create and develop effective prevention and intervention strategies 

for children exposed to violence. Currently, many tribal communities are developing and implementing culturally based prevention 

and intervention programs. However, most do not have the 

resources necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs.
 

■ 1.6 The legislative and executive branches of the federal government should encourage tribal-state collaborations to meet the 

needs of AI/AN children exposed to violence. 

The criminal justice, juvenile justice, and child welfare systems are 

too often ineffective because tribes and states do not always act 

collaboratively. The federal government should use its power and 

funds to encourage tribal-state collaborations.
 

■ 1.7 The federal government should provide training for AI/AN 

Nations and for the federal agencies serving AI/AN communities 

on the needs of AI/AN children exposed to violence. Federal 

employees assigned to work on issues pertaining to AI/AN 

communities should be required to obtain training on tribal 

sovereignty, working with tribal governments, and the impact of

historical trauma and colonization on tribal Nations within the 

first sixty days of their job assignment. 

The federal trust responsibility should include ensuring that all 

service providers attending to the needs of AI/AN children receive 

appropriate training and technical assistance. Properly credentialed 

professionals who lack the cultural knowledge to identify and 

understand tribal familial needs face challenges in providing effective services. Further, AI/AN communities struggle to ensure access 

to a qualified AI/AN workforce in the trauma treatment area.
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
16 

Chapter 2—Promoting Well-Being for American Indian 

and Alaska Native Children in the Home 

Every single day, a majority of American Indian and Alaska 

Native (AI/AN) children are exposed to violence within the 

walls of their own homes. This exposure not only contradicts 

traditional understandings that children are to be protected and 

viewed as sacred, but it leaves hundreds of children traumatized 

and struggling to cope over the course of their lifetime. Despite 

leadership from tribal governments, parents and families, domestic 

violence in the homes of AI/AN children and physical abuse, sexual 

abuse, and neglect of children is more common than in the general 

population. Unfortunately, the response of child-serving systems 

often re-traumatizes the child. 

■ 2.1 The legislative and executive branches of the federal government should ensure Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) compliance 

and encourage tribal-state ICWA collaborations. 

2.1.A	 Within two years of the publication of this report, the

Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Department of the

Interior (DOI), and tribes should develop a modernized

unified data-collection system designed to collect Adoption

and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)

(ICWA and tribal dependency) data on all AI/AN children

who are placed into foster care by their agency and share

that data quarterly with tribes to allow tribes and the BIA to

make informed decisions regarding AI/AN children. 

2.1.B	 The Secretaries of the Department of Interior (DOI) and 

Health and Human Services (HHS) should compel BIA

and ACF to work together collaboratively to collect data 

regarding compliance with ICWA in state court systems.

The ACF and BIA should work collaboratively to ensure 

state court compliance with ICWA. 

2.1.C	 The BIA should issue regulations (not simply update 

guidelines) and create an oversight board to review 

ICWA implementation and designate consequences of 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
17 

noncompliance and/or incentives for compliance with

ICWA to ensure the effective implementation of ICWA.
 

2.1.D	 The Department of Justice (DOJ) should create a position 

of Indian Child Welfare Specialist to provide advice to the 

Attorney General and DOJ staff on matters relative to AI/

AN child welfare cases, to provide case support in cases 

before federal, tribal, and state courts, and to coordinate 

ICWA training for federal, tribal, and state judges; prosecutors; and other court personnel.
 

If AI/AN children today are to be provided with a reliable safety net, 

the letter and the spirit of ICWA must be enforced. ICWA provides 

critical legal protections for AI/AN children when intervention 

and treatment is deemed necessary by state child protection agencies. The most significant provisions seek to keep AI/AN children 

safely in their homes and provide AI/AN children with certain civil 

protections as members of their respective tribes. 

The lack of accurate, relevant data on tribal children and families 

often results in AI/AN children being left out of discussions about 

policy development, resource allocation, and decision making at 

the federal level. Or, because of the lack of such data regarding AI/ 

AN children, policy makers delay or decline to make decisions and 

resource allocations because they cannot “justify” the services. By 

increasing tribal capacity (through tribal child protection agencies 

in BIA and IHS) in the area of data collection, tribal engagement and 

federal responsiveness to AI/AN children’s needs can be increased. 

ICWA noncompliance is at least in part a result of minimal oversight of ICWA implementation and no enforcement mechanism. 

ICWA was enacted without providing sanctions for noncompliance, 

incentives for effective compliance, a data-collection requirement, 

and a mandate for an oversight committee or authority to monitor 

compliance. ICWA is the only federal child welfare law that does not 

include legislatively mandated oversight or periodic review.9 These 

deficits in ICWA should be corrected. 

The DOJ existing structure does not include a position that allows 

for investigation and research on Indian child welfare cases. The 

current environment is litigious and recent Indian child welfare 

cases have risen to the state and federal Supreme Courts. In 

addition to monitoring state compliance with ICWA included in 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
18 

other recommendations in this chapter, a position within the DOJ 

dedicated to supporting challenges to ICWA will improve child 

welfare outcomes and play a direct role in reducing trauma and 

violence experienced by AI/AN children in the child welfare system. 

Requirements for the position should include ICWA and family law 

experience. The position should be filled immediately. 

■ 2.2 The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Department of the 

Interior (DOI), the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) 

in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and 

tribes, within one year of the publication of this report, should 

develop and submit a written plan to the White House Domestic 

Policy Council, to work collaboratively and efficiently to provide 

trauma-informed, culturally appropriate tribal child welfare 

services in Indian country. 

When federal agencies fail to work together with tribes to confront 

problems in Indian country, the result is ineffective and inefficient systems. Child welfare services in Indian country are a good 

example of this inefficiency. Cooperation and collaboration among 

agencies that focus on tribal families and children must be thoughtfully planned and consistently delivered. 

■ 2.3 The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Bureau of

Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Department of the Interior (DOI), and 

tribes should collectively identify child welfare best practices and 

produce an annual report on child welfare best practices in AI/AN 

communities that is easily accessible to tribal communities. 

Tribal child protection and prevention teams need AI/AN-specific 

research about the intersection of domestic violence, trauma 

exposure, and child maltreatment in order to create and promote 

effective prevention strategies, interventions, treatment, and 

policy change. Tribal communities have traditional methods of 

practice-based evidence to deal with trauma and healing. These 

practices have been used for centuries, but are not acknowledged 

as “evidence-based” treatments. Although promising practices exist 

throughout tribal communities, we do not have enough information 

about the effectiveness of such programs and methods of implementation, which makes success hard to replicate. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
19 

■ 2.4 The Indian Health Service (IHS) in the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS), state public health services, and 

other state and federal agencies that provide pre- or postnatal 

services should provide culturally appropriate education and 

skills training for parents, foster parents, and caregivers of AI/

AN children. Agencies should work with tribes to culturally adapt 

proven therapeutic models for their unique tribal communities 

(e.g., adaptation of home visitation service to include local 

cultural beliefs and values). 

Due to the prevalence of violence in AI/AN homes and communities 

and the influence of historical trauma, many AI/AN parents, foster 

parents, and prospective parents may need help developing traditional parenting skills. Caregivers may have experienced trauma as 

children or may continue to be victims of violence in their homes. 

Assistance for families experiencing violence or at risk for violence 

is most accessible when it is brought directly into the home. 

■ 2.5 The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Department of the 

Interior (DOI), tribal social service agencies, and state social 

service agencies should have policies that permit removal of

children from victims of domestic violence for “failure to protect” 

only as a last resort as long as the child is safe. 

Children are often removed from both parents when domestic 

violence occurs, even when one parent was also a victim of 

violence. Children who witness domestic violence have a greater 

need for stability and security; however when the child is removed 

from the nonoffending parent, it can produce the opposite effect.. 

To ensure stability and permanency for children in a home with 

domestic violence, children should remain with the non-offending 

parent (caregiver) whenever possible, as long as the child is safe. 

■ 2.6 The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) should 

increase and support access to culturally appropriate behavioral 

health and substance abuse prevention and treatment services 

in all AI/AN communities, especially the use of traditional 

healers and helpers identified by tribal communities. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
20 

Substance abuse related to child abuse and neglect is more likely 

to be reported for AI/AN families. Treatment programs that work 

with AI/AN populations should incorporate AI/AN tribal customs 

and spiritual ceremonies, be trauma-informed, and be holistic. AI/ 

AN people in recovery may have experienced multiple traumas in 

their lifetimes, suffer from historical and intergenerational trauma, 

and abuse alcohol and drugs as a way of coping with those traumas. 

Without treatment to heal from the underlying traumas, alcohol 

and drug abuse treatment may be ineffective. 

Chapter 3—Promoting Well-Being for American Indian 

and Alaska Native Children in the Community 

Violence in American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) 

communities occurs at very high rates compared with non-AI/ 

AN communities—higher for AI/AN people than for all other 

races. AI/AN children are exposed to many types of communitybased violence, including simple assaults, violent threats, sexual 

assault, and homicide. Additionally, suicide, gang violence, sex 

and drug trafficking, and bullying are especially problematic for 

AI/AN youth. Coupling that rate of exposure with the high rate 

of homelessness makes AI/AN youth especially vulnerable to 

community violence. The recommendations in this chapter speak 

to increasing capacity and infrastructure in AI/AN communities to 

allow those communities to confront the impact of current and past 

violence and to prevent future violence. 

■ 3.1 The White House Native American Affairs Office (see 

Recommendation 1.2) and executive branch agencies that 

are responsible for addressing the needs of AI/AN children, in 

consultation with tribes, should develop a strategy to braid (integrate) flexible funding to allow tribes to create comprehensive 

violence prevention, intervention, and treatment programs to 

serve the distinct needs of AI/AN children and families. 

3.1.A	 The White House Native American Affairs Office, the U.S. 

Attorney General, the Secretaries of the Department of

Interior (DOI) and Health and Human Services (HHS),

and the heads of other agencies that provide funds 

that serve AI/AN children should annually consult with 

tribal governments to solicit recommendations on the 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
21 

mechanisms that would provide flexible funds for the 

assessment of local needs, and for the development 

and adaptation of promising practices that allow for the 

integration of the unique cultures and healing traditions 

of the local tribal community. 

3.1.B The White House Native American Affairs Office and the 

U.S. Attorney General should work with the organizations 

that specialize in treatment and services for traumatized 

children, for example, National Child Traumatic Stress 

Network, to ensure that services for AI/AN children 

exposed to violence are trauma-informed. 

3.1.C	 The White House Native American Affairs Office should 

coordinate the development and implementation of

federal policy that mandates exposure to violence trauma 

screening and suicide screening be a part of services 

offered to AI/AN children during medical, juvenile justice,

and/or social service intakes. 

Although children exposed to violence in AI/AN communities are 

similar to all children exposed to violence, solutions to the exposure to traumatic events may vary greatly among the 566 distinct 

federally recognized tribes across the United States. Federal, tribal, 

and state agencies and organizations must collaborate to ensure 

that tribal communities are allowed the flexibility to implement 

solutions that work and are culturally and locally relevant to meet 

the challenges, the circumstances, and the unique characteristics of 

their children and communities. 

Policies must be developed and implemented to ensure that 

screening for exposure to violence takes place in numerous 

settings and issues of confidentiality are resolved. Confidentiality 

issues will arise as children are screened by various child-serving 

organizations in the communities that serve them. The need 

for confidentiality must be balanced with the need for service 

providers to have information that will permit them to more effectively serve the child. The Advisory Committee urges federal, tribal, 

and state programs that collect these data to seek creative ways 

to monitor and use information for the benefit of the child rather 

than use confidentiality as an excuse to inappropriately refuse to 

share information. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
22 

■ 3.2 The Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) 

and other Justice Department agencies with statutory research 

funding should set aside 10 percent of their annual research 

budgets for partnerships between tribes and research entities 

to develop, adapt, and validate trauma screens for use among 

AI/AN children and youth living in rural, tribal, and urban 

communities. Trauma screens should be tested and validated 

for use in schools, juvenile justice (law enforcement and courts),

mental health, primary care, Defending Childhood Tribal Grantee 

programs, and social service agencies and should include 

measures of trauma history, trauma symptoms, recognizing 

trauma triggers, recognizing trauma reactions, and developing 

positive coping skills for both the child and the caregivers. 

Early identification of exposure to violence, timely intervention and 

treatment, and especially prevention can protect a child from being 

trapped in a cycle of repeated exposure to violence.10 Identification 

of children who have been traumatized by exposure to violence 

is the first step toward healing and recovery. Children must be 

screened in schools, clinics, social service agencies, juvenile justice 

facilities, wherever children are found. An AI/AN child’s response 

to a trauma may be intensified because of the legacy of historical 

trauma. Tribal communities need assistance from research partnerships to develop, validate, and use instruments to screen for trauma 

symptoms and design an effective path forward for children. 

■ 3.3 The White House Native American Affairs Office and responsible federal agencies should provide AI/AN youth-serving 

organizations such as schools, Head Starts, daycares, foster care 

programs, and so forth with the resources needed to create and 

sustain safe places where AI/AN children exposed to violence 

can obtain services. Every youth-serving organization in tribal 

and urban Native communities should receive mandated 

trauma-informed training and have trauma-informed staff and 

consultants providing school-based trauma-informed treatment 

in bullying, suicide, and gang prevention/intervention. 

Tribal child-serving systems and school staff are often unaware of 

the impact trauma has on the psychological and emotional health of 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
23 

their students. Schools that are trauma-informed can establish safe 

and nurturing environments where children can learn. 

■ 3.4 The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) should 

designate and prioritize Native American Housing Assistance 

and Self-Determination Act (NAHSDA) funding for construction 

of facilities to serve AI/AN children exposed to violence and 

structures for positive youth activities. This will help tribal 

communities create positive environments such as shelters,

housing, cultural facilities, recreational facilities, sport centers,

and theaters through the Indian Community Development Block 

Grant Program and the Housing Assistance Programs. 

The Advisory Committee repeatedly heard testimony about the 

need for safe houses for youth in tribal communities—safe settings 

for youth escaping violence and places where a youth’s basic needs 

for safety, nutrition, mental health treatment, and education can 

be assessed and met. Safe houses may provide for their cultural 

and spiritual needs as well. Providing a safe place where violenceexposed youth can focus on healing is the first step toward helping 

a young person recover from trauma. 

■ 3.5 The White House Native American Affairs Office should work with 

the Congress and executive branch agencies in consultation with 

tribes to develop, promote, and fund youth-based afterschool 

programs for AI/AN youth. The programs must be culturally 

based and trauma-informed, must partner with parents/

caregivers, and, when necessary, provide referrals to traumainformed behavioral health providers. Where appropriate, local 

capacity should also be expanded through partnerships with 

America’s volunteer organizations, for example, AmeriCorps. 

Community-based and afterschool programs for youth that teach 

culture, prevention, and life skills will help AI/AN youth develop 

healthy lifestyles and values and strengthen their resiliency. 

■ 3.6 The White House Native American Affairs Office and the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) should develop and implement a plan to expand access to Indian Health Service (IHS),

tribal, and urban Indian centers to provide behavioral health 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
24 

services to AI/AN children in schools. This should include the 

deployment of behavioral health services providers to serve 

students in the school setting. 

Federal, tribal, state, and for-profit agencies that provide behavioral 

health services must cooperate to develop and deliver school-based 

services for AI/AN students. Federal agencies should work with 

public schools and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)–funded schools 

to ensure that services are offered, preferably in the schools, to 

students attending BIE-funded schools. School-based services 

increase the availability and utilization of services and will increase 

safety in schools. 

Chapter 4—Creating a Juvenile Justice System that 

Focuses on Prevention, Treatment, and Healing 

Children entering the juvenile justice system are exposed to 

violence at staggeringly high rates. Many American Indian and 

Alaska Native (AI/AN) people believe that the Western criminal/ 

juvenile justice system is inappropriate for children, particularly 

AI/AN children, as it is contrary to AI/AN values in raising children. 

The Advisory Committee concludes that the standard way juvenile 

justice has been administered by state jurisdictions is a failure and 

it re-traumatizes AI/AN children. 

The Advisory Committee supports substantial reform of the juvenile 

justice systems impacting AI/AN youth. A reformed juvenile justice 

system should be tribally operated or strongly influenced by tribes 

within the local region. 

■ 4.1 Congress should authorize additional and adequate funding for 

tribal juvenile justice programs, a grossly underfunded area,

in the form of block grants and self-governance compacts that 

would support the restructuring and maintenance of tribal juvenile justice systems. 

4.1.A	 Congress should create an adequate tribal set-aside 

that allows access to all expanded federal funding that 

supports juvenile justice at an amount equal to the

need in tribal communities. As an initial step towards 

the much larger commitment needed, Congress should 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
25 

establish a minimum 10 percent tribal set-aside, as 

per the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) tribal set 

aside, from funding for all Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) funding making clear 

that the tribal set-aside is the minimum tribal funding

and not in any way a cap on tribal funding. President 

Obama’s annual budget request to Congress has included 

a 7 percent tribal set aside for the last few years. This 

is a very positive step and Congress should authorize 

this request immediately. However, the tribal set-aside 

should be increased to 10 percent in subsequent appropriations bills. Until Congress acts, the Department of

Justice should establish this minimum 10 percent tribal 

set-aside administratively. 

4.1.B	 Federal funding for state juvenile justice programs 

should require that states engage in and support 

meaningful and consensual consultation with tribes on 

the design, content, and operation of juvenile justice 

programs to ensure that programming is imbued with 

cultural integrity to meet the needs of tribal youth. 

4.1.C	 Congress should direct the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

and the Department of Interior (DOI) to determine which 

agency should provide funding for both the construction 

and operation of jails and juvenile detention facilities 

in AI/AN communities, require consultation with tribes 

concerning selection process, ensure the trust responsibilities for these facilities and services are assured, and 

appropriate the necessary funds. 

The funding tribes receive for juvenile justice programming must be 

adequate and stable. Currently, tribes need to rely on inadequate base 

funding from the BIA, thus forcing them to compete for grant funds 

to support the most basic components of a juvenile justice system. 

It is unacceptable for federal agencies to provide grant funding for 

a tribal program and limit the funding to three years, requiring 

tribes to re-compete or lose funding at the end of the grant period. 

Flexibility and stability in funding is important to allow local communities to utilize the funding in creative, impactful ways. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 

26 

Programming offered in state juvenile justice systems is not 

meeting the needs of AI/AN youth and in some cases is harming 

these youth. Even those states with significant AI/AN populations 

fail to meaningfully consult with tribes about their juvenile justice 

systems to ensure that their programming is thoughtful and culturally based. One way to ensure that states with significant AI/AN 

populations involve the tribes in important decisions regarding AI/ 

AN children is to tie federal funding to meaningful consultation 

with tribes. 

Currently the DOJ and DOI have divided responsibilities to 

construct, operate, staff, and maintain jails and juvenile detention 

centers. This has resulted in dozens of facilities being constructed 

that are vacant or seriously underutilized because operating funds 

have not been provided. The split responsibility that exists now is 

not workable. 

■ 4.2 Federal, state, and private funding and technical assistance 

should be provided to tribes to develop or revise traumainformed, culturally specific tribal codes to improve tribal 

juvenile justice systems. 

Developing a tribal juvenile justice system requires developing 

tribal codes that fit the culture and community. Technical assistance should be provided to develop culturally appropriate, 

trauma-informed juvenile justice codes and systems. 

■ 4.3 Federal, tribal, and state justice systems should provide publicly 

funded legal representation to AI/AN children in the juvenile 

justice systems to protect their rights and minimize the harm 

that the juvenile justice system may cause them. The use of

technology such as videoconferencing could make such representation available even in remote areas. 

AI/AN youth need to be provided with counsel due to the impact 

of immaturity, the effects of exposure to violence and trauma, and 

caregivers who are no more likely to understand the system, rights, 

and process than the youth. Given the overrepresentation of AI/ 

AN youth in state and federal justice systems and in secure confinement, it is critical that culturally competent, well-trained defense 

counsel be afforded to the youth at public expense in all federal, 

tribal, and state juvenile proceedings. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
27 

■ 4.4 Federal, tribal, and state justice systems should only use detention of AI/AN youth when the youth is a danger to themselves or 

the community. It should be close to the child’s community and 

provide trauma-informed, culturally appropriate, and individually tailored services, including reentry services. Alternatives to 

detention such as “safe houses” should be significantly developed in AI/AN urban and rural communities. 

The use of juvenile detention is not effective as a deterrent to 

delinquent behavior, risky behavior, or truancy and should only 

be used when there is clear evidence that the youth is a danger to 

themselves or the community. 

■ 4.5 Federal, tribal, and state justice systems and service providers 

should make culturally appropriate trauma-informed screening,

assessment, and care the standard in juvenile justice systems.

The Indian Health Service (IHS) in the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) and tribal and urban Indian behavioral health service providers must receive periodic training in 

culturally adapted trauma-informed interventions and cultural 

competency to provide appropriate services to AI/AN children 

and their families. 

Behavioral health services for AI/AN youth may be handled by 

different agencies with different priorities. Youth in the juvenile 

justice system are typically not a priority to those communitybased agencies. Culturally appropriate, trauma-informed screening 

and care must become the standard in all juvenile justice systems 

that impact AI/AN youth if the system is to treat children as sacred 

and promote wellness and resilience. 

■ 4.6 Congress should amend the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) 

to provide that when a state court initiates any delinquency 

proceeding involving an Indian child for acts that took place 

on the reservation, all of the notice, intervention, and transfer 

provisions of ICWA will apply. For all other Indian children 

involved in state delinquency proceedings, ICWA should be 

amended to require notice to the tribe and a right to intervene.

As a first step, the Department of Justice (DOJ) should establish 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
28 

a demonstration pilot project that would provide funding for 

three states to provide ICWA-type notification to tribes within 

their state whenever the state court initiates a delinquency

proceeding against a child from that tribe which includes a plan 

to evaluate the results with an eye toward scaling it up for all AI/

AN communities. 

States have jurisdiction over AI/AN children when a violation 

occurs outside of Indian country, or within Indian country in PL-280 

states or states that have a settlement act or other similar federal 

legislation. An overarching concern voiced at hearings conducted 

by the Advisory Committee was that states are not required to 

notify the tribe or involve the tribe in a juvenile delinquency 

proceeding. That concern is exacerbated because states generally 

do not provide the cultural support necessary for Native youth’s 

rehabilitation and reentry into the tribal community. 

■ 4.7 Congress should amend the Federal Education Rights and 

Privacy Act (FERPA) to allow tribes to access their members’ 

school attendance, performance, and disciplinary records. 

FERPA11 generally allows federal, state, and local education agencies the ability to access student records and other personally 

identifiable information kept by state public schools without the 

advance consent of the parents; it does not afford the same access 

to tribes. Tribes need this access in order to be informed enough to 

intervene early and respond to the red flags raised by truancy and 

disciplinary problems in schools as it pertains to AI/AN children 

exposed to violence. 

Chapter 5—Empowering Alaska Tribes, Removing 

Barriers, and Providing Resources 

Problems with children exposed to violence in American Indian and 

Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities are severe across the United 

States—but they are systemically worse in Alaska. Issues related 

to Alaska Native children exposed to violence are different for a 

variety of reasons including regional vastness and geographical 

isolation, extreme weather, exorbitant transportation costs, lack 

of economic opportunity and access to resources, a lack of respect 

for Alaska tribal sovereignty, and a lack of understanding and 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
29 

respect for Alaska Native history and culture, all of which have 

contributed to high levels of recurring violence. Alaska Tribes are 

best positioned to effectively address these problems so long as the 

current barriers are removed and Alaska Tribes are empowered to 

protect Alaska Native children.
 

■ 5.1 The federal government should promptly implement all 

five recommendations in Chapter 2 (Reforming Justice for 

Alaska Natives: The Time Is Now) of the Indian Law and Order 

Commission’s 2013 Final Report, A Roadmap for Making Native 

America Safer, and assess the cost of implementation. This will 

remove the barriers that currently inhibit the ability of Alaska 

Native Tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction and utilize criminal 

remedies when confronting the highest rates of violent crime in 

the country. 

5.1.A	 (Indian Law and Order Commission Recommendation 

2.1): Congress should overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 

decision in Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal 

Government, by amending the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA) to provide that former reservation 

lands acquired in fee by Alaska Native villages and other 

lands transferred in fee to Native villages pursuant to 

ANCSA are Indian country.
 

5.1.B	 (Indian Law and Order Commission Recommendation 

2.2): Congress and the President should amend the definitions of Indian country to clarify (or affirm) that Native 

allotments and Native-owned town sites in Alaska are 

Indian country.
 

5.1.C	 (Indian Law and Order Commission Recommendation 

2.3): Congress should amend the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act to allow a transfer of lands from 

Regional Corporations to Tribal governments; to allow 

transferred lands to be put into trust and included 

within the definition of Indian country in the Federal 

criminal code; to allow Alaska Native Tribes to put tribally owned fee simple land similarly into trust; and to

channel more resources directly to Alaska Native Tribal 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 

30 

governments for the provision of governmental services 

in those communities. 

5.1.D	 (Indian Law and Order Commission Recommendation 

2.4): Congress should repeal Section 910 of Title IX of

the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of

2013 (VAWA Amendments), and thereby permit Alaska 

Native communities and their courts to address domestic 

violence and sexual assault committed by Tribal members 

and non-Natives, just as in the lower 48. 

5.1.E	 (Indian Law and Order Commission Recommendation 

2.5): Congress should affirm the inherent criminal jurisdiction of Alaska Native Tribal governments over their 

members within the external boundaries of their villages. 

The Advisory Committee agrees with each of the five Alaskaspecific Indian Law and Order Commission (ILOC) recommendations 

and the Commission’s rationale for each recommendation. Until 

and unless these barriers are removed, the state of Alaska will 

continue to assert that Alaska Tribes do not have any criminal 

jurisdiction and thereby continue to contend that Alaska Tribes 

are only empowered to utilize civil courts and civil remedies when 

confronting the highest rates of violent crime in the country. The 

Advisory Committee recommends that these five ILOC recommendations be enacted as soon as possible in order to ensure that Alaska 

Tribes are also empowered to exercise criminal jurisdiction and 

criminal remedies when confronting such incredibly high rates of 

violent crime. 

■ 5.2 The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Interior 

(DOI) should provide recurring base funding for Alaska Tribes to 

develop and sustain both civil and criminal tribal court systems,

assist in the provision of law enforcement and related services,

and assist with intergovernmental agreements. 

5.2.A	 As a first step, the DOJ and the DOI should—within one 

year—conduct a current inventory and a needs/cost assessment of law enforcement, court, and related services for 

every Alaska Tribe. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 

 

31 

5.2.B	 The DOJ and the DOI should provide the funding necessary to address the unmet need identified, and ensure 

that each Alaska Tribe has the annual base funding level 

necessary to provide and sustain an adequate level 

of law enforcement, tribal court, and related funding 

and services. 

5.2.C	 Congress should enact legislation along the lines of the 

current bipartisan bill sponsored by both Alaska senators 

(S. 1474 to be titled Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act 

of 2014) that supports the development, enhancement,

and sustainability of Alaska tribal courts including full 

faith and credit for Alaska tribal court acts and decrees 

and the establishment of specific Alaska tribal court 

base funding streams and grants to Alaska Native Tribes 

carrying out intergovernmental agreements with the 

state of Alaska. 

5.2.D	 The federal government should work together with 

Alaska Tribes and the state of Alaska to improve coordination and collaboration on a broad range of public safety 

measures that cause Alaska Native children to be exposed 

to high rates of violence. 

The development, enhancement, and sustainment of Alaska tribal 

courts, and truly cooperative relationships between the state of 

Alaska and Alaska Tribes, are required to reduce violent crime and 

protect Alaska Native children from exposure to violence. Villagebased tribal courts are the culturally appropriate provider. Alaska 

tribal courts must be developed, enhanced, and sustained in order 

to effectively address issues concerning Alaska Native children 

exposed to violence. 

■ 5.3 The state of Alaska should prioritize law enforcement responses 

and related resources for Alaska Tribes, and recognize and 

collaborate with Alaska tribal courts. 

5.3.A	 The state of Alaska should prioritize the state law enforcement response and resources for Alaska Tribes. At a 

minimum, there must be at least one law enforcement 

official onsite in each village. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 

 

 

32 

5.3.B	 The state of Alaska should prioritize the provision of

needed village-based services including village-based

women’s shelters (which allow children to stay with their 

mothers), child advocacy centers, and alcohol and drug 

treatment services. 

5.3.C	 The state of Alaska should recognize and collaborate with 

Alaska tribal courts including following existing federal 

laws designed to protect Alaska Native children and 

families such as VAWA protection order authority, which 

requires states to recognize and enforce tribal protection 

orders that have been issued by tribal courts—including 

Alaska Native tribal courts—without first requiring a state 

court certification of the tribal protection order. 

5.3.D	 The state of Alaska should enter into self-governance 

intergovernmental agreements with Alaska Tribes in 

order to provide more local tools and options to combat 

village public safety issues and address issues concerning 

Alaska Native children exposed to violence. 

The state of Alaska must increase the level of protection in Alaska 

Tribes. Village-based services are needed in law enforcement and 

victim protection. Approximately 370 State Troopers have primary 

responsibility for law enforcement in rural Alaska, but have a 

full-time presence in less than half of the remote Alaska Tribes. 

Seventy-five villages lack any law enforcement at all.12 

■ 5.4 The Administration for Child and Families (ACF) in the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the 

State of Alaska Office of Children’s Services (OCS) should 

jointly respond to the extreme disproportionality of Alaska 

Native children in foster care by establishing a time-limited,

outcome-focused task force to develop real-time, Native inclusive 

strategies to reduce disproportionality. 

Issues of foster care disproportionality are huge problems for many 

tribes. Inadequate numbers of Native foster families to assure 

compliance with ICWA impacts most state child welfare agencies 

as well. But this problem takes on added dimensions and particular 

significance in Alaska—not only due to the high level of removals 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
33 

of Alaska Native children and the fact that it has been increasing 

at an alarming rate—but also due to many other factors including 

the remoteness of Alaska Tribes, Alaska’s vast size, the exorbitant 

cost of transportation, the financial limitations of subsistence 

economy, the lack of village-based foster care options, the lack of 

village-based services and resources, the lack of tribal courts, and 

the historic refusal of the state of Alaska to collaborate with Alaska 

Tribes and, until recently to recognize that Alaska Tribes even exist.
 

■ 5.5 The Department of Interior (DOI) and the State of Alaska should 

empower Alaska Tribes to manage their own subsistence hunting 

and fishing rights, remove the current barriers, and provide 

Alaska Tribes with the resources needed to effectively manage 

their own subsistence hunting and fishing. 

Regulations that limit the ability of Alaska Natives to conduct 

traditional subsistence hunting and fishing are directly connected 

to violence in Alaska Tribes and the exposure of Alaska Native children to that violence. Violence is essentially nonexistent during the 

times in which the communities are engaging in traditional subsistence hunting and fishing activities, and violence spikes during 

times when Alaska Natives are unable to provide for their families. 

Beyond providing basic food, subsistence fishing and hunting has 

been essential to Alaska Native families’ way of life for generations. 

Like language and cultural traditions, it has been passed down 

from one generation to the next and is an important means of reinforcing tribal values and traditions and binding families together in 

common spirit and activity. Interfering with these traditions erodes 

culture, family, a sense of purpose and ability to provide for one’s 

own, and a sense of pride.
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 

 

34 

Notes 

1. For purposes of this report, we use the term “tribe” to refer to federally recognized tribes from 

the Secretary of Interior’s list. 79 Fed. Reg. 4,748 (Jan. 29, 2014), available at http://www.gpo.gov/ 

fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-01-29/pdf/2014-01683.pdf. 

2. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 154, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html. 

3. The Advisory Committee is the anchor of the AI/AN Task Force established in 2013 by the 

Attorney General. The Advisory Committee consists of nonfederal experts in the area of AI/AN 

children exposed to violence. 

4. Listenbee, Robert L., Jr., et al., Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children 

Exposed to Violence,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, December 2012. 

5. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013), available at: http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/ 

iloc/report/index.html. 

6. The Native peoples of Alaska are commonly referred to as “Alaska Natives,” and “Alaska Native 

Villages.” For the purposes of this report, we will use the term “Alaska Tribe” to refer to federally 

recognized tribes in the State of Alaska. 79 Fed. Reg. 4,748 (Jan. 29, 2014), available at http://www. 

gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-01-29/pdf/2014-01683.pdf. 

7. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, PL-113-4, 127 Stat. 54 (March 7, 

2013). 

8. See Chapter 11 (Funding) of Final Report—Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice under 

Public Law 280 available at: http://www.tribal-institute.org/download/pl280_study.pdf. 

9. Written Testimony of Sarah Hicks Kastelic (Alutiiq), Hearing of the Task Force on American 

Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence,Anchorage,AK, June 11, 2014 at 23, available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/hearing4-briefing-binder.pdf. 

10. Listenbee, Robert L., Jr., et al., Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children 

Exposed to Violence,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (December 2012): 66. 

11. 20 U.S.C. 1232(g). 

12. S. Rep. No. 113-260, at 2 (2014), to accompany S. 1474, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (2014). 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Chapter 1
 

Building a Strong

Foundation 
C H A P T E R 1 

36 

 

 

“For us . . . the question is 

not who has been exposed 

to violence, it’s who hasn’t 

been exposed to violence? 

Mato Standing High, Former 

Attorney General, Rosebud 

Sioux Tribe. 

Defending Childhood Meeting 

with Attorney General Eric 

Holder, 

January 2011 

“I think there has to be a 

recognition that all of our 

children have been abused 

or neglected at some point 

in their history. . . .” 

Theresa M. Pouley, Chief Judge, 

Tulalip Tribal Court.
 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, 

AZ, February 11, 2014
 

The health and well-being of American Indian and Alaska 

Native (AI/AN) children is critical to the strength and future 

stability of tribes1 and Indian families.2 Yet, AI/AN children 

are exposed to multiple forms of violence at rates higher than 

any other race in the United States, resulting in increased rates of 

altered neurological development, poor physical and mental health, 

poor school performance, substance abuse, and overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system.3 Violence, including intentional 

injuries, homicide, and suicide, accounts for 75 percent of deaths of 

AI/AN youth ages twelve to twenty.4 These serious adversities often 

lead to toxic stress reactions and chronic and severe trauma. With 

the convergence of exceptionally high crime rates, jurisdictional 

limitations, vastly under-resourced programs, and poverty, service 

providers and policy makers should assume that all AI/AN children 

have been exposed to violence. However, while AI/AN children 

face rates of violence at epidemic levels, some tribes and urban 

Indian organizations have found innovative ways to incorporate 

tradition, exercise sovereignty, and develop resources to protect 

their children from harm. This chapter includes foundational 

recommendations for tribes, urban Indian service providers, and 

policy makers at the federal, tribal, and state levels to transform the 

unconscionable reality in which AI/AN children live. The Advisory 

Committee believes that these recommendations, once acted on, 

will be the key to creating lasting and positive change. 

Overview of AI/AN Children Exposed to Violence 

There is a dearth of data and statistics specific to AI/AN children’s 

exposure to violence due to poor identification practices, a view 

that the population is too small to study, and a lack of solid methodological practices. However, a review of non-Native studies along 

with the somewhat limited data on AI/AN children sheds light on 

the impact of violence on AI/AN children. 

Children Exposed to Violence Nationally 

The best overview of children exposed to violence on a nationwide 

scale is provided in the 2012 Final Report of the Attorney General’s 

National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence:5 

Exposure to violence is a national crisis that affects almost two in every 

three of our children nationwide. For AI/AN children, while we do not have 

statistics, all indications are that these numbers are even higher. According 

to the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV), an 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

37 

estimated 46 million of the 76 million children currently residing in the 

United States are exposed to violence, crime, and abuse each year. 

It is important to realize that, although exposure to violence in any form 

harms children, exposure to different forms of violence can have different 

effects. Sexual abuse places children at high risk for serious and often 

chronic problems with health, PTSD and other mental health disorders, 

suicidality, eating disorders, sleep disorders, substance abuse, and sexuality and sexual behavior. 

Children exposed to physical abuse also are at high risk for severe and 

often lifelong problems with physical health, PTSD and other mental health 

disorders, suicidality, eating disorders, substance abuse, and sexuality and 

sexual behavior. 

Children who have been exposed to intimate partner violence in their 

families also are at high risk for severe and potentially lifelong problems 

with physical health, mental health, school and peer relationships, and 

disruptive behavior. 

Children who are exposed to community violence in their neighborhoods 

or schools often see family members, peers, trusted adults, or strangers 

(both innocent bystanders and active participants in violent activities) 

being injured or even murdered. They may come to believe that violence is 

“normal.” 

The picture becomes even more complex when children are exposed to 

multiple types of violence; these children are called “polyvictims.” 

The toxic combination of exposure to family violence, child physical and 

sexual abuse, and exposure to community violence increases the risk and 

severity of posttraumatic injuries and health and mental health disorders 

for exposed children by at least twofold and up to tenfold. Polyvictimized 

children are at high risk for losing the fundamental capacities they need to 

develop normally and to become successful learners and productive adults. 

Poverty Increases Both Risk and Adverse Impact of Exposure to Violence 

Children living in poverty are far more likely to be exposed to violence and 

psychological trauma, both at home and in the surrounding community. 

In many poor communities, particularly those that are isolated and the 

victims of historical trauma and racism as well as poverty, violence has 

become the norm for children growing up. 

AI/AN Children Exposed to Violence 

AI/AN children experience violence in many forms, including 

sexual abuse, physical abuse, domestic violence, child maltreatment, and community violence. As noted in the preceding text, 

polyvictimized children face significant barriers. Different forms of 

violence may have different negative impacts; but all forms can be 

“I’m not confident I would 

be able to identify even 

one [Alaska] Native person 

who has not experienced 

or witnessed physical 

violence, or worse, as a 

child.” 

Andy Teuber, Chair of 

Alaska Native Tribal Health 

Consortium; President / CEO 

of KANA and President of 

Tangirnaq Native Village (aka 

Woody Island Tribal Council) 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK, 

June 11, 2014 

“When children grow up 

surrounded by violence 

they learn to see the world 

in two ways: as a victim of 

violence and a perpetrator 

of violence.” 

William A. Thorne Jr., 

Appellate Court Judge, Utah 

Court of Appeals (Retired). 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, 

AZ, February 11, 2014 
C H A P T E R 1 

38 

toxic and lead to serious mental, physical, and social disabilities. For 

instance one report noted that AI/AN juveniles experience posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at a rate of 22 percent. Sadly, this is 

the same rate as veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, and 

triple the rate of the general population.6 

Statistics indicate that overall violence in tribal communities is very 

high: 

˺	 Violent crime rates in Indian country are more than 2.5 times the 

national rate; some reservations face more than twenty times 

the national rate of violence.7 

˺	 Thirty-four percent of AI/AN women will be raped in their lifetimes; and AI/AN women are 2.5 times more likely to be raped or 

sexually assaulted than women in the United States in general.8 

˺	 Thirty-nine percent of AI/AN women will be subject to domestic 

violence.9 

The rates of child abuse, suicide, victimization, and involvement in 

the criminal justice system are extremely high among AI/AN youth: 

˺	 A 2008 report by the Indian Country Child Trauma Center calculated that Native youth are 2.5 times more likely to experience 

trauma when compared with their non-Native peers.10 

˺	 In a sample of AI/AN youth, an average of 4.1 lifetime traumas 

have been reported, with threat of injury and witnessing injury 

being the most common form of trauma exposure.11 

˺	 AI/AN youth also experience high rates of child abuse: 15.9 per 

one thousand compared to 10.7 for white youth.12 

˺	 Native American youth are twice as likely as white youth and 

three times as likely as other minority youth to commit suicide.13 

In 2005, suicide was the second leading cause of death for Native 

Americans ages ten to twenty-five.14 

˺	 Violence, including intentional injuries, homicide, and suicide, 

account for 75 percent of deaths for AI/AN youth ages twelve to 

twenty.15 

˺	 AI/AN youth have higher rates of mental health and substance 

use problems than other ethnic groups.16 

˺	 Native youth are overrepresented in both federal and state 

juvenile justice systems and disproportionately receive the 

most severe dispositions. For example, in state juvenile justice 

systems, AI/AN juveniles are disproportionately represented 

compared to white juveniles.17 In 2010, AI/AN youth made up 

367 of every one hundred thousand juveniles in residential 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

39 

 

placement, compared with 127 of every one hundred thousand 

for white juveniles.18 These rates, which are calculated based on 

the total percentage of AI/AN youth in the state system, are in 

fact even more egregious because they do not include the AI/AN 

youth involved in tribal juvenile justice systems. 

Poverty is a significant risk factor that is intensified in Indian 

country. On the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, 

for example, 70 percent of adults are unemployed, and substance 

abuse, homelessness, rape, violence, and child abuse are everyday 

occurrences—nearly all of the children on this reservation will 

experience or witness violence. Yet until a few years ago, the 

reservation had just eight police officers to respond to the needs of 

its 16,986 residents despite having a homicide rate more than five 

times the national average.19 

Impact of Historical Trauma 

Compounding these high rates of violence is historical trauma: a 

cumulative emotional and psychological wounding over the life span 

and across generations, emanating from massive group trauma.20 AI/ 

AN people have, for more than five hundred years, endured physical, 

emotional, social, and spiritual genocide from European and American 

colonialist policy.21 This is a direct attack on the cultural fabric of 

a people and an assault on the essence of a community that has a 

lasting impact on an individual’s psyche, spiritual/emotional core, 

and well-being.22 Many Native practitioners, clinicians, researchers, 

and traditional healers have long recognized the impact of historical 

trauma on Native peoples. The term historical trauma can be used as 

framework to understand what happened in Native America and why 

the statistics relating to AI/AN well-being are so dismal.23 

To understand AI/AN children’s exposure to violence within the 

context of historical trauma, it is essential to understand the disparate treatment of AI/AN families and communities by federal and 

state governments, and the lingering effects that government policies and practices have on the AI/AN population, including: 

˺ the removal and confinement of tribes to reservations from 

historic lands, 

˺ the boarding school experience, 

˺ the relocation of AI/AN peoples to major cities, 

˺ specific attempts to assimilate AI/AN children, and 

˺ the erosion of sovereignty that led to the diminishment of 

criminal jurisdiction. 

“Poverty creates trauma 

and that leads to trauma 

behavior in children . . . this 

is not new information.” 

Abby Abinanti, Chief Judge, 

Yurok Tribal Court. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, 

AZ, February 11, 2014 

“Cultural trauma has been 

defined as a direct attack 

on the cultural fabric of 

a people and its lasting 

impact that it has had on 

an individual’s psyche, 

spiritual/emotional core 

and well-being as well as 

the assault on the essence 

of a community.” 

Deborah Painte, Director, 

Native American 

Training Institute.
 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, 

ND, December 9, 2013
 
C H A P T E R 1 

40 

“The outcome of these 

assimilation efforts is 

heightened risk factors 

for child maltreatment 

in AI/AN communities. 

These policies left 

generations of parents and 

grandparents who were 

subjected to prolonged 

institutionalization and 

who do not have positive 

models of family life and 

family discipline.” 

Sarah Hicks Kastelic, Deputy 

Director, National Indian 

Welfare Association. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, 

ND, December 9, 2013 

The mass trauma experienced by Native people has been referred to 

as a “soul wound” that began with the colonization of the Americas; 

continued throughout the aftermath of the doctrines of discovery 

and manifest destiny; and culminated in the shattered social fabric 

and homelands of Indigenous populations in the Americas. 

These practices continue today and have a significant and lingering 

impact on AI/AN children and families. Accordingly, although an 

exhaustive history of federal Indian policy and its impact is beyond 

the scope of this report, the report does contain references to these 

policies throughout. Please see the “Suggested Further Reading” in 

the appendix for additional information. 

Connecting Sovereignty, Trust Obligations, and AI/AN Children Exposed to 

Violence 

Currently, there are 566 federally recognized Indian tribes in the 

United States consisting of reservation and nonreservation tribes.24 

The diversity and uniqueness of AI/AN tribes cannot be overemphasized. Tribes have different resources, social and economic 

conditions, languages, and cultural and traditional practices. 

American Indians are dual citizens of both the United States and 

a federally recognized tribe. American Indians reside in all states; 

however, the majority of American Indians live in the western United 

States with Oklahoma having the highest American Indian population 

and California having the second highest. Approximately 71 percent 

of AI/AN people live in urban areas,25 largely as a result of relocation 

policies in the 1950s. Urban Indian organizations exist around the 

nation, and they provide crucial services to urban AI/AN populations, 

to include health care, social services, and, in some areas, quality 

services for children exposed to violence. 

Tribal governments are independent sovereign Nations with 

inherent authority recognized by the U.S. Constitution. At the time 

of European contact with North America, the tribes were sovereign by nature and conducted their own internal affairs.26 Tribal 

sovereignty is a core principle in the federal-tribal governmentto-government relationship. Tribes have inherent sovereignty to 

determine their form of tribal government, the power to determine 

membership, the power to legislate and tax, the power to administer justice, the power to exclude persons from tribal territory,27 

and all the powers of sovereignty not expressly divested by agreement or clear statement of Congress. However, both state and 

federal constraints impede tribes from exercising full authority and 

marshaling their full potential to address violence against children. 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

41 

The concept of tribal sovereignty is woven through each and every 

issue affecting AI/AN children including the primacy of tribal governments in responding to violence experienced or witnessed by Indian 

children. The unique legal posture of tribes in relation to the federal 

government is deeply rooted in American law and history, and 

knowledge of this historical context is essential to understanding the 

issues regarding AI/AN children exposed to violence. 

Additionally, the federal government has a special relationship 

known as the trust responsibility with Indian tribes. The trust 

responsibility encompasses an obligation to guarantee law and 

order in Indian country.28 For example, in the Indian Child Welfare 

Act (ICWA), Congress formally declared that it is the policy of 

this nation to protect the best interests of Indian children and to 

promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by 

establishing minimum federal standards for the removal of Indian 

children from their families and the placement of such children 

in foster or adoptive homes that will reflect the unique values of 

Indian culture, and by providing for assistance to Indian tribes in 

the operation of child and family service programs.29 

The federal trust responsibility encompasses a range of issues 

impacting AI/AN children exposed to violence, including: 

˺ identifying, assessing, and treating AI/AN children exposed to 

violence, including recognizing tribally recognized, culturally 

based healing practices; 

˺ expanding tribal self-governance policies; 

˺ training professionals who come into contact with AI/AN children exposed to violence; 

˺ impacting juvenile justice issues related to AI/AN children; 

˺ funding tribal programs; 

˺ mandating the cooperation of federal agencies regarding traumabased practices for AI/AN children exposed to violence; and 

˺ collecting data and sharing information in Indian country. 

Native children and youth, like their ancestors, continue to be 

resilient in the face of extreme adversity. Maintaining cultural 

traditions is still a very important part of the everyday lives of 

American Indians. Children grow up learning the traditions of the 

tribe, practice them each day, and will someday teach them to 

their children.30 This focus on tribal self-determination and the 

use of tradition to respond to the needs of AI/AN children exposed 

to violence is echoed throughout this report and the Advisory 

Committee recommendations. 
C H A P T E R 1 

42 

“The exercise of tribal 

sovereignty means being 

able to actively and 

consciously participate in 

the creation of our own 

future. If our future is 

decided by others, we are 

really not sovereign. There 

is a direct relationship 

between sovereignty 

and our willingness to 

determine what our future 

will be.” 

Dr. Eddie Brown, Executive 

Director, American Indian 

Policy Institute 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE VISION FOR AMERICAN INDIAN AND 

ALASKA NATIVE CHILDREN 

The Advisory Committee envisions a future where Native children are 

raised in a supportive community that is rich in American Indian and Alaska 

Native cultures, where the primacy of tribal governments in responding 

to AI/AN children exposed to violence is respected, where AI/AN tribes are 

empowered with authority and resources to prevent AI/AN children from 

being exposed to violence and where AI/AN tribes have sufficient tools to 

respond to and heal their children. 

Reaching this vision by changing broken systems that traumatize 

AI/AN children—rather than respecting their sacredness—is the 

focus of this report. How can the tribes lead us to this vision? How 

can the federal government and state governments support tribes 

in achieving this vision? This report examines the complex systems 

involved and provides foundational recommendations on changes 

that need to be made to restore Native children and Native communities to wholeness and balance. 

Foundational Findings and

Recommendations 

■ 1.1 Leaders at the highest levels of the executive and legislative 

branches of the federal government should coordinate and 

implement the recommendations in this report consistent with 

three core principles—Empowering Tribes, Removing Barriers,

and Providing Resources—identified by the Advisory Committee. 

Core Principle #1 (Empowering Tribes): 

Tribal sovereignty includes the inherent authority to 

govern and protect the health, safety, and welfare of tribal 

citizens, especially children, within tribal lands. Tribes 

must be empowered with authority and resources to 

prevent AI/AN children from being exposed to violence 

and with sufficient tools for tribes to respond and heal 

their children. Tribes cannot thrive without the authority 

and resources to implement their own decisions for their 

children. There is a vital connection between inherent 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

43 

tribal sovereignty and protecting AI/AN children. Federal 

and state governments must recognize and respect the 

primacy of tribal governments in responding to AI/AN children. In each Advisory Committee hearing and Listening 

Session, witnesses spoke bravely and boldly about the critical importance of inherent tribal sovereignty in addressing 

AI/AN children’s exposure to violence and the need for 

effective and appropriate services for AI/AN children that 

reflect the cultural integrity of each individual tribe. 

Core Principle #2 (Removing Barriers): 

Federal and state governments must remove the restrictions and barriers—such as jurisdictional and resource 

limitations—that currently prevent AI/AN Nations from 

effectively exercising their inherent sovereign authority to 

stop AI/AN children from being exposed to violence, and 

provide sufficient tools for tribes to heal their children who 

have been exposed to violence. 

Core Principle #3 (Providing Resources): 

AI/AN Nations must be provided with the assistance, 

collaboration, and resources to build capacity to fully 

implement and sustain tribally controlled, traumainformed prevention and treatment models and systems 

that will empower their individual communities to prevent 

their children from being exposed to violence along with 

sufficient tools to respond and heal their children who 

have been exposed to violence. 

Working with the executive branch, Congress should take legislative action on the recommendations in this report, making these 

recommendations a bipartisan priority. The Advisory Committee 

recognizes that implementation of its recommendations will 

require the assistance of multiple Cabinet offices and federal, 

tribal, and state departments to shape and sustain a truly national 

response. Coordination and implementation of the recommendations in this report must not only be consistent with these three 

core principles, but it must also be consistent with the federal 

government’s trust responsibility and the tribal consultation policies of the various affected federal agencies. 

The Advisory Committee commends Congress and the administration for positive bipartisan steps taken in the last few years 

designed to reduce violence in Indian country including the 
C H A P T E R 1 

44 

 

 

“These are serious matters, 

especially when it involves 

the safety of our children 

and youth. If you want 

to help, help us to look 

within our own people and 

communities for solutions, 

support our ideas and help 

us implement those ideas. 

But do not do it for us—it 

will not work.” 

Darla Thiele, Director, Sunka 

Wakan Ah Ku Program. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, 

ND, December 9, 2014 

“As tribal leaders, we are 

trustees for the resources 

of our tribe’s futures: our 

children . . . . Tribal leaders 

shoulder the heavy burden 

of knowing our resources 

for the future are hurting.” 

Brian Cladoosby, President, 

National Congress of 

American Indians. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Fort 

Lauderdale, FL, 

April 16, 2014 

Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) of 2010,31 the Indian Law and 

Order Commission32 which was created through TLOA, and the 

2013 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization33 

which included very important provisions designed to restore full 

tribal criminal jurisdiction over all persons who commit domestic 

violence crimes in Indian country.34 The Advisory Committee would 

also like to commend Congress for two important bipartisan bills 

that have been moving forward this Congress—(1) S. 1474 (Alaska 

Safe Families and Villages Act of 2014),35 and (2) S. 162236 (Alyce Spotted 

Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children). There is a long 

history of bipartisanship on Indian law and policy going back to the 

time when Richard Nixon announced that “[t]he time has come to 

break decisively with the past and to create conditions for a new 

era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and 

Indian decisions.”37 The Advisory Committee trusts that the same 

bipartisan spirit will lead to prompt bipartisan implementation of 

the recommendations in this report. 

■ 1.2 The White House should establish—no later than May 2015—a 

permanent fully staffed Native American Affairs Office within 

the White House Domestic Policy Council. This new Native 

American Affairs Office should include a senior position specializing in AI/AN children exposed to violence. This office should be 

responsible for coordination across the executive branch of all 

services provided for the benefit and protection of AI/AN children 

and the office lead should report directly to the Director of the 

Domestic Policy Council as a Special Assistant to the President.

The Native American Affairs Office should have overall executive 

branch responsibility for coordinating and implementing the 

recommendations in this report including conducting annual 

tribal consultations. 

The Advisory Committee believes that a permanent fully staffed 

Native American Affairs Office of the level recommended— 

including a senior position specializing in AI/AN children exposed 

to violence—is required in order to comply with the federal government’s trust responsibility and to effectively address the current 

inability of the federal government to serve the needs of AI/AN 

children exposed to violence. The Advisory Committee commends 

the Obama administration for its many positive steps to engage and 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

45 

empower the AI/AN community in recent years including the establishment of annual White House Tribal Nations Conferences and 

the restoration of the ability of AI/AN tribes to assert full criminal 

jurisdiction over all alleged perpetrators of domestic violence 

through Title IX of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) 

Reauthorization.38 

The Advisory Committee also commends the administration for 

establishing two very important White House positions: (1) Special 

Assistant to the President on Native American Affairs, a position 

within the White House Domestic Policy Council; and (2) Associate 

Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and Tribal Liaison, a position within the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. But both of 

these positions are currently only temporary one-person offices. 

The Advisory Committee strongly recommends building upon the 

success of these two vital White House positions in order to ensure 

effective implementation of the recommendations in this report. 

The current “Special Assistant to the President on Native American 

Affairs” (or their designee) should serve on an interim basis as the 

lead person to coordinate and implement the recommendations in 

this report. However, a permanent fully staffed White House Native 

American Affairs Office is required in order to effectively coordinate and implement the recommendations in this report. This 

Native American Affairs Office should have a minimum of three 

to five full-time senior staff members including a senior position 

specializing in AI/AN children exposed to violence. 

This new White House Native American Affairs Office should 

conduct annual consultations with tribal governments that 

should—at a minimum—include discussion of: 

˺ Administering tribal funds and programs; 

˺ Enhancing the safety of AI/AN children exposed to violence in 

the home and in the community; 

˺ Enhancing child protection services through trauma-informed 

practice; 

˺	 Enhancing research and evaluation to address the mental health 

needs that include tribal cultural interventions to promote tribal 

best practice; 

˺ Enhancing substance abuse services for caregivers and youth 

that address the exposure to violence; and 

˺ Evaluating the implementation status of the recommendations in 

this report. 
C H A P T E R 1 

46 

The new White House Native American Affairs Office will provide 

the essential executive branch coordination and collaboration 

required to effectively implement the recommendations in this 

report. The current “stovepipe organizational structure” of federal 

agencies restricts the flow of information and cross-organizational 

communication. Stovepipes within the executive branch make 

essential collaboration extremely difficult. Stovepipes exist for 

many reasons that include (1) the structure of the federal budget; 

(2) turf protection by the various executive branch agencies; and 

(3) a lack of commitment among executive branch leadership to 

promote real collaboration. This lack of coordination across federal 

agencies creates great hardship for tribes that receive funding 

from multiple federal sources. Conflicting policies, procedures, 

and requirements for grants that have similar purposes and data 

systems make it very difficult for agencies to work together, but 

more importantly make it extremely difficult for tribes to effectively engage the federal bureaucracy. 

The Advisory Committee knows that this is an extremely difficult 

issue to address quickly, but the current arrangement is ineffective and does not serve Native people. The new Native American 

Affairs Office within the Domestic Policy Council should coordinate 

programs across the executive branch, and develop and implement 

a plan to increase collaboration among agencies and breaking down 

stovepipes. This should include braided funding streams39 to tribes, 

joint grant solicitations, and adoption of compatible data systems. 

If this office is not established and these recommendations are not 

implemented, then the federal government will continue to force 

tribes to squander precious resources to meet bureaucratic needs 

rather than to address the needs of children in their communities. 

The Advisory Committee recommends that the Attorney General 

take the lead in the interagency coordination needed to fully staff 

the White House Native American Affairs Office. Until that office is 

at full capacity, the Attorney General should support existing White 

House staff to assure successful implementation of all the recommendations in this report. 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

47 

■ 1.3 Congress should restore the inherent authority of American 

Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) tribes to assert full criminal 

jurisdiction over all persons who commit crimes against AI/AN 

children in Indian country. 

The framework for criminal jurisdiction in Indian country is institutionally complex40 and divided among federal, tribal, and state 

governments. The question of jurisdiction depends upon whether 

the crime is committed in Indian country, whether the perpetrator 

is Indian or non-Indian, whether the victim is Indian or non-Indian, 

and what type of crime is committed.41 The jurisdictional maze 

in Indian country was further complicated by the U.S. Supreme 

Court’s decision in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 

(1978), which held that federally recognized tribes do not possess 

the sovereign power to assert criminal jurisdiction over nonIndians. With the federal government declining to prosecute 76 

percent of the crimes referred by tribal authorities, tribal leaders 

have struggled to find ways to keep Native citizens safe, especially 

when the perpetrators are non-Indian.42 

The complex nature of the justice systems in Indian country has 

contributed to a crisis of violent crime on many Indian reservations that has persisted for decades. As the Indian Law and 

Order Commission (ILOC) observed, “When Congress and the 

Administration ask why the crime rate is so high in Indian country, 

they need look no further than the archaic system in place, in 

which federal and state authority displaces tribal authority and 

often makes tribal law enforcement meaningless.”43 Federal 

reports have consistently found that the divided system of justice 

in place on Indian reservations lacks coordination, accountability, 

and adequate and consistent funding. These shortfalls serve to 

foster violence and disrupt the peace and public safety of tribal 

communities. When tribal law enforcement and justice systems are 

supported rather than discouraged from taking primary responsibility over local justice the result is usually better, stronger, and 

faster justice than the non-Native counterparts.44 

“[C]riminal jurisdiction 

in Indian country is an 

indefensible morass of 

complex, conflicting, 

and illogical commands, 

layered in over decades via 

congressional policies and 

court decisions and without 

the consent of tribal 

nations.” 

Indian Law and Order 

Commission 

Report to the President and 

Congress of the United States, 

ix, November 2013 
C H A P T E R 1 

48 

Table	
  7.1	
  	
  

(from	
  the	
  Roadmap	
  for	
  Making	
  Native	
  America	
  Safer,	
  Indian	
  Law	
  and	
  Order	
  

Commission	
  Report)

Figure	
  1.1	
  	
  General	
  Summary	
  of	
  Criminal	
  Jurisdiction	
  on	
  Indian	
  Lands

(details	
  vary	
  by	
  tribe	
  and	
  state)

General Summary of Criminal Jurisdiction on Indian Lands 

(details vary by tribe and state)
 

From: Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: 

Report to the President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 7.
 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

49 

Further impeding justice efforts in Indian country are the restraints 

placed directly on tribal justice systems. Although the U.S. 

Constitution does not apply to tribal courts,45 Congress, through its 

plenary authority over tribes, enacted the Indian Civil Rights Act 

(ICRA).46 ICRA further limits the power of tribal governments by 

requiring them to adhere to certain rights similar to, but not identical to the Bill of Rights protections. Among those limitations is a 

limit on a tribal court’s criminal sentencing authority. Currently, 

ICRA limits a tribal court’s criminal sentencing authority to just one 

year imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine, regardless of the nature 

of the crime.47 In 2010, in the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA),48 

Congress relaxed this sentencing restriction to three years imprisonment and/or a $15,000 fine, but only for those tribes that could 

provide certain additional, enumerated due process protections.49 

To date, only a handful of tribes have adopted this “enhanced 

sentencing.” 

In May 2013, Congress passed the VAWA.50 In response to congressional findings that 34 percent of Native women will be raped 

in their lifetimes and 39 percent will be the victim of domestic 

violence,51 Congress passed Title IX of VAWA, “Safety for Indian 

Women.” Among its provisions, Congress amended the ICRA to 

authorize “special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction” to 

tribal courts over non-Indian offenders who (1) commit domestic 

violence, (2) commit dating violence, or (3) violate a protection 

order. This was the first time in the thirty-five years since the 1978 

Oliphant decision that Congress authorized tribes to reassert tribal 

sovereign authority to prosecute non-Indian offenders who commit 

certain egregious crimes in Indian country. Unfortunately, despite 

numerous and horrific findings that non-Indians are committing 

sexual assault at high numbers in Indian country,52 Title IX of 

VAWA did not extend special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians for the crime of sexual assault. 

It is troubling that tribes have no criminal jurisdiction over 

non-Indians who commit heinous crimes of sexual and physical 

abuse of AI/AN children in Indian country. Congress has 

restored criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit 

domestic violence, commit dating violence, and violate protection orders. Congress should now similarly restore the inherent 

authority of AI/AN tribes to assert full criminal jurisdiction 

over all persons who commit crimes against AI/AN children 
C H A P T E R 1 

50 

in Indian country including both child sexual abuse and child 

physical abuse. 

There are no statistics concerning the percentage of non-Indian 

perpetrators who commit crimes against AI/AN children on tribal 

land, but it is clear from what we do know that it is a very substantial problem. We know that 70 percent of violent crimes generally 

committed against AI/ANs involve an offender of a different race.53 

This statistic includes crimes against children twelve years of age 

and older. We also know that in domestic violence cases, 75 percent 

of the intimate victimizations and 25 percent of the family victimizations involve an offender of a different race.54 Furthermore, 

national studies show that men who batter their companion also 

abuse their children in 49 to 70 percent of the cases.55 

Furthermore, the Advisory Committee believes that Congress 

should fully implement the recommendations contained in chapter 

1, “Jurisdiction: Bringing Clarity Out of Chaos,” of the Indian Law 

and Order Commission’s 2013 Final Report, A Roadmap for Making 

Native America Safer. The recommendations are summarized in the 

following text. More details, including the complete ILOC chapter 

1 recommendations, are provided in the ILOC Executive Summary 

provided as an appendix to this report. 

1.	 Any tribe that so chooses can opt out, fully or partially, of 

federal Indian country criminal jurisdiction and/or congressionally authorized state jurisdiction, except for federal laws 

of general application. Upon opting-out, Congress would 

immediately recognize the tribe’s inherent criminal jurisdiction over all persons, Indian or non-Indian, within the 

exterior boundaries of the tribe’s lands. 

2.	 To implement tribes’ opt-out authority, Congress should 

establish a new specialized federal circuit court, the U.S. 

Court of Indian Appeals, in order to provide a more costeffective and familiarized forum, such as the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears matters 

involving intellectual property rights protection. 

3.	 A tribe’s opt-out authority includes the choice to return to 

partial or full federal or state criminal jurisdiction. 

4.	 The opt-out authority should necessarily include opting out 

from the sentencing restrictions of ICRA. 

Emphasis should be added to the first ILOC recommendation in 

the preceding text, with regard to tribes subject to congressionally 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

51 

authorized state jurisdiction, like Public Law 280 (PL-280), which 

authorized state criminal and civil jurisdiction and eliminated 

federal criminal jurisdiction for Indian country and major crimes in 

those six mandatory states.56 There are multiple layers of concern 

over this piece of legislation. The tribal opposition to PL-280 has 

focused on the state’s failure to provide law enforcement services 

and the encroachment on tribal sovereignty.57 The states’ opposition focuses on the failure of PL-280 to provide federal funding to 

the states for this additional jurisdiction amounting to an unfunded 

mandate on Indian lands that are not taxable. For tribes subject to 

PL-280,58 effective investigations of child maltreatment crimes are 

compromised by the lack of clarity surrounding PL-280 and subsequent inconsistent interpretations of the law have contributed to 

another layer of confusion and complexity that could be resolved 

with clarifying legislation.59 

The Advisory Committee also recommends implementation of four 

additional related ILOC recommendations (ILOC recommendations 

4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 5.2) that would allow tribal governments to more 

effectively protect AI/AN children exposed to violence. These four 

recommendations require federal and state courts (1) to inform 

the relevant tribal government when a tribal citizen is arrested or 

convicted of a crime; (2) to collaborate, if the tribal government 

so chooses, in choices involving corrections placement or community supervision; and (3) to inform the tribal government when 

that offender is slated for return to the community. More details 

concerning each of these four ILOC recommendations is provided in 

the ILOC Executive Summary provided as an appendix to this report. 

The Advisory Committee wishes to emphasize the dire importance of the 

following recommendation: 

■ 1.4 Congress and the executive branch shall direct sufficient funds 

to AI/AN tribes to bring funding for tribal criminal and civil 

justice systems and tribal child protection systems into parity 

with the rest of the United States; and shall remove the barriers 

that currently impede the ability of AI/AN Nations to effectively 

address violence in their communities. The Advisory Committee 

believes that treaties, existing law and trust responsibilities are 

not discretionary and demand this action. 

”We lack adequate 

resources and funding. 

Many times it feels like we 

are losing ground, losing 

our children.” 

Erma J. Vizenor, Chairwoman, 

White Earth Nation.
 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence,
 

Fort Lauderdale, FL,
 

April 16, 2014
 

“Historically the 

responsibility of 

development of solutions 

has been given to other 

entities, such as state, 

federal, or private 

agencies, rather than tribal 

governments, resulting in 

interventions and outcomes 

that were not effective.” 

Brian Cladoosby, President, 

National Congress of 

American Indians.
 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence,
 

Fort Lauderdale, FL,
 

April 16, 2014
 
C H A P T E R 1 

52 

To break the cycle of violence which grips Native communities the 

Advisory Committee believes that this nation must make the investment necessary to create an environment where AI/AN children, today 

and for generations to come, may thrive. This investment is not only 

the right thing to do, but is part of the legal obligation of this nation 

to those communities; an obligation which has never been adequately 

addressed. In order to more effectively address the needs of AI/AN 

children exposed to violence, substantial changes must be made in the 

methods by which AI/AN tribes are able to access federal funding and 

substantially increased levels of federal funding will be required. 

In each Advisory Committee hearing and Listening Session, 

witnesses repeatedly expressed concern about the limited funding 

currently available for Indian country criminal and civil justice 

systems and child protection systems along with extreme frustration with the challenges involved in obtaining and utilizing the 

limited funding that is available. 

Funding for child maltreatment prevention and child protection 

efforts is especially limited in Indian country.60 Tribes recognize 

the importance of prevention and do incorporate limited child 

abuse prevention activities, despite little to no federal support.61 

Meanwhile, states receive proportionately more funding for 

prevention and child protection while tribes are not even eligible 

for the two major programs that fund these state programs— 

Title XX of the Social Services Block Grant and the Child Abuse 

Prevention and Treatment Act.62 

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) through the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides limited funding for tribal court 

systems, but the funding level is far too low and the BIA has historically denied any tribal law enforcement and tribal court funding 

to tribes in jurisdictions—such as PL-280 jurisdictions63—where 

congressionally authorized concurrent state jurisdiction has been 

established. Furthermore, efforts to fund tribal justice systems 

such as the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993 (which authorized an 

additional $50 million per year in tribal court base funding) have 

repeatedly authorized increased tribal court funding, but the long 

promised funding has never materialized in the form of actual 

64 appropriations.

Since the late 1990s,65 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has 

also become a significant additional federal source of tribal justice 

funding.66 Tribes have utilized DOJ grant funding to enhance 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

53 

various and diverse aspects of their tribal justice systems, from the 

enhancement of tribal codes, to the implementation of Juvenile 

Healing to Wellness Courts (tribal drug courts), to the design of 

unique tribal youth programs.67 While these grants have offered 

immense support, they are a far cry from the consistent, tribally 

driven approach that is needed in Indian country. The Advisory 

Committee heard repeated frustration expressed concerning the 

competitive funding approach that the DOJ utilizes. Witnesses often 

describe it as a process in which you are forced to hope your neighboring tribe loses. The following are some of the most common 

concerns raised about this competitive federal funding process: 

˺	 Tribes most in need, often smaller tribes and those with the least 

amount of resources, are the least likely to be able to submit a 

“winning” grant application. 

˺	 Unlike their state and local governmental counterparts, tribes are 

forced to “compete” for core governmental funding, flying in the 

face of both tribal sovereignty and federal trust responsibility. 

˺	 Nonrenewable, short-term grants fail to allow for long-term 

planning, and often result in high turnover and the continuous 

shuttering of programs once the one-, two-, or three-year grant 

funding ends. 

˺	 Unlike current federal funding programs within the DOI and 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), DOJ singleissue pet projects reflect federal priorities and do not allow 

tribes to determine their own governmental priorities. 

It is important to note that DOJ funding for tribal justice systems has 

been consistently decreasing in recent years. For example, when 

DOJ’s main consolidated funding program—the Coordinated Tribal 

Assistance Solicitation (CTAS)—was introduced in FY 2010, a total of 

more than $126 million in DOJ grant funds were dispersed through 

CTAS. In the following four years, however, CTAS funding has consistently decreased by an approximate average of nearly 10 percent per 

year (see Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation annual funding 

chart). In FY 2014, only $87 million was dispersed through CTAS.69 

It is particularly troubling that the CTAS grant program with the 

closest direct connection to AI/AN children exposed to violence— 

the Office for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) 

Tribal Youth Program (TYP)—has suffered the greatest decrease in 

funding levels. In the past four years, OJJDP TYP funding has plummeted from $25 million in FY 2010 down to only $5 million in FY 

2014 (see TYP Annual Funding Chart). 

“There are 566 recognized 

tribes in this country the 

winners of CTAS will have 

a start, but the losers way 

out-number the possible 

winners.” 

Abby Abinanti, Chief Judge, 

Yurok Tribal Court. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, 

AZ, February 11, 2014 
C H A P T E R 1 

54 

Total Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS) Funding 

Tribal Youth Program (TYP) Appropriations 

Tribes, like their state and local counterparts, deserve the benefit 

of reliability in their quest to build robust tribal justice systems 

that can adequately serve their youth. Base funding from pooled 

resources would offer tribes the reliability and flexibility that is 

needed. As both the ILOC Report70 and the National Congress of 

American Indians (NCAI) FY 2015 Funding Request Report71 note, 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

55 

 

DOJ has already taken steps toward consolidated base funding 

through the creation of CTAS.72 DOJ has also recently considered 

the possibility of base funding through formula grants with 

regard to the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) Tribal 

Governments grant program.73 

AI/AN children are generally served best when tribes have the 

opportunity to take ownership of the programs and resources 

that they provide. PL-93-638 contracts, self-governance compacts, 

and PL-102-477 funding agreements are all examples of successful 

federal programs that afford tribes the option to take over the 

management of federal funds. However, none of the programs 

currently applies to the DOJ. 

1.4.A	 Congress and the executive branch shall provide recurring mandatory, not discretionary, base funding for all 

tribal programs that impact AI/AN children exposed to 

violence including tribal criminal and civil justice systems

and tribal child protection systems, and make it available on equal terms to all federally recognized tribes,

whether their lands are under federal jurisdiction or 

congressionally authorized state jurisdiction. 

Part of the United States’ trust responsibility to AI/AN Nations is 

the provision of basic governmental services in Indian country. 

Funding to fulfill this obligation, however, is currently provided in 

the discretionary portion of the federal budget despite the fact that 

the treaties that made promises to Indian tribes did not promise 

“discretionary” support and the trust responsibility is not discretionary. Because the spending is discretionary and not mandatory 

as it should be, public policies, like sequestration, are implemented 

and cut programs that clearly should not be cut. 

The Advisory Committee heard repeated testimony concerning the 

vital need for ongoing reliable funding to meet the needs of AI/AN 

children exposed to violence. The disparate impact of sequestration 

in Indian country is but one example of why mandatory spending is 

necessary. The Advisory Committee heard repeated stories of critical 

tribal funding being cut across sectors—housing, law enforcement, 

health care, education—and how that negatively impacts children. 

Many of the recommendations in this report depend on new appropriations for vital programs that provide critical services and care to 

AI/AN children exposed to violence, but AI/AN communities cannot 

“Villages and regions 

across the state are 

developing important 

and effective measures 

that need to be supported 

by the federal and state 

governments, not through 

temporary three or five 

year grants. I’ll repeat that. 

Not through temporary 

three or five year grants; 

but ongoing, sustainable 

funding, allowing Native 

communities to take 

responsibility for the 

health/safety of their 

children, families and 

communities.” 

Gloria O’Neil, President/CEO, 

Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc.
 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, 

Anchorage, AK,
 

June 11, 2014
 
C H A P T E R 1 

56 

“By funding tribal 

governments directly 

from federal resources, 

the federal government 

is honoring the trust 

relationship and 

empowering tribal 

communities and 

governments with the best 

opportunity to change 

the dynamics that bring 

children, youth and 

families into child welfare, 

mental health, and juvenile 

justice service systems.” 

Brian Cladoosby, President, 

National Congress of 

American Indians.
 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence,
 

Fort Lauderdale, FL,
 

April 16, 2014
 

depend upon the funding when it is repeatedly subject to cuts like 

the cuts that slashed the OJJDP TYP from $25 million per year to only 

$5 million per year in four short years. 

Federal funding for these programs serving AI/AN children should 

be mandatory spending, not discretionary. This funding will guarantee direct benefits for AI/AN tribes. Funding should be awarded by 

formula as an open-ended entitlement grant, contingent upon AI/ 

AN tribes submitting children exposed to violence plans for federal 

approval. Federal agencies administering these programs should 

submit yearly estimates of program expenditures as well as quarterly 

reports of estimated and actual program expenditures in support of 

the awarded funds. The funds should provide for, but not be limited 

to, monthly maintenance payments for the daily care and supervision of eligible AI/AN children; administrative costs to manage the 

program; training of staff and practitioners; recruitment of community representatives; and volunteers and costs related to the design, 

implementation, and operation of a national tribal-wide data collection system to support services to AI/AN children exposed to violence. 

1.4.B	 Congress shall appropriate, not simply authorize, sufficient substantially increased funding to provide reliable 

tribal base funding for all tribal programs that impact 

AI/AN children exposed to violence. This includes tribal 

criminal and civil justice systems and tribal child protection systems. At a minimum, and as a helpful starting 

point, Congress shall enact the relevant funding level 

requests in the National Congress of American Indians 

(NCAI) Indian Country Budget Request for FY 2015.74 

In order to more effectively address the needs of AI/AN children 

exposed to violence, substantially increased levels of federal 

funding will be required. For the past ten years, the National 

Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has published an annual 

Indian Country Budget Request Report developed in collaboration 

with tribal leaders, Native organizations, and tribal budget consultation bodies. The NCAI request provides a helpful starting point 

for the initial minimum levels of increased funding that will be 

needed. The NCAI annual budget requests are rooted in the attempt 

to honor the United States’ trust responsibility, which includes 

providing basic governmental services in Indian country; honoring 

and fully supporting Indian self-determination; and elevating 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

57 

funding for Indian country governments and services to be equivalent to similarly situated non-Indian governments and services. 

The annual NCAI budget reports also provide insightful details 

concerning a wide range of federal programs required to implement 

these recommendations. 

Because the formulation of the federal budget is a very complex 

process involving many players, it is essential as the recommendations in this report are implemented that: 

˺ Each federal agency includes the requisite funding in its budget 

submissions; 

˺ The Office of Management and Budget include the request in the 

President’s Annual Budget Requests to the Congress; 

˺ Both Houses of Congress appropriate sufficient recurring funds 

so that all tribes realize benefit; and 

˺ Those funds are provided to tribes on a recurring basis. 

1.4.C	 Congress shall authorize all federal agencies, beginning with the Department of Justice (DOJ), to 

enter into 638 self-determination and self-governance

compacts with tribes to ensure that all tribal system 

funding, including both justice and child welfare, is 

subject to tribal management. Further, the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) should fully utilize 

its current 638 self-determination and self-governance 

authority to the greatest extent feasible for flexible 

funding programs in Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) beyond the Indian Health Service (IHS) 

and seek additional legislative authority where needed. 

In 2000, PL-106-260 included a provision for designating HHS to 

conduct a study to determine the feasibility of a demonstration 

project extending tribal self-governance to HHS agencies other 

than the IHS. The HHS Feasibility Study, submitted to Congress 

in 2003,75 determined that a demonstration project was feasible. 

Since that time, tribes identified the HHS self-governance expansion as a top priority and requested to work in collaboration with 

the department to identify how to develop the needed legislative 

language. However, up to this point, HHS has not moved forward 

on this action. The choice to self-govern represents for some tribes 

efficiency, accountability, and best practices in managing and 

“If we really want to end 

childhood violence, we 

have to get out of the way 

of the people who have the 

solutions. It’s our people. 

It’s our culture. It’s who we 

are that was ripped out of 

us and we’re wounded and 

we’re acting wounded and 

we’re hurting each other, 

and it’s a perpetual cycle 

that will not end until we 

are restored.” 

Elizabeth Medicine Crow, 

President/CEO, First 

Alaskan Institute.
 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, 

Anchorage, AK,
 

June 12, 2014
 
C H A P T E R 1 

58 

operating tribal programs and administering federal funds at the 

local level. Expanding the option for self-governance translates to 

greater flexibility for tribes to provide critical social services within 

agencies such as the Administration on Aging, Administration on 

Children and Families, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration, and Health Resources and Services Administration. 

It is imperative that HHS work closely with tribes to strengthen 

current self-governance programs and advance initiatives that will 

streamline and improve HHS program delivery in Indian country. 

HHS should include not only the eleven programs76 identified in the 

2003 feasibility study, but also programs such as the direct Tribal 

Title IV-E foster care program established under the 2008 Fostering 

Connections Act.77 The Advisory Committee agrees with the HHS 

Secretary’s Tribal Advisory Committee, which recently sent HHS 

Secretary Burwell a Brief on Priority Issues78 that indicated that 

HHS should (1) utilize current administrative authority to expand 

self-governance within HHS through demonstration projects; 

and (2) reconvene the Self-Governance Tribal Federal Workgroup 

in order to develop legislative language that would expand selfgovernance within HHS. Moreover, HHS should utilize its existing 

authority to provide the most flexible funding mechanisms 

currently available such as the block grant process HHS utilizes to 

provide Title IV-E funding for the territories. 

While changes are underway to establish and implement the 

previous funding recommendations, Congress and the executive 

branch should implement the three following recommendations as 

interim steps as soon as possible. 

1.4.D	 Congress shall end all grant-based and competitive Indian country criminal justice funding in the

Department of Justice (DOJ) and instead establish a 

permanent, recurring base funding system for tribal law 

enforcement and justice services. 

As soon as possible, Congress should end all grant-based and competitive Indian country criminal justice funding in the DOJ and instead 

pool these monies to establish a permanent, recurring base funding 

system for tribal law enforcement and justice services. Federal base 

funding for tribal justice systems should be made available on equal 

terms to all federally recognized tribes, whether their lands are under 

federal jurisdiction or congressionally authorized state jurisdiction. 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

59 

1.4.E	 Congress shall establish a much larger commitment 

than currently exists to fund tribal programs through 

the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs 

(OJP) and the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funding. As 

an initial step towards the much larger commitment 

needed, Congress shall establish a minimum 10 percent 

tribal set-aside, as per the Violence Against Women Act 

(VAWA) tribal set-aside, from funding for all discretionary 

Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and Victims of Crime Act 

(VOCA) funding making clear that the tribal set-aside is 

the minimum tribal funding and not in any way a cap

on tribal funding. President Obama’s annual budget

request to Congress has included a 7 percent tribal setaside for the last few years. This is a very positive step 

and Congress should authorize this request immediately.

However, the set-aside should be increased to 10 percent 

in subsequent appropriation bills. Until Congress acts,

the Department of Justice (DOJ) shall establish this 

minimum 10 percent tribal set-aside administratively. 

The 2012 National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence 

determined that: 

˺	 AI/AN children have a significant degree of unmet needs for 

services and support to prevent and respond to the extreme 

levels of violence they experience; 

˺	 the federal government has a unique legal responsibility for the 

welfare of AI/AN children; 

˺	 the federal government also has a special relationship with 

Indian tribes based, at least in part, on its trust responsibility; 

and 

˺	 AI/AN communities confront additional burdens in meeting the 

needs of children exposed to violence. 

After determining that AI/AN women face the highest levels of 

violence in the nation—along with the highest rates of unmet 

needs—Congress has set-aside a percentage of VAWA funding for 

tribal governments since VAWA’s enactment in 1994. Since the 2005 

VAWA Reauthorization, the tribal set-aside has been 10 percent. 

The Advisory Committee finds that the 10 percent VAWA tribal 

set-aside is a highly relevant precedent that should be applied to all 
C H A P T E R 1 

60 

discretionary OJP programs because that could potentially impact AI/ 

AN children exposed to violence. 

The same rationale applies to the VOCA funding that has served 

as a major funding source for states to provide services to victims 

of crime since its establishment in 1984. The vast majority of 

VOCA funds are distributed to the states. While tribes are eligible 

to apply to the state for funding, only a tiny percentage of VOCA 

funding has ever been distributed to tribes. Consequently, the 

Advisory Committee agrees with the NCAI79 that Congress should 

specifically establish a 10 percent tribal set-aside of the overall full 

VOCA funding or at least a tribal set-aside in the range of at least 

$30 million annually similar to the Children’s Justice Act fund for 

purposes of meeting the needs of AI/AN children who are victimized by or exposed to violence. 

1.4.F The Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Department of

Interior (DOI) should, within one year, conduct tribal

consultations to determine the feasibility of implementing Indian Law and Order Commission (ILOC)

Recommendation 3.8 to consolidate all DOI tribal criminal 

justice programs and all DOJ Indian country programs and

services into a single “Indian country component” in the

DOJ and report back to the President and AI/AN Nations on

how tribes want to move forward on it. 

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Indian Law and Order 

Commission that the DOJ and the DOI (1) currently serve duplicative roles in funding, providing technical assistance and training, 

and providing direct services for tribal justice systems; and (2) 

these agencies often do not communicate well with each other, 

which results in substantial confusion and waste. While the 

Advisory Committee is in general agreement with the ILOC’s 

Recommendation 3.8 to consolidate all DOI tribal criminal justice 

programs and all DOJ Indian country programs and services into a 

single DOJ “Indian country component,” the Advisory Committee 

recommends that tribal consultation be conducted prior to making 

such a significant and far-reaching move. 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

61 

 

 

■ 1.5 The legislative branch of the federal government along with the 

executive branch, under the direction and oversight of the White 

House Native American Affairs Office, should provide adequate 

funding for and assistance with Indian country research and 

data collection. 

Research and data collection are critical components of developing 

effective responses to AI/AN children exposed to violence.80 Tribal 

governments, like every government, need the ability to track and 

access critical data involving their citizens across service areas and 

to accept the responsibility of gathering data. Tribal governments 

currently do not have adequate access to accurate, comprehensive 

data regarding key areas affecting AI/AN children exposed to 

violence, and frequently when data is gathered, it is not shared with 

tribes. Federal leadership is required to break down barriers that 

prevent the accurate collection of data relative to AI/AN children 

and the sharing of that data with tribes. Tribal governments must 

also find ways to improve their own data collection and sharing. 

The collection of data on maltreatment of AI/AN children illustrates 

this problem. The current data collection system requires states to 

submit their child maltreatment data to the National Child Abuse 

and Neglect Data System (NCANDS). HHS uses the aggregate level 

data in its annual reports on the characteristics of child abuse and 

neglect. Unfortunately, this data does not include children within the 

tribal child welfare system. The federal requirements for reporting 

and investigating child abuse in Indian country require different 

action, and three different law enforcement agencies (federal, tribal, 

state) might be responding and collecting different or similar data. 

The policies of the three governments regarding confidentiality and 

sharing of information may impede the sharing of information.81 It is 

critical to the understanding of child maltreatment of AI/AN children 

that data be collected on AI/AN children under federal, tribal, or state 

jurisdiction in a comprehensive data collection system. 

Additionally, the BIA and IHS collect data about children exposed to 

violence pursuant to their role as a funder or service provider, but 

this data is not always readily available to tribes. Moreover, there 

is little coordination between the collections of different sources 

of data; thus, tribes lack the comprehensive information necessary to inform policy and practice.82 Finally, most data collection 

methods are not based on indigenous ways and are not sensitive to 

cultural differences. 

“[T]he statistics are dire, 

but we only have a third of 

the picture.” 

Theresa M. Pouley, Chief Judge, 

Tulalip Tribal Court.
 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, 

AZ, February 11, 2014
 

“There is little information 

on the risk factor for 

child maltreatment in 

AI/AN families. . . . This 

is problematic because 

national policy and child 

welfare practice focus 

on the prevention of 

child maltreatment and 

successful prevention 

programming requires 

an understanding of the 

culturally specific risk 

factors.” 

Sarah Hicks Kastelic, Deputy 

Director, National Indian 

Welfare Association. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, 

ND, December 9, 2013 
C H A P T E R 1 

62 

”Most data collection 

methods are not based 

on indigenous ways of 

knowing.” 

Iris PrettyPaint, Native 

Aspirations Project Director, 

Kauffman and Associates, Inc.
 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence,
 

Fort Lauderdale, FL,
 

April 16, 2014
 

Tribal Nations also need access to research initiatives to help 

develop effective prevention and intervention strategies for children exposed to violence. Currently, many tribal communities are 

developing and implementing culturally based prevention and 

intervention programs. However, most do not have the resources 

necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs. Tribal 

leaders also have called for evaluations of research on the adaptation of evidence-based practices to meet cultural and linguistic 

needs. Tribes may deem some evidence-based programs culturally 

inappropriate for the families and children they service. Studies 

used to establish evidence-based practices almost never include AI/ 

AN populations so the trustworthiness of these studies and their 

relevance to AI/AN populations is suspect.83 Federal, state, and 

private funders have increasingly focused on projects that contain 

evidence-based (proven) practices.84 Tribes and urban Indian organizations are increasingly finding themselves unable to successfully 

compete for grant funding, because of the lack of research on effective practices in AI/AN populations. 

Collecting and sharing data on crime and AI/AN youth in the state 

juvenile justice systems and the federal system is problematic as 

well. Currently, there is almost no data about the serious problems 

that AI/AN youth experience in urban and rural communities such 

as drug trafficking, gang violence, human trafficking, bullying, 

etc. Research on AI/AN children has largely been limited to the 

prevalence of violence in the home and sexual abuse, but there is a 

dearth of studies on the use of traditional ways of healing. Research 

could provide unique solutions that could be helpful to the general 

population, as well as AI/AN children. 

As a final comment regarding data collection for tribes, it should be 

noted that the National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect 

did not include AI/AN data because the sample was too small to be 

significant and because study methods did not lend themselves to 

such a small data set. Study methods utilized by federal agencies 

must be adjusted, for instance by oversampling, to ensure that 

AI/AN children can be either included in national reports or in 

supplementary reports.85 Without inclusion in these major studies, 

AI/AN children who face elevated levels of maltreatment and highrisk factors are ignored, thus severely limiting the opportunities 

to create helpful policies and provide adequate funding to meet 

their needs. 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

63 

 

■ 1.6 The legislative and executive branches of the federal government should encourage tribal-state collaborations to meet the 

needs of AI/AN children exposed to violence. 

The criminal justice, juvenile justice, and child welfare systems are too 

often ineffective, because tribes and states do not always act collaboratively. The failure to collaborate can result in unanswered calls for 

service to law enforcement, unprosecuted cases, juveniles languishing 

in detention far from their families, and child victims falling through 

the service cracks. In the juvenile justice system, it can lead to 

re-victimizing AI/AN children and contribute to their disproportionate involvement in the system and overrepresentation in juvenile 

detention facilities. The failure of tribes and states to collaborate in 

child welfare contributes to the unnecessary removal of AI/AN children from their families and communities, which often re-traumatizes 

children rather than healing them. The federal government should 

use its power and funds to encourage tribal-state collaborations. 

Federal support and encouragement for intergovernmental 

agreements is mandated by TLOA. Currently, cross-jurisdictional 

agreements to deputize tribal and state officials and federal peace 

officers for the enforcement of federal criminal laws within Indian 

country show promise in some places, but are plagued with unconscionable administrative delays and impediments.86 Historically, 

relationships between states and tribes have been poorly defined 

and frequently problematic, resulting 87 in protracted legal battles 

over jurisdiction.88 

Collaboration between tribal and state court systems can produce 

great benefits. Some states and tribes have developed tribal and state 

court forums to deal with complex issues relative to ICWA compliance 

and criminal issues.89 Local tribal and state courts, in some instances, 

have developed cooperative processes for civil commitment, protection order enforcement, adult and juvenile probation, joint drug 

courts, and cross-educational opportunities.90 Local courts finding 

solutions to local problems is effective, but the collaboration must 

be much more widespread to produce a greater impact. The federal 

government should encourage state juvenile courts to develop collaborations with local tribes to enable involvement of the local tribe in the 

state proceedings when a tribal member is before the juvenile court. 

Some state child welfare agencies cooperate with tribes in many ways, 

such as Title IV-E agreements.91 Sharing resources is common in child 

“State governments and 

tribal governments have 

far more in common 

than in conflict. Both 

types of government 

have a primary interest 

in protecting the health 

and welfare of their 

people. . . . As tribal 

and state governments 

gain resources and 

responsibilities, their 

capacity and incentive to 

cooperate increases.” 

Terry Cross, Executive 

Director, National Indian Child 

Welfare Association. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence , 

Fort Lauderdale, FL, 

April 16, 2014 
C H A P T E R 1 

64 

protection cases. Other states and tribes share training and educational opportunities. Some states share child welfare information 

with tribes. ICWA certainly encourages and requires collaboration. 

However, tribal governments need increased federal support to 

develop tribal-state agreements or protocols on child welfare and 

coordinated domestic violence programming. The federal government 

should improve the monitoring of tribal-state relations in the child 

welfare system and increase efforts to educate states about the benefits of tribal-state collaboration and strategies that work. The federal 

government should also incentivize state participation in efforts to 

improve service coordination and collaboration in child welfare and 

encourage development of cross-jurisdictional multidisciplinary 

teams to help in both criminal enforcement and child welfare matters. 

True collaborations require commitment and effort on all sides. 

Finally, collaborations between state and urban Indian organizations can also prove to be effective. For example, the Denver 

Indian Family Resource Center (DIFRC) has provided in-home 

supportive services to the AI/AN population living in the front 

range and in and around Denver, Colorado. To help families meet 

their basic needs and provide safe homes for their children, DIFRC 

provides supportive services that include job search assistance, life 

skills education, housing assistance, and health advocacy.92At its 

Listening Session at Ain Dah Yung Center in Saint Paul,93 Minnesota, 

the Advisory Committee also learned about effective collaborations 

between urban Indian organizations and state agencies.94 

■ 1.7 The federal government should provide training for AI/AN 

Nations and for the federal agencies serving AI/AN communities 

on the needs of AI/AN children exposed to violence. Federal 

employees assigned to work on issues pertaining to AI/AN 

communities should be required to obtain training on tribal 

sovereignty, working with tribal governments, and the impact of

historical trauma and colonization on tribal Nations within the 

first sixty days of their job assignment. 

Providing training and technical assistance to all service providers 

attending to the needs of AI/AN children is another fundamental 

obligation of the federal trust responsibility. 

Professional education and training on the issues of children exposed 

to violence was underscored in the 2012 Children Exposed to Violence 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

65 

Task Force Report including recognition of the critical role law 

enforcement played in responding to violence.95 The ILOC Report 

emphasized the importance of training law enforcement personnel 

working in Indian country.96 For example, law enforcement personnel 

may be the first responders to complaints of child abuse and neglect 

however, law enforcement training does not always include how to 

carefully interview an Indian child who has been the victim of abuse.97 

Inappropriate techniques can result in further trauma and possibly 

taint evidence needed for prosecution.98 Training and technical assistance for tribal child protection personnel is critical as well.99 

AI/AN communities struggle to ensure access to a qualified AI/AN 

workforce in the trauma treatment area.100 Tribal and urban AI/AN 

professionals often have difficulty obtaining training that is tailored 

to the tribal community being served and oftentimes trainings are 

offered far from the tribal communities.101 

Properly credentialed professionals that lack the cultural knowledge to identify and understand tribal familial needs face challenges 

in providing effective services.102Additionally, attracting and 

keeping credentialed professionals in rural areas, has proven difficult. However, there are resources available to AI/AN children in 

rural areas that are not being tapped. This includes interested and 

knowledgeable people within AI/AN communities who may be unlicensed, but either have the skills or are willing to develop the skills 

needed to support AI/AN children exposed to violence. Training 

community members and developing their skills can expand the 

workforce to provide services to families and children in need. 

Alaska’s model of Community Health Aid is a useful example of this 

approach. The Community Health Aid model was initially developed 

by the IHS to combat the tuberculosis epidemic in Alaska.103 It now 

enables a wide range of services including dental and behavior 

health services to be provided to people who would otherwise go 

without services. Training local people to provide services needed 

to treat trauma would be effective in rural areas that have difficulty 

attracting and retaining credentialed staff. 

Federal agencies should require leadership, policy staff, program 

staff, and contractors that work with tribes or tribal programs 

that address children exposed to violence and independent grant 

reviewers who review grants submitted by tribes to receive training 

on sovereignty, culture, and history. Staff providing direct service 

or working specifically in a region should receive additional cultural 

and historical training specific to the community they serve. 

“One of the main barriers 

both our youth and 

their families face are 

professionals who have the 

proper credentials required 

by the state but lack the 

cultural knowledge and 

ability or desire to even try 

to understand where our 

children and their families 

are coming from.” 

Darla Thiele, Director, Sunka 

Wakan Ah Ku Program. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, 

ND, December 9, 2014 
C H A P T E R 1 

66 

 

 

 

 

AI/AN communities need an assessment of the current cultural-based 

training and technical assistance resources and recommendations 

for easily accessible online courses (such as Working Effectively 

with Tribal Governments104), improvements in current offerings, 

and recommendations for addressing the continued updating and 

monitoring of website and staff training. Tribal and urban AIAN organizations should be involved in the assessments. 

Notes 

1. Tribe – For purposes of this report, we use the term “tribe” to refer to federally recognized 

tribes from the Secretary of Interior’s list. 79 Fed. Reg. 4,748 (Jan. 29, 2014), available at http://www. 

gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-01-29/pdf/2014-01683.pdf. 

2. Goodkind, J. R., et al.,“Promoting Healing and Restoring Trust: Policy Recommendations for 

Improving Behavioral Health Care for American Indian/Alaska Native Adolescents,” American Journal 

of Community Psychology 46 (2010): 386–94. 

3. Carlson, B. E.“Children Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence: Research Findings and Implications for Intervention,” Trauma, Violence, and Abuse 1(4) (2000): 321–42. 

4. Fast Facts: Native American Youth and Indian Country. Center for Native American Youth at the 

Aspen Institute: 2. Available at: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/ 

Native%20Youth%20Fast%20Facts%20Update_04-2014.pdf 

5. Listenbee, Robert L., Jr., et al., Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children 

Exposed to Violence,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, December 2012: 27–36. 

6. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 154, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html. 

7. Arya, Neelum, and Rolnick, Addie, “A Tangled Web of Justice: American Indian and Alaska 

Native Youth in Federal, State, and Tribal Justice Systems,”Washington, D.C.: Campaign for Youth Justice 

Policy Brief 1 (2008): n6. 

8. BigFoot, Dolores Subia, et al., “Trauma Exposure in American Indian/Alaska Native Children,” Indian Country Child Trauma Center (2008): 1–4, available at: http://www.theannainstitute. 

org/American%20Indians%20and%20Alaska%20Natives/Trauma%20Exposure%20in%20AIAN%20 

Children.pdf. 

9. Congressional findings in the TLOA of 2010, PL-111-211, §202(a)(5) (2010). 

10. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 151, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html; see also BigFoot, Dolores Subia, et al., “Trauma Exposure in American 

Indian/Alaska Native Children,” Indian Country Child Trauma Center (2008): 1–4, available at: 

http://www.theannainstitute.org/American%20Indians%20and%20Alaska%20Natives/Trauma%20 

Exposure%20in%20AIAN%20Children.pdf. 

11. BigFoot, Dolores Subia, et al.,“Trauma Exposure in American Indian/Alaska Native Children,” 

Indian Country Child Trauma Center (2008): 1–4, available at: http://www.theannainstitute.org/American%20Indians%20and%20Alaska%20Natives/Trauma%20Exposure%20in%20AIAN%20Children.pdf. 

12. Arya, Neelum, and Rolnick, Addie, “A Tangled Web of Justice: American Indian and Alaska 

Native Youth in Federal, State, and Tribal Justice Systems,”Washington, D.C.: Campaign for Youth Justice 

Policy Brief 1 (2008): 5. 

13. Ibid. 

14. Ibid. See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, “Web Based Injury Statistics 

Query and Reporting System (WISQARS).” Retrieved May 4, 2008 from: http://www.cde.gov/ 

ncipc/wisqars. 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

67 

 

15. BigFoot, Dolores Subia, et al., “Trauma Exposure in American Indian/Alaska Native Children,” Indian Country Child Trauma Center (2008): 1–4, available at: http://www.theannainstitute. 

org/American%20Indians%20and%20Alaska%20Natives/Trauma%20Exposure%20in%20AIAN%20 

Children.pdf. 

16. Ibid. 

17. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 156, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html. 

18. Ibid., 157. 

19. Listenbee, Robert L., Jr., et al., Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children 

Exposed to Violence,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, December 2012: 35. 

20. Yellow Horse Braveheart, Maria, Historical Trauma, available at: http://www.historicaltrauma. 

com/. 

21. BigFoot, Dolores Subia, et al., “Trauma Exposure in American Indian/Alaska Native Children,” Indian Country Child Trauma Center (2008): 1–4, available at: http://www.theannainstitute. 

org/American%20Indians%20and%20Alaska%20Natives/Trauma%20Exposure%20in%20AIAN%20 

Children.pdf. 

22. Written Testimony of Deborah Painte, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, ND, December 9, 2013 at 2 (on file with Tribal Law 

and Policy Institute); see also Child Welfare Collaborative Group, National Child Traumatic Stress 

Network, and The California Social Work Education Center, Child Welfare Trauma Training Toolkit: 

Trainer’s Guide (2nd ed.), Los Angeles, CA and Durham, NC: National Center for Child Traumatic 

Stress, 2013. 

23. Written Testimony of Deborah Painte, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, ND, December 9, 2013 at n6 (on file with Tribal 

Law and Policy Institute). 

24. Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the U.S. Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, 79 Federal Register, 4,748 (January 29, 2014). 

25. Urban Indian Health Institute, Health Disparities in UIHO Service Areas, available at: http:// 

www.uihi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/UIHO_Fact-Sheet_2013-04-05.pdf. 

26. Canby,William C., American Indian Law, In a Nutshell,West Publishing (2009): 72. 

27. Newton, Nell Jessup, ed., Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 4.01(2)(e), at 221 (2012). 

28. Fletcher, Matthew L. M.,“Statement of Matthew L. M. Fletcher before the Senate Committee 

on Indian Affairs—Oversight Hearing on Fulfilling the Federal Trust Responsibility:The Foundation 

of the Government-to-Government Relationship” (May 15, 2012), available at: http://papers.ssrn. 

com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2060395. 

29. Indian Child Welfare Act, PL-95-608, 92 Stat. 3069 (1978), codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. 

§ 1902. 

30. Beals, J., et al.,“Prevalence of DSM-IV Disorders and Attendant Help-Seeking in 2 American 

Indian Reservation Populations,” Archives of General Psychiatry 62 (2005). 

31. Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, PL-111-211, tit. II. 

32. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013), available at: http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/ 

iloc/report/index.html. 

33. VAWA of 2013, PL-113-4. 

34. Ibid., tit. IX. 

35. S. 1474, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (2014). S. 1474 citation. 

36. S. 1622, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (2014). 

37. Native American Rights Fund, NARF Legal Review, available at: http://www.narf.org/pubs/ 

nlr/nlr29-2.pdf. 

38. The VAWA of 2013, PL-113-4, 127 Stat. 54 (March 7, 2013). 

39. See the appendix for a definition of braided funding streams. 

40. Newton, Nell Jessup, ed., Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 9.01, at 737 (2012) (“The 

federal statutory scheme for Indian country criminal jurisdiction has been criticized in light of the 

increasing problems in public safety and criminal justice in Indian country.”); also see Robert N. 

Clinton, Criminal Jurisdiction over Indian Lands: A Journey through a Jurisdictional Maze, 18 Ariz. L. Rev. 

503 (1976): 535–6. 
CHAPTER 1 

68 

 

 

41. The General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. §1152; the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1; the 

Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. §1153 (providing federal criminal jurisdiction over ten enumerated 

major crimes committed in Indian country that is exclusive of the states); and Oliphant v. Suquamish 

Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (holding that tribes lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants). 

42. S. Rep. No. 111-093, to accompany S. 797, 111th Cong. 1st Sess. (2009). 

43. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): ix, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/ 

iloc/report/index.html. 

44. Ibid., 17. 

45. Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896) (holding that individual rights protections, which limit 

federal, and later state governments, do not apply to tribal governments). 

46. ICRA of 1968, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301–1304. 

47. 25 U.S.C.§ 1302(a)(7)(B). 

48. TLOA of 2010, PL-111-211, H.R. 725, 124 Stat. 2258 (July 29, 2010). 

49. 25 U.S.C.§ 1302(a)(7)(C); § 1302(b)–(d). Additional due process protection requirements for 

tribes that choose to exercise this “enhanced sentencing” include (1) provide the defendant the right 

to effective assistance of counsel at least equal to that guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution; (2) provide 

indigent defendant the assistance of a defense attorney licensed to practice law by any jurisdiction in 

the United States, at the expense of the tribal government; (3) require that the presiding judge has 

sufficient legal training and is licensed to practice law by any jurisdiction in the United States; (4) make 

the criminal laws publicly available; and (5) maintain a record of the criminal proceeding. 

50. VAWA of 2013, PL-113-4, 127 Stat. 54 (March 7, 2013). 

51. Congressional findings in TLOA of 2010, PL-111-211, §202(a)(5) (2010). 

52. “Alaska Native people in Anchorage were 9.7 times more likely to experience sexual assault 

than others living in the city.”Amnesty International, Maze of Injustice,The Failure to Protect Indigenous 

Women from Sexual Violence in the USA, New York:Amnesty International USA (2007): 36. 

53. Bureau of Justice Statistics, American Indians and Crime, 1992–2002, vi. Available at: http:// 

www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aic02.pdf 

54. Ibid., 8. 

55. Bancroft, Lundy, and Silverman, Jay G., The Batterer as Parent: Addressing the Impact of Domestic 

Violence on Family Dynamics,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (2002): 42–4. 

56. For purposes of 18 USC §§ 1152 and 1153. 

57. Written Testimony of Brian Cladoosby, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence, Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 16–17, 2014 at 22, available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/fl-briefingbinder.pdf. 

58. PL-83-280, 18 U.S.C. § 1162 (“Each of the State or Territories listed in the following table 

shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the area of Indian country 

listed opposite the name of the State or Territory to the same extent that such State or Territory has 

jurisdiction over offense committed elsewhere within the State or Territory, and the criminal laws of 

such State or Territory shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have 

elsewhere. . .”). 

59. Written Testimony of Sarah Hicks Kastelic, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, ND, December 9, 2013 at 29, available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/nd-briefingbinder.pdf. 

60. Ibid., 32. 

61. Ibid., 33. 

62. Ibid., 32–3. 

63. See Chapter 11 (Funding) of Final Report—Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice under 

Public Law 280 available at: http://www.tribal-institute.org/download/pl280_study.pdf. 

64. Ibid. 

65. Testimony of Attorney General Janet Reno before S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 105th Cong., 

available at: http://www.justice.gov/archive/otj/Congressional_Testimony/attgensiac.htm. 

66. See, e.g., Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report 

to the President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 83, available at: http://www.aisc. 

ucla.edu/iloc/report/index.html (comparing the FY 2012 DOJ funding for tribal justice systems of 

$316 million with the FY 2012 DOI funding for tribal law enforcement and justice programming at 

$346 million). 
B U I L D I N G A S T R O N G F O U N D A T I O N 

69 

 

 

67. U.S. Department of Justice, “Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation Awards,” available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/tribal/grants. 

68. CTAS (Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation). 

69. Ibid. 

70. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013), available at: http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/ 

iloc/report/index.html. 

71. National Congress of American Indians, Fiscal Year 2015 Indian Country Budget Request: An 

Honorable Budget for Indian Country: Equitable Funding for Tribes,Washington, D.C. (January 2014): 29, 

available at: http://www.ncai.org/NCAI_2014_Budget_Request.pdf. 

72. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 85, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html; National Congress of American Indians, Fiscal Year 2015 Indian Country 

Budget Request:An Honorable Budget for Indian Country: Equitable Funding for Tribes,Washington, D.C.: 30 

(January 2014) available at: http://www.ncai.org/NCAI_2014_Budget_Request.pdf. 

73. National Congress of American Indians, Fiscal Year 2015 Indian Country Budget Request: An 

Honorable Budget for Indian Country: Equitable Funding for Tribes, Washington, D.C.: 30 (January 2014) 

available at: http://www.ncai.org/NCAI_2014_Budget_Request.pdf. 

74. Ibid. 

75. “Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration Feasibility Study,”Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (March 

2003), available at: www.bbna.com/tgs/self-gov-stdy.htm. 

76. The eleven programs identified in the 2003 feasibility study were Administration on Aging 

(Grants for Native Americans); Administration for Children and Families (Tribal Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families), Low Income Home Energy Assistance, Community Services Block Grant, Child 

Care and Development Fund, Native Employment Works, Head Start, Child Welfare Services, Promoting 

Safe and Stable Families, and Family Violence Prevention: Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters); and 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (Target Capacity Expansion). 

77. Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, PL-110-351, available 

at: http://www.nrc4tribes.org/files/Tab%207_1%20FC%20legislation%20-%20Public_Law_110-351. 

pdf. 

78. Letter from Rex Lee Jim, Chairman, Secretary’s Tribal Advisory Committee to Secretary Sylvia 

Mathews Burwell, Department of Health and Human Services, regarding Secretary’s Tribal Advisory 

Committee Brief on Priority Issues (July 21, 2014) (on file with the Tribal Law and Policy Institute). 

79. National Congress of American Indians, The National Congress of American Indians Resolution #ANC-14-048; Support for a Dedicated Tribal Set-Aside in the Victims of Crime Act 

Fund, available at: http://www.ncai.org/attachments/Resolution_setxfZPHiQTTzySUNFbXPGMQbWeImEpTlwnDJOrYdpnOLIJlyiU_ANC-14-048.pdf. 

80. Listenbee, Robert L., Jr., et al., Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children 

Exposed to Violence,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (December 2012): 42; and Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for 

Making Native America Safer: Report to the President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 

109, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/iloc/report/index.html. 

81. Written Testimony of Sarah Hicks Kastelic, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, ND, December 9, 2013 at 35, available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/nd-briefingbinder.pdf. 

82. Ibid. 

83. Written Testimony of Iris PrettyPaint, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence, Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 16–17, 2014 at 157, available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/fl-briefingbinder.pdf. 

84. Written Testimony of Sarah Hicks Kastelic, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, ND, December 9, 2013 at 36, available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/nd-briefingbinder.pdf. 

85. Ibid., 50. 

86. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 101, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html. 
CHAPTER 1 

70 

 

 

87. Written Testimony of Terry Cross, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence, Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 16–17, 2014, at 79, available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/nd-briefingbinder.pdf. Citing Earle, K. A. Child Abuse 

and Neglect:An Examination of American Indian Data, Seattle,WA: Case Family Programs, 2000. 

88. Written Testimony of Terry Cross, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence, Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 16–17, 2014, at 79, available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/nd-briefingbinder.pdf. Citing Hicks, S., and Dossett, 

J., Principled Devolution, Washington, D.C.: Working Paper, National Congress of American Indians 

(2000); and Johnson, S., Kaufmann, J., Dossett, J., and Hicks, S., Government to Government: Understanding State and Tribal Governments, Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2000. 

89. See e.g., the Walking on Common Ground website, an online resource part of the Walking on 

Common Ground initiative.The initiative, established in 1988, promotes and facilitates federal, tribal, 

and state collaboration, and includes the development of a series of tribal court-state court forums. 

Available at: http://www.walkingoncommonground.org/index.cfm. 

90. See e.g., Goldberg, Carole, and Champagne, Duane, Promising Strategies:Tribal and State Court 

Relations,West Hollywood, CA:Tribal Law and Policy Institute, March 2013 (detailing ten different 

collaborative innovations between states and tribes from across the country). 

91. Tribal-State Title IV-E agreements describe how ICWA will be implemented and address 

services related to out-of-home placements for AI/AN children in foster care.They can also specify 

the process for tribal notification when the state receives a referral for an Indian child; the roles of 

state or tribal law enforcement; the roles of the BIA, state, and tribal courts; process for transfers of 

jurisdiction; and procedures for establishing eligibility for Title IV-E agreements.To learn more, see: 

http://nrc4tribes.org/Direct-Tribal-Title-IV-E-Funding.cfm. 

92. The DIFRC programs include family preservation, family reunification, Indian child welfare 

advocacy, healthy living, and behavioral health programs. See: http://difrc.org/. 

93. Urban Listening Session of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Minneapolis, MN, May 20–21, 2014. See: http://adycenter.org/. 

94. Ain Dah Yung Center has family preservation programs where they work with the state 

child protection services, mental health programs working with Ramsey County, ICWA compliance 

program, and other programs that are collaborative. See http://adycenter.org/programs. 

95. Listenbee, Robert L., Jr. et al., Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children 

Exposed to Violence,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (December 2012): 10, 12, 14, 19, and 20. 

96. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 107, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html. 

97. Written Testimony of Sarah Hicks Kastelic, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, ND, December 9, 2013 at 31, available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/nd-briefingbinder.pdf. 

98. Ibid. 

99. Ibid., 30. 

100. Ibid., 36. 

101. Ibid. 

102. Written Testimony of Darla Thiele, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, ND, December 9, 2013 at 147, available at: http:// 

www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/nd-briefingbinder.pdf. 

103. Testimony of Andy Teuber, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native 

Children Exposed to Violence, Anchorage AK, June 11, 2014 at 12, available at: http://www.justice. 

gov/defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/AlaskaPanel1.pdf. 

104. Advisory Council on Historic Presentation’s Native American Program,“Working Effectively 

with Tribal Governments” (2008).This is a free online training curriculum, developed to aid federal 

employees in their work with tribal governments.The curriculum includes a historical overview of 

federal Indian policy, as well as cultural factors, and has been adapted from the Environment Protection 

Agency’s original curriculum to be government-wide.Available at: http://tribal.golearnportal.org/. 
Promoting Well-Being in

the Home 

Chapter 2 

Promoting Well-Being

for American Indian and 

Alaska Native Children in 

the Home 
C H A P T E R 2 

72 

“I am a boy who wants 

and needs to play with no 

worries. · I am a boy who is 

supposed to ride a bike. · I 

am a boy who is supposed 

to laugh and giggle. · I am 

a boy who is supposed to 

enjoy the sun beating down 

on my face. · I am a boy 

who is supposed to play in 

the mud. · I am a boy who 

is supposed to dream.· But 

instead, I am a boy who is 

scared to even go to sleep 

because I am afraid I might 

wet the bed. · If I wet the 

bed, I will be beat again 

and again. · I am victimized 

almost daily with physical, 

mental, emotional, and 

sexual abuse.” 

Lenny Hayes, Mental Health 

Therapist, survivor of 

child abuse. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, 

Bismarck, ND, 

December 9, 2013 

Every single day, a majority of American Indian and Alaska 

Native (AI/AN) children are exposed to violence within the 

walls of their own homes. This exposure not only contradicts 

traditional understandings that children are to be protected and 

viewed as sacred, but it leaves hundreds of children traumatized 

and struggling to cope over the course of their lifetime. Despite 

leadership from tribal governments, parents, and families, domestic 

violence in the homes of AI/AN children and physical abuse, sexual 

abuse, and neglect of children is more common than in the general 

population. The Attorney General’s National Taskforce on Children 

Exposed to Violence noted in its report: 

Children who have been exposed to intimate partner violence in 

their families also are at high risk for severe and potentially lifelong problems with physical health, mental health, school and peer 

relationships, and disruptive behavior. Children who witness or 

live with intimate partner violence are often burdened by a sense 

of loss or by profound guilt because they believe that they should 

have somehow intervened or prevented the violence—or, tragically, that they actually caused the violence.1 

Generally, children living with batterers are at a much greater risk 

of being physically and sexually assaulted. National studies show 

that men who batter their companion also abuse their children 

in 49 to 70 percent of the cases.2 Child abuse investigations reveal 

violence against the mother in 28 to 59 percent of the cases.3 

A recent study supported by DOJ’s Office on Violence Against 

Women (OVW) examines the co-occurrence of domestic violence 

and child maltreatment in Indian country and provides insight 

into key challenges specific to Native communities.4 The Advisory 

Committee heard testimony that substantiated many of the findings 

in the report, including the following: 

˺	 Native children are often removed from their mother for “failure 

to protect” or because the mother lacks resources to support 

the child. Rather than working with the mother to resolve 

the problems, children are removed too frequently, and few 

services are provided to help the mother regain custody of her 

children. Children experience not only the trauma of exposure 

to domestic violence, but the additional trauma of removal from 

the non-abusing parent’s care and their community. 

˺	 The lack of domestic violence shelters, transitional housing, 

and permanent housing are an ongoing problem on reservations. Mothers who leave their abusers often lose their 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E H O M E 

73 

 

children because they cannot find safe housing or shelter on or 

near reservations. 

˺	 Collaboration across agencies is weak at best. Many domestic 

violence programs don’t look at the children as victims and 

do not provide services. Many child protection agencies don’t 

understand the dynamics of power and control in domestic 

violence and wrongly view the victim as responsible. Some 

tribal communities have multidisciplinary teams to address 

domestic violence and child abuse but individual agencies 

often lack understanding of each other’s purpose and function 

within the system. Domestic violence training is needed for 

child protection workers, law enforcement officers, and court 

systems. Domestic violence advocates need training regarding 

the impact of domestic violence on children. Because tribal 

communities often lack a sufficient number of law enforcement officers, victims often share the concern that protection 

orders will not be enforced, or that law enforcement will not 

respond appropriately. 

˺	 Due to a lack of funding—or to siloed funding streams—domestic 

violence agencies often cannot use funding for treatment and 

services for children. 

˺	 Child protection case plans often focus on the non-abusing 

parent, usually the mother, even though she may have done 

nothing to abuse or neglect her children. Even when domestic 

violence is the key reason for intervention by child protection, 

the victim may be held responsible rather than the batterer. 

Case plans’ unrealistic requirements may also setup the nonabusing parent for failure. 

˺	 Too often Native communities fail to hold batterers accountable 

and even allow them to participate in sacred ceremonies. 

˺	 Victims of domestic violence often need treatment for alcohol 

and drugs that is not available in the community. Furthermore, 

victims do not have access to safe places for their children when 

participating in treatment. 

˺	 Tribes have inadequate social service departments (and in some 

cases none) to handle the number and complexity of child abuse 

and domestic violence cases of child maltreatment. 

˺	 Culture, tradition, and values are often missing in many tribal 

social service agencies. Western ideas and practices take priority 

over traditional ways. Social service models that incorporate 

Native values and traditions are critically needed. Close family 

connections between clients and service providers in small 

“Many families suffer from 

generations of violence, 

substance abuse, and 

dysfunction. The tribal 

alcohol treatment program 

estimates that 96 percent of 

families on the reservations 

are impacted by the 

alcohol and 90 percent of 

adults have had personal 

experience with family 

violence.” 

Lisa Thompson-Heth, 

Executive Director, WiconiWawokiya, Inc. Testimony 

before the Task Force on 

American Indian/Alaska Native 

Children Exposed to Violence, 

Bismarck, ND, December 9, 

2013. Citing the 2010 Crow 

Creek Community Assessment. 
C H A P T E R 2 

74 

“Not only are we seeing 

children who are currently 

being abused, but we are 

seeing children whose 

parents and grandparents 

were victims of sexual 

abuse and familial abuse. 

The cycle continues and 

we are witnessing the 

generations of trauma 

every day in the eyes of our 

youngest and most precious 

resource, our children.” 

Elsie Boudreau, Social Worker 

and Director, Alaska Native 

Unity with Alaska CARES and 

Alaska Native Justice Center. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK, 

June 12, 2014 

Native communities can impact decision making. In small 

communities professionals may also have several jobs and wear 

several different hats, creating potential professional conflicts. 

Unfortunately, children who witness domestic violence in their 

homes are also more likely to be victimized. Biological parents and 

parental figures perpetrate 32 to 39.7 percent of all sexual assaults 

against children. The vast majority of these sex offenders are 

fathers or father figures.5 Other family members are responsible 

for 11.3 to 22.4 percent of the child sexual abuse.6 Official crime 

reporting data indicate that 27 percent of all reported sex offenders 

are family members and 49 percent of offenders of victims under 

age six and 42 percent of offenders of victims between ages six 

and eleven are family members.7 The greatest risk for child sexual 

abuse comes within a family structure at the hands of a male 

family member, possibly another child (30–50 percent of offenders 

of children are children under the age of eighteen). Studies have 

demonstrated that exposure to family members that batter is one of 

the strongest indicators of the risk of sexual abuse.8 

Additionally, we know that one in every three AI/AN women is 

sexually assaulted, often in childhood.9 In 2001, the Health Director 

of the Oglala Sioux Tribe estimated that between 95 and 98 percent 

of the tribal population had experienced sexual abuse as children.10 

In 2013, 39 percent of the children seen in child advocacy centers in 

Alaska were Alaska Native.11 

Sexual abuse can have a devastating impact on a child. The 

Attorney General’s National Taskforce on Children Exposed to 

Violence stated in their report: 

Sexual abuse places children at high risk for serious and often 

chronic problems with health, PTSD and other mental health disorders, suicidality, eating disorders, sleep disorders, substance abuse, 

and distortions about problems with sexuality and appropriate 

sexual behavior. Sexually abused children often become hypervigilant about future sexual violation and experience a sense of 

betrayal that breaks down the innate trust they feel for adults who 

should care for and protect them. Females may become vulnerable 

to predators and exploitive adults or older peers who re-victimize 

them, which can lead them to have difficulty caring for and 

12 protecting their own children.

Traditional tribal child-rearing practices and beliefs allowed 

a natural system of child protection to flourish. AI/AN beliefs 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E H O M E 

75 

 

reinforced that all things had a spiritual nature that demanded 

respect, especially children.13 Not only were children respected, 

but they were taught to respect others. Extraordinary patience and 

tolerance marked the methods that were used to teach Indian children self-discipline.14 At the heart of this traditional system were 

beliefs, traditions, and customs involving extended family with 

clearly delineated roles and responsibilities. Child-rearing responsibilities were often divided between extended family and community 

members.15 In this way, the protection of children in the tribe was 

the responsibility of all people in the community. The safety net for 

Native children that protected them from abuse and neglect was 

formed by traditional beliefs and child rearing practices. 

If AI/AN children today are to be provided with a reliable safety 

net, the letter and the spirit of ICWA must be enforced. As a law, 

ICWA provides critical legal protections for AI/AN children when 

intervention and treatment is deemed necessary by state child 

protection agencies. The most significant provisions of ICWA seek 

to keep AI/AN children safely in their homes and provide AI/ 

AN children with certain civil protections as members of their 

respective tribe. 

Unfortunately, many states do not comply with the letter or spirit 

of ICWA. AI/AN children are far more likely to become a part of 

the child welfare system because of unsubstantiated allegations 

of neglect. Of all AI/AN cases of maltreatment, 79.4 percent are 

neglect, 10.6 percent are physical abuse, and 5.2 percent are sexual 

abuse.16 Cultural bias, racism, and a misunderstanding of poverty 

reflected in legal definitions and workers’ decisions to substantiate 

allegations of neglect make AI/AN families susceptible to biased 

treatment in child welfare systems.17 

This chapter examines AI/AN children’s exposure to domestic 

violence and child maltreatment in the home and the infrastructure 

that continues to re-traumatize children and separate them from 

their families and larger tribal communities. Implementation of the 

recommendations in this chapter will reestablish effective systems 

throughout tribal communities that will heal and return honor 

and dignity to children who experience violence in the home and 

support the infrastructure that will allow tribes to be more effective 

in protecting their child populations. 

“I am in a corner and my 

body is being touched and 

groped. How do I say ‘stop’? 

I close my eyes and my 

tears begin to flow. I go to 

a faraway place with my 

mind, a safe place, a happy 

place, a place where I don’t 

have to feel what my body 

is experiencing. After it’s 

over, I am lifeless, and I 

begin to come back to my 

body once again.” 

Lenny Hayes, Mental Health 

Therapist and survivor of child 

sexual abuse. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, 

ND, December 9, 2013 
C H A P T E R 2 

76 

 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE VISION FOR WELL-BEING 

IN THE HOME 

The Advisory Committee envisions AI/AN homes where children are 

nurtured and supported and encouraged to thrive. The Advisory Committee 

pictures a child welfare system that appreciates that AI/AN children 

develop identity and connection within their tribal community (clan, band,

extended family) and that identity and connection will lead to a child’s 

resiliency, wellness, and overall well-being. The Advisory Committee sees 

a system that develops supportive culturally appropriate responses to 

violence in the home while focusing on prevention and early intervention in families. Child welfare and domestic violence programs should 

be trauma-informed and educated on the most effective treatments for 

addressing victims of trauma and the healing process, including traditional 

healing methods. 

The Advisory Committee imagines a tribal community that can respond 

to violence in the home in a knowledgeable manner with the data and 

information they need to make informed decisions; that has the option of

responding in state proceedings, as states comply with ICWA; that has the 

resources to respond; and that has the ability to respond in a multidisciplinary and multi-departmental approach. 

Findings and Recommendations 

■ 2.1 The legislative and executive branches of the federal government should ensure Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) compliance 

and encourage tribal-state ICWA collaborations. 

2.1.A	 Within two years of the publication of this report, the 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Department of the 

Interior (DOI), and tribes should develop a modernized unified data-collection system designed to collect

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System 

(AFCARS) (ICWA and tribal dependency) data on all AI/AN 

children who are placed into foster care by their agency 

and share that data quarterly with tribes to allow tribes 

and the BIA to make informed decisions regarding AI/

AN children. 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E H O M E 

77 

 

2.1.B The Secretaries of the Department of Interior (DOI) and 

Health and Human Services (HHS) should compel BIA

and ACF to work together collaboratively to collect data 

regarding compliance with ICWA in state court systems.

The ACF and BIA should work collaboratively to ensure 

state court compliance with ICWA. 

2.1.C The BIA should issue regulations (not simply update 

guidelines) and create an oversight board to review ICWA

implementation and designate consequences of noncompliance and/or incentives for compliance with ICWA to 

ensure the effective implementation of ICWA. 

2.1.D The Department of Justice (DOJ) should create a position 

of Indian Child Welfare Specialist to provide advice to the 

Attorney General and DOJ staff on matters relative to AI/

AN child welfare cases, to provide case support in cases 

before federal, tribal, and state courts, and to coordinate 

ICWA training for federal, tribal, and state judges; prosecutors; and other court personnel. 

Currently the BIA and tribes have no reliable data regarding AI/AN 

children in foster care.18 Gathering and analyzing such data would 

allow for appropriate guidance in decision making for directing 

services to meet the needs of the most vulnerable children, those 

in foster care. As more tribal agencies strive to become Title IV-E 

agencies,19 they need assistance to develop effective systems to 

collect information. Like any government, tribes must be able to 

track critical data involving their citizens across different service 

areas (federal, tribal, and state). Currently, tribes lack the capacity 

to collect, analyze, and report data. 

The lack of accurate, relevant data on tribal children and families 

means that AI/AN children are often “invisible” during discussions 

about policy development, resource allocation discussion, and decision making at the federal level. Or, because of the lack of such data 

regarding AI/AN children, policy makers delay or decline to make 

decision and resource allocations because they cannot “justify” 

the services. By increasing tribal capacity (through tribal child 

protection agencies, BIA, and IHS) in the area of data collection, we 

can increase tribal engagement and federal responsiveness to AI/ 

AN children’s needs. It is not a simple task to engage the various 

“It is essential to remember 

that because of the historic 

treatment of AI/AN 

peoples, removal of AI/AN 

children from their homes, 

families, and communities 

is itself a form of violence— 

one form of trauma that far 

too many AI/AN children 

still face today. ICWA 

ensures that only when 

necessary for their safety 

are AI/AN children exposed 

to this additional layer of 

violence in the aftermath of 

abuse or neglect.” 

Terry Cross, Executive 

Director, National Indian 

Child Welfare Association. 

Written testimony before 

the Task Force on American 

Indian/Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Fort 

Lauderdale, FL, April 16, 2014 
C H A P T E R 2 

78 

agencies providing child protective services in Indian country, but 

it is critical to making well-informed decisions. 

What limited data we do have indicates that nationally, AI/AN children make up a slightly higher percentage of substantiated reports 

of abuse or neglect than their percentage of the general population. 

AI/AN children were 7,770 of the 666,924 substantiated reports 

of children physically abused, sexually abused, and neglected in 

2012.20 AI/AN children made up 1.2 percent of all substantiated 

reports of maltreatment and made up 1 percent of the total child 

population in the United States in 2012.21 These statistics represent information gathered through the National Child Abuse and 

Neglect Data System (NCANDS), a federally sponsored data system, 

supported by the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 

(CAPTA).22 NCANDS, through the Children’s Bureau,23 collects and 

analyzes data on child abuse and neglect annually. Data is submitted 

by the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. All 

states that receive federal funds from the CAPTA Basic State Grant 

program must provide the data required by the act to the extent 

practicable.24 Tribes and tribal consortia are not eligible for the 

Basic State Grant program and therefore are not required to 

and do not provide data to the NCANDS system for children 

and families they serve. The data underlying these statistics 

represent only those AI/AN children who are screened through 

state child protective service programs. In 2000, a study found 

that approximately 61 percent of all AI/AN child maltreatment 

data is reported.25 The majority of the children accounted for 

by NCANDS are children living in urban areas or off reservation. 

Tribal programs, BIA or IHS programs, or tribal consortia are often 

the primary service providers for AI/AN children and families; 

however, they are not required to report child abuse and neglect 

data to states. That leaves out a significant portion of the AI/AN 

population that has unmet needs. 

Although BIA regional offices, IHS, and other agencies may collect 

data on the prevalence of child maltreatment in the tribal communities with which they work, this data is not kept consistently nor 

is the cumulative data available either regionally or nationally. 

NCANDS does not include AI/AN children who come to the attention of and are served by tribal child welfare systems.26 We thus can 

only look at incomplete statistical data, a common concern with AI/ 

AN statistical information. 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E H O M E 

79 

 

AFCARS collects case-level information on children in foster 

care and those who have been adopted with Title IV-E agency 

involvement through the Children’s Bureau. Again, this provides 

information primarily on AI/AN children in urban and rural areas 

outside of Indian country, although a few tribal agencies are Title 

IV-E and would be included. Currently, the agency and the tribes 

have no reliable data regarding their children in foster care to 

guide them. As more tribal agencies strive to become Title IV-E 

agencies, they need assistance to develop effective systems to 

collect information. Like any government, tribes need the ability 

to track, analyze, and report critical data involving their citizens 

across different service areas (federal, tribal, and state). When 

ICWA is followed, the goals of safety, permanency, child well-being, 

and family well-being can be met more successfully.27 A decrease 

in ICWA compliance has resulted in an increase in foster care 

and adoption rates for AI/AN children.28 There is recent research 

documenting noncompliance with most key provision of ICWA, 

including: 

˺ Failure to identify AI/AN children and ensure they are receiving 

the protections of the law.29 

˺ Inadequate or lack of notice to tribes and family members.30 

˺ Placement of children outside the placement preferences 

without good cause or in a more restrictive setting than 

necessary.31 

ICWA noncompliance is likely a result of minimal oversight of 

ICWA implementation and no enforcement mechanism.32 ICWA 

was enacted without providing sanctions for noncompliance, 

incentives for effective compliance, a data collection requirement, 

or a mandate for an oversight committee or authority to monitor 

compliance. ICWA is the only federal child welfare law that does not 

include legislatively mandated oversight or periodic review.33 These 

deficits in ICWA should be corrected. 

The DOJ existing structure does not include a position that allows 

for investigation and research on Indian child welfare cases. The 

current environment is litigious and recent Indian child welfare 

cases have risen to the state and federal Supreme Courts. In 

addition to monitoring state compliance with ICWA included in 

other recommendations in this chapter, a position within the DOJ 

dedicated to supporting challenges to ICWA will improve child 

welfare outcomes and play a direct role in reducing trauma and 

violence experienced by AI/AN children in the child welfare system. 
C H A P T E R 2 

80 

Requirements for the position should include ICWA and family law 

experience. The position should be filled immediately. 

■ 2.2 The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Department of Interior,

the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and tribes,

within one year of the publication of this report, should develop 

and submit a written plan to the White House Domestic Policy 

Council, to work collaboratively and efficiently to provide 

trauma-informed, culturally appropriate tribal child welfare 

services in Indian country. 

When federal agencies fail to work together with tribes to confront 

problems in Indian country, ineffective and inefficient systems 

result. Child welfare services in Indian country are a good example 

of this inefficiency. At present, it seems to take a public health 

crisis before agencies respond by collaboratively sharing expertise 

and resources, and even then it is problematic. The Spirit Lake 

Nation experienced a very public crisis in their child welfare system 

caused by the murder of a child in 2013.34 Their tribal chairman 

testified before the Advisory Committee on the ineffectiveness of 

the federal response to their crisis and the frustration with the 

process.35 Cooperation and collaboration among agencies that focus 

on tribal families and children must be thoughtfully planned and 

consistently delivered. 

Trauma-informed must become the standard of care for children 

in Indian country. This approach would allow service providers to 

effectively identify, assess, and treat children and their families 

injured by, or exposed to, violence and other traumatic events. This 

means service providers who understand the impact of exposure 

to violence and trauma; recognize when an individual has been 

exposed and is in need of help; and respond by helping in ways 

that reflect awareness of trauma’s adverse impacts and consistently support the person’s recovery. This means child welfare 

service providers who understand the culture of trauma as well as 

the culture of the tribes they serve. This means a combination of 

culturally appropriate and traditional healing services that complement, augment, or supplement appropriate mainstream services 

for families. 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E H O M E 

81 

 

■ 2.3 The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Bureau of

Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Department of Interior (DOI), and 

tribes should collectively identify child welfare best practices and 

produce an annual report on child welfare best practices in AI/AN 

communities that is easily accessible to tribal communities. 

Tribal child protection and prevention teams need Indian country– 

specific research about the intersection of domestic violence, 

trauma exposure to violence, and child maltreatment in order to 

create and promote effective prevention strategies, interventions, 

treatment, and policy change. Although promising practices exist 

throughout tribal communities, we do not have enough information about the effectiveness of such programs and methods of 

implementation, which makes success hard to replicate. Tribal 

communities have traditional methods of practice based evidence 

to deal with trauma and healing. These practices have been used 

for centuries, but are not acknowledged as “evidence-based treatments.” There is limited information on the cultural interventions 

and assessments that are being used with AI/AN children. This is 

largely due to the fact that tribal communities lack the resources or 

professional skill necessary to establish evidence-based practices or 

to create cultural adaptations to evidence-based practice. 

Many AI/AN people recognize that emotional and psychological 

well-being cannot be separated from spiritual well-being.36 There is 

growing evidence that Native youth who are culturally and spiritually engaged are more resilient than their peers.37 Research has 

revealed that 34 percent of Native adolescents and 49 percent of 

adults preferred to seek mental or substance abuse services from 

a cultural or spiritual healer.38 In other research, American Indian 

caregivers preferred cultural treatments (e.g., sweat lodge, prayer) 

for their children and found the traditional based ceremonies 

more effective than standard or typical behavioral health treatment.39 The integration of traditional healing practices into mental 

health prevention and treatment for Native children and youth 

is essential. 

The shared goal of all practitioners working with traumatized 

children is to help that child regain the developmental momentum 

that was derailed by witnessing or experiencing violence. Across 

cultures and traditions there are commonalities in trauma interventions that promote healing and well-being. They include: 
C H A P T E R 2 

82 

˺ Helping a child learn to respond realistically to threat; 

˺ Restoring safety and well-being in intimate relationships; 

˺ Learning the difference between reliving a traumatic event and 

remembering it; and 

˺ Putting traumatic events in perspective as only part of one’s 

life experience. 

There is much to gain from integrating different intervention techniques that are tailored to the cultural, contextual, and individual 

characteristics and needs of the child and the family. This challenge 

has particular urgency in light of the wide range of cultural differences found within discrete ethnic and racial groups such as AI/ 

AN peoples. Different tribes have their own highly evolved healing 

practices that were developed in response to specific circumstances 

and their place in this world. 

Adaptation of standard treatment and intervention involves a 

process of developing enhancements where the intervener(s) is 

deeply respectful of the cultural values of the child and family, 

strives to learn about the traditional healing practices of participating cultural groups, and successfully builds on the foundation 

of traditional teachings and practices to blend with evidencebased interventions. 

Some evidenced-based practices have been effectively enhanced for 

use in AI/AN communities. Cultural adaptations of evidence-based 

treatments with AI/AN clients have been conducted with TraumaFocused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT)40 and Parent-Child 

Interaction Therapy (PCIT).41 These initiatives used the Learning 

Collaborative model recommended by the National Child Traumatic 

Stress Network (NCTSN) to create an approach to community inclusion in which dialogue and reciprocal learning were used as the 

vehicle for cultural translation, replacing the hierarchical adherence training model that tends to characterize dissemination of 

evidence-based practices. This transactional, circular training plan 

is viewed by many as consistent with the holistic worldview of AI/ 

AN peoples. This process produced a culturally congruent treatment framework titled the Honoring Children series, which the 

developers consider a translation, transformation, and enhancement of the evidence-based treatments involved. A similar process 

is currently underway as part of an NCTSN learning community 

to translate the principles of Child-Parent Psychotherapy42 into 

intervention modalities that are congruent with AI/AN cultural and 

spiritual values and practices. At the core of these initiatives is the 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E H O M E 

83 

 

understanding that incorporating the spiritual values and healing 

practices of the AI/AN communities must be at the core of efforts to 

adapt evidence-based interventions for these populations.43 

The NCTSN Trauma-Informed Child Welfare Training Toolkit has 

been adapted for training state child welfare workers working 

with minority populations. The initial adaptation included more 

information on ICWA and suggestions for adapting training for 

tribal populations that include case studies of AI/AN children. The 

NCTSN’s National Native Children’s Trauma Center (NNCTC) has 

partnered with BIA child welfare workers to expand the adaptation 

of the toolkit to include modules on the impact of historical and 

intergenerational trauma for AI/AN families, include Code of Federal 

Regulations and tribal codes, and reframe Secondary Traumatic 

Stress (STS) to better describe STS from a tribal perspective. 

Adaptation of the Child Welfare toolkit involved an implementation 

process to support trauma-informed child welfare practice. The 

process has included the development of trauma-informed Family 

Group Decision Making for use with AI/AN families, the development of trauma screening for AI/AN children and their caregivers 

that incorporates evaluating access to tribal cultural and spiritual 

healing, referrals that include trauma-informed services from 

mental health and substance abuse, and the effective approaches 

child protection workers have utilized to better serve the children 

and families in their rural reservation communities. 

Regularly sharing practices that work in AI/AN communities for 

healing trauma-impacted children and adults and for preventing 

violence and child maltreatment will allow AI/AN communities to 

develop and sustain contemporary programs informed by traditional 

values. If appropriate, these programs can be publicized and shared 

with other tribal Nations to ensure that effective practices are utilized. 

■ 2.4 The Indian Health Service (IHS) in the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS), state public health services, and 

other state and federal agencies that provide pre- or postnatal 

services should provide culturally appropriate education and 

skills training for parents, foster parents, and caregivers of AI/

AN children. Agencies should work with tribes to culturally adapt 

proven therapeutic models for their unique tribal communities 

(e.g., adaptation of home visitation service to include local 

cultural beliefs and values). 

“But more must be done to 

ensure tribal communities 

are encouraged to 

use these time tested 

healing strategies when 

appropriate. And I say 

this because there has 

been a push and this is 

not to belittle them, but 

I think that to expand 

and enhance services, we 

need to be going beyond 

evidence-based practices 

and evidence-based 

treatment. We need to 

be able to also bring our 

cultural healing into our 

formal service array. We 

must also be cautious and 

mindful of the cultural 

hegemony that is implicit 

in the mental health 

field so that we will not 

inadvertently continue 

cultural traumatization 

that has been inflicted 

against our Native 

populations, which has led 

to the erosion of natural 

protective factors which 

are language, our spiritual 

beliefs, ceremonies, 

practices, roles, and 

values.” 

Deborah Painte, Director, 

Native American Training 

Institute. Testimony before 

the Task Force on American 

Indian/Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, 

ND, December 9, 2013 
C H A P T E R 2 

84 

“Recognition of practices 

that are effective in AI/AN 

communities is vital, as so 

many governmental grants 

and private foundations 

only fund evidencebased practices. Many 

evidence-based practices 

are not effective in tribal 

communities. Anytime in 

Indian country we want to 

submit something that’s 

productive, that works, that 

produces results, unless it’s 

evidence based, my friends, 

my relatives, it gets shoved 

to the side.· These practicebased initiatives must be 

looked at and respected 

and funded because they 

do work, they are working.” 

Jesse Taken Alive, Councilman, 

Standing Rock Tribal Council. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, 

ND, December 9, 2013 

Due to the prevalence of violence in AI/AN homes and communities 

and the influence of historical trauma, many AI/AN parents, foster 

parents, and prospective parents may need help developing traditional parenting skills. Caregivers may have experienced trauma as 

children or may continue to be victims of violence in their homes. 

Assistance for families experiencing violence or at risk for violence 

is most accessible when it is brought directly into the home. Home 

visitation programs bring para-professionals or professionals, such 

as nurses, social workers, family educators, and mental health 

professionals, into the home to meet regularly to help parents and 

children develop ways of communicating together, managing the 

basic routines that are essential to daily family life and healthy 

growth, and participating in medical and mental health treatment. 

Certain home visitation programs show considerable promise in 

reducing child abuse and promoting healthy development of children in families.44 Starting early and working with families over the 

long term has proven to be an effective strategy. 

State and federal agencies should ensure that in-home services to 

caregivers of all AI/AN children, including parents, foster parents, 

and other caregivers are culturally appropriate. Training local tribal 

members to work with caregivers and foster parents in developing 

trauma-informed, nurturing, culturally appropriate parenting and 

coping skills is an effective and cost-efficient practice. Because of 

the high incidence of violence in the AI/AN community and the 

impact of historical trauma, home services should be provided to all 

caregivers of AI/AN children. 

Particular attention to home visitation should be provided for 

children in foster care and other out-of-home placements. It is 

highly likely that these children have already experienced multiple 

traumas. Home services should ensure that foster children are safe 

and are receiving the help they need to recover from trauma and 

that their foster parents are properly trained. Certification of foster 

families must require that foster families are trauma-informed and 

trained in both trauma and culture to deal with the complex problems of AI/AN foster children. 

Home visitation programs such as the Safe Care, Parents as 

Teachers, and Family Spirit programs appear to be a step in the 

right direction. Home visitation programs are designed for AI/ 

AN mothers and their children and promote mothers’ parenting, 

coping, and problem-solving skills to address demographic challenges, family-of-origin problems, and personal stressors. The 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E H O M E 

85 

 

Family Spirit curriculum incorporates traditional tribal teachings 

into sixty-three independent lessons on prenatal care, child development, toddler care, life skills, and healthy living. Building on this 

program and others that provide home visitation to meet the needs 

of families in AI/AN communities in a culturally responsive and 

trauma-informed way is vital. The Safe Care curriculum addresses 

the dynamics of child abuse and domestic violence and provides 

referrals to services available in the community. More home visitation programs could include a specific child maltreatment focus and 

not primarily child interaction enhancements. 

■ 2.5 The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Department of Interior 

(DOI), tribal social service agencies, and state social service agencies should have policies that permit removal of children from 

victims of domestic violence for “failure to protect” only as a last 

resort as long as the child is safe. 

Children are often removed from both parents when domestic 

violence occurs, even when one parent was also a victim of the 

violence. Children who witness domestic violence have a greater 

need for stability and security; however, removal from the nonoffending parent can produce the opposite effect. To ensure 

stability and permanency for children in a home with domestic 

violence, children should remain with the non-offending parent 

(caregiver) whenever possible, as long as the child is safe and 

future risk is minimized. Protecting, supporting, and assisting the 

non-offending parent will provide increased safety and security for 

the child. 

Currently child protection systems in Indian country and in urban 

areas frequently hold the victim (usually the mother) accountable for domestic violence in the home. This standard typically 

requires the victim to be active in treatment or lose her children.45 

Although most of the Native communities’ child protection agencies interviewed for the report, Responses to the Co-Occurrence of Child 

Maltreatment and Domestic Violence in Indian Country: Repairing the 

Harm and Protecting Children and Mothers,

46 did not track domestic 

violence reports unless it was the original reason for a child protection intervention, social workers indicated that a high percentage 

of women in the child protection system are victims of domestic 

violence. For this reason, it is imperative that federal, tribal, and 

state leadership address this issue. 

“We also have to start 

earlier. We have to reach 

out at a very early age. 

We know that programs 

like the Nurse Family 

Partnership work and that 

those programs go into 

the home. We could train 

lay people and our own 

community, grandmothers 

and aunties, to teach 

young people how to be 

parents again, because 

that was lost when our 

grandmothers were beaten 

and that was how they 

taught the next generation 

to be parents.” 

Sarah Jumping Eagle, 

Pediatrician. Testimony before 

the Task Force on American 

Indian/Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, 

ND, December 9, 2013 
C H A P T E R 2 

86 

“We are all no doubt 

familiar with the high 

rates of domestic violence 

and sexual assault against 

Native women, and we 

forget sometimes that 

most Native women 

are also mothers, and 

grandmothers, and aunties. 

When children see their 

mother being abused, it is 

a traumatic event. I have 

seen systems that sanction 

victims for allowing their 

children to witness this 

trauma. I hope that the 

committee will recommend 

that such laws and policies 

be highly scrutinized, 

because they can cause 

yet an additional layer of 

trauma for both mother 

and child. No child should 

have to witness domestic 

violence, period. However, 

the responsibility for 

that exposure lies with 

the perpetrator; not the 

victim.” 

Sarah Deer, Law Professor, 

William Mitchell College of 

Law. Testimony before the 

Task Force on American 

Indian/Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, 

ND, December 7, 2013 

The system must recognize that the batterer is the problem. In 

some communities, there is a tradition of referring every victim of 

domestic violence to mental health services, reinforcing the notion 

that the victim is the problem.47 Consistently, the mother is the one 

who is required to follow the case plan. The mother should not be 

singled out unless there is specific identifiable abuse attributed to 

the mother, not failure to protect.48 

Caring for a child’s well-being requires much more than keeping 

a child physically safe. One must also recognize the tremendous 

emotional, psychological, and spiritual trauma caused by removing 

a child from a parent, and the absolute necessity of providing 

opportunities for rebuilding trust and healing. Judge William 

Thorne Jr., who has worked in both state and tribal justice systems, 

addressed the importance of well-being in his testimony before the 

Advisory Committee: 

For several decades now, we’ve talked in terms of federal legislation that talks about safety being the paramount value, safety 

being the utmost value. I think that’s wrong. Safety is necessary, 

but safety is a subset of well-being. If we truly believe that safety 

was the paramount value, we would put our kids in plastic bubbles. 

No one would touch them. No one would communicate with them. 

No one would harm them. But that can’t be what we do. Instead, I 

would propose that well-being is the paramount value. And safety 

is a subset of that. Safety is a part of that. Safety’s necessary, but it’s 

not sufficient. It’s not enough by itself. 

Our goal should—instead of just simply suppressing conduct, 

should be to heal the victims. I mean, in my 34 years as a judge I’ve 

seen second, third, fourth generation kids coming out of foster 

care. And they’re coming out of foster care because we didn’t do a 

good job of healing them. We took them away from their families. 

We removed them from the harms that they were exposed to. 

But we didn’t heal them. It’s very much like saying, “Just in case.” 

Well, when you check into a hospital, you don’t expect them to 

amputate your leg just in case. When you have an eye infection, 

you don’t expect them to take the eye just in case. When we take 

children from their families and we take children away from their 

communities just in case, what we’ve really done is set up the next 

generation of children to come through the system. 

I think what we have is a direct result of a hundred years of 

the boarding-school philosophy, then translated into removal 

philosophy, and then the predominant notion in this country of 

removing children as a way of intervening and solving problems 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E H O M E 

87 

 

when the family has problems. We take them away, but we don’t 

heal them. So that when they become parents themselves, they are 

not equipped. For good reason most of us parent the way we were 

parented, including the fact that some things happened to us that 

we swore would never, ever happen to our own kids. But I still hear 

my father’s voice come out of my mouth sometimes. And that’s 

scary. We parent as we were parented. Well, when we put kids in 

boarding schools, where do they learn to parent? When we put kids 

in foster care, where do they learn to parent? How do they learn to 

cope with the struggles when they’ve never seen an adult struggle 

with problems and overcome them? 

William Thorne Jr., Appellate Court Judge, Utah Court of Appeals, retired. 

Testimony before the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native 

Children Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, AZ, February 11, 2014 

Data on substantiated reports of maltreatment collected in 2013 

by HHS’s Children’s Bureau in the Office of the Administration 

for Children and Families was analyzed by the National Indian 

Child Welfare Association.49 The analysis indicated that neglect is 

more often substantiated for AI/AN children and physical abuse is 

less often substantiated for AI/AN children, than for all children. 

Knowing that a child may be subject to more than one type of 

maltreatment the following data are notable: 50 

˺	 Of all maltreatment victims, 89.3 percent of AI/AN children were 

involved in the child welfare system because of a disposition of 

neglect compared to 78.3 percent of all children nationwide. 

˺	 Of all maltreatment victims, 15.6 percent of AI/AN children 

were involved in the child welfare system because of a 

disposition of physical abuse compared to 18.3 percent of all 

children nationwide. 

˺	 Of all maltreatment victims, 5.6 percent of AI/AN children were 

involved in the child welfare system because of a disposition of 

sexual abuse compared to 9.3 percent of all children nationwide. 

This data demonstrates that AI/AN children and families are 

more likely to be involved in the child welfare system because of 

neglect and less likely to be involved because of physical or sexual 

abuse. These findings refute presumptions about AI/AN families 

and communities that are found in the media and elsewhere and 

they highlight AI/AN families’ unique needs for appropriate child 

maltreatment interventions. Even though the primary reason for 

child welfare involvement is neglect, AI/AN children are disproportionately removed from their homes and placed in foster care. 
C H A P T E R 2 

88 

“It shouldn’t surprise 

anybody that, in our 

communities, we have 

problems with substance 

abuse. We have problems 

with people disappearing 

into a bottle, or literally 

disappearing, when we 

don’t have a chance to heal 

the kids who come from 

troubled homes.” 

William Thorne Jr., Appellate 

Court Judge, Utah Court of 

Appeals, retired. Testimony 

before the Task Force on 

American Indian/Alaska Native 

Children Exposed to Violence, 

Phoenix, AZ, February 11, 2014 

Although neglect can pose a serious risk to children’s well-being, 

of all the types of child maltreatment, neglect is best suited to 

in-home services that safely avoid the trauma of removal.51 

In-home services are, however, often either unavailable or unused. 

Instead AI/AN children are frequently placed outside their homes 

in foster care. 

■ 2.6 The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) should 

increase and support access to culturally appropriate behavioral 

health and substance abuse prevention and treatment services 

in all AI/AN communities, especially the use of traditional 

healers and helpers identified by tribal communities. 

Substance abuse related to child abuse and neglect is more likely 

to be reported for AI/AN families. NCANDS data gathered in child 

protection cases in 2013 indicated that alcohol abuse was an issue 

for a caregiver in 30 percent of the AI/AN child victim cases of 

substantiated maltreatment, compared to 28.5 percent of child 

victims nationwide. In 24.5 percent of the AI/AN child victim cases 

of substantiated maltreatment a parent had a drug abuse problem 

compared to 20 percent of child victims nationwide.52 Alcohol and 

drug abuse was also more likely in cases in which maltreatment was 

reported, but not substantiated. Alcohol abuse by a caregiver was 

indicated in 14 percent of the AI/AN child nonvictims (unsubstantiated abuse), compare to 4.9 percent of children nationwide. Of AI/ 

AN child nonvictims, 11.7 percent had a parent with a drug abuse 

problem, compared to 8.4 percent of children nationwide.53 

This data substantiates the dramatic need for culturally appropriate 

substance abuse programs and the relationship between alcohol and 

drug abuse and child maltreatment. Although the data primarily 

applies to urban Indians, Alaska Natives, and PL-280 reservations, 

the need for culturally appropriate and accessible substance abuse 

programs was also described in the study on the co-occurrence of 

domestic violence and child maltreatment in Indian country.54 The 

report indicated that many women in Indian country who were 

involved with child protection and identified as domestic violence 

victims also had alcohol and drug abuse problems.55 Unfortunately, 

it indicated that women in need of substance abuse treatment often 

had to leave the community to access services, which presented a 

significant problem with the care of their children while they were 

away for treatment. Developing greater accessibility to culturally 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E H O M E 

89 

 

appropriate substance abuse treatment for all AI/AN caregivers 

could substantially decrease the number of children exposed to 

domestic violence and child maltreatment. 

Treatment programs that work with AI/AN populations should 

incorporate AI/AN tribal customs and spiritual ceremonies, and 

be trauma-informed holistic. AI/AN people in recovery may 

have experienced multiple traumas in their lifetime, suffer from 

historical and intergenerational trauma, and may abuse alcohol and 

drugs as a way of coping with those traumas. Without treatment to 

heal from the underlying traumas, alcohol and drug abuse treatment may be ineffective and victim blaming. Many AI/AN people 

may need a more holistic healing process. Thus, it is important to 

accurately assess and meet each individual’s needs. 

Increasing access requires increasing funding. Federal funding to 

agencies such as IHS has historically been grossly inadequate. The 

funding must be increased to meet the need. 

“Drug abuse is rampant, 

not only on the White 

Earth Reservation, but 

other reservations as well. 

I have been informed that 

80 percent of the Indian 

babies born at the Bemidji 

Hospital have drugs in 

their bodies at birth. 

Have withdrawals that 

require specialized care at 

hospitals in Fargo, North 

Dakota. I cannot forget 

hearing about the baby 

who has damaged hands 

from clinching during 

withdrawals. Babies born 

victims. The violence of 

drugs. The Bemidji Hospital 

serves White Earth, Leech 

Lake, and Red Lake Tribes, 

the three largest tribes in 

Minnesota.” 

Erma Vizenor, Chairwoman, 

White Earth Nation. Testimony 

before the Task Force on 

American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to 

Violence, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 

April 16, 2014 
CHAPTER 2 

90 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes 

1. Listenbee, Robert L., Jr., et al., Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children 

Exposed to Violence,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (December 2012): 32. 

2. Bancroft, Lundy, and Silverman, Jay G., The Batterer as Parent: Addressing the Impact of Domestic 

Violence on Family Dynamics, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002: 42–4. 

3. Carter, Janet, “Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, and Youth Violence: Strategies for Prevention 

and Early Intervention,” Family Violence Prevention Fund: available at: http://www.mincava.umn. 

edu/link/documents/fvpf2/fvpf2.shtml. 

4. White Eagle, Maureen, Clairmont, Bonnie, and Hunter, Lonna,“Responses to the Co-Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment in Indian Country: Repairing the Harm and 

Protecting Children and Mothers,”Tribal Law and Policy Institute (December 2011). 

5. Child Abuse Solutions, “Fact Sheet Child Sexual Abuse in Custody Disputes,” available at 

http://www.childabusesolutions.com/page_07.html. Citing Greenfield, L., Child Victimizers: Violent 

Offenders and Their Victims,Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics 

and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (March 1996): 10. 

6. Greenfield, L., Child Victimizers: Violent Offenders and Their Victims, Washington, D.C.: U. S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (March 1996): 10. 

7. Snyder, Howard, Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement:Victim, Incident, 

and Offender Characteristics, National Center for Juvenile Justice (July 2000). 

8. Bancroft, Lundy, and Silverman, Jay G., The Batterer as Parent: Addressing the Impact of Domestic 

Violence on Family Dynamics, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002: 43. 

9. Amnesty International USA, Maze of Injustice:The Failure to Protect Indigenous Women from Sexual 

Violence in the United States, New York:Amnesty International Publications, 2007: 2. 

10. Written Testimony of Barbara Bettelyoun, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, ND, December 9, 2013 at 67, available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/nd-briefingbinder.pdf 

11. Written Testimony of Elsie Boudreau, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence,Anchorage,AK, June 12, 2014 at 145, available at http://www. 

justice.gov/defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/hearing4-briefing-binder.pdf. 

12. Listenbee, Robert L., Jr., et al., Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children 

Exposed to Violence,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (December 2012): 30. 

13. Cross,T.A., Earle, K.A., and Simmons, D.,“Child Abuse and Neglect in Indian Country: Policy 

Issues,” Families in Society:The Journal of Contemporary Human Services 81(1) (2000): 49. 

14. Ibid. 

15. Ibid. 

16. Bragg, Lien, Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence, available at: https://www. 

childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/domesticviolence/index.cfm. Note the earlier statistics in this 

chapter for 2013 were based on rates for each child and not each case. 

17. Written Testimony of Terry Cross, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence, Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 16, 2014 at 65, available at: http:// 

www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/fl-briefingbinder.pdf. 

18. Currently 8,344 AI/AN children are in state foster care placement. See Written Testimony of 

Sarah Hicks Kastelic (Alutiiq), Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Anchorage, AK, June 11, 2014 at 23, available at: http://www.justice.gov/ 

defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/hearing4-briefing-binder.pdf, citing U.S. DHHS,Administration on 

Children,Youth and Families. Child Maltreatment 2003 Washington, D.C. 

19. The state/tribal Title IV-E agency administers or supervises the administration of the State/ 

Tribal Child Welfare Services Plan under subpart 1 of Title IV-B of the act. 

20. Written Testimony of Sarah Hicks Kastelic (Alutiiq), Hearing of the Task Force on American 

Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Anchorage, AK, June 11, 2014 at 23, available 

at: http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/hearing4-briefing-binder.pdf, citing 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, Child Maltreatment 2012, December 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E H O M E 

91 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2013. Available at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/child-maltreatment-2012, accessed 

September 12, 2014. 

21. Written Testimony of Sarah Hicks Kastelic (Alutiiq), Hearing of the Task Force on American 

Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Anchorage, AK, June 11, 2014 at 23, available 

at: http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/hearing4-briefing-binder.pdf, citing 

Summers,Woods, and Donovan, 2013. 

22. Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 5116 et seq. 

23. The Children’s Bureau is a the federal agency focused on improving the lives of children and 

families through programs that reduce child abuse and neglect, increase the number of adoptions, and 

strengthen foster care.The Children’s Bureau is headed by an Associate Commissioner who advises 

the Administration on Children,Youth and Families’ Commissioner on matters related to child welfare. 

24. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, 

Administration on Children,Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau,Child Maltreatment 2012,available 

at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2012.pdf. 

25. Earle, K. A., Child Abuse and Neglect: An Examination of American Indian Data, Casey Family 

Programs; National Indian Child Welfare Association (2000). 

26. Written Testimony of Sarah Hicks Kastelic (Alutiiq), Hearing of the Task Force on American 

Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence,Anchorage,AK, June 11, 2014 at 23, available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/hearing4-briefing-binder.pdf. 

27. Ibid., citing Limb, Chance, and Brown, 2004. 

28. Ibid., citing Crofoot and Harris, 2012. 

29. Ibid., citing Jones, Gillette, Painte, and Paulson, 2000; Bellonger and Rubio, 2004. 

30. Ibid., citing Brown, Limb, Munoz, and Clifford, 2002; Bellonger and Rubio, 2004; and Wazak, 

2010. 

31. Ibid., citing Jones et al. 2000; Bellonger and Rubio, 2004; Carter 2009. 

32. Ibid. 

33. Ibid. 

34. The tragic murder and sexual abuse of children lead to an examination of the child 

welfare system in the Spirit Lake Nation. For months it was a top story in the state newspapers 

and also resulted in coverage by the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/ 

us/child-welfare-dangers-seen-on-spirit-lake-reservation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, available at 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/us/child-welfare-dangers-seen-on-spirit-lake-reservation. 

html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. 

35. Testimony of Leander McDonald, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, ND, December 9, 2013 at 10–22, available at:http:// 

www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/1st-hearing/panel2.pdf. 

36. Gone, J. P., and Alcantara, C., “Identifying Effective Mental Health Interventions for American Indians and Alaska Natives: A Review of the Literature,” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority 

Psychology 13(4) (2007): 356–63. 

37. Grey, N., and Nye P. S.,“American Indian and Alaska Native Substance Abuse: Co-Morbidity 

and Cultural Issues,” American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research 10(2) (2001): 67–82; 

Rieckmann, T. R., Wadsworth, M. E., and Deyhle, D., “Cultural Identity, Explanatory Style, and 

Depression in Navajo Adolescents,” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 10(4) (2004): 

365–82; Spicer, P., Novins, D. K., Mitchell, C. M., and Beals, J., “Aboriginal Social Organization, 

Contemporary Experience and American Indian Adolescent Alcohol Use,” Quarterly Journal of Studies 

on Alcohol 64(4) (2003): 450–57; Yoder, K. A., Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., and LaFromboise, T., 

“Suicide Ideation among American Indian Youths,” Archives of Suicide Research 10(2) (2006): 177–90. 

38. Beals, J., Manson, S. M., Whitesell, N. R., Spicer, P., Novins, D. K., Mitchel, C. M., et al., 

“Prevalence of DSM-IV Disorders and Attendant Help-Seeking in 2 American Indian Reservation 

Populations,” Archives of General Psychiatry 62 (2005): 99–108. 

39. Walls, M. L., Johnson, K. D.,Whitbeck, L. B., and Hoyt, D. R.,“Mental Health and Substance 

Abuse Services Preferences among American Indian People of the Northern Midwest,” Community 

Mental Health Journal 42(6) (2006): 521–35. 

40. BigFoot, D., and Schmidt, S., “Honoring Children, Mending the Circle: Cultural Adaptation 

of Trauma-Focused Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for American Indian and Alaska Native Children,” 

Journal of Clinical Psychology 66(8) (2010): 847–56. 
CHAPTER 2 

92 

 

41. BigFoot, D., Funderburk, B., Novins, K., and Spicer, P., “Evidence-Based Practice and Early 

Childhood Intervention in American Indian and Alaska Native Communities,” Zero to Three 32(4) 

(2011). 

42. Lieberman,A. F., and Van Horn, P.,“Toward Evidence-Based Treatment: Child-Parent Psychotherapy with Preschoolers Exposed to Marital Violence,” J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 44(12) 

(2005): 1241–8. 

43. Ibid. 

44. Supplee, Lauren, and Adirim,Terry,“Evidence-Based Home Visiting to Enhance Child Health 

and Child Development and to Support Families,” American Psychological Association (July 2012) 

available at: http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/newsletter/2012/07/home-visiting.aspx. 

45. White Eagle, Maureen, Clairmont, Bonnie, and Hunter, Lonna,“Responses to the Co-Occurrence of Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence in Indian Country: Repairing the Harm and 

Protecting Children and Mothers,”West Hollywood, CA:Tribal Law and Policy Institute (December 

2011): 1. 

46. White Eagle, Maureen, Clairmont, Bonnie, and Hunter, Lonna,“Responses to the Co-Occurrence of Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence in Indian Country: Repairing the Harm and 

Protecting Children and Mothers,”West Hollywood, CA:Tribal Law and Policy Institute (December 

2011). 

47. Ibid., 6. 

48. Ibid. 

49. This data is somewhat limited as tribal agencies are not required to submit data and the data 

describes only those AI/AN children who are screened by state child protective services programs. 

This would include some PL-280 affected tribes,Alaska Natives, and some tribes that have agreements 

with the state agencies 

50. National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) Memorandum to Ric Brodrick, Member 

of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, regarding analysis 

of data retrieved by the Children’s Bureau from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System 

(September 12, 2014) (on file with the Tribal Law and Policy Institute). 

51. Written Testimony of Terry Cross, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence, Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 16, 2014 at 65, available at: http:// 

www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/fl-briefingbinder.pdf. 

52. National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) Memorandum to Ric Brodrick, Member 

of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, regarding analysis 

of data retrieved by the Children’s Bureau from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System 

(September 12, 2014) (on file with the Tribal Law and Policy Institute). 

53. Ibid. 

54. White Eagle, Maureen, Clairmont, Bonnie, and Hunter, Lonna,“Responses to the Co-Occurrence of Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence in Indian Country: Repairing the Harm and 

Protecting Children and Mothers,”West Hollywood, CA:Tribal Law and Policy Institute (December 

2011): 3. 

55. National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) Memorandum to Ric Brodrick, Member 

of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, regarding analysis 

of data retrieved by the Children’s Bureau from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System 

(September 12, 2014) (on file with the Tribal Law and Policy Institute). 
Promoting Well-Being in

the Community 

Chapter 3 

Promoting Well-Being

for American Indian and 

Alaska Native Children in 

the Community 
C H A P T E R 3 

94 

“So in creating a 

community of caring, 

we must work harder to 

increase our students’ 

feelings of belonging 

in the school and their 

connectedness to cultural 

identity.” 

Matthew Taylor, Associate 

Director, National Native 

Children’s Trauma Center 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Fort 

Lauderdale, FL, 

April 17, 2014 

Violence in American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) 

communities occurs at very high rates compared with 

non-AI/AN communities—higher for AI/AN than all other 

races.1 And violence, including intentional injuries, homicide, and 

suicide, accounts for 75 percent of deaths of AI/AN youth ages 

twelve through twenty.2 Unfortunately, Indian children cannot 

escape the violence that surrounds them. 

Repeated exposure to childhood violence has a staggering lifelong 

impact on an individual’s health and well-being. The Adverse 

Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study demonstrated that persons 

who experience four or more childhood adversities have a four- to 

twelvefold increased risk for alcoholism, drug use, depression, and 

suicide attempt when compared to those that had experienced 

none.3 This study, coupled with data that show American Indians 

and Alaska Natives have a fivefold higher risk of being exposed 

to four or more adverse childhood events,4 underscores the overwhelming impact of exposure to violence in AI/AN communities. 

Children engulfed by this level of community violence often 

struggle with rebuilding trust, finding meaning in life apart from 

desires for safety and justice, finding realistic ways to protect themselves and their loved ones from danger and dealing with feelings of 

guilt, shame, powerlessness, and doubt. Additionally, when children 

experience ongoing violence in their communities, it may become 

an accepted condition of life. They may learn to think of recurring 

danger, fear, injury, and death as normal. Instead of celebrating 

life, too often they must mourn losses. This may confuse them in 

figuring out how to navigate life. These children wait nervously or 

helplessly for the next explosion of violence in their neighborhood 

or school, or they mourn the all-too-common deaths or devastated 

lives of families, friends, and community members. At some point, 

these children may feel the need to fight back against actual or 

potential perpetrators, causing them to have difficulty acting 

appropriately on those feelings. Unfortunately, a number of these 

children become perpetrators in adolescence and adulthood. 

AI/AN children live in communities that are markedly diverse 

culturally, demographically, and geographically. Many AI/AN 

children are not eligible for tribal membership and some have 

lost their heritage and identity, but they live in tribal communities, have suffered the same traumas, and need services. Some are 

in extremely remote settings like many Alaska Native villages or 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E C O M M U N I T Y 

95 

 

at the bottom of the Grand Canyon; others are in rural, sparsely 

populated areas like the reservations located in the Great Plains and 

the mountainous west; and still others are close to or within large 

metropolitan areas. In 1952, the federal government created the 

Urban Relocation Program, which encouraged American Indians to 

leave reservations and move to cities such as Chicago, Denver, and 

Los Angeles. The intent of the relocation program was to provide 

better jobs and upward economic mobility. AI/AN people were 

lured by the hope of a better life, but for most that promise was not 

realized and life circumstances deteriorated. Since that time, AI/AN 

people have continued to migrate to cities in search of opportunities not available on reservations. Today, approximately 64 percent5 

to 78 percent6 of American Indians and Alaska Natives live in urban 

areas. Los Angeles County is home to the largest urban American 

Indian population—more than 160,000.7 Chicago, Seattle, Phoenix, 

Denver, Minneapolis, Anchorage, and other cities all have large AI/ 

AN populations. 

AI/AN communities may differ substantially in culture and 

geography; however, one common feature of nearly all of these 

communities is a shared history of destructive federal policies 

intended to assimilate Indian people into the American way of life. 

These federal policies included forced relocation, forced removal of 

their children to be educated in boarding schools, and prohibition 

of spiritual and cultural practices. What tribes describe as having 

the most negative impact was the forced removal of Indian children 

from home and placement in boarding schools far from their families and communities. The removal of generations of children over 

time has disrupted once well-established and venerable parenting 

practices. To this day, historical trauma continues to intensify 

contemporary traumatic experiences for Native children and families. Contemporary society creates numerous contexts for exposure 

to violence by AI/AN children including those who witness 

domestic violence, those who are victims of child abuse and neglect, 

and those whose caregivers are debilitated by substance abuse and 

addiction while living in households that struggle with multigenerational and pervasive poverty. All of these factors contribute to 

the extraordinarily high rates of violence in tribal communities.8 

AI/AN communities confront many forms of community 

violence. AI/AN children are exposed to many types of violence in 

their communities, including simple assaults, violent threats, sexual 

assault, and homicide. AI/AN children and teens are 2.4 times 

“We are strong believers 

that we have the answers 

to our problems and 

change must come 

from within. The plans 

developed through this 

process must have the full 

support of tribal leadership 

and we must recognize 

the role that our unique 

cultures play in addressing 

this issue within this 

contemporary society.” 

Leander Russell McDonald, 

Chairman, Spirit Lake Tribe.
 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, 

Bismarck, ND,
 

December 9, 2013
 
C H A P T E R 3 

96 

“And it’s very, very sad 

and it breaks my heart 

to tell you that suicide 

is the highest cause of 

death among Indian youth 

today. Let me repeat that: 

Suicide is the highest cause 

of death among Indian 

youth today. And you got 

to ask yourself: What kind 

of despair must take hold 

of a community for that 

statistic to be true?” 

Brian Cladoosby, President, 

National Congress of American 

Indians 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Fort 

Lauderdale, FL, 

April 16, 2014 

more likely to die from guns than Caucasian children and teens.9 

Additionally, suicide, gang violence, sex and drug trafficking, and 

bullying are especially problematic for AI/AN youth. Coupling those 

factors with the high rate of homelessness makes AI/AN youth 

especially vulnerable to community violence. 

Suicide. Some youth see suicide as a viable option to escape 

exposure to violence. The sheer number of AI/AN youth taking 

their own lives is staggering—more than three times the national 

average, and up to ten times the national average on some reservations.10 Suicide is the second leading cause of death among AI/AN 

youth ages ten through twenty-four.11 For Alaska Native youth, 

from 2003 to 2006, the suicide rate was 51.4 per one hundred thousand compared to 16.9 per one hundred thousand in non–Alaska 

Native populations, with considerable variation in the suicide rates 

of Natives from different regions of the state of Alaska and different 

Native ethnic groups.12 AI/AN children and teens had the highest 

rate of gun suicides, nearly twice as high as Caucasian children and 

teens.13 

In 2011, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of HHS found 

“the need for behavioral health services far outstrips capacity, 

especially in rural reservation communities.”14 IHS confirmed that 

of the 630 participating facilities that participated in the OIG evaluation, “18 percent did not provide behavioral health services and 

39 percent of facilities are ‘severely impacted’ by staff shortages.” 

IHS is woefully unprepared to provide services to AI/AN patients 

who present with near epidemic levels of PTSD, anxiety, depression, 

substance abuse, and suicide attempts.” 

Gang Violence and Sex and Drug Trafficking. The influence of 

criminal street gangs is a national problem that also impacts tribal 

communities. Tribal communities have witnessed firsthand the 

impact of gang subculture in both rural and urban communities. 

A 2000 survey in Indian country found that 23 percent of Indian 

country respondents had active youth gangs in their communities.15 This was a key problem in the urban Indian community of 

Little Earth of United Tribes (Minneapolis), which the Advisory 

Committee visited for a Listening Session. Native gang members 

from Little Earth travel back and forth from urban areas to rural 

Indian communities, causing disruptions in both arenas. 

Gangs in AI/AN communities are increasingly involved in both 

sex-trafficking and drug-trafficking activities. The Minnesota 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E C O M M U N I T Y 

97 

 

Indian Women’s Resource Center, working with AI/AN women 

and girls victimized by sex trafficking, found that Mexican gangs 

in their area specifically target Native girls and that 85 percent of 

the women and girls trafficked in Minneapolis were Native.16 This 

happens because the traffickers can represent Native girls as many 

different ethnicities, thus enhancing their “marketability.”17 

Many of the drug-related issues tribal communities face today 

are associated with a street gang influence. The oil boom in North 

Dakota and Montana has also brought an increase in non-Indian 

gang activity, sales of illicit drugs, and trafficking of Native children 

and women. Arizona tribes, particularly those close to the Mexican 

border, have experienced similar challenges with gangs. 

AI/AN youth are also using illicit drugs at alarming rates. American 

Indian students (grades 8–10) annual use of heroin and OxyContin 

was about two to three times higher than national averages in 

2009–12.18 In 2009–12, 56.2 percent of American Indian eighth 

graders and 61.4 percent of tenth graders had used marijuana, 

compared to 16.4 percent of eighth graders and 33.4 percent of 

tenth graders in a national survey (Monitoring the Future).19 

School Violence and Bullying. According to the IHS’s 2011 

American Indian/Alaska Native Behavioral Health Briefing Book, 27.5 

percent of Native youth in grades six through twelve experience bullying compared to 20.1 percent of students nationwide. 

Furthermore, 30.9 percent of Native students report engaging 

in bullying behavior compared to 18.8 percent nationally. AI/ 

AN students report injuries with weapons and fights on schools 

grounds at a higher rate than any other ethnic group. In 2004, 22 

percent of AI/AN high school students reported being threatened 

or injured with a weapon on school grounds in the previous twelve 

months compared to 11 percent of African American, 9 percent of 

Hispanic, and 8 percent of Caucasian students. Because most schools 

have a heightened concern about student safety, many use suspension as a means of addressing behavior issues. AI/AN students 

currently experience suspension and expulsion rates second only to 

African American students.20 

In the early twentieth century, the United States began turning 

to the states to provide education to AI/AN children with passage 

of the Johnson-O’Malley Act of 1934.21 The Johnson-O’Malley 

Act authorized the federal government to contract with states 

to provide education of American Indian children. It provides 

“When a young teenager 

is encouraged to be a gang 

member by his family from 

a very young age, and has 

watched gang activities 

and substance abuse his 

entire life, it is unrealistic 

to expect him to remain 

unaffected.” 

Sheri Fremont, Director, 

Family Advocacy Center, 

Salt River.
 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, 

AZ, February 11, 2014
 

“Over the years, we’ve 

seen an influx of young, 

Alaska Native victims 

from rural Alaska, who are 

coerced and vulnerable to 

predators. Typical cases 

from rural Alaska look a 

little bit different. They 

usually include that they 

are lured to Anchorage 

by family members or 

boyfriends. This is referred 

to as ‘tundra pimping.’” 

Diana Bline, Director of 

Program Services, Covenant 

House Alaska. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK, 

June 12, 2014 
C H A P T E R 3 

98 

“I recently had a situation 

where mom was subject to 

a child petition because she 

wasn’t sending her child 

to school. And everyone’s 

saying, ‘Send the child to 

school. Send the child to 

school.’ Started talking to 

that mom, what was going 

on at school? The child was 

being bullied. Extremely, 

to the extent that the child 

was curled up in the fetal 

position at night begging 

his mom not to send him to 

school. The reaction of the 

court was he has to be in 

school.” 

Shannon Smith, Executive 

Director/Attorney, Indian 

Child Welfare Act Law Center. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, 

Fort Lauderdale, FL, 

April 17, 2014 

education support for AI/AN children attending non-BIA, nontribal 

school systems. This program should be adapted to prevent 

violence exposure in schools. The Advisory Committee urges the 

Secretary of the Department of Interior (DOI) to fill the Johnson 

O’Malley Director’s position, update the student count, and adapt 

the program’s services in support of the prevention of school 

suspensions, school violence, and bullying. 

Vulnerability Due to Homelessness. Homelessness may be 

caused by a need to escape violence in the home, and homeless 

youth become easy targets of violent crime in the community. In 

Minnesota, where the Advisory Committee conducted a Listening 

Session, it was reported that AI/AN youth make up 20 percent of 

homeless youth ages twelve through seventeen, although they 

make up only 1 percent of the general population. In a Listening 

Session held by the Advisory Committee in Bethel, Alaska, the 

principal of the Bethel High School testified about youths leaving 

home in middle school to avoid the violence in their homes and 

“couch surfing” (moving from relatives’ to friends’ homes) for a safe 

place to stay. Similarly, the director of a homeless youth program 

in Anchorage told the Advisory Committee that many of the youth 

served may have left home to escape violence. Unfortunately, this 

left them vulnerable to violence on the streets because they were 

now isolated from the protection of their community. 

The cycle of violence that now grips AI/AN communities was years 

in the making and largely due to failed federal policies. Breaking the 

cycle of violence will require cooperation at the federal, tribal, and 

state level as well as the investment of significant new resources. 

Until additional resources are provided, reallocation of existing 

resources could provide needed assistance in the short term. For 

the past several years the President has requested a 7 percent 

set-aside from DOJ/OJP’s discretionary grant and reimbursement 

programs for flexible tribal justice assistance grants, which is more 

than double the enacted funding level for these programs in FY 

2014. The 7 percent set-aside would allow OJP to increase flexibility 

in awarding funds, streamline reporting requirements, help tribes 

respond to the diverse criminal justice and public safety needs in 

Indian country today, help tribes identify their most important 

criminal justice priorities, and foster development of innovative, 

evidence-based approaches. This set-aside would replace lineitem appropriations for OJP’s traditional tribal justice assistance 

programs—the Tribal Justice Infrastructure: Tribal Courts, Indian 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E C O M M U N I T Y 

99 

 

Alcohol and Substance Abuse, Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal 

Assistance, and Tribal Youth Programs. The Advisory Committee 

urges the Congress to approve this set-aside so that the Attorney 

General may dedicate these funds to addressing the needs of AI/AN 

children exposed to violence. 

Whether AI/AN children are in rural or urban communities, feelings of belonging and connectedness to their culture and family are 

critical to their development of identity and resilience.22 It is important to be inclusive in the provision of services for AI/AN children 

exposed to violence. The AI/AN community must be committed 

to wellness, recovery from trauma, and prevention of violence. 

Although we address the issues of community violence and violence 

in the home separately in this report, it should be noted that they 

are oftentimes interrelated and intertwined. 

Addressing community violence requires action in several broad 

and specific areas. Fixing the jurisdictional quagmire that currently 

ensnares AI/AN communities and strengthening tribal sovereignty 

and self-determination are addressed in the recommendations 

contained in Chapter 1 of this report. Reform of the juvenile justice 

system is addressed in Chapter 4. The recommendations in this 

chapter speak to increasing capacity and infrastructure in AI/AN 

communities to allow those communities to confront the impact of 

current and past violence and to prevent future violence. 

“As a magnet city, 

Anchorage’s homeless 

youth population is 45 

percent greater than the 

entire rest of the state. 

With high rates of abuse, 

paired with harsh weather 

conditions, our youth are 

at extreme risk for sexual 

abuse, prostitution and 

exploitation.” 

Diana Bline, Director of 

Program Services, Covenant 

House Alaska. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK, 

June 12, 2014 
C H A P T E R 3 

100 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE VISION FOR WELL-BEING 

IN THE COMMUNITY 

The Advisory Committee envisions Native communities that are supportive 

and offer a nurturing environment for children—communities that build 

on Native traditions and values, are free from violence, and can restore the 

well-being of children and adults impacted by exposure to violence. 

The Advisory Committee believes that children can find safety, identity, and 

connection within their tribal community (clan, band, extended family).

Government agencies and tribes have a responsibility to provide for the 

welfare of their children and to share culture, traditions, language, history,

and teachings with their children. This responsibility exists whether the 

children are residing on a reservation, in Alaska Native villages, or in an 

urban area. 

Developing and maintaining communities where children can thrive 

includes having a clear understanding of the impact that witnessing and 

experiencing violence has on children. Community leaders and members,

social service providers, and families must be able to identify the children 

impacted by violence in the community, and ensure culturally appropriate 

and trauma-informed services are available to treat and prevent violence.

Schools and youth-serving agencies should be trauma-informed and have 

the resources to respond appropriately. 

Findings and Recommendations 

■ 3.1 The White House Native American Affairs Office (see 

Recommendation 1.2) and executive branch agencies that 

are responsible for addressing the needs of AI/AN children, in 

consultation with tribes, should develop a strategy to braid (integrate) flexible funding to allow tribes to create comprehensive 

violence prevention, intervention, and treatment programs to 

serve the distinct needs of AI/AN children and families. 

3.1.A	 The White House Native American Affairs Office, the U.S. 

Attorney General, the Secretaries of the Department of

Interior (DOI) and Health and Human Services (HHS), and 

heads of other agencies that provide funds that serve AI/

AN children should annually consult with tribal governments to solicit recommendations on the mechanisms 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E C O M M U N I T Y 

101 

 

that would provide flexible funds for the assessment of

local needs, and for the development and adaptation 

of promising practices that allow for the integration of

the unique cultures and healing traditions of the local 

tribal community. 

3.1.B The White House Native American Affairs Office and the 

U.S. Attorney General should work with the organizations 

that specialize in treatment and services for traumatized 

children, for example, National Child Traumatic Stress 

Network, to ensure that services for AI/AN children 

exposed to violence are trauma-informed. 

3.1.C The White House Native American Affairs Office should 

coordinate the development and implementation of

federal policy that mandates exposure to violence trauma 

screening and suicide screening be a part of services 

offered to AI/AN children during medical, juvenile justice,

and/or social service intakes. 

Although children exposed to violence in AI/AN communities 

may be similar to all children exposed to violence, effective solutions to the effects of such exposure may vary greatly among the 

566 distinct federally recognized tribes across the United States. 

Federal, tribal, and state agencies and organizations must collaborate to ensure that tribal communities have the flexibility to 

integrate solutions that work and are culturally and locally relevant 

to meet the challenges, circumstances, and unique characteristics 

of their children and communities. 

Currently, federal and state grants implementing standard federal 

or state solutions are not always effective in AI/AN communities. 

During one of the Advisory Committee’s Listening Sessions, the 

principal of Bethel Regional High School in Bethel, Alaska, provided 

a good example of this challenge. Bethel Regional High School 

received funding to reduce alcohol use among high school students. 

The grant funding was contingent on Bethel Regional High School’s 

commitment to utilizing one of the endorsed curricula that was not 

culturally or geographically appropriate. One requirement of the 

approach was to display health or relevant statistics on billboards in 

a targeted community; however that public display of information 
C H A P T E R 3 

102 

approach was neither helpful nor respectful of local culture in 

Bethel. The funding, while allowing for some productive local 

activities, was too restrictive. Ultimately it became impossible to 

meet the requirement of the grant. The ineffective curriculum was 

abandoned, no billboards ever went up, and the helpful activities 

that were identified could not be sustained and simply ended with 

the expiration of the three-year grant. 

Policies must be developed and implemented to ensure that 

screening for exposure to violence takes place in numerous 

settings and issues of confidentiality are resolved. Confidentiality 

issues will arise as children are screened by various child-serving 

organizations in the communities that serve them. The need 

for confidentiality must be balanced with the need for service 

providers to have information that will permit them to more effectively serve the child. The Advisory Committee urges federal, tribal, 

and state programs that collect these data to seek creative ways to 

monitor and use information for the benefit of the child rather than 

use confidentiality as an excuse to inappropriately refuse to share 

information. Similarly, federal agencies that collect and aggregate 

data on services provided to American Indian and Alaska Natives 

are urged to share those data with their federal partners and tribes. 

The need for data sharing and monitoring in serving children is 

demonstrated in a program developed by the Tribal Department 

of Education of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe. The Coeur d’Alene 

Tribe was plagued with youth issues such as high drop-out rates, 

suicide, and substance abuse. The Tribal Department of Education 

began to gather and analyze data, which indicated that the issues 

seemed to begin in grades six through eight. The tribe developed 

a youth-at-risk tracking program known as the Strengthening 

the Spirit Program, an Educational Pipeline. There are more than 

seven hundred Coeur d’Alene children in the educational pipeline. 

The children range in ages from birth through PhD students and 

remain in the pipeline until graduation and sometimes beyond. The 

students receive a plethora of services and have access to multiple 

resources. The Strengthening the Spirit Program is community 

based, and various organizations come together to collaborate and 

focus on tribal youth, sharing data and information. As a result 

of this program, the tribe reports no drop-outs, no gangs, and 

no suicides. 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E C O M M U N I T Y 

103 

 

■ 3.2 The Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) 

and other Justice Department agencies with statutory research 

funding should set-aside 10 percent of their annual research 

budgets for partnerships between tribes and research entities to 

develop, adapt, and validate trauma screens for use among AI/

AN children and youth living in rural, tribal and urban communities. Trauma screens should be tested and validated for use in 

schools, juvenile justice (law enforcement and courts), mental 

health, primary care, Defending Childhood Tribal Grantee 

programs, and social service agencies and should include 

measures of trauma history, trauma symptoms, recognizing 

trauma triggers, recognizing trauma reactions, and developing 

positive coping skills for both the child and the caregivers. 

Identification of children who have been traumatized by exposure 

to violence is the first step toward healing and recovery. Children 

must be screened in schools, clinics, social service agencies, juvenile 

justice facilities, wherever children are found. Tribal communities 

need assistance from research partnerships to develop, validate, 

and use instruments to screen for trauma symptoms and design an 

effective path forward for children. 

■ 3.3 The White House Native American Affairs Office and responsible federal agencies should provide AI/AN youth-serving 

organizations such as schools, Head Starts, daycares, foster care 

programs, and so forth with the resources needed to create and 

sustain safe places where AI/AN children exposed to violence 

can obtain services. Every youth-serving organization in tribal 

and urban Indian communities should receive mandated 

trauma-informed training and have trauma-informed staff and 

consultants providing school-based trauma-informed treatment 

in bullying, suicide, and gang prevention/intervention. 

The vast majority of AI/AN students attend public schools on 

and off tribal lands. There are also federally and tribally operated schools through the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) at the 

DOI. BIE schools are in sixty-two tribal communities and operate 

183 elementary, secondary, and residential schools. Of these 183 

schools, 126 are tribally controlled.23 Strategies for prevention, 

“While we are truly 

grateful for any help no 

matter how small, I must, 

in all honesty, say that 

the funding we receive 

from DOJ has been a 

drop of relief in a very 

large bucket of need. 

Department of Justice 

grant objectives often do 

not fit our tribal priorities 

at the time and there is 

little flexibility either in 

the grant competition or 

administration to bend 

federal priorities toward 

our actual local tribal 

priorities. It feels like we 

are told we must push a 

square federal peg in a 

round tribal hole.” 

Richard J. Peterson, President, 

Central Council Tlingit and 

Haida Tribes of Alaska. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK, 

June 11, 2014 
C H A P T E R 3 

104 

 

 

“Fund and create 

community education 

programs for families and 

parents to understand early 

childhood trauma. It’s been 

my experience working in 

tribal communities for 43 

years where the family and 

the community understand 

what we’re doing and 

what we’re talking about, 

they usually buy into 

it. A screening process 

can be developed with 

providers from within the 

community for all children 

to be screened, not just 

school-aged children. Start 

screening children at age 

three and start working 

your way up.” 

Cecilia FireThunder, President, 

Oglala Lakota Nation 

Education Coalition.
 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, 

ND, December 9, 2013
 

intervention, and healing should focus where children can be found 

(e.g., in schools, preschools, and daycare programs). 

AI/AN children who have experienced chronic trauma have poor 

educational outcomes. One of the coping skills these children might 

use is vigilance (staying awake while the abuser is awake), which 

means they are unable to get the sleep they need. These children are 

protecting themselves but are oftentimes unable to attend school 

regularly. Truancy very often results in retention at grade level or 

not graduating from high school. While they are unconsciously trying 

to manage symptoms of trauma, these students may also engage in 

disruptive and inappropriate classroom behaviors that may lead to 

discipline problems, a special education assessment and an inappropriate special education diagnosis. Children spend the majority of 

their childhood in schools. Unfortunately, just more than 50 percent 

of AI/AN students actually graduate from high school, compared to 

nearly 80 percent for the non-Native population nationally.24 This 

low graduation rate can be tied to exposure to violence.25 In addition, 

AI/AN students are the highest percentage of all groups to report 

injuries with weapons and fights on schools grounds.26 Schools must 

become trauma-informed and incorporate trauma-informed care to 

support students. Schools too often use expulsion or suspension to 

discipline for behaviors that are the result of the students’ history of 

and ongoing exposure to trauma. School staff are often unaware of 

the impact trauma has on the psychological and emotional health of 

their students. Schools that are trauma-informed can establish safe 

and nurturing environments where children can learn. 

Federal, tribal, and state agencies that provide medical care, social 

services, education, and juvenile justice services for AI/AN children 

and families must be required to screen for trauma history and 

trauma symptoms. Staff working in tribal child-serving systems must 

undergo training and education to understand the impact trauma 

has on children. These agencies must work with trauma experts like 

the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN) so that they 

understand and use best practices for screening and treating AI/ 

AN children living in rural and urban settings. Personnel working 

in Indian Head Start (i.e., early childhood professionals) and schools 

serving AI/AN children must also be trained to identify trauma symptoms and child behaviors resulting from exposure to violence. They 

must understand the use of trauma-informed, culturally relevant 

trauma-screening tools and be required to screen so that cooperative 

strategies can be developed to help the child and family. 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E C O M M U N I T Y 

105 

 

■ 3.4 The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) should 

designate and prioritize Native American Housing Assistance 

and Self-Determination Act (NAHSDA) funding for construction 

of facilities to serve AI/AN children exposed to violence and 

structures for positive youth activities. This will help tribal 

communities create positive environments such as shelters,

housing, cultural facilities, recreational facilities, sport centers,

and theaters through the Indian Community Development Block 

Grant Program and the Housing Assistance Programs. 

The Advisory Committee repeatedly heard testimony about the 

need for safe houses for youth in tribal communities. Safe houses 

provide secure and safe settings for youth escaping violence. They 

are places where a youth’s basic needs for safety, nutrition, mental 

health treatment, and education can be assessed and met. Safe 

houses may provide for their cultural and spiritual needs as well. 

Providing a safe place where violence-exposed youth can focus 

on healing is the first step toward helping a young person recover 

from trauma. 

The Advisory Committee heard testimony from the Lummi Safe 

House Manager stating, “In our safe house, there’s no penalty 

systems, we take care of our kids, we love our kids, we see them 

as kids when they walk in the door, we do not see them as that 

troubled kid or that one that just came from detention. Or even 

if they’re on a runaway status, which means they came from who 

knows where, the cops bring them in and sign them in at the door 

and we take care of them.”27 Under current authority, BIA, IHS, and 

tribes are authorized to use available resources to establish and 

operate emergency shelters or halfway houses for Indian youth 

with alcohol or substance abuse problems.28 They should exercise 

that authority to establish safe houses. 

AI/AN youth also need access to facilities for positive youth 

development. The Advisory Committee heard young people testify 

repeatedly that having “nothing to do” contributes to high-risk 

behavior and poor choices by AI/AN youth. Facilities that provide 

alternatives for youth and support positive youth development 

should be tailored to the needs and interests of local youth; for 

example, for youth from the Great Plains, basketball often provides 

motivation for positive choices and success. 

“Our rates of forcible rape, 

high school dating and 

sexual violence, infant 

homicide, and suicide are 

significantly higher than 

national averages. Thirteen 

percent of our suicides 

are children and nearly 40 

percent are Alaska Native 

or American Indian. In 

2012, someone was worried 

enough to make a report to 

child protection for nearly 

one out of ten Alaskan 

children, and 4 percent of 

our pregnant women in our 

PRAMS data source admit 

to being victims of intimate 

partner violence during 

their recent pregnancy.” 

Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, 

Medical Director, 

Alaska CARES.
 

Testimony before the Task
 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children Exposed
 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK,
 

June 12, 2014
 
C H A P T E R 3 

106 

“One Friday, at the end 

of the school day, a 

12-year-old boy went to the 

principal and asked, ‘Please 

call someone to take me 

for the weekend.’ And the 

principal asked why. The 

boy said, ‘I don’t want to 

go home. There are people 

who come, do drugs. There 

are fights with knives. I am 

scared. I think about it all 

the time. The weekends are 

the worst at home. I have 

no place to go.’” 

Erma J. Vizenor, Chairwoman, 

White Earth Nation.
 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence,
 

Fort Lauderdale, FL,
 

April 16, 2014
 

■ 3.5 The White House Native American Affairs Office should work with 

the Congress and executive branch agencies in consultation with 

tribes to develop, promote, and fund youth-based afterschool 

programs for AI/AN youth. The programs must be culturally 

based and trauma-informed, must partner with parents/

caregivers, and, when necessary, provide referrals to traumainformed behavioral health providers. Where appropriate, local 

capacity should also be expanded through partnerships with 

America’s volunteer organizations, for example, AmeriCorp. 

There are a number of successful community-based or afterschool 

programs for youth that teach culture and prevention along with 

life skills. For example, the Akimel O’odham/Pee-Posh Youth 

Council focuses on leadership development, responsibility to 

community, and involvement in cultural activities. In a Listening 

Session with the Advisory Committee in Sacaton, Arizona, these 

youth described the challenges their community faces and the solutions the young people are seeking. 

■ 3.6 The White House Native American Affairs Office and the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) should develop and implement a plan to expand access to Indian Health Service (IHS),

tribal, and urban Indian centers to provide behavioral health 

services to AI/AN children in schools. This should include the 

deployment of behavioral health services providers to serve 

students in the school setting. 

Schools (K–12) have become the de facto mental health providers 

in America. Schools are often the first to identify the mental and 

behavioral health needs of their students. They provide mental 

health services to their AI/AN students with commitment and 

creativity. Many districts hire a mental health counselor, or 

contract with a for-profit company that places a provider, like 

Altacare, in schools and bills private insurance and Medicaid. 

The IHS and tribes should work with schools to ensure that schoolbased health services are available in all schools with significant 

AI/AN student populations so that all students are ready to learn. 

Tribes should consider collocating tribal support services in or near 

BIE schools. To be helpful to AI/AN children, clinical services must 

be culturally sensitive. Professionals providing services must be 
P R O M O T I N G W E L L - B E I N G I N T H E C O M M U N I T Y 

107 

 

 

 

 

 

 

trauma-informed and culturally informed. They must be knowledgeable and respectful of the local customs and healing practices. 

Federal, tribal, state, and for-profit agencies that provide behavioral 

health services must cooperate to develop and deliver school-based 

services for AI/AN students. Federal agencies should work with 

public schools and BIE-funded schools to ensure that services are 

offered, preferably in the schools, to students attending BIE-funded 

schools. School-based services increase the availability and utilization by students and will increase the safety in schools. 

Notes 

1. Perry, Steven,“American Indians and Crime:A BJS Statistical Profile 1992-2002,”Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (December 2004): 5. 

2. Center for Native American Youth at the Aspen Institute, “Fast Facts: Native American Youth 

and Indian Country,” available at: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/ 

Native%20Youth%20Fast%20Facts%20Update_04-2014.pdf. 

3. Felitti V. J.,Anda R. F., Nordenberg D., et.al.,“Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household 

Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults:The Adverse Childhood Experiences 

(ACE) Study,” American Journal of Preventative Medicine 14(4) (1998). 

4. Koss M. P.,Yuan N. P., Dightman D., et al.,“Adverse Childhood Exposures and Alcohol Dependence among Seven Native American Tribes,” American Journal of Preventative Medicine 25(3) (October 

2003): 238–44. 

5. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 149, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html. Citing Arya, Neelum, and Rolnick, Addie, “A Tangled Web of Justice: 

American Indian and Alaska Native Youth in Federal, State, and Tribal Justice Systems,” Campaign for 

Youth Justice Policy Brief 5 (2008): 4. 

6. Norris, Tina, Vines, Paula L., and Hoeffel, Elizabeth M., “The American Indian and Alaska 

Native Population: 2010,” 2010 Census Briefs, U.S. Census (January 2012).The percentage of AI/AN 

populations that live on/off Indian land varies substantially depending upon who self-identifies as AI/ 

AN.The 2010 Census self-identifies, and includes individuals of more than one race.The 2010 Census 

defined “American Indian or Alaska Native” as a person having origins in any of the original peoples 

of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or 

community attachment.This is much broader than those who may be members of a tribe. 

7. Ong, Paul M., and Ong, Jonathan D.,“The Status of American Indians/Alaska Natives in Los 

Angeles: American Indian Population Change at the Dawn of the 21st Century,” Los Angeles Urban 

Indian Roundtable Policy Brief 1, UCLA American Indian Studies Center (November 2012). 

8. Written Testimony of Deborah Painte, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, ND, December 9, 2013 at supplement, available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/aian-hearings.html. 

9. Children’s Defense Fund, “Protect Children, Not Guns, Overview,” available at http://www. 

childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-data-repository/protect-childrennot-guns-key-facts-2013.pdf. 

10. Suicide Prevention Resource Center, “Suicide among Racial/Ethnic Populations in the U.S.: 

American Indians/Alaska Natives,” Waltham, MA: Education Development Center, 2013. See also, 

Mullany, B., Barlow, A., Goklish, N., et al., “Toward Understanding Suicide among Youths: Results 

from the White Mountain Apache Tribally Mandated Suicide Surveillance System, 2001–2006,” 

American Journal of Public Health 99(10) (October 1999): 1840–8. 

11. Suicide Prevention Resource Center, “Suicide among Racial/Ethnic Populations in the U.S.: 

American Indians/Alaska Natives,”Waltham, MA: Education Development Center, 2013. 
CHAPTER 3 

108 

 

 

12. Craig, J., and Hull-Jilly, D., “Characteristics of Suicide among Alaska Native and Alaska NonNative People, 2003–2008,” State of Alaska Epidemiology Bulletin 15(1) (July 2012). 

13. Children’s Defense Fund, “Protect Children, Not Guns, Overview,” available at http://www. 

childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-data-repository/protect-childrennot-guns-key-facts-2013.pdf. 

14. Levinson, Daniel,“Access to Mental Health Services at Indian Health Service and Tribal Facilities,” Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (September 2011). 

15. Major, Aline K., Egley Jr., Arlen, Howell, James C., et al., “Youth Gangs in Indian Country,” 

OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (March 2004): 4. 

16. Park, Patina Interim Director of the Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource Center, Urban 

Listening Session on May 20, 2014, Summary, 9. 

17. Park, Patina Interim Director of the Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource Center,Testimony 

before the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Minneapolis, 

MN, Urban Listening Session, May 20, 2014. 

18. Volkow, Nora,“Substance Abuse in American Indian Youth Is Worse Than We Thought,” Nora’s 

Blog, National Institute on Drug Abuse (September 2014), available at: http://www.drugabuse.gov/ 

about-nida/noras-blog/2014/09/substance-use-in-american-indian-youth-worse-than-we-thought. 

19. Ibid. 

20. “Status and Trends in the Education of American Indians and Alaska Natives,” U.S. Department 

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (August 2005), available at: http://nces.ed.gov/ 

pubs2005/nativetrends/ind_3_2.asp. 

21. 48 Stat. 596 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 455 (2000)). 

22. Strand, J. A., and Peacock, R.,“Resource Guide for Cultural Resilience,” Tribal College Journal 

of American Indian Higher Education 14(4) (2003). 

23. Written Testimony of the Native Indian Education Association, submitted to the Attorney 

General’s Advisory Committee on American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence 

(July 2014) (on file with the Tribal Law and Policy Institute). 

24. Ibid. 

25. Ibid. 

26. Trujillo, Octaviana V., and Alston, Denise A., A Report on the Status of American Indians and Alaska 

Natives in Education: Historical Legacy to Cultural Empowerment,Washington, D.C.: National Education 

Association, 2005: 2. 

27. Jessie Deardorff, Manager, Lummi Safe House,Testimony before the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, AZ, 

February 11, 2014. 

28. 25 U.S.C. § 2433a. 
Chapter 4 

Creating a Juvenile 

Justice System that 

Focuses on Prevention, 

Treatment, and Healing 
C H A P T E R 4 

110 

 

 

 

“We are here today 

talking about our young 

people, sacred people. 

And the sacredness 

is not acknowledged, 

not recognized by the 

American legal system. It 

simply isn’t. That’s why we 

say that the ancient laws, 

the ancient principles, the 

ancient practices, have to 

be acknowledged by the 

governments. And I talk 

not only of the federal 

government, the state 

governments, but our 

own Indian Nations. They 

have to acknowledge that 

sacredness.” 

Justice Herb Yazzie, Chief 

Justice, Navajo Nation Supreme 

Court. Testimony before 

the Task Force on American 

Indian/Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, 

AZ, February 11, 2014 

Children entering the juvenile justice system are exposed to 

violence at staggeringly high rates. We know that this exposure has a number of negative effects including changes in 

neurological development, decreased physical and mental health, 

decreased school performance, and increases in risky behaviors 

such as substance abuse and delinquent behavior.1 Of children who 

enter the juvenile justice system, the prevalence of trauma symptoms due to violence exposure is estimated at 73 to 95 percent.2 

Research has shown that a majority of youth detained in juvenile 

detention centers have been exposed to violence, whether it is 

exposure to direct violence as a victim (e.g., physical or sexual 

abuse) or witnessing violence (e.g., domestic violence, gang shootings). Unfortunately, the research on how exposure to violence 

intersects with the juvenile justice system has been slow to inform 

juvenile justice system practice.3 

The slow application of knowledge about the intersection of the 

prevalence of youth exposure to violence and the juvenile justice 

system response is very likely one of the reasons the Western model 

of juvenile justice used for so long by state, federal, and many tribal 

jurisdictions does not work. 

Many American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people believe 

that the Western criminal/juvenile justice system is inappropriate 

for children, particularly AI/AN children, as it is contrary to AI/AN 

values in raising children. As Justice Herb Yazzie said in testimony: 

“I would be blunt in saying that the American criminal justice 

system is inappropriate to be applied to young people. . . . You do 

not apply criminal concepts to young kids. . . . So I encourage you 

to seek ways to break the application of criminal law concepts to 

young people.” This concern raised during testimony points to 

trends in the 1990s away from a juvenile justice system focused 

on rehabilitation and toward the overuse of secure detention and 

formal processing of cases in state court systems. As evidence 

of this concern, a review of the results of twenty-nine randomized controlled trials found no evidence that formal delinquency 

processing had any positive effect on juvenile crime control, and 

in fact this review discovered that most of these randomized 

controlled trials found formal processing actually increases delinquency.4 The inescapable conclusion is that the standard approach 

to juvenile justice in state jurisdictions is a failure. 

Testimony at public hearings and site visits conducted by the 

Advisory Committee established that these formal processing 
P R E V E N T I O N , T R E A T M E N T , A N D H E A L I N G 

111 

systems are often relied upon by tribal juvenile justice systems as 

well. This is a disturbing trend, when funding for tribal juvenile 

justice systems is so disproportionately smaller than that for state 

systems. This failure is compounded for tribal communities that 

lack the taxation authority and funding streams available to states. 

The Indian Law and Order Commission arrived at the same conclusion in its recent report as it entitled its chapter on juvenile justice: 

“Juvenile Justice: Failing the Next Generation.” 

Over the history of the federal and tribal relationship, federal law 

and policies have systematically impeded the sovereignty and 

governing ability of tribes to meaningfully and positively impact 

the lives of tribal children. The federal boarding school policies at 

one time resulted in nearly half of all AI/AN children being in residential boarding schools, sometimes hundreds or even thousands 

of miles away from their families where many experienced physical 

and sexual trauma, and loss of role models of effective parenting.5 

Likewise, the allotment acts passed by the U.S. Congress were 

an attempt to assimilate the American Indian into the dominant 

culture,6 but instead had the effect of conveying almost 100 million 

acres of Indian reservation lands into ownership by non-Indians.7 

Later, in 1953, Congress passed PL-2808 resulting in states being 

delegated criminal and limited civil jurisdiction over Indians 

located on reservations. PL-280 and the Allotment acts have created 

a patchwork of non-Indian and Indian landownership on most 

reservations, and a patchwork of criminal federal, tribal, and state 

jurisdiction over Indians who reside on these reservations or trust 

lands. AI/AN children accused of delinquent acts or truancy are at 

risk of becoming involved in the courts of one or more of the juvenile justice systems of these three sovereign entities. 

This complex jurisdictional system has a dramatic effect on the 

ability of tribes to react to the needs of their youth. The juvenile 

systems impacting AI/AN youth, whether federal, tribal, or state, 

are all failing these children and creating more harm to them, 

while not reducing juvenile crime and truancy. This finding was 

reinforced at the Advisory Committee’s Juvenile Justice Hearing in 

Arizona, and at other hearings and Listening Sessions. 

This chapter provides a vision for what an effective AI/AN juvenile 

justice system would look like, reviews findings from hearings, and 

discusses concrete recommendations. Our hope is that these recommendations lead us to a more effective, tribally driven juvenile 

justice system for AI/AN youth. 
C H A P T E R 4 

112 

“Now, sadly, we know that 

the road to involvement 

in the juvenile justice 

system is often paved with 

experiences of victimization 

and trauma.” 

Kevin Washburn, Assistant 

Secretary for Indian Affairs, 

U.S. Department of Interior. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, 

AZ, February 11, 2014 

“When I got out, there was 

all this negative around 

me and no positive. I 

hung out with my friends 

because I didn’t have a 

home to go to. My mother 

was in the hospital and 

my father moved. I didn’t 

know where my brothers 

were. It was pretty hard. 

I wished I was back in the 

detention center. 

Now I am homeless. I’m 

living with my grandma 

temporarily. I plan to go 

to college in the fall in 

New Mexico. I’m not sure 

what to major in. I like 

cosmetology so if college 

doesn’t work out, I will go 

to cosmetology school. I still 

cut my wrists, but I have 

the desire to stop. I want 

to make something of my 

life.” 

Temetria Young, 18 years old. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, 

AZ, February 11, 2014 

Three different jurisdictional systems impact AI/AN youth involved 

in the juvenile justice system: federal, tribal, and/or state. The 

confusing criminal jurisdictional framework, which is designed for 

adults, has a significant and oftentimes harmful impact on youth. 

Depending upon where a delinquent act takes place, the race of 

the victim, the seriousness of the act, and whether PL-280 or a 

similar-styled law applies, one or more of the three systems could 

have jurisdiction over the juvenile. While this jurisdictional maze 

is problematic for adults, it is far more disastrous for youth caught 

in the systems and does not allow for notification of their tribes, 

which might not realize the extent of their youth’s involvement in 

the state or federal juvenile justice systems. 

Many tribal communities have no tribal juvenile court system or 

juvenile code, and oftentimes lack the supporting service delivery 

system necessary to meet the specific needs of their youth who 

come in contact with the juvenile justice system. Due to the fact 

that tribes do not have a tax base, these systems are largely dependent on federal authorizations and appropriation. Tribes in PL-280 

states and Alaska Tribes9 generally receive little to no funding for 

court services overall, and much less for handling the unique needs 

posed by juvenile justice cases specifically. 

If a tribe is one of the fortunate few to have successful economic 

enterprises acting as tax base surrogates that can be used to 

support juvenile justice system infrastructure and staffing, there 

is still a significant lack of training in best practices to better 

the lives of juveniles. A few tribes that have funding through 

successful economic ventures have developed juvenile justice 

systems that provide services and support to the youth that enter 

their systems, with strong focus on prevention and rehabilitation 

in their communities. However, the Advisory Committee also saw, 

in these examples, a heavy reliance on detention, even in cases of 

status offenses such as curfew violations. These detention centers 

were also much more akin to adult correctional facilities than to 

a place where these children would feel safe and have their needs 

addressed. While the Advisory Committee understands that this is a 

very common practice in state and federal jurisdictions, we believe 

that a tribe’s continued common use of detention for children 

having such extreme rates of exposure to violence is another infliction of violence on these children. As such, there must be strong 

support for community-based, culturally specific alternatives to 

detention for AI/AN children. 
P R E V E N T I O N , T R E A T M E N T , A N D H E A L I N G 

113 

 

Over and over again the Advisory Committee heard testimony to the 

effect that: “We have the answers.” “The answers lie within our people, 

within the communities.” “We as Indian people hold the healing ability 

to heal our communities though our cultural ways.”10 Tribal culture 

and tribal and family connections play an important role in responding 

to the effects of exposure to violence through the development of 

resiliency. The current system does not support that local participation 

and develop the capacity of the local community. It does not support 

local practices that work, but rather supports evidence-based practices 

that worked in Europe or some non-Indian community, not in Indian 

country, Alaska Native villages or urban Indian communities.11 

The Advisory Committee supports substantial reform of the juvenile 

justice systems impacting AI/AN youth. A reformed juvenile justice 

system should be tribally operated or strongly influenced by tribes 

within the local region. It is a system: 

˺ Where tribes, parents, and families know where their children 

are and believe they are safe and in good care. 

˺ Where youth are appropriately screened, and services are 

trauma-informed. 

˺	 Where tribal-specific or culturally based traditional healing, 

understanding, and practices are interwoven with all therapeutic services available for children and their families. 

˺	 Where federal, tribal, and state systems coordinate and cooperate ensuring that their AI/AN youths’ needs are being met in a 

seamless and accountable method. 

˺	 Where a variety of diversion and reentry programs involving the 

tribal or local community are available. 

˺	 Where there is less reliance on the use of family methods that 

disrupt families, and where detention and removal from home 

are utilized as a last resort when there is no other recourse to 

protect the child or community. 

˺	 Where, when detention is necessary to protect public safety 

youth are placed close to home and family with adequate and 

effective services. 

˺	 Where juvenile justice codes reflect an understanding of 

children’s exposure to violence and reflect local cultural 

values, and status offenses are treated differently from other 

juvenile offenses. 

˺	 Where successes are tracked so that other nontribal justice 

systems feel confident in referring Native children to their 

system and services. 

“One of the barriers, 

both our youth and 

their families face, are 

professionals. They come 

and they have proper 

credentials that are 

required by the state, but 

they lack the cultural 

knowledge and ability or 

even desire to understand 

where our children and 

their families are coming 

from in their history and 

their lives.” 

Darla Thiele, Director, Sunka 

Wakan Ah Ku Program. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, 

ND, December 9, 2013 

“We must expand our 

notion of healing and 

therapeutic interventions 

to go beyond those from the 

Western world and once 

again look to traditional 

ceremonies, practices, 

beliefs and rituals that 

served us throughout 

time immemorial. . . . So 

I caution against the sole 

use of Evidence Based 

Practices (EBP) alone, as 

the only direction, but a 

holistic and comprehensive 

approach must be taken 

that integrates the best of 

both worlds.” 

Deborah Painte. Testimony 

before the Advisory 

Committee, Bismarck, ND, 

December 9, 2013 
C H A P T E R 4 

114 

 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE VISION FOR JUVENILE 

JUSTICE REFORM 

The Advisory Committee envisions a reformed juvenile justice system,

based on the fundamental philosophy that children are sacred; a system 

with the resources to implement and support this philosophy. The Advisory 

Committee believes that each tribal community will use modern evidencebased and practice-based responses in concert with its cultural teachings 

and traditions to find the methods that are effective in preventing children’s exposure to violence and treating those who have been exposed. 

The Advisory Committee supports a system in which American Indian 

and Alaska Native children have equal protection under the law and have 

equal access to the services that are critical for their personal well-being.

Developing local capacity through training, education, and funding is 

essential. Tribal cultural and family connections, coupled with culturally 

adapted screening and treatment interventions will ultimately save our 

children from the effects of exposure to violence through the development of their resiliency. Our vision includes developing and delivering 

a supportive juvenile justice system that is meaningful, helpful, and 

nurturing and that supports wellness of American Indian and Alaska 

Native children. 

Findings and Recommendations 

■ 4.1 Congress should authorize additional and adequate funding for 

tribal juvenile justice programs, a grossly underfunded area,

in the form of block grants and self-governance compacts that 

would support the restructuring and maintenance of tribal juvenile justice systems. 

4.1.A	 Congress should create an adequate tribal set-aside 

that allows access to all expanded federal funding that 

supports juvenile justice at an amount equal to the

need in tribal communities. As an initial step towards 

the much larger commitment needed, Congress should 

immediately establish a minimum 10 percent tribal 

set-aside, as per the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) 

tribal set-aside, from funding for all Office of Justice and 
P R E V E N T I O N , T R E A T M E N T , A N D H E A L I N G 

115 

Juvenile Delinquency (OJJDP) funding making clear that 

the tribal set-aside is the minimum tribal funding and

not in any way a cap on tribal funding. President Obama’s 

annual budget request to Congress has included a 7 

percent tribal set-aside for the last few years. This is a very 

positive step and Congress should authorize this request 

immediately. However, the tribal set-aside should be 

increased to 10 percent in subsequent appropriations 

bills. Until Congress acts, the Department of Justice 

should establish this minimum 10 percent tribal setaside administratively. 

The funding tribes receive for juvenile justice programming must 

be adequate and stable. Currently, tribes need to rely on inadequate 

base funding from the BIA. Tribes are thus forced to compete for 

grant funds to support the most basic components of a juvenile 

justice system. It is unacceptable for federal agencies to provide 

grant funding for a tribal program, only to limit the funding to 

three years; thus requiring tribes to recompete or lose funding 

at the end of the grant period. It is unethical to withdraw critical 

services being provided to tribal children who trust that those 

services will help them with the trauma they have already faced. 

Tribes use scarce and limited resources to develop a program and 

establish relationships to create trust in the program. Then, when 

the program is most productive, it loses funding and comes to an 

end. Long-term stability of good programs is vital to significantly 

address exposure to violence and trauma that impact youth. 

Flexibility in funding is important to allow local communities to 

utilize the funding in creative, impactful ways that focus on an 

individual community’s needs. Funding is the key to tribal empowerment. The Overview Section, Chapter 1 of this report provides 

a greater explanation of the need for block grants and/or selfgovernance compacts. 

The White House Native American Affairs Office (see 

Recommendation 1.2) should coordinate implementation of 

this recommendation along with the other recommendations in 

this chapter. 
C H A P T E R 4 

116 

4.1.B Federal funding for state juvenile justice programs 

should require that states engage in and support 

meaningful and consensual consultation with tribes on 

the design, content, and operation of juvenile justice 

programs to ensure that programming is imbued with 

cultural integrity to meet the needs of tribal youth. 

Programming offered in state juvenile justice systems is not 

meeting the needs of AI/AN youth and in some cases is harming 

these youth. Even those states with significant AI/AN populations 

fail to meaningfully consult with tribes about their juvenile justice 

systems to ensure that their programming is thoughtful and culturally based. One way to ensure that states with significant AI/AN 

populations involve tribes in important decisions regarding AI/AN 

children is to tie federal funding to meaningful consultation with 

tribes. Encouraging states and tribes to collaborate and cooperate 

on juvenile justice is imperative, even cooperation on such issues 

as cross-deputization of law enforcement indirectly affects youth. 

And states must share information about AI/AN youth involved in 

their juvenile systems if tribes are to be meaningfully involved in 

their youths’ healing and development. For instance, the state of 

Washington maintains a database of screening of all juveniles who 

enter that juvenile justice system, which is readily identifiable by 

name and birth date. Washington State tribes should be able to 

access these screens of their tribal member children to better coordinate services that the tribes could provide. 

In general, providing tribes with adequate funding for programs and 

services will also make tribal programs more attractive alternatives 

to state-run programs. This would ultimately encourage local courts 

to utilize tribal programs. Developing the tribes’ ability to offer states 

options of culturally appropriate services through their tribal juvenile 

justice system could counter the impact of AI/AN youth caught in the 

state juvenile justice system. Some tribes have good relationships with 

their local county juvenile court systems and juveniles in the state 

system are referred to the tribal court systems. Encouragement of 

these collaborative ventures through funding is critically important. 

4.1.C	 Congress should direct the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

and the Department of Interior (DOI) to determine which 

agency should provide funding for both the construction 

and operation of jails and juvenile detention facilities 
P R E V E N T I O N , T R E A T M E N T , A N D H E A L I N G 

117 

 

in AI/AN communities, require consultation with tribes 

concerning the selection process, ensure the trust responsibilities for these facilities and services are assured, and 

appropriate the necessary funds. 

Currently the DOJ and DOI have divided responsibilities to construct, 

operate, staff, and maintain jails and juvenile detention centers. This 

has resulted in dozens of facilities being constructed that are vacant 

or seriously underutilized because operating funds have not been 

provided. The tribes where these facilities have been constructed 

have significant need for both detention facilities and alternative 

programs to support children and youth who are in the juvenile 

justice system, many of whom have also been exposed to violence. 

These youth often need substance abuse treatment, mental health 

treatment, education, and other services to address their exposure to 

violence. These facilities must be staffed and funded for operations 

after construction. The split responsibility that exists now is not 

workable and is not in the best interest of tribes. In the future, tribes 

should be consulted before facilities are constructed. 

■ 4.2 Federal, state, and private funding and technical assistance 

should be provided to tribes to develop or revise traumainformed, culturally specific tribal codes to improve tribal 

juvenile justice systems. 

Developing a tribal juvenile justice system means developing tribal 

codes that fit the culture and community. Too often tribes have copied 

tribal codes from nontribal or different tribal entities, which do not fit 

their own tribal or community’s values and beliefs. It is particularly 

important that tribes receive adequate funding for juvenile justice so 

they can develop juvenile justice systems that are not a reproduction 

of the failed Western systems, but a structure that respects their youth 

and their tribal values, as well as a system that is trauma-informed. 

Technical assistance should be provided to develop culturally appropriate, trauma-informed, juvenile justice codes and systems. 

■ 4.3 Federal, tribal, and state justice systems should provide publicly 

funded legal representation to AI/AN children in the juvenile 

justice systems to protect their rights and minimize the harm 

that the juvenile justice system may cause them. The use of

technology such as videoconferencing could make such representation available even in remote areas. 

“How do we continue 

programs for more than 

5 years? When Columbus 

landed in 1492, he screwed 

us up for over 500 years. 

And it ain’t going to take 

overnight.” 

Tracy Ching King. Testimony 

before the Task Force on 

American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to 

Violence, Phoenix, AZ, 

February 11, 2014 
C H A P T E R 4 

118 

“We often have juveniles 

appearing before tribal 

courts without the 

assistance of counsel. 

And we need to work 

on strengthening those 

positions. We know that 

often youth and their 

parents don’t have or 

aren’t exactly at the level of 

education to understand the 

nature of the proceedings.” 

Sherrie Harris, Public Defender 

San Carlos Apache Tribe. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, 

AZ, February 11, 2014 

“NJDC has seen firsthand 

the positive outcomes that 

result from effective legal 

representation for juveniles. 

We have has also seen the 

lasting adverse effects 

that follow when children 

charged with crimes are 

provided with inadequate 

or no representation. We 

strongly believe that all 

youth involved in the 

juvenile justice system 

should have ready and 

timely access to capable 

well-trained legal counsel; 

with individualized 

representation that 

is developmentally 

appropriate, free from bias, 

and strength-based.” 

Nadia Seeratan, Senior Staff 

Attorney and Policy Advocate, 

National Juvenile Defender 

Center. Testimony before 

the Task Force on American 

Indian/Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, 

AZ, February 11, 2014 

The status of AI/AN youth is unique; they may be prosecuted in 

three distinct justice systems: federal, tribal, or state. Each has 

its own rules and procedures, which are foreign and confusing to 

any juvenile and their family. An AI/AN youth in juvenile court is 

very likely also a victim of trauma. This makes it even more important that this youth is listened to, respected, and represented by 

competent counsel in order to foster understanding of the process 

and achieve the best disposition possible. In the state and federal 

juvenile justice systems, the youth is entitled to some form of 

representation; either a guardian ad litem if they are under a certain 

age, or their own attorney to represent their interests. This right, 

however, does not universally exist in tribal juvenile justice systems 

as the Indian Civil Rights Act does not require publically funded 

appointed counsel for juveniles. To allow a child to be formally 

processed in a juvenile justice system without an advocate by their 

side is unconscionable. The youth’s counsel is in the best position to ensure that the youth is not re-traumatized by the system, 

adequately advise the youth, intervene with his or her family and 

tribe to protect the youth’s rights, help the youth recognize the 

need for accountability for his or her actions, promote assessment, 

and be an advocate for fairness and rehabilitation. 

The impact of immaturity is a factor in every juvenile case. 

However, in those cases involving AI/AN youth, the effects of 

exposure to violence and trauma are more likely to also be present. 

Parents frequently are no more likely to understand the system, 

rights, and process, than the youth. It is highly likely that the 

parents are in the cycle of intergenerational violence and trauma 

exposure and are limited in their understanding about how this 

impacts their child. Juvenile defenders play a vital role in ensuring 

that all youth that enter the juvenile system are treated fairly and 

protected from further harm within the system. Given the overrepresentation of AI/AN youth in state and federal justice systems 

and in secure confinement, it is critical that culturally competent, 

well-trained defense counsel be afforded to the youth at the public 

expense in all federal, tribal, and state juvenile proceedings. The 

juvenile defender acts as the child’s voice in the proceeding, representing the expressed interests of the youth. Defenders do not 

simply bend to any and every whim of the child. Instead, they elicit 

a child’s perspective, counsel the child on the practical and legal 

consequences of any decision, and help the child arrive at informed 

choices and decisions, understanding the myriad of direct and 

collateral consequences they may face.12 
P R E V E N T I O N , T R E A T M E N T , A N D H E A L I N G 

119 

■ 4.4 Federal, tribal, and state justice systems should only use detention of AI/AN youth when the youth is a danger to themselves or 

the community. It should be close to the child’s community and 

provide trauma-informed, culturally appropriate, and individually tailored services, including reentry services. Alternatives to 

detention such as “safe houses” should be significantly developed in AI/AN urban and rural communities. 

The use of juvenile detention is not effective as a deterrent to delinquent behavior, risky behavior, or truancy and should only be used 

when there is clear evidence that the youth is a danger to themselves or the community. Federal, tribal, or state detention of AI/ 

AN youth should be close to the juvenile’s community and provide 

trauma-informed, culturally appropriate, and individually tailored 

services to each child. Detention should only be used as a last resort 

and culturally appropriate alternatives to incarceration such as 

“safe houses” should be significantly developed within AI/AN urban 

and rural communities. 

Although most AI/AN youth in the juvenile justice system are 

charged with low-level offenses and normally would not be subject 

to detention, the lack of alternatives and diversion programs force 

the system to use detention as shelter. This is a poor response as 

younger inmates have higher rates of victimization by youth and 

staff. 13 Female inmates are sexually victimized at higher rates.14 

Youth with higher rates of exposure to violence who are put into 

detention have greater fear of future victimization and higher rates 

of conflict with other detainees and staff.15 

Adequate funding would help keep children out of detention. Tribes 

need resources to develop appropriate juvenile codes and diversionary programs. This can include development of or revisions to 

Juvenile Codes as well as the creation of prevention and diversion 

programs to ensure children are not placed in detention, unless all 

other options have been exhausted by tribes.16 Only a few tribes 

have the financial ability to develop services and alternatives to 

detention on their own. Most rely on the federal government to 

meet its trust obligation to tribes by providing the funding needed. 

Youth returning from a detention or treatment facility must 

have appropriate reentry services. Too frequently there is no 

support available for youth returning to their homes or to their 

“As a commissioner on 

the Indian Law and Order 

Commission, I asked for the 

better part of two years, 

where are our children?” 

Judge Theresa Pouley, Chief 

Judge, Tulalip Tribal Court and 

Member, Indian Law and Order 

Commission. Testimony before 

the Task Force on American 

Indian/Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, 

AZ, February 11, 2014 
C H A P T E R 4 

120 

“I think there needs to 

be a safe house on every 

reservation, a place that is 

not a detention facility, a 

place that is not a lockdown 

facility, a place that is 

home and they can feel 

what it’s like to have a 

home.” 

Jessie Deardorff, Manager, 

Lummi Safe House. Testimony 

before the Task Force on 

American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to 

Violence, Phoenix, AZ, 

February 11, 2014 

communities due in part to the limited infrastructure and the judicial limitation of tribes and funding. 

Some of these alternatives were described in testimony at public 

hearings of the Advisory Committee. In particular, the Advisory 

Committee heard about “safe houses/homes” (transitional living 

with intensive services) in tribal communities, such as the Lummi 

Safe House in the Lummi Nation. This facility provides a safe place 

for Lummi youth in a home environment. They may take in youth 

who have run away from home, those returning home after treatment or transitioning from foster care, along with other children in 

need of safe housing.17 

Another example is the Ain Dah Yung Center in Saint Paul, 

Minnesota, which provides emergency shelter to homeless AI/ 

AN youth and could be considered a “safe house.” Homeless youth 

are vulnerable to further trauma, and are highly likely to become 

involved in the juvenile justice system. These “safe houses” should 

provide screening and individual services needed by youth as 

well as culturally specific teachings, life skills, education support, 

employment, and transitional services. Funding restrictions limit 

the amount of time homeless youth may stay at the Ain Dah Yung 

to twenty-one days. Such short time frames should be eliminated 

or adjusted to allow for individualized response, recognizing that 

youth in need of a “safe house” are also suffering from multiple 

traumatic events. These youth may need long-term support 

to help them find a more permanent home and more stable 

family connections. 

While most AI/AN youth are placed in detention for committing 

low-level offenses, there is a group of Native youth prosecuted in 

the federal system that may spend more time in secure confinement than youth prosecuted in state systems, sometimes by several 

years. Placement far from a youth’s home is more likely with either 

the state or federal system. Federal sentences are usually longer 

than state sentences for identical crimes.18 The Bureau of Prisons 

(BOP) contracts with state and local facilities in nine states. Many 

youth are placed wherever there is bed space, which means that 

the youth are placed in facilities far from their families and loved 

ones.19 Tribes and states also place juveniles far from home, generally because there are no options available nearer to home or the 

options available do not provide the services needed by the youth. 

AI/AN youth should be detained close to home to enable family to 

be involved with the youth. 
P R E V E N T I O N , T R E A T M E N T , A N D H E A L I N G 

121 

 

The BOP, a federal agency, should enter into intergovernmental 

agreements or contracts with Indian tribal juvenile detention 

centers for federally detained AI/AN juveniles to permit them to 

be housed in tribally eligible facilities within or near their own 

community. The BOP should review 18 U.S.C., Section 4006 20to 

determine if Indian tribes are eligible to enter into an agreement 

with the DOJ along with states and territories; and if not, the 

Congress should amend this section to include Indian tribes. 

The DOJ should explore with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 

what services Medicaid can provide AI/AN children in need of treatment, and determine together with the tribes, how tribes can bill 

for Medicaid services for AI/AN children in tribal juvenile facilities 

that offer direct and alternative treatment services. 

All juvenile justice systems should recognize the special needs of 

juvenile girls and LGBTQ/2S and individually tailor services for all 

AI/AN juveniles. For example, AI/AN girls in detention have experienced alcohol and drug usage; educational challenges, including 

high dropout rates; teen pregnancy; high intentional and unintentional injury rates, including suicide attempts and completions; and 

high rates of sexually transmitted diseases.21 

■ 4.5 Federal, tribal, and state justice systems and service providers 

should make culturally appropriate trauma-informed screening,

assessment, and care the standard in juvenile justice systems.

Indian Health Service (IHS) and tribal and urban Indian behavioral health service providers must receive periodic training in 

culturally adapted trauma-informed interventions and cultural 

competency to provide appropriate services to AI/AN children 

and their families. 

Children and adolescents exposed to violent or traumatic events 

involving serious threat of injury or death to oneself or others 

often results in emotional, behavioral, or psychological harm.22 

The pervasiveness of exposure to violence is the precursor to 

poor mental health outcomes demonstrated in the high rates of 

substance abuse, PTSD, and depression among AI/AN children and 

families.23 One report found that the prevalence for exposure to 

any traumatic event ranged from 63.4 to 69.8 percent for fifteen to 

fifty-seven year olds for tribal participants in the study.24 Likewise, 

“Finally, there’s a strong 

need for funding for 

on-reservation shelters 

and group homes . . . 

more in a family setting. 

Those would be places for 

victims and their families 

to live free from fear and 

receive the necessary 

treatment and life-skills 

types of programming 

and educational services 

that are desperately 

needed to help in and 

reuniting victims and their 

families. The facilities 

would include culturally 

sensitive curriculums 

that address everything 

from day treatment for 

substances abuse, to 

supervised visitation 

centers, to parental 

skills programming, 

to nutritional needs 

programming and 

developmental education. 

These are the types of 

programs that we take for 

granted in off-reservation 

communities and 

everybody in this room 

longs for the day when 

we can take those types of 

programs for granted on 

reservation communities. 

Joe Vetsch, Criminal 

Prosecutor for the Spirit 

Lake Nation.
 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence,
 

Bismarck, ND,
 

December 9, 2013
 
C H A P T E R 4 

122 

 

“What I have found is 

that in the tribal juvenile 

detention centers, the 

American Indian girls 

are at great risk for not 

receiving the needed 

services for what they 

come in with. A lot of them 

come in with prior suicide 

attempts. . . . We really 

need a transformation of 

the system. The juvenile 

detention centers should 

be a place where healing 

can begin. They should 

be able to have the youth 

screening for suicidality, 

for their strengths, for their 

skills, for trauma, what 

have they been through; for 

education, for health.” 

Ethleen Ironcloud-TwoDogs, 

Technical Assistance 

Specialist, Tribal Defending 

Childhood Initiative, Education 

Development Center, Inc. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, 

AZ, February 11, 2014 

a community-based study revealed that 57 percent of AI/AN youth 

and young adults between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four 

had experienced a minimum of one traumatic event in their short 

lifetime.25 

Behavioral health services for AI/AN youth may be handled by 

different agencies with different priorities. Youth in the juvenile 

justice system are typically not a priority to those community-based 

agencies. Reports indicate that 60 percent of Native people rely on 

IHS for their health care including behavioral health.26 There are 

only two psychiatrists and four psychologists for every one hundred 

thousand tribal members who are in need of these services; and 

less than 5 percent of the 1.5 million of IHS-eligible tribal members 

receive mental health and substance abuse services.27 IHS continues 

to operate at 52 percent of need and mental health and substance 

abuse services are funded at an appalling 7 percent of need.28 The 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights divulged that IHS spends $1,941.00 

per patient for all health care services; compared to the federal 

prison system, which spends $3,803.00 per federal prisoner.29 

This documented disparity in the limited availability of behavioral 

health services offered by IHS underscores the need for maintaining 

an adequate workforce for treating AI/AN children exposed to 

violence, and ensuring they are appropriately trained in traumainformed interventions that are culturally relevant. IHS and other 

agencies providing these services must work together with a youth 

focus and consistently build and retrain an adequate workforce. 

Ensuring that culturally appropriate trauma-informed screening 

and care becomes the standard in all juvenile justice systems that 

impact AI/AN youth is critical to developing systems that treat children as sacred and promote wellness and resilience. 

■ 4.6 Congress should amend the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) 

to provide that when a state court initiates any delinquency 

proceeding involving an Indian child for acts that took place 

on the reservation, all of the notice, intervention, and transfer 

provisions of ICWA will apply. For all other Indian children 

involved in state delinquency proceedings, ICWA should be 

amended to require notice to the tribe and a right to intervene.

As a first step, the Department of Justice (DOJ) should establish 

a demonstration pilot project that would provide funding for 

three states to provide ICWA-type notification to tribes within 
P R E V E N T I O N , T R E A T M E N T , A N D H E A L I N G 

123 

their state whenever the state court initiates a delinquency

proceeding against a child from that tribe which includes a plan 

to evaluate the results with an eye toward scaling it up for all AI/

AN communities. 

States have jurisdiction over AI/AN children when a violation 

occurs outside of Indian country or within Indian country in PL-280 

states or states that have a settlement act or other similar federal 

legislation. Since 64 percent30 to 78 percent31 of the AI/AN population resides off reservation or not on tribal land, the vast majority 

of AI/AN children who come to the attention of authorities are 

involved in the states’ juvenile justice systems. An overarching 

concern voiced at hearings conducted by the Advisory Committee 

was that states are not required to notify the tribe or involve the 

tribe in a juvenile delinquency proceeding. That concern is exacerbated because states generally do not provide the cultural support 

necessary for Native youth’s rehabilitation and reentry into the 

tribal community.32 

Unlike the child welfare system where the state is required to notify 

the tribe under ICWA, there is no requirement that the child’s tribe 

be contacted if the child is charged with a juvenile offense. The 

unique issues of AI/AN youth are often overlooked in the state’s 

juvenile justice system and their outcomes are difficult to track.33 In 

most states, AI/AN youth are more frequently referred to juvenile 

court, receive disproportionately harsher sentences, and are more 

likely to be removed from their homes. A 2006 Alaska study using 

Anchorage and Fairbanks data from 1999 to 2001, found Alaska 

Native youth are referred to juvenile court 3.28 times more than 

Caucasian youth. In Fairbanks the referral rate was 4.85 times more 

likely. Alaska Native youth are held in secure detention at a rate of 

about one and a half times the rate of Caucasian youth in Anchorage 

and at more than twice the rate in Fairbanks.34 In four states (South 

Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, and Montana), Native youth account 

for between 29 percent and 42 percent of youth in secure confinement—far above their percentage of the total population.35 

The disparities that currently exist in the juvenile justice system 

are similar to the inequities that gave rise to and supported the 

passage of ICWA of 1978. State systems do not even record the tribal 

member status of youth or the Indian country location associated 

with the offense. Tribes find it impossible to hold the state accountable for how their youth are treated. Providing tribes with notice 

“And we also have to begin 

to focus on the reentry and 

detention alternatives. 

What we often see is some 

minors are given harsher 

penalties than adults 

charged with the same 

offenses. And we begin to 

desensitize them to what 

it is to be in detention 

facilities. And it’s like we’re 

creating a better criminal. 

As they go through the 

system, the punishment of 

jail doesn’t mean as much 

to them, because they’ve 

spent so much time in jail 

already.” 

Sherrie Harris, Public Defender 

San Carlos Apache Tribe. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, 

AZ, February 11, 2014 
C H A P T E R 4 

124 

in all state delinquency proceedings and with the right to intervene and/or transfer in all other state delinquency proceedings 

involving AI/AN youth when the offense occurs on the reservation 

would allow tribes to stay connected to their youth and to ensure 

the state system is accountable for treatment of tribal youth. 

Not every tribe will have the ability or resources to intervene or 

transfer a case to tribal court, but every tribe should have the 

option to decide on the status of their tribal youth, particularly 

when the offense occurs on the reservation. Intervention can 

provide a unique tribal perspective to the court proceedings and 

additional assurance that the youth are important as tribal citizens. 

Tribes may offer have tribal-specific resources that the state lacks. 

An inadequate response will ensure that current disparities will 

continue and that the juvenile system will continue to be a pipeline 

for tribal youth to the adult criminal justice system. 

Resiliency is based on connectedness to culture, family, and 

community. An AI/AN child’s resiliency cannot be fully developed 

in a state’s juvenile justice system without the involvement of the 

child’s tribe. According to the literature, enculturation, spirituality, 

and social connections are protective factors that continue to play 

important roles in fostering resilience among AI/AN children and 

families.36 The tribe’s involvement can increase the likelihood that 

these factors will be central to the development of youth, enhance 

their sense of responsibility and understanding, and show them 

that they matter to their tribe and their community. 

This change in the law will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between states and tribes when AI/AN children are involved. 

Such a change will no doubt benefit AI/AN children. 

States can do much to encourage cooperation and meaningful 

collaboration with tribes on AI/AN juvenile justice proceedings 

within their state boundaries. Some counties and tribes share 

programs and services. New Mexico has an effective practice of 

requiring that AI/AN children be identified when the child is 

involved in the juvenile justice system.37 Once a child is identified, 

the tribe must be notified and consulted for purposes of disposition. 

Tribal customs and practices are also taken into consideration. 
P R E V E N T I O N , T R E A T M E N T , A N D H E A L I N G 

125 

 

■ 4.7 Congress should amend the Federal Education Rights and 

Privacy Act (FERPA) to allow tribes to access their members’ 

school attendance, performance, and disciplinary records. 

Almost 92 percent of tribal children attend public schools. FERPA38 

generally allows federal, state, and local education agencies to 

access student records and other personally identifiable information kept by state public schools without the advance consent of the 

parents. Tribes are excluded from this law. These records include 

information about a student’s attendance, grades, and discipline; 

information critical to a tribal education department seeking to 

provide services to tribal member students. Early intervention is 

important and school absences, performance, or disciplinary problems can be a red flag indicating family or individual problems. The 

tribe, if notified, would have the option to intervene to help the 

family or youth. Through the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 196539 and its 1994 reauthorization, Congress authorized U.S. 

Department of Education funding of Tribal Education Departments 

to provide educational support services to their student tribal 

members. It is this type of support that allows tribal education 

departments to direct services toward students at risk for truancy 

proceedings, which often can result in detention. Unfortunately, 

Congress has not amended FERPA40 to include these federally 

supported tribal education departments along with analogous agencies of state, local, and federal governments that are able to access 

student information. 

FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232(g)(b); 34 C.F.R. 99.31(a).) should be amended 

to explicitly authorize tribal education departments to readily 

access information regarding their member children who are 

absent from school or have performance or disciplinary records. 

Tribes should be treated in the same manner as FERPA treats states. 

Tribes that have programs for early intervention and assistance, 

such as the Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho or the Salt River Pima 

Maricopa Indian Community, testified to the Advisory Committee 

about their problems securing the information they need because of 

FERPA restrictions.41 Some schools will cooperate with information 

requests and others refuse to provide information due to confidentiality. It must be clarified that tribes have a right to this important 

information about their young tribal members. 

“At the federal, state, and 

tribal level, we all must 

work to better serve the 

children in Indian country. 

It starts with embracing 

the spirit of cooperation 

and working together 

to find solutions. . . . But 

without proper support 

from every level of 

government, no amount of 

partnership and creative 

thinking can deliver the 

level of services that our 

children need and deserve.” 

Ned Norris Jr., Chairman, 

Tohono O’odham Nation. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children 

Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, 

AZ, February 11, 2014 
CHAPTER 4 

126 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes 

1. Carlson, B. E., “Children Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence: Research Findings and 

Implications for Intervention,” 1(4) (2001): 321–42; Skowyra, K., and Cocozza, J. J.,“A Blueprint for 

Change: Improving the System Response to Youth with Mental Health Needs Involved with the 

Juvenile System,” National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, Research and Program Brief, June 

2006;Widsom, C. S., Ireland,T., and Glynn, P. J., ”Alcohol-Abuse in Abused and Neglected Children 

Followed-Up:Are They an Increased Risk?,” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 56(2) (1995): 207–17. 

2. Kilpatrick, D. G., et al., “Violence and Risk of PTSD, Major Depression, Substance Abuse/ 

Dependence and Comorbidity: Results from the National Survey of Adolescents,” Journal of Consulting 

and Clinical Psychology 71(4) (2003): 692–700; Cauffman, E., et al., “Posttraumatic Stress Disorder 

among Female Juvenile Offenders,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 

37(11) (1998): 1209–16;Abram, K. M.,“Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Trauma in Youth in Juvenile 

Detention,” Archives of General Psychiatry 61(4) (2004): 403–10. 

3. Sprague, C., “Informing Judges About Child Trauma,” NCTSN Service System Briefs 2 (2008); 

Adams, E. J.,“Healing Invisible Wounds:Why Investing in Trauma-Informed Care for Children Makes 

Sense,” Justice Policy Institute (2010). 

4. Petrosino,A., et al.,“Formal System Processing of Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency,” Campbell 

Systematic Review (2010). doi:10.4073/csr.2010.1. 

5. Evans-Campbell, T., et al., “Indian Boarding School Experience, Substance Use, and Mental 

Health among Urban Two-Spirit American Indian/Alaska Natives,” The American Journal of Drug and 

Alcohol Abuse 38(5) (2012): 421–7; Prucha, Francis Paul, Americanizing the American Indians. Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. 

6. Huff, Delores J., To Live Heroically: Institutional Racism and American Indian Education. Albany: 

State University of New York Press, 1997. 

7. Royster, Judith,“The Legacy of Allotment,” Arizona State Law Journal 27 (1995): 12. 

8. Act of August 15, 1953, Ch. 505, 67 Stat. 588-90 (now codified as amended in scattered sections 

of 18, 28 U.S.C.). 

9. Alaska Tribe –The Native peoples of Alaska are commonly referred to as “Alaska Natives,” and 

“Alaska Native Villages.” For the purposes of this report, we will use the term “Alaska Tribe” to refer 

federally recognized tribes in the State of Alaska. 79 Fed. Reg. 4,748 (Jan. 29, 2014), available at http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-01-29/pdf/2014-01683.pdf. 

10. Testimony of Leander McDonald, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, ND, December 9, 2013, at 108, available at: http:// 

www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/nd-briefingbinder.pdf; Testimony of Darla Thiele, Hearing 

of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, ND, 

December 9, 2013, at 61, available at: http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/1st-hearing/ 

intersection-dv-cpsa.pdf;Testimony of Lonna Hunter, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Bismarck, ND, December 9, 2013 at 17, available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/nd-briefingbinder.pdf. 

11. See Roth,Anthony, and Fonagy, Peter, What Works for Whom? A Critical Review of Treatments for 

Children and Adolescents, New York: Guildford Press, 2005. 

12. Testimony of Nadia Seeratan, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native 

Children Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, AZ, February 11, 2014, at 7–12, available at: http://www. 

justice.gov/defendingchildhood/2nd-hearing/panel4.pdf. 

13. Cooley, D.“Criminal Victimization in Male Federal Prisons.” Canadian Journal of Criminology 35 

(1993): 479–95. 

14. Wolff, N., and Jing Shi, “Patterns of Victimization and Feelings of Safety Inside Prison: The 

Experience of Male and Female Inmates.” Crime and Delinquency 57(1) (2010): 29–55. 

15. Mackenzie, D. L.“Age and Adjustment to Prison: Interactions with Attitudes and Anxiety.”Criminal Justice and Behavior 14(4) (1987): 427–47. 

16. Testimony of Governor Gregory Mendoza, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, AZ, February 11, 2014 at 4–10, available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/2nd-hearing/panel2.pdf. 

17. Testimony of Jessie Deerdorff, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native 

Children Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, AZ, February 11, 2014 at 8–14, available at: http://www. 

justice.gov/defendingchildhood/2nd-hearing/panel5.pdf. 

18. Ibid. 
PREVENTION, TREATMENT, AND HEALING 

127 

 

 

 

19. Ibid. 

20. 20 

21. Testimony of Ethleen Ironclound-TwoDogs, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Phoenix, AZ, February, 11, 2014 at 192, available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/az-briefingbinder.pdf. 

22. Cohen, J. A., Manarino, A. P., and Deblinger, E., Treating Trauma and Traumatic Grief in Children 

and Adolescents, New York:The Guilford Press, 2006. 

23. Deters, P. B., et al. “Trauma and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptomatology: Patterns 

among American Indian Adolescents in Substance Abuse Treatment,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 76(3) (2006): 335–45. 

24. Manson, S. M., et al.,“Social Epidemiology of Trauma among 2 American Indian Reservation 

Populations,” American Journal of Public Health 95(5): 851–9. 

25. Gnanadesian, M., et al., “The Relationship of Gender and Trauma Characteristics to Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in a Community Sample of Traumatized Northern Plains American Indian 

Adolescents and Young Adults,” Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 66(9) (2005): 1176–83. 

26. Gone, J. P.,“Mental Health Services for Native Americans in the 21st Century United States,” 

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 35(1) (2004): 10–18. 

27. Ibid. 

28. Ibid. 

29. Sarche, M., and Spicer, P., “Poverty and Health Disparities for American Indian and Alaska 

Native Children,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (2008). 

30. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 149, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html. 

31. The percentage of AI/AN populations that live on Indian land varies substantially depending 

upon who self-identifies as AI/AN.The 2010 Census allows for self-identification and includes individuals of more than one race. The 2010 Census defined “American Indian or Alaska Native” as a 

person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central 

America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.This is much broader than 

those who may be members of a tribe. See Norris,T., et al., 2010 Census Brief,The American Indian and 

Alaska Native Population, available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-10.pdf. 

32. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 156, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html. 

33. Arya, Neelum, and Rolnick, Addie C.“A Tangled Web of Justice: American Indian and Alaska 

Native Youth in Federal State, and Tribal Justice Systems,”Washington, D.C.: Campaign for Youth Justice 

Policy Brief 1 (2008). 

34. Leiber, M. J., Johnson, J., and Fox, K., An Examination of the Factors that Influence Justice Decision 

Making in Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska, An Assessment Study, Alaska, 2006. 

35. Testimony of David Simmons, Hearing of the Tribal Law and Order Commission, Tulalip 

Reservation, September 7, 2011. 

36. Strand, J. A., and Peacock, R.,“Resource Guide for Cultural Resilience,” Tribal College Journal 

of American Higher Education 14(4) (2003). 

37. Wolfe, Corinne, New Mexico Juvenile Justice Handbook, available at: http://childlaw.unm.edu/ 

docs/Juvenile%20Justice%20Handbook%20-%20August%202011%20Web.pdf. 

38. 20 U.S.C. 1232(g). 

39. PL-89-10 (1965). 

40. See,Title IX, Sec. 9125 of PL-103-382 (1994). 

41. Testimony of Sherri Fremont, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native 

Children Exposed to Violence, Fort Phoenix, AZ, April 16, 2014 at 1–6, available at: http://www. 

justice.gov/defendingchildhood/2nd-hearing/panel4.pdf. 

Chapter 5 

Empowering Alaska

Tribes, Removing

Barriers, and Providing

Resources 
C H A P T E R 5 

130 

“The state of Alaska needs 

a major shift in its policies 

and approaches to working 

with Alaska Native tribes 

and people. We are not an 

enemy of the state. This is 

our home and we love it. 

But we need to be respected 

and honored as equals.” 

Evon Peter, Executive 

Director, Indigenous 

Leadership Institute. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK, 

June 12, 2014 

Problems with children exposed to violence in American 

Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities are severe 

across the United States—but they are systemically worse 

in Alaska. Issues related to Alaska Native children exposed to 

violence are different for a variety of reasons including regional 

vastness and geographical isolation, extreme weather, exorbitant 

cost of transportation, lack of economic opportunity and access to 

resources, a lack of respect for Alaska tribal sovereignty, and a lack 

of understanding and respect for Alaska Native history and culture. 

All of which have contributed to high levels of recurring violence. 

Alaska Tribes are best positioned to effectively address these problems so long as the current barriers are removed, and Alaska Tribes 

are empowered to protect Alaska Native children through implementation of the recommendations in this chapter. 

Congress has repeatedly exempted Alaska from significant tribal 

legislation, including recent legislation aimed at reducing violent 

crime in Indian country—and thereby reducing AI/AN children’s 

exposure to that violence. Most recently, Congress exempted Alaska 

from both the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (TLOA)1 and the 

Violence Against Women Act 2013 reauthorization (VAWA 2013)2 

which restored tribal criminal jurisdiction over all persons charged 

with domestic violence. The problems in Alaska are so severe and 

the number of Alaska Native communities affected so large, that 

continuing to exempt the state of Alaska from national policy 

change and thereby unjustifiably stigmatizing or ostracizing Alaska 

Tribes3 is simply wrong. Given that violent crime—and AI/AN 

children exposed to that violence—is a more severe public safety 

problem in Alaska Native communities than in most other tribal 

communities in the United States, these provisions add insult to 

injury. In the view of the Advisory Committee, it is unconscionable 

and must stop. 

The Advisory Committee held a series of Alaska hearings, Listening 

Sessions, and meetings in June 2014 to examine the scope and 

impact of violence facing Alaska Native children exposed to 

violence in their homes, schools, and communities. The Advisory 

Committee held a hearing in Anchorage and Listening Sessions in 

Bethel, Napaskiak, and Emmonak. 

Remoteness and Accessibility Issues. Unless you have lived in Alaska 

or visited for an extended time, it is difficult to appreciate the vastness of Alaska and the extreme remoteness and accessibility issues. 

Cumulatively, the challenges posed by these issues contribute to 
E M P O W E R I N G A L A S K A T R I B E S 

131 

difficulties in confronting the heightened levels of violence that 

families and Alaska Native children face. 

˺ Alaska covers 586,412 square miles, an area greater in size than 

Texas, California, and Montana combined.4 

˺ The 229 Alaska Tribes5 are 40 percent of the U.S. federally 

recognized tribes. 

˺ Alaska Natives represent one-fifth of the total state population.6 

Two-third of Alaska Natives live in rural and often very remote 

areas.7 

˺ Typical Alaska villages are located off the road system with only 

250 to 300 residents8 and “more closely resemble villages in 

developing countries” than small towns.9 

˺ Frequently, villages are accessible only by plane or, during the 

winter when rivers are frozen, by snow machine. Harsh weather 

conditions further complicate access to necessary resources, 

services, and supports. Food, gasoline, and other necessities are 

expensive and often in short supply. 

˺ Subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering are a part of 

everyday life. 

˺ Villages are politically independent from one another, and have 

institutions that support that local autonomy—councils and 

village corporations.10 

Alaska’s True Proportion to the Continental United States 

From: Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: 

Report to the President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 36. 
C H A P T E R 5 

132 

“The most basic priority for 

allowing tribes to address 

the impact of violence 

on Native youth and in 

tribal communities is to 

provide tribal governments 

with the jurisdiction they 

need to ensure the safety 

and well-being of tribal 

citizens.” 

Jacqueline Pata, Executive 

Director, National Congress of 

American Indians. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK, 

June 11, 2014 

Violence in Native Alaska. Not surprisingly, these conditions pose 

significant challenges to the effective provision of public safety in 

Alaska. Alaska Natives are disproportionately affected by violent 

crime and Alaska Native children are, of course, disproportionately 

exposed to that violence. Alaska’s rates of child maltreatment, 

domestic violence, sexual assault, and related homicides are consistently among the highest in the country with the rates for Alaska 

Native children significantly higher than the statewide rates.11 

Alaska Native children face multiple traumatic or Adverse Childhood 

Experiences (ACEs) that contribute to risky behavior such as substance 

abuse, suicide, and school disengagement, all of which makes them 

more vulnerable to domestic violence and victimization.12 

˺	 Compared to the overall state population, Alaska Native women 

are overrepresented in the domestic violence victim population by 250 percent. In tribal villages and Native communities, 

women have reported rates of domestic violence up to ten times 

higher than in the rest of the United States and physical assault 

victimization rates up to 12 times higher.13 

˺	 Alaska Native women suffer from forcible sexual assault at 

the highest rate of any population in the United States. They 

comprise 19 percent of the Alaska state females, but 47 percent 

of reported rape victims.14 An Alaska Native woman is sexually 

assaulted every eighteen hours.15 

˺	 According to the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, one in two 

Alaska Native women will experience physical or sexual violence.16 

˺	 Alaska’s child sexual assault rate is six times the national 

average, and Alaska Native children experience this trauma 

disproportionately to the rest of the state.17 

˺	 From 2004 to 2007, Alaska Natives were 2.5 times more likely to 

die by homicide than white Alaskans, and 2.9 times more likely 

to die by homicide than all whites in the United States.18 

˺	 Alaska Natives’ representation in the Alaska prison and jail population is twice their representation in the general population (36 

percent vs. 19 percent).19 Nearly 20 percent of the Alaska Natives 

under supervision by the Alaska State Department of Corrections 

are housed out of state, nearly all at Hudson Correctional Facility 

in New York State—4,419 road miles from Anchorage.20 

˺	 In Fairbanks, the city that serves a large rural and tribal village 

population, Alaska Native youth who come into contact with 

the juvenile justice system are four times more likely than nonNatives to be referred to juvenile court and three times more 

likely to be sentenced to confinement.21 
E M P O W E R I N G A L A S K A T R I B E S 

133 

Justice System Challenges. Findings in bipartisan Bill S. 1474,22 the 

Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act of 2014—sponsored by both Alaska 

senators—provide a description of law enforcement and judicial 

challenges (which exacerbate violence exposure): 

˺	 S. 1474 finding (9): “less than 1/2 of remote Alaska villages are 

served by trained State law enforcement entities and several 

Indian tribes utilize peace officers or tribal police without 

adequate training or equipment”; 

˺	 S. 1474 finding (10): “the centralized State judicial system relies on 

general jurisdiction Superior Courts in the regional hub communities, with only a handful of staffed magistrate courts outside of 

the hub communities”; and 

˺	 S. 1474 finding (11): “the lack of effective law enforcement and 

accessible judicial services in remote Alaska villages contributes 

significantly to increased crime, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, 

domestic violence, rates of suicide, poor educational achievement, and lack of economic development.” 

Levels of Exposure to Violence. A 2009 Alaska study confirmed the 

high level of Alaska Native children exposed to violence: 

˺	 Native mothers of three-year-olds are eight times more likely 

than non-Natives to report that their children had witnessed 

violence or abuse, and 

˺	 Alaska Native adults are almost twice as likely as non-Natives 

to report that as children, they witnessed parents or guardians 

physically fighting. Roughly one in three saw their parents 

hurting each other in some way, including kicking, hitting, or 

shoving.23 

Impact. Children who live in a home where domestic violence is 

present, where they witness domestic violence, and/or where 

they are the direct victim of violence face many long-term effects 

of trauma.24 There is ample evidence that Alaska Native children 

suffer from this trauma on many levels including: 

˺	 Alaska Native children constitute only 17.3 percent of the Alaska 

state child population; however, Alaska Native children constitute 50.1 percent of substantiated reports of child maltreatment 

in the state, 51.1 percent of all children in out-of-home placements, and a staggering 62.3 percent of all children in foster 

care. This means that Alaska Native children are represented 

in foster care at a rate three times greater than the general 

“In Alaska where services 

to Natives are limited or 

non-existent, sexual assault 

rates are much higher. 

The National Indian Law 

and Order Commission 

visited Alaska communities 

where every single woman 

reported she’d been raped. 

When a 12-year old girl was 

raped and murdered in one 

village last year, it took 

Alaska troopers four days 

to respond.” 

Troy A. Eid, Chairman, Indian 

Law and Order Commission, 

The Invisible Crisis Killing Native 

American Youth36 
C H A P T E R 5 

134 

“The State of Alaska 

frequently seeks to ignore 

or interpret various 

provisions of the Indian 

Child Welfare Act in a 

manner that seriously 

limits tribal jurisdiction 

over matters concerning 

tribal children. Further, 

tribal courts are treated 

differently than tribal 

courts in the rest of the 

country. As a result, 

hundreds of AN children 

are removed from their 

homes and placed in urban 

communities in non-Native 

care with poor prognosis 

for reunification or family 

permanency.” 

Sarah Hicks Kastelic, Deputy 

Director, National Indian Child 

Welfare Association. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK, 

June 11, 2014 

“Once children are in the 

system they are lost, not 

only to their parents, but to 

their extended families and 

communities.” 

Andy Teuber, President/
 

CEO, Kodiak Area 

Native Association.
 

Testimony before the Task
 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children Exposed
 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK,
 

June 11, 2014
 

population, and this disproportionality rate has been increasing 

in recent years.25 

˺	 Children in out-of-home placement in Alaska face abuse or 

neglect at a rate nearly three times higher than the national 

rate. Because Alaska Native children are nearly two-thirds of 

the children in Alaska foster care, they are also more likely to be 

subject to child maltreatment in foster care.26 

˺	 Alaska Native children constituted 39 percent of the children 

seen in child advocacy centers throughout Alaska in 2013.27 

˺	 Alaska Native students—with a 50 percent high school dropout 

rate28—are twice as likely to drop out as their non-Native peers.29 

˺	 Rates for nine of ten leading causes of death are higher for 

Alaska Natives than the general U.S. population (cancer, 

unintentional injury, suicide, alcohol abuse, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic liver 

disease, pneumonia, influenza, and homicide).30 

˺	 More than 95 percent of all crimes committed in rural Alaska can 

be attributed to alcohol.31 The alcohol abuse–related mortality 

rate was 38.7 per one hundred thousand for Alaska Natives over 

the period 2004 through 2008, 16.1 times higher than the rate for 

the U.S. white population over the same period.32 

˺	 The suicide rate among Alaska Natives is almost four times the 

U.S. general population rate, and is at least six times the national 

average in some parts of the state.33 Thirteen percent of the 

suicides in Alaska are child suicides. Nearly 40 percent of these 

child suicides are Alaska Native children.34 The alcohol-related 

suicide rate in remote Alaska villages is six times the average in 

the United States and the alcohol-related mortality rate is 3.5 

times that of the general population of the United States.35 

˺	 The homeless population in Anchorage, both adult and youth, 

are disproportionately Alaska Native. Indeed, 40 percent of the 

youth served by Covenant House Alaska, the state’s largest youth 

shelter, are Alaska Native. This shelter’s capacity has further 

been challenged in recent years by an influx of young Alaska 

Native sex-trafficking victims. 

The Advisory Committee heard repeatedly that Alaska Tribes are 

ready and willing to step up to address violence in their communities and serve the children exposed to that violence. It is time 

for Alaska and the federal government to join in partnership to 

remove the current barriers that inhibit their ability to do so and to 

empower Alaska Tribes to protect Alaska Native children. 
E M P O W E R I N G A L A S K A T R I B E S 

135 

 

 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE VISION FOR EMPOWERING ALASKA 

TRIBES, REMOVING BARRIERS, AND PROVIDING RESOURCES 

The Advisory Committee envisions a future where Alaska Native children 

are raised in a supportive community rich in Alaska Native culture; where 

the primacy of Alaska tribal governments is recognized and respected; 

and where Alaska Tribes are empowered with authority and resources to 

prevent Alaska Native children from being exposed to violence and have 

sufficient tools for Alaska Tribes to respond and heal their children. 

Findings and Recommendations 

■ 5.1 The federal government should promptly implement all 

five recommendations in Chapter 2 (Reforming Justice for 

Alaska Natives: The Time is Now) of the Indian Law and Order 

Commission’s 2013 Final Report, A Roadmap for Making Native 

America Safer, and assess the cost of implementation. This will 

remove the barriers that currently inhibit the ability of Alaska 

Tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction and utilize criminal 

remedies when confronting the highest rates of violent crime in 

the country. 

Numerous commissions over the last several decades have received 

testimony and analyzed the high incidence of family violence 

and lack of public safety and access to justice in rural Alaska. 

Unquestionably, the exposure of Alaska Native children to violence 

is a consequence of the lack of public safety and access to justice.37 

The Alaska Sentencing Commission, the Alaska Natives Commission, 

the Alaska Judicial Council, the Alaska Supreme Court’s Advisory 

Committee on Fairness and Access, the Alaska Commission on Rural 

Governance and Empowerment, and the Alaska Rural Justice and 

Law Enforcement Commission have all looked at the issues faced 

by small and isolated villages. As Chief Justice Dana Fabe, Alaska 

Supreme Court, commented, “Consistent among their recommendations is . . . the need for greater opportunities for local community 

leaders and organizations to engage in justice delivery at the local 

level . . . for courts to effectively serve the needs of rural residents, justice cannot be something delivered in a far-off court by 
C H A P T E R 5 

136 

“Presently the federally 

recognized tribal 

governments operating 

within Alaska Native 

villages are not able to 

carry out local, culturally 

relevant solutions to 

effectively address the lack 

of law enforcement and 

prosecution in villages that 

allows perpetrators to slip 

through the cracks.” 

Sarah Hicks Kastelic, Deputy 

Director, National Indian Child 

Welfare Association. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK, 

June 11, 2014 

strangers, but something in which local people . . . can be directly 

and meaningfully involved.”38 The conclusion reached over and 

over is that these issues must be addressed at the local level, with 

the state working in partnership with tribes, to build local capacity 

to address public safety and access to justice.39 

The Indian Law and Order Commission (ILOC) reached the same 

conclusions in its 2013 report A Roadmap for Making Native America 

Safer and charted a path forward in Chapter 2, “Reforming Justice 

for Alaska Natives: The Time Is Now.” The commissioners unanimously disagreed with the position of the Alaska Attorney General 

that state law enforcement authority is exclusive because tribes do 

not have a land base on which to exercise any inherent criminal 

jurisdiction. The ILOC report set out five specific recommendations 

designed to remove the current barriers in federal law that have 

allowed the state of Alaska to continue to marginalize—and often 

ignore—the potential of tribally based justice systems. 

The Advisory Committee agrees with each of the five Alaskaspecific ILOC recommendations and the commission’s rationale for 

each recommendation. Until and unless these barriers are removed, 

the state of Alaska will continue to assert that Alaska Tribes do not 

have any criminal jurisdiction and thereby continue to contend that 

Alaska Tribes are only empowered to utilize civil courts and civil 

remedies when confronting the highest rates of violent crime in the 

country. The Advisory Committee recommends that these five ILOC 

recommendations be enacted as soon as possible in order to ensure 

that Alaska Tribes are also empowered to exercise criminal jurisdiction and criminal remedies when confronting such incredibly high 

rates of violent crime. 

The Advisory Committee also recommends that the Congressional 

Budget Office or another appropriate federal entity should assess 

the cost to implement the five Alaska-specific recommendations 

of the Indian Law and Order Commission. The Advisory Committee 

believes that the costs must be assessed in order for these recommendations to be realized. 

It is important to note that the U.S. Senate, on August 26, 2014, 

reported a bipartisan bill sponsored by both Alaska senators, 

40 S. 1474 to be titled Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act of 2014,

which includes a provision that would, if enacted, address ILOC 

Recommendation 2.4 by repealing the Alaska exclusion in Title IX of 
E M P O W E R I N G A L A S K A T R I B E S 

137 

 

 

 

VAWA 2013. If this bill is not enacted in the current 2014 lame duck 

session, it should be reintroduced and made a priority. 

Unfortunately, the current version of the bill does continue to 

limit the potential Alaska tribal court funding to tribes exercising 

civil jurisdiction concurrent with the state of Alaska. Until the five 

following ILOC recommendations are implemented, the state of 

Alaska will likely continue asserting that Alaska Tribes are not 

empowered to exercise criminal jurisdiction and utilize criminal 

remedies when confronting violent crime and Alaska Native children exposed to it. 

5.1.A	 (Indian Law and Order Commission Recommendation 

2.1): Congress should overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 

decision in Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal 

Government, by amending the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA) to provide that former reservation 

lands acquired in fee by Alaska Tribes and other lands 

transferred in fee to Alaska Tribes pursuant to ANCSA are 

Indian country. 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie 

Tribal Government as based on an outdated and static understanding 

of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Although that 

statute was first enacted under the influence of Termination Policy, 

it has been amended and reinterpreted many times since then, 

moving gradually but unmistakably toward a tribal self-determination model. . . . [The Federal government] confirmed recognition 

of Alaska Native villages [in 1993] as federally recognized Indian 

nations with a government-to-government relationship with the 

United States. Since then federal agencies have been providing 

services to Alaska Native villages that clearly qualify as Indian 

country much as they do for tribes on reservation lands. Nothing 

in ANCSA expressly barred the treatment of these former reservation and other tribal fee lands as Indian country. As a consequence, 

the Venetie decision has been widely criticized for failing “to honor 

longstanding principles of Indian law favoring the preservation 

of Tribal rights and powers until Congress clearly expresses its 

intent to terminate those rights and powers.” Congress should step 

forward and correct the Supreme Court’s misguided interpretation 

of ANCSA.41 
C H A P T E R 5 

138 

 

“It nonetheless bears 

repeating that the 

Commission’s findings 

and conclusions represent 

the unanimous view of 

nine independent citizens, 

Republicans and Democrats 

alike: It is the Commission’s 

considered finding that 

Alaska’s approach to 

criminal justice issues is 

fundamentally on the wrong 

track. The status quo in 

Alaska tends to marginalize— 

and frequently ignores—the 

potential of tribally based 

justice systems, as well as 

intertribal institutions and 

organizations to provide more 

cost-effective and responsive 

alternatives to prevent crime 

and keep all Alaskans safer. If 

given an opportunity to work, 

Tribal approaches can be 

reasonably expected to work 

better—and at less cost.” 

Indian Law and Order 

Commission46 

5.1.B (Indian Law and Order Commission Recommendation 

2.2): Congress and the President should amend the definitions of Indian country to clarify (or affirm) that Native 

allotments and Native-owned town sites in Alaska are 

Indian country. 

There is an archipelago of land—individual Indian allotments 

and commonly held lands within Alaska Native town sites—that 

ANCSA did not affect. These are geographies over which the federal 

government retains a trust responsibility, and they should be fully 

recognized as Indian country. These parcels are significant—conservative estimates place their total area somewhere between four 

and six million acres. If a land base is what is needed to exercise 

criminal jurisdiction (and other kinds of land-based jurisdiction), 

the change would clarify that at least some Alaska Tribes do have 

a land base. Furthermore, these lands are a foothold from which 

Indian country in Alaska can be expanded.42 

5.1.C (Indian Law and Order Commission Recommendation 

2.3): Congress should amend the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act to allow a transfer of lands from Regional 

Corporations to Tribal governments; to allow transferred 

lands to be put into trust and included within the definition of Indian country in the Federal criminal code; to 

allow Alaska Tribes to put tribally owned fee simple 

land similarly into trust; and to channel more resources 

directly to Alaska Native Tribal governments for the provision of governmental services in those communities. 

To assert substantial land-based jurisdiction, Alaska Tribes need 

more land, with a focus on restoring and consolidating tribal 

authority within Native villages and town sites. Transfers of 

regional corporation land back to tribes and conversion of this 

land to trust status makes that possible. Tribes also should have the 

option of converting any land held in fee simple to trust status to 

further enlarge the reach of territorial jurisdiction.43 

5.1.D (Indian Law and Order Commission Recommendation 

2.4): Congress should repeal Section 910 of Title IX of

the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 
E M P O W E R I N G A L A S K A T R I B E S 

139 

2013 (VAWA Amendments), and thereby permit Alaska 

Native communities and their courts to address domestic 

violence and sexual assault committed by Tribal members 

and non-Natives, just as in the lower 48. 

The special rule applying Title IX of the VAWA Amendments to 

only one Native community in Alaska is inimical to providing effective public safety in Alaska. A simple fix is the removal of the one 

section relating to Alaska, which puts Alaska Native communities 

on par with Native communities. Allowing tribal courts to issue 

protective orders, enforce them, and provide the local, immediate 

deterrence effect of these judicial actions may be the single-most 

effective tool in fighting domestic violence and sexual assault in 

Native communities in Alaska.44 

5.1.E (Indian Law and Order Commission Recommendation 

2.5): Congress should affirm the inherent criminal jurisdiction of Alaska Native Tribal governments over their 

members within the external boundaries of their villages. 

PL-280 does not fit well in Alaska, predicated as it was on the presence of Indian country as defined by the federal criminal code. 

The changes wrought by ANCSA effectively diminished any real 

meaning for PL-280 in Alaska, yet it is the law that the state relies 

on to hold that Alaska Tribes cannot exercise concurrent criminal 

law jurisdiction over their own members, frustrating the development of local-level criminal justice institutions. Regardless of what 

lands tribes own or whether they are considered Indian country, 

this recommendation offers an opportunity to use new tools to 

respond to the public safety crisis in Alaska Native communities. 

These changes authorize tribes to locally and immediately attend 

to violence and criminal activity. They make it easier to create 

state-tribal memorandums of understanding for law enforcement 

deputization and cross-deputization, cooperate in prosecution and 

sentencing, and apply criminal justice resources for optimal, mutual 

benefit. Such reforms also facilitate the ability of Alaska Tribes 

and Nations to work together for mutual benefit, such as creating 

intertribal courts and institutions. Of course, to make the most of 

this federal affirmation, tribes should take action to clarify and, as 

necessary, formalize tribal law for governing their recognized territories, especially law that relates to public safety.45 
C H A P T E R 5 

140 

 

“Let us enter into a new era 

of equality and real trust 

and responsibility. Please 

stop fighting our peoples’ 

basic human rights to 

provide for the survival and 

wellbeing of our people.” 

Evon Peter, Executive 

Director, Indigenous 

Leadership Institute. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK, 

June 12, 2014 

■ 5.2 The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Interior 

(DOI) should provide recurring base funding for Alaska Tribes to 

develop and sustain both civil and criminal tribal court systems,

assist in the provision of law enforcement and related services,

and assist with intergovernmental agreements. 

5.2.A	 As a first step, the DOJ and the DOI should—within one 

year—conduct a current inventory and a needs/cost assessment of law enforcement, court, and related services for 

every Alaska Tribe. 

5.2.B The DOJ and the DOI should provide the funding necessary

to address the unmet need identified, and ensure that each 

Alaska Tribe has the annual base funding level necessary to

provide and sustain an adequate level of law enforcement,

tribal court, and related funding and services. 

5.2.C Congress should enact legislation along the lines of the 

current bipartisan bill sponsored by both Alaska senators 

(S. 1474 to be titled Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act 

of 2014) that supports the development, enhancement,

and sustainability of Alaska tribal courts including full 

faith and credit for Alaska tribal court acts and decrees 

and the establishment of specific Alaska tribal court base 

funding streams and grants to Alaska Tribes carrying out 

intergovernmental agreements with the state of Alaska. 

5.2.D The federal government should work together with 

Alaska Tribes and the state of Alaska to improve coordination and collaboration on a broad range of public safety 

measures that cause Alaska Native children to be exposed 

to high rates of violence. 

The development, enhancement, and sustainment of Alaska tribal 

courts, and truly cooperative relationships between the state of 

Alaska and Alaska Tribes, are absolutely essential in reducing 

violent crime and protecting Alaska Native children from violence 

and exposure to violence. Village-based tribal courts are the culturally appropriate provider. Alaska tribal courts must be developed, 

enhanced, and sustained in order to effectively address issues 

concerning Alaska Native children exposed to violence. 
E M P O W E R I N G A L A S K A T R I B E S 

141 

In 2013, the Indian Law and Order Commission made the following 

findings and conclusions concerning Alaska tribal courts: 

˺	 Each of the four judicial districts in the Alaska court system 

serves rural Alaska, but the district courts frequently delegate 

responsibility to magistrates to serve low population, remote 

communities. Magistrates serving rural circuits visit individual 

communities regularly, but infrequently. Yet, often they are the 

sole face of the state court in Native villages. 

˺	 By federal law, Alaska Tribes may establish tribal courts. As of 

2012, seventy-eight tribes in Alaska had done so; seventeen 

more tribes were in the process of court development. However, 

funding constraints and narrow jurisdiction limit Alaska tribal 

courts’ efforts. Not all Alaska tribal courts are full-time or even 

operated with paid staff. These courts typically address only 

child welfare cases, customary adoptions, public drunkenness, 

disorderly conduct, and minor juvenile offenses.47 

The Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act of 2014 sets out the basic need 

for recurring base funding for Alaska Tribes to develop and sustain 

tribal courts. It reiterates many of the findings of the Indian Law 

and Order Commission, including the barriers that the centralized 

state judicial system imposes, as well as the lack of effective law 

enforcement. In addition, it found: 

˺	 S. 1474 finding (12): “Indian tribes that operate within remote 

Alaska villages should be supported in carrying out local culturally relevant solutions to effectively provide law enforcement in 

villages and access to swift judicial proceedings”; and 

˺	 S. 1474 finding (13): “increasing capacities of local law enforcement 

entities to enforce local tribal laws and to achieve increased tribal 

involvement in State law enforcement in remote villages will 

promote a stronger link between the State and village residents, 

encourage community involvement, and create greater local 

accountability with respect to violence and substance abuse.”48 

In addition, if enacted, S. 1474, Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act 

of 2014 would establish two new Department of Justice (DOJ) grant 

programs: one intended to facilitate intergovernmental agreements 

with the state,49 and one intended to help Alaska Tribes carry out 

court functions.50 

There is a dire need for recurring base funding for all tribal courts 

(see recommendation 1.4), but the needs of Alaska Tribes are most 

acute and the current available funding is wholly inadequate: 

“The single best and most 

effective thing Congress 

could do to address the 

serious social ills in rural 

Alaska is to simply confirm 

that our tribal governments 

and tribal courts have the 

authority to regulate and 

address social problems at 

home.” 

Hon. Ralph Anderson, 

President/CEO, Bristol Bay 

Native Association 

Hearing on S. 1474, S. 1570, S. 

1574, S. 1622, & S. 2160 before 

the Senate Commission on 

Indian Affairs 

113th Congress, Second 

Session 
C H A P T E R 5 

142 

“We also recognize that 

without funding for our 

tribal courts, this is going 

to be exceedingly difficult 

to advance. I am trying 

to work to establish some 

baseline funding for our 

tribal courts in Alaska so 

that resources are available 

to continuously operate our 

courts, and invest in the 

training of our tribal court 

judges and our staff.” 

Senator Lisa Murkowski 

Hearing on S. 1474, S. 1570, 

S. 1574, S. 1622, and S. 2160 

before the Senate Commission 

on Indian Affairs 

113th Congress, Second 

Session 

“We need more funding for 

our Tribal Courts.” 

Michael Geraghty, Attorney 

General, State of Alaska. 

Letter to Associate Attorney 

General Tony West, 

June 26, 2014 

˺	 Village subsistence economies do not lend themselves to traditional means of government revenue, such as tax, limiting Alaska 

Natives’ ability to self-fund tribal justice systems. 

˺	 BIA has historically not provided tribal justice system funding 

for Alaska Tribes under 638 compacts and contracts51 (in keeping 

with the BIA policy of not providing tribal law enforcement and 

tribal court funding for PL-280 tribes or similar legislation). 

˺	 Consequently, the only current federal funding source for Alaska 

justice systems is the DOJ’s Consolidated Tribal Assistance 

Solicitation (CTAS).52 However, although they constitute 40 

percent of all federally recognized tribes, Alaska Tribes have 

received an average of less than 9 percent of the limited CTAS 

funding available (see CTAS funding chart in Chapter 1). In FY 

2014, the only Alaska funding under the CTAS purpose area 

that most directly funds tribal courts were two grant awards to 

Alaska organizations for a grand total of $1.4 million.53 

˺	 If enacted and actually funded, S. 1474 would provide only an 

additional $4 million per year for Alaska Tribes according to the 

official Congressional Budget Office estimate.54 

The Advisory Committee recommends that the DOJ and the DOI 

should—within one year—conduct a current inventory and a 

needs/cost assessment of every Alaska Tribe to determine: (1) 

current level of law enforcement, tribal court, and related funding 

and services (such as village-based alcohol/drug abuse treatment 

services and village-based shelters and safe houses) available for 

each Alaska Tribe; (2) annual base funding level necessary for each 

Alaska Tribe to provide and sustain the necessary level of law 

enforcement, tribal court, and related funding and services; and 

(3) unmet need (difference between current level and base funding 

level needed). The White House Native American Affairs Office (see 

Recommendation 1.2) should coordinate this inventory along with 

the other activities under this recommendation. 

While an additional $4 million per year under S. 1474 would be a 

welcome start, much more is needed. The full unmet need will not 

be clear until and unless the inventory and needs/cost assessment 

recommended in this report are completed. 

Furthermore, the federal government should work together with 

Alaska Tribes and the state of Alaska to improve coordination and 

collaboration on a broad range of public safety measures that cause 

Alaska Native children to be exposed to high rates of violence. For 

example, the federal government should make grants available 
E M P O W E R I N G A L A S K A T R I B E S 

143 

 

 

 

 

 

to Alaska Tribes to enter into and carry out intergovernmental 

agreements with the state of Alaska in order to provide more 

local tools and options to solve village public safety problems 

and assist with the negotiation and implementation of those 

intergovernmental agreements. 

■ 5.3 The state of Alaska should prioritize law enforcement responses 

and related resources for Alaska Tribes, and recognize and 

collaborate with Alaska tribal courts. 

5.3.A	 The state of Alaska should prioritize the state law enforcement response and resources for Alaska Tribes. At a 

minimum, there must be at least one law enforcement 

official onsite in each village. 

5.3.B The state of Alaska should prioritize the provision of

needed village-based services including village-based

women’s shelters (which allow for children to stay with 

their mothers), child advocacy centers, and alcohol and 

drug treatment services. 

5.3.C The state of Alaska should recognize and collaborate with 

Alaska tribal courts including following existing federal 

laws designed to protect Alaska Native children and 

families such as VAWA protection order authority, which 

requires states to recognize and enforce tribal protection 

orders that have been issued by tribal courts—including 

Alaska Native tribal courts—without first requiring a state 

court certification of the tribal protection order. 

5.3.D The state of Alaska should enter into self-governance 

intergovernmental agreements with Alaska Tribes in 

order to provide more local tools and options to combat 

village public safety issues and address issues concerning 

Alaska Native children exposed to violence. 

The Senate Report of S. 1474, the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act 

of 2014 found: 

˺	 Many Indian tribes and Alaska Tribes face significant public 

safety challenges and struggle to combat staggering rates of 

violent crime with inadequate resources and technology. 

“Tribal courts bring not 

only local knowledge, 

cultural sensitivity, and 

expertise to the table, 

but also are a valuable 

resource, experience, and 

a have a high level of 

local trust. They exist in 

at least half the villages 

of our State and stand 

ready, willing, and able to 

take part in local justice 

delivery.” 

Chief Justice Dana Fabe, Alaska 

Supreme Court. 

A Message to the First Session 

of the Twenty-Eighth Alaskan 

Legislature, 

February 13, 2013 

“To end the perpetratorvictim cycle we need a 

justice system which 

understands our history 

and has the authority to 

protect tribal members 

and deter harmful activity. 

That system is the tribal 

system.” 

Hon. Natasha Singh, Tribal 

Court Judge, Stevens Village 

Hearing on S. 1474, S. 1570, 

S. 1574, S. 1622, and S. 2160 

before the Senate Commission 

on Indian Affairs, 

113th Congress, Second 

Session 
C H A P T E R 5 

144 

“The advantages of 

having the tribal court 

are numerous. They will 

step in earlier to address a 

case. They know their own 

people. They know who the 

safe families are and what 

is actually happening in 

the families and where to 

place children.” 

Lisa Jaeger, Tribal Government 

Specialist, Tanana 

Chiefs Conference. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK, 

June 12, 2014 

˺	 Only a handful of tribes in Alaska have any law 

enforcement presence. 

˺	 Approximately 370 State Troopers have primary responsibility 

for law enforcement in rural Alaska, but have a full-time presence in less than half of the remote Alaska Native villages. 

Seventy-five villages lack any law enforcement at all.55 

The 2013 ILOC report included relevant findings and conclusions 

concerning the very limited law enforcement available for Alaska 

Native Villages including: 

˺	 Alaska Department of Public Safety (ADPS) officers have primary 

responsibility for law enforcement in rural Alaska, but ADPS 

provides for only 1.0 to 1.4 field officers per million acres. Since 

ADPS’s 370 officers cannot serve on a 24/7 basis, the actual 

ratio of officers to territory is much lower. According to ADPS, 

troopers’ efforts “are often hampered by delayed notification, 

long response distance, and the uncertainties of weather and 

transportation.” 

˺	 Funding is available for just more than one hundred Village 

Public Safety Officers (VPSOs), although only eighty-eight positions serving seventy-four communities were filled in 2011. 

Local Alaska Native Corporations hire VPSOs and villages have 

input into their selection; but, the officers actually work under 

Alaska State Trooper oversight. VPSO presence helps improve 

the coverage ratio, but technically its role is restricted to basic 

law enforcement and emergency first response. They do not 

carry firearms, although most offenders in rural villages do, a 

fact tragically emphasized through the death of VPSO Thomas 

Madole in March 2013. 

˺	 One hundred and four more officers serve fifty-two communities as village or tribal police officers, and both the Bristol Bay 

and North Slope Boroughs have borough-wide police departments. These officers do carry firearms, but the positions exist 

only in those communities with the economic resources to 

support them. 

˺	 The Emmonak Women’s Shelter, which closed for several weeks 

in 2012 for lack of resources, is “one of two facilities dedicated 

to domestic violence protection in the State. It is also the only 

facility located in a Native American community.” It is located 

“in a region in which there are few police officers, no transitional housing for women, and limited options for women 

seeking to escape.”56 
E M P O W E R I N G A L A S K A T R I B E S 

145 

˺	 Alaska funds only sixteen juvenile probation offices across 

all of Alaska; on average, each office’s service area is the size 

of Tennessee. 

˺	 Of the seventy-six substance abuse treatment and/or mental 

health treatment centers in the state, most are in southern and 

southeastern Alaska, with approximately one-third in Anchorage 

alone; for residents of southwestern, central, and northern 

Alaska, help is typically provided a very long way from home.57 

As indicated in Recommendation 5.3C (in the preceding text), the 

state of Alaska should recognize and collaborate with Alaska tribal 

courts. There have been many positive developments in recent 

years including Alaska Supreme Court decisions that have been 

increasingly supportive of Alaska tribal courts,58 initial efforts by 

the state of Alaska to reach out and collaborate with Alaska tribal 

courts,59 the bipartisan efforts of the Alaska senators in cosponsoring S. 1474, and increasingly supportive statements by various 

Alaska state officials. Much more needs to be done, however. 

The state of Alaska’s policy of requiring that tribal protection 

orders must be first “registered” or “filed” in state court before 

the protection order will be enforced by Alaska law enforcement 

authorities provides a very powerful illustration of the challenges that still remain. As Associate Attorney General Tony West 

explained in his July 28, 2014 response letter to Alaska Attorney 

General Michael Geraghty’s June 26, 2014 letter: 

I wanted to follow up on one specific, but important, point that 

you made during our conversation. You explained that, although 

Alaska State Troopers do enforce domestic-violence protection 

orders issued by Tribal Courts, those orders must first be “registered” or “filed” in State court. You also stated that, occasionally, 

if confronted with an emergency or a person in imminent danger, 

the Troopers will enforce a Tribal-court protection order without 

the formality of State-court registration or filing. But if the victim 

has not already formally filed her Tribal-court protection order in a 

State court, the Troopers ordinarily will neither formally recognize 

the order nor enforce it by making an arrest. These statements 

were consistent with views that you had expressed in a letter dated 

December 3, 2013, which is posted on your Web site at: http:// 

www.law.state.ak.us/press/release/2013/120613-TroyEid.html. 

As I mentioned during our meeting, however, that position, as 

you have articulated it, is inconsistent with Federal law, which 

requires enforcement of a Tribal-court protection orders regardless 

of whether those orders previously were registered or filed in State 

“The fastest way to get 

law enforcement here is to 

shoot a moose.” 

Liz Medicine Crow 

Quoted by Sari Horwitz 

“In remote villages, little 

protection for Alaska Natives,” 

Washington Post, 

August 2, 2014 

“It can mean leaving 

the community is an 

impossibility because 

the cost of sporadically 

available transportation 

in communities where 

roads don’t exist can be 

prohibitive. Alaska can be 

a harsh place and weather 

can prevent travel for days 

and sometimes weeks.” 

Andy Teuber, President/
 

CEO, Kodiak Area 

Native Association.
 

Testimony before the Task
 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children Exposed
 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK,
 

June 11, 2014
 
C H A P T E R 5 

146 

“If female victims seek to 

leave for safety purposes, 

doing so requires very 

public and often delayed 

travel by plane or ferry.” 

Richard Peterson, President, 

Central Council of Tlingit and 

Haida Tribes of Alaska. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK, 

June 11, 2014 

“A lack of effective law 

enforcement, behavioral 

health specialists, adequate 

teachers and supportive 

services also creates an 

environment that often 

leads to danger and 

violence for Alaska Native 

children.” 

Gloria O’Neill, President/CEO, 

Cook Inlet Tribal Council. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK, 

June 11, 2014 

court. See 18 U.S.C. § 2265(d)(2). Indeed, so long as a protection 

order meets the other requirements of Section 2265 of the Federal 

Criminal Code, prior registration or filing in the state jurisdiction is 

not a prerequisite for state enforcement. 

While Alaska statutes provide that protective orders that are filed 

with the clerk of the court are state enforceable, Alaska law is silent 

about the enforceability of Tribal-court protection orders not filed 

or registered in the state. Yet Federal law expressly addresses this 

scenario, as noted above.60 

Unfortunately, Alaska Attorney General Michael Geraghty has 

not yet responded to Tony West’s July 28, 2014 letter and there 

is no indication on the Alaska state websites that this policy has 

been changed to comply with federal law. Consequently, Alaska 

Native women and children continue to risk increased exposure to 

violence on a daily basis as a direct result of this misguided state of 

Alaska policy. 

■ 5.4 The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the 

State of Alaska Office of Children’s Services (OCS) should 

jointly respond to the extreme disproportionality of Alaska 

Native children in foster care by establishing a time-limited,

outcome-focused task force to develop real-time, Native inclusive 

strategies to reduce disproportionality. 

Alaska Native children constitute 17.3 percent of the state child 

population; however, Alaska Native children comprise 62.3 percent 

of all children in out-of-home placements.61 Virtually all of these 

children have been exposed to violence. Many of them have been 

direct victims of that violence. In 2012 Alaska Native children were 

50.1 percent of substantiated reports of children physically abused, 

sexually abused, and neglected. In 2014 Alaska Native children were 

50.5 percent of alleged reports of child maltreatment. Yet they were 

56.5 percent of substantiated reports of child maltreatment. 

Issues of foster care disproportionality are huge problems for 

many tribes. Inadequate numbers of Native foster families to 

assure compliance with ICWA impacts most state child welfare 

agencies as well. But this problem takes on added dimensions and 

particular significance in Alaska—not only due to the high rate of 

removals of Alaska Native children and the fact that the rate has 

been increasing at an alarming rate—but also due to many other 
E M P O W E R I N G A L A S K A T R I B E S 

147 

factors including the remoteness of Alaska Native villages, Alaska’s 

vast size, the exorbitant cost of transportation, the financial limitations of subsistence economy, the lack of village-based foster care 

options, the lack of village-based services and resources, the lack 

of tribal courts, and the historic refusal of the state of Alaska to 

collaborate with Alaska Tribes—or until recently to recognize that 

Alaska Tribes even exist. 

In every state, to assure the safety, permanence, and well-being 

of children who are represented in state child welfare systems, 

the ACF is responsible for the oversight of state Child and Family 

Services Plans through periodic reviews of state child welfare 

systems. The Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) are 

conducted by the Children’s Bureau, within the HHS, to help states 

improve safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes for children 

and families who receive services through the child welfare system. 

The CFSRs monitor states’ conformity with the requirements of 

Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. 

After a CFSR is completed, states develop a Program Improvement 

Plan (PIP) to address areas in their child welfare services that 

need improvement. Significant financial penalties may be 

assessed for failure to make the improvements needed to achieve 

substantial conformity. 

The state of Alaska, Office of Children’s Services has administrative 

responsibility for development and implementation of the Child 

and Family Services Plan, including all policies and procedures 

relating to child protection services in Alaska (2014 Annual Progress 

and Services Report, State of Alaska, Office of Children’s Services). 

The most recent 2014 Annual Progress and Services Report has 

found that the number of Alaska Native children in care has 

increased since last year, and the percent of children in out of ICWA 

preference placement has also increased from 23 percent last year to 

29 percent this year. 

Recent data shows that things are getting worse. The 2012 data 

shows that Native children were represented in foster care at 2.4 

times their rate in the general population. In 2011, Alaska Native 

children made up 51.1 percent of all children in out-of-home placements in the state, a disproportionality rate of 2.9. In April 2014, 

Alaska Native children were 1,319 of the 2,106 children in out-ofhome placements. This is 62.3 percent of the foster care population. 

The disproportionality rate for Alaska Native kids in Alaska has 

“Clients with substance 

use treatment needs 

are required to leave 

their homes, leave their 

communities, leave 

their families to receive 

treatment outside, with 

very different cultural 

programming. This out 

of context approach to 

treatment without family 

and community support 

has been found to be 

greatly unsuccessful.” 

Mary David, Executive VP, 

Kawerak.
 

Testimony before the Task
 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children Exposed
 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK,
 

June 11, 2014
 
C H A P T E R 5 

148 

“This culturally 

inappropriate intervention 

[removal] is extremely 

traumatic for children 

and families, and should 

be the last line of defense, 

after all other attempts 

have been made to 

strengthen the family so 

that a child can remain 

in his or her own home. 

However, this is not yet 

the practice in many state 

systems, and specifically 

the Alaska state system, 

for a variety of reasons, 

including current federal 

funding mechanisms. 

Added to this equation 

is the legacy of removal 

that Native peoples, and 

specifically children, have 

faced. The historic trauma 

that systematic removal 

has generated in Native 

societies makes each 

removal of a Native child 

from her home, family and 

community a unique form 

of violence.” 

Sarah Hicks Kastelic, Deputy 

Director, National Indian Child 

Welfare Association. 

Testimony before the Task 

Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK, 

June 11, 2014 

risen in recent years, as the percentage of Alaska Native children in 

foster care has increased by more than 10 percent in those years.62 

National data indicates that at key decision points in the process of 

responding to reports of child maltreatment, AI/AN cases are much 

more likely to have the alleged abuse or neglect substantiated and 

to result in the child’s removal from their families and placement in 

foster care.63 

Efforts to address disproportionality as well as efforts to respond 

to child protection, family preservation and support, kinship care, 

foster care recruitment, and retention are outlined in all state 

Child and Family Services Plans, yet Alaska appears to be making 

little or no progress according to recent annual reports. The situation warrants an immediate, aggressive approach to address the 

growing number of Native children in care as well as the diminishing number of Alaska Native resource families. Federal and 

state governments must be held accountable for compliance with 

requirements of the federal Social Security Act, which are designed 

to support and protect children and families. 

Besides Alaska, a number of states are impacted by high disproportionality rates of Native children in foster care, and most state 

child welfare systems do not have an adequate number of Native 

resource families to assure compliance with ICWA. Because all 

states are mandated to conform to the provisions of Title IV-B and 

Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, federal and state child welfare 

systems must assure that the needs of Native children in foster care 

are met according to federal law. 

In addition, other factors that impact how Native children and families are affected by disproportionate placement include: 

ICWA Compliance. When ICWA was enacted in 1978, it was 

intended to address identified abuses, reduce the number of outof-home placements of AI/AN children, and provide protections 

to Indian families and children in both involuntary and voluntary 

proceedings. Although ICWA has resulted in some progress, recent 

analyses of national child welfare data indicate that the number of 

out-of-home placements of Indian children is still disproportionate 

to the percentage of Indian youth in the general population and 

that Indian children continue to be regularly placed in non-Indian 

homes, an indication of the continuing need for congressional 

intervention in this area.64 
E M P O W E R I N G A L A S K A T R I B E S 

149 

Increase In-Community Placements. Nationwide, the ability to 

place Native children within their communities is limited when no 

foster homes are available. But when Alaska Native children are 

removed from their family due to neglect or abuse, the lack of a 

sufficient number of licensed foster families within remote Native 

villages often results in the child being placed far from home in 

non-Native foster homes. The distance and expense of promoting 

family visitation often negatively impacts family reunification. 

Placement within a child’s own community, if safety can be assured, 

is generally the optimal arrangement to maintain cultural and 

family connections, sibling connections, and educational connections. If possible, placement with kin is the ideal placement and the 

first placement preference of ICWA. 

Kin families can be supported in caring for relative children; 

however they (1) either have to be licensed (which is challenging 

for many Native families) and they can be paid a foster parent 

subsidy; or (2) they can remain unlicensed and apply for TANF-type 

payments65, which are less than foster care payments. This is a 

fairly typical process for AI/AN families in most states. 

Foster care payments are generally the better choice (generally 

using Title IV-E federal funds) because the foster care payments are 

higher than TANF child-only grants. However, licensing requirements nationwide mandate that families go through background 

checks, home safety checks, and other requirements. Unfortunately, 

some background issues prevent families from being licensed. 

When no relatives are available to take in a child in an unlicensed 

(TANF paid) situation, the child will be sent elsewhere to be placed 

in a licensed (most likely, non-Native) home, generally out of the 

community. The system for licensing Native families in Native 

communities needs to be reexamined with an eye toward placing 

more Alaska Native children in their own communities. With the 

extreme disproportionality of Alaska Natives in foster care, the lack 

of Native resource families, and the failure of the state of Alaska 

Office of Children’s Services to meet the federal requirements of 

its Child and Family Services Plan to recruit foster families who 

match the children in their care, ACF/HHS/CB66 should provide 

tribal-specific funding resources for Alaska Native communities 

to develop culturally appropriate foster home recruitment and 

licensing services. 

“Alaska Natives fear to 

call for help. They fear 

that instead of receiving 

genuine assistance, they 

might lose their children 

to the state welfare 

system that too often 

does not comply with 

the Indian Child Welfare 

Act. Federal and state 

agencies try to help but 

the conditions they place 

on assistance can be so 

onerous as to make it 

practically unworkable if 

not unavailable altogether. 

In other places people seek 

equal protection of the law. 

In many Alaska Native 

communities there is no 

protection of the law.” 

Andy Teuber, President/
 

CEO, Kodiak Area 

Native Association.
 

Testimony before the Task
 

Force on American Indian/
 

Alaska Native Children Exposed
 

to Violence, Anchorage, AK,
 

June 11, 2014
 
C H A P T E R 5 

150 

“Alaska Natives face a 

growing crisis of dysfunction 

in our clans, villages, and 

tribes caused by domestic 

violence and child abuse 

and neglect and related high 

rates of alcoholism, illegal 

drug usage, poor health, and 

alarming high suicide rate and 

asperity, high incarceration 

rates. This dysfunction is 

facilitated by the federal and 

state regulations that have 

destroyed our customary and 

traditional lifestyles. This 

dysfunction is adding modern 

day trauma to the historical 

trauma our citizens bear from 

decades of loss of land, water, 

and the natural resources that 

have always provided for our 

sustenance.” 

Sarah Hicks Kastelic, Deputy 

Director, National Indian Child 

Welfare Association. 

Testimony before the Task Force 

on American Indian/Alaska Native 

Children Exposed to Violence, 

Anchorage, AK, 

June 11, 2014 

“For example, this past year, 

Alaska Native Fishermen living 

along the Yukon River were 

ordered to do without when 

their staple, the king salmon, 

did not run as in many years 

past due to a perfect storm 

of commercial overfishing; 

declining fish populations; 

and a legal and public policy 

baseline in Alaska that treats 

Native fishing rights no 

differently than tourism.” 

Richard Peterson, President, 

Central Council of Tlingit and 

Haida Tribes of Alaska.
 

Testimony before the Task Force
 

on American Indian/Alaska Native
 

Children Exposed to Violence,
 

Anchorage, AK,
 

June 11, 2014
 

■ 5.5 The Department of the Interior (DOI) and the State of Alaska 

should empower Alaska Tribes to manage their own subsistence 

hunting and fishing rights, remove the current barriers, and 

provide Alaska Tribes with the resources needed to effectively 

manage their own subsistence hunting and fishing. 

The Advisory Committee heard many witnesses describe how 

regulations that limit the ability of Alaska Natives to conduct traditional subsistence hunting and fishing are directly connected to 

violence in Alaska Native villages and the exposure of Alaska Native 

children to that violence. Witnesses explained that violence is 

essentially nonexistent during the times in which the communities 

are engaging in traditional subsistence hunting and fishing activities, whereas violence spikes during times when Alaska Natives 

are unable to provide for their families. The Advisory Committee 

heard many witnesses explain that one of the most effective ways 

to reduce the high levels of violence in Alaska Native communities 

would be to empower Alaska Tribes to manage their own subsistence hunting and fishing. The need for tribes to control their own 

traditional hunting and fishing regulations is an important issue for 

all tribes, but it has particular significance for Alaska Tribes because 

subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering are not only a part of 

everyday life for Alaska Natives, but for many Alaska Natives it is 

literally the subsistence on which their families survive. 

Beyond providing basic food, subsistence fishing and hunting has 

been essential to Alaska Native families’ way of life for generations. 

Like language and cultural traditions, it has been passed down 

from one generation to the next and is an important means of reinforcing tribal values and traditions and binding families together 

in common spirit and activity. Interfering with these traditions 

erodes culture, family, a sense of purpose and ability to provide for 

one’s own, and a sense of pride. According to a significant number 

of Alaska Native village residents who participated in Listening 

Sessions with the Advisory Committee, such interference can breed 

alienation, frustration, anger, and family violence. 
E M P O W E R I N G A L A S K A T R I B E S 

151 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes 

1. Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, PL-111-211, tit. II Sec. 205. 

2. Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, PL-113-4, tit. IX Sec. 910. VAWA 

afforded tribes much needed added protections, including the criminal authority to prosecute nonIndian perpetrators for domestic violence, dating violence, and the violation of protection orders, and 

clarified the civil authority of tribes to issue protection orders against non-Indians. See Sec. 904 and 

905. However, Sec. 910 prohibited all Alaska Tribes, except the Metlakatla Indian Community, from 

enjoying these added protections, despite experiencing some of the worst and most prevalent cases of 

domestic violence in all of Indian country. 

3. The Native peoples of Alaska are commonly referred to as “Alaska Natives,” and “Alaska Native 

Villages.” For the purposes of this report, we will use the term “Alaska Tribe” to refer to federally 

recognized tribes in the State of Alaska. 79 Fed. Reg. 4,748 (Jan. 29, 2014), available at http://www. 

gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-01-29/pdf/2014-01683.pdf. 

4. The Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to 

the President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): vi, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html. 

5. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior, Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from 

the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, available at: http://www.indianaffairs.gov/cs/groups/public/ 

documents/text/idc006989.pdf. 

6. The Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to 

the President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): vi, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html. 

7. Written Testimony of Andy Teuber, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence, Anchorage, AK, June 11, 2014 at 2, available at: http://agtaskforce.org/alaska/testimony/AndyTeuber.pdf. 

8. The Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to 

the President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): vi, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html (citing estimates calculated from data on the webpage “Demographic 

and Geographic Sketches of Alaska Natives,”Alaska Natives Commission, accessed September 6, 2013, 

http://www.alaskool.org/resources/anc/anc07.htm). 

9. The Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to 

the President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): vi, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html (citing Alaska Federation of Natives,Alaska Day 2012, Renewable Energy 

Solutions for Rural Alaska: Alaska Energy Brief, May 2012, 4, accessed September 6, 2013, http:// 

www.nativefederation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2012-afn-cap-alaska-day-brief.pdf). 

10. For a description of Alaska’s unique corporation model as created by the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act of 1971, see Case, David S., and Voluck, David A., Alaska Natives and American Laws, 

Alaska: University of Alaska Press, 2012. 

11. Testimony of Andy Teuber, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence,Anchorage,AK, June 11, 2014 at 7–8, available at: http://www.justice.gov/ 

defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/AlaskaPanel1.pdf. 

12. Testimony of Gloria O’Neill, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native 

Children Exposed to Violence, Anchorage, AK, June 11, 2014 at 3, available at: http://www.justice. 

gov/defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/AlaskaPanel1.pdf. 

13. Wood, Darryl S., and Magen, Randy H., Intimate Partner Violence Against Athabaskan Women 

Residing in Interior Alaska: Results of a Victimization Survey, available at: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/ 

research/2000/0026.aknativewomen/0026.02.ahtna.pdf. 

14. Rivera, M., Rosay,A. B.,Wood, D. S., Postle, G., and TePas, K., Descriptive Analysis of Assaults in 

Domestic Violence Incidents Reported to Alaska State Troopers, 2004 at 7, Justice Center, University of Alaska 

at Anchorage, JC 0601.04 (2008). 

15. 3rd Finding of S. 1474, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (2014). 

16. 4th Finding of S. 1474, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (2014). 

17. Testimony of Gloria O’Neill, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native 

Children Exposed to Violence, Anchorage, AK, June 11, 2014 at 3, available at: http://www.justice. 

gov/defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/AlaskaPanel1.pdf. 

18. Hagan, Kyla, and Provost, Ellen, Alaska Native Health Status Report, available at: http://www. 

anthc.org/chs/epicenter/upload/ANHSR.pdf 
CHAPTER 5 

152 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19. State of Alaska, 2011 Census Demographic Profile, available at: http://labor.alaska.gov/research; 

State of Alaska Department of Corrections, 2011 Offender Profile, available at: http://www.correct. 

state.ak.us/admin/docs/2011Profile06.pdf. 

20. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 41, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/ 

iloc/report/index.html. 

21. Leiber, Michael J., Johnson, Joseph, and Fox, Kristan, An Examination of the Factors that Influence 

Justice Decision Making in Anchorage and Fairbanks,Alaska:An Assessment Study, available at: http://dhss. 

alaska.gov/djj/Documents/ReportsAndPublications/DMC/06AssessmentStudy.pdf 

22. S. 1474, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (2014), Sec. 2(A)(9)-(11). 

23. Kemberling, M. M., and Avellaneda-Cruz, L. D., Healthy Native Families: Preventing Violence 

at All Ages, available at: http://www.anthctoday.org/epicenter/publications/alaskanativefamilies/ 

dvsaBulletin_1st_ed_final.pdf. 

24. Testimony of Sarah Hicks Kastelic, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence, Anchorage, AK, June 11, 2014 at 25, available at: http://www. 

justice.gov/defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/hearing4-briefing-binder.pdf. 

25. Ibid., 22–25. 

26. Ibid., 25. 

27. Testimony of Elsie Boudreau, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native 

Children Exposed to Violence,Anchorage,AK, June 11, 2014 at 145, available at: http://www.justice. 

gov/defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/hearing4-briefing-binder.pdf. 

28. Hearing on S. 1474, S. 1570, S. 1574, S. 1622, and S. 2160 Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 

113th Cong. 2d Sess. 7 (2014) (statement of Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, U.S. Senator [Retired] from North 

Dakota; Founder/Chairman, Center for Native American Youth,Aspen Institute). 

29. Hearing on S. 1474, S. 1570, S. 1574, S. 1622, and S. 2160 Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 

113th Cong. 2d Sess. 66 (2014) (prepared statement of Gloria O’Neill, CEO/President, Cook Inlet 

Tribal Council). 

30. Testimony of Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence,Anchorage,AK, June 11, 2014 at 173, available at: http://www. 

justice.gov/defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/hearing4-briefing-binder.pdf (citing Day, G., Holck, P., 

and Provost, E., Alaska Native Mortality Update: 2004–2008, available at: http://www.anthctoday.org/ 

epicenter/publications/mortality/AlaskaNativeMortalityUpdate2004_2008_17_jan_2012.pdf). 

31. Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission, Initial Report and Recommendations 

(2006) available at: http://www.law.state.ak.us/pdf/press/040606-ARJLEC-report.pdf 

32. Day, Gretchen, Holck, Peter, and Provost, Ellen M., Alaska Native Mortality Update: 2004–2008, 

Alaska Native Epidemiology Center (2011) at 15, available at: http://www.anthctoday.org/epicenter/ 

publications/mortality/AlaskaNativeMortalityUpdate2004_2008_17_jan_2012.pdf. 

33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and 

Control,Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), 2004–2008 United 

States Suicide Injury Deaths and Rates per 100,000, accessed March 4, 2013; and Day, Gretchen, 

Holck, Peter, and Provost, Ellen M., Alaska Native Mortality Update: 2004–2008, Alaska Native 

Epidemiology Center (2011) at 4, http://www.anthctoday. org/epicenter/publications/mortality/ 

AlaskaNativeMortalityUpdate2004_2008_17_jan_2012.pdf. 

34. Testimony of Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence, Anchorage, AK, June 12, 2014 at 22, available at: http://www. 

justice.gov/defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/AlaskaPanel5.pdf. 

35. 2nd Finding of S. 1474, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (2014). 

36. Eid, Troy A., The Invisible Crisis Killing Native American Youth, available at: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_25030443/invisible-crisis-killing-native-american-youth. 

37. Testimony of Mary David, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence,Anchorage,AK, June 11, 2014 at 190, available at: http://www.justice.gov/ 

defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/hearing4-briefing-binder.pdf. 

38. Chief Justice Dana Fabe,Alaska Supreme Court,“A Message to the First Session of the TwentyEighth Alaskan Legislature,” February 13, 2013. 

39. Testimony of Mary David, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence,Anchorage,AK, June 11, 2014 at 190, available at: http://www.justice.gov/ 

defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/hearing4-briefing-binder.pdf. 

40. S. 1474, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (2014). 
E M P O W E R I N G A L A S K A T R I B E S 

153 

 

 

 

41. Indian Law & Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President & Congress of the United States (November 2013): 51–2, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html. 

42. Ibid., 52. 

43. Ibid. 

44. Ibid., 55. 

45. Ibid. 

46. Ibid., 149. 

47. Ibid., 39. 

48. S. 1474, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (2014). 

49. S. Rep. No. 113-260, at 3 (2014), to accompany S. 1474, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (2014). 

50. S. Rep. No. 113-260, at 4 (2014), to accompany S. 1474, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (2014). 

51. In theory, this could change if this provision in S. 1474 is enacted “Participating Indian tribes 

shall be eligible for the same tribal court and law enforcement programs and level of funding from 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs as are available to other Indian tribes.” 

52. U.S. Department of Justice, “Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation—FY 2014 Combined 

Award List,” available at: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/pages/attachments/2014/09/23/ 

fy14-ctas-award-list.pdf. 

53. Ibid. 

54. S. Rep. No. 113-260, at 2 (2014), to accompany S. 1474, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (2014), available at: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt260/html/CRPT-113srpt260.htm. 

55. Ibid. 

56. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to 

the President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 41, available at: http://www.aisc. 

ucla.edu/iloc/report/index.html (citing Cheryl Cedar Face, Emmonak Women’s Shelter Receives 

Emergency Funds, American Indian Report, July 6, 2012, http://www.americanindianreport.com/ 

wordpress/2012/07/emmonak-womens-shelter-receives-emergency-funds/). 

57. Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States (November 2013): 39–41, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla. 

edu/iloc/report/index.html. 

58. See for example Simmonds v. Parks, 329 P.3d 995 (July 18, 2014) (Alaska Supreme Court finds 

that the tribal court’s order to terminate parental rights is entitled to full faith and credit by the State of 

Alaska because the appellant failed to exhaust their tribal court remedies before collaterally attacking 

the trial decision in state court); also see Alaska v. Native Village of Tanana, 249 P.3d 734 (2011) (Alaska 

Supreme Court recognizes the inherent authority of tribal courts to initiate child custody proceedings under ICWA and that those tribal decisions may be entitled to full faith and credit by the state). 

59. Geraghty, Michael C., Alaska Attorney General Geraghty’s June 26, 2014 Letter to U. S. Associate 

Attorney General Tony West, available at: https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/6-26-14-letterfrom-alaska-attorney-general-to-associate-attorney-genera.pdf. 

60. West, Tony, U. S. Associate Attorney General Tony West’s July 28, 2014 Response Letter to Alaska 

Attorney General Geraghty’s June 26, 2014 Letter, available at: https://turtletalk.files.wordpress. 

com/2014/07/letter-from-asg-west-to-ag-geraghty-july-28-2014.pdf. 

61. Written Testimony of Sarah Hicks Kastelic, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Anchorage, AK, June 11, 2014 at 26–37, available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/hearing4-briefing-binder.pdf. 

62. Ibid. 

63. Ibid., 31. 

64. Written Testimony of Jacqueline Pata, Hearing of the Task Force on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence,Anchorage,AK, June 11, 2014 at 100, available at: http://www. 

justice.gov/defendingchildhood/4th-hearing/hearing4-briefing-binder.pdf. 

65. TANF,Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. 

66. CB stands for Children’s Bureau. 

appendix a 

Advisory Committee

Short Biographies 
156 

Dolores Subia BigFoot, PhD (Caddo Nation 

of Oklahoma) 

Associate Professor, Department of 

Pediatrics, University of Oklahoma Health 

Sciences Center 

Director, Native American Programs, 

University of Oklahoma 

Dolores Subia BigFoot (enrolled member of 

the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma and affiliated with the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of Montana) is an Associate 

Professor directing the Native American Programs at the Center 

on Child Abuse and Neglect at the University of Oklahoma Health 

Sciences Center, and trained child psychologist. For twenty years 

she has been the Director of Project Making Medicine, a national 

clinical training program for mental health providers in the treatment of child physical and/or sexual abuse and related traumas. 

She is also the director of the Indian Country Child Trauma 

Center, a resource center for promoting cultural enhancement of 

evidence-based practices and practice-based evidence of treatment 

approaches for American Indian children and their families exposed 

to trauma. Dr. Bigfoot has over 30 years of experience and is knowledgeable about the concerns of implementation and adaptation of 

evidenced based practices being introduced into Indian Country. 

She is known for her efforts to unify traditional American Indian 

and Alaska Native practices and beliefs into the formal teaching and 

instruction of indigenous people for the professionals working with 

these populations. 

Eric Broderick, DDS, MPH 

Former Deputy Administrator of the 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration 

Rear Admiral 

Rear Admiral Eric Broderick served for 

thirty-eight years in the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a 

Commissioned Officer in the U.S. Public Health Service. He obtained 

his bachelor and doctoral degrees from Indiana University and then 

completed a general practice residency at the U.S. Public Health 

Service Hospital in Seattle. He accepted a position with the Indian 

Health Service (IHS) and worked in clinical settings in the western 

APPENDIX A 
 

 

157 

United States. He was awarded a master of public health degree 

from the University of Oklahoma and attained diplomat status in 

the American Board of Dental Public Health in 1990. He has served 

as the Director, Division of Oral Health, and Acting Deputy Director, 

Office of Public Health, for the IHS. Between 2002 and 2005 he 

served as Senior Advisor for Tribal Health Policy in the Immediate 

Office of the Secretary, HHS. He joined the Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration in 2006, where he served 

as Deputy Administrator and Acting Administrator until 2011. 

Eddie F. Brown, DSW (Pasqua Yaqui & Tohono 

O’odham) 

Executive Director, American Indian Policy 

Institute 

Professor of American Indian Studies and 

School of Social Work 

Arizona State University 

Eddie F. Brown is an enrolled member of the 

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe and is affiliated with the Tohono O’odham 

Nation. His distinguished career as a leader in, and an advocate for, 

the American Indian community illustrates the wide range of work 

opportunities that can be built on advanced degrees in social work. 

Currently, he is a professor at Arizona State University in Tempe, 

where he serves as Executive Director of the American Indian Policy 

Institute. Brown’s prior position was Associate Dean and Director 

of the Kathryn M. Buder Center for American Indian Studies at 

the George Warren Brown School of Social Work at Washington 

University in St. Louis. In the world of government, he has served 

as Director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security and 

Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs for the Department of Interior. 

Valerie Davidson (Yup’ik) 

Indian Health Advocate 

Valerie “Nurr’araaluk” Davidson is an 

enrolled tribal member of the Orutsararmiut 

Native Council. Val has worked for over 

15 years as a national policy maker on 

matters affecting Indian health. Most 

recently Val served as the Senior Director of 

Legal and Intergovernmental Affairs for the Alaska Native Tribal 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE SHORT BIOGRAPHIES 
 

158 

Health Consortium, representing Alaska Native health needs at 

federal and state levels. Val was also the spokesperson and chief 

political and legal strategist for the Alaska Native Tribal Health 

Consortium’s Dental Health Aide Therapy Program. Val served as 

Co-Lead Negotiator for Alaska’s 229 federally recognized Tribes 

to negotiate the Alaska Tribal Health Compact for eleven years; 

was Chair of the Tribal Technical Advisory Group for the Centers 

for Medicare and Medicaid Services; served on the Medicare and 

Medicaid Policy Committee of the National Indian Health Board, 

the Title V Self-Governance Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, the 

National Steering Committee for the Reauthorization of the Indian 

Health Care Improvement Act, and the Medicaid Commission. Val 

currently serves as a Trustee of the First Alaskans Institute, working 

to advance Alaska Natives through community engagement, 

information and research, collaboration, and leadership development. Most important and bringing her the greatest joy, Val enjoys 

spending time at home with her children. 

Senator Byron Dorgan 

Chairman of the Board of Advisors Center for 

Native American Youth 

Former U.S. Senator 

Former Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs 

Committee 

Senator Byron Dorgan is a tireless advocate 

for Native American issues. While serving 

as the Vice Chairman in the 109th Congress 

and Chairman in the 110th and 111th Congresses for the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs, he brought attention to the disparities 

existing in Indian Country. He successfully championed efforts to 

reauthorize and modernize the Indian Health Care Improvement 

Act, authored the Tribal Law and Order Act, reauthorized the 

Special Diabetes Program for Indians, and fought for increased 

funding for Indian Country programs. Senator Dorgan is a Visiting 

Professor at two Universities lecturing on energy, economic policy 

and political affairs. He works part time as a Senior Policy Advisor 

with the Washington DC Law Firm Arent Fox. He is also a Senior 

Fellow with the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington DC think 

tank focusing primarily on energy issues. He served in the Senate 

leadership for sixteen years, first as Assistant Democratic Floor 

Leader and then as Chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. 

APPENDIX A 
159 

He was Chairman of Senate Committees and Subcommittees on the 

issues of energy, aviation, appropriations, water policy, and Indian 

affairs. He served as a U.S. Congressman and Senator for North 

Dakota for thirty years before retiring in 2011. 

Anita Fineday, JD, MPA (White Earth Band of 

Ojibwe) 

Managing Director, Indian Child Welfare 

Program, Casey Family Programs 

Formerly Chief Judge for the White Earth 

Tribal Nation 

Anita Fineday is the Managing Director of the 

Indian Child Welfare Program for the Casey 

Family Programs and has held this position since 2011. She previously served as the Chief Judge for the White Earth Tribal Nation for 

fourteen years. She holds a master’s degree in public administration 

from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and a 

Juris Doctor from the University of Colorado School of Law. She has 

previously served as an associate judge for the Leech Lake Band 

of Ojibwe and the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa. She has also 

taught federal Indian law and policy at the tribal college, university, 

and law school levels. She is an enrolled member of the White Earth 

Tribal Nation. 

Matthew L. M. Fletcher, JD (Grand Traverse 

Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians) 

Director, Indigenous Law and Policy Center 

Michigan State University College of Law 

Matthew L. M. Fletcher is Professor of Law at 

Michigan State University College of Law and 

Director of the Indigenous Law and Policy 

Center; sits as the Chief Justice of the Poarch 

Band of Creek Indians Supreme Court; and sits 

as an Appellate Judge for the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, 

the Hoopa Valley Tribe, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and 

Chippewa Indians, the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi 

Indians, and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska. He is a member 

of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. He 

graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 1997 and 

the University of Michigan in 1994; has worked as a staff attorney 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE SHORT BIOGRAPHIES 
160 

for four Indian tribes—the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Hoopa Valley 

Tribe, the Suquamish Tribe, and the Grand Traverse Band; and has 

been a consultant to the Seneca Nation of Indians Court of Appeals. 

He is married to Wenona Singel, a member of the Little Traverse 

Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and they have two sons, Owen 

and Emmett. 

Jefferson Keel (Chickasaw Nation) 

Lieutenant Governor of the Chickasaw Nation 

Jefferson Keel, Lieutenant Governor of the 

Chickasaw Nation, is a retired U.S. Army officer 

with more than twenty years of active duty 

service. His combat experience included three 

years’ service in Vietnam as an Infantryman, 

where he received the Bronze Star with “V” for 

valor, two purple hearts, and numerous other awards and decorations for heroism. Lt. Governor Keel has a bachelor’s degree from 

East Central University and a master’s degree from Troy University. 

He also completed postgraduate studies at East Central and East 

Texas Universities. The welfare of the Chickasaw people is his first 

priority. Lt. Governor Keel recently finished his second term as the 

President of the National Congress of American Indians. He was 

appointed by Senator Harry Reid to serve as a Commissioner on the 

Tribal Law and Order Commission; serves as Chair for the Tribal 

Interior Budget Committee; serves on the Department of Health and 

Human Services Secretary’s Tribal Advisory Committee, the Indian 

Health Service Advisory Committee, and the Centers for Disease 

Control Tribal Consultation Advisory Committee. Lt. Governor Keel 

and his wife, Carol, have three children and eight grandchildren. 

Joanne Shenandoah, PhD (Iroquois) 

Composer and Singer 

Joanne Shenandoah is one of America’s most 

celebrated and critically acclaimed musicians. 

She is a Grammy Award winner, with more 

than forty music awards (including a record 

thirteen Native American Music awards) and 

sixteen recordings. She has captured the hearts 

of audiences all over the world, with praise for her work to promote 

universal peace. She is a board member of the Hiawatha Institute 

APPENDIX A 
161 

for Indigenous Knowledge. In addition to Shenandoah’s musical 

abilities, her entire career has been dedicated to healing, and she 

has done thousands of events and workshops. Shenandoah recently 

performed for His Holiness the Dali Lama and at St. Peter’s at the 

Vatican in Italy where she performed an original composition at 

the celebration for the canonization of the first Native American 

saint, Kateri Tekakwitha, both in October 2012. Shenandoah has 

performed at prestigious venues such as the White House and the 

National Museum of the American Indian. 

Ron Whitener, JD (Squaxin Island Tribe) 

Executive Director, Native American Law 

Center 

Director, Tribal Court Public Defense Clinic 

University of Washington School of Law 

Ron Whitener is the Executive Director of the 

Native American Law Center, the Director of 

the Tribal Court Public Defense Clinic, and a 

Senior Law Lecturer at the University of Washington (UW) School of 

Law. A 1994 graduate of the UW School of Law, he worked as a tribal 

attorney for the Squaxin Island Tribe (of which he is a member). 

Professor Whitener’s research interests are focused on the intersection of law and health issues for Native Americans. In 2006–7 he 

was a Fellow of the University of Colorado, Health Sciences Center, 

Native Elder Research Center. He is co-investigator on several 

grants with the UW Medical School and is an Associate Justice of the 

Northwest Intertribal Court of Appeals, a Judge of the Confederated 

Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, and Counsel Attorney with 

Foster Pepper PLLC. In 2009 he received the American Association 

of Law Schools Section on Clinical Education’s Shanara Gilbert 

Emerging Clinician Award, recognizing a clinician with ten or fewer 

years of teaching. 

Marilyn J. Bruguier Zimmerman, MSW 

(Assiniboine-Sioux/Fort Peck Reservation) 

Director, National Native Children’s Trauma 

Center, University of Montana 

Marilyn J. Bruguier Zimmerman is an enrolled 

member of the Assiniboine-Sioux tribes of the 

Fort Peck Reservation. She is the Director of the 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE SHORT BIOGRAPHIES 
162 

National Native Children’s Trauma Center and serves as Associate 

Director of the Institute for Educational Research and Services, 

which allows her to work throughout the nation on culturally 

relevant, evidence-based interventions to treat childhood traumatic stress, reduce risk factors, and increase protective factors for 

substance abuse, violence, and suicide among American Indian/ 

Alaska Native youth. In March 2013, she was invited to serve on a 

congressionally appointed, twelve-member commission to analyze 

child welfare practices across the country and to investigate and 

reduce the number of child fatalities in the child welfare system. 

She served as a member of the Indian Health Service’s National 

Suicide Prevention Committee and the National Action Alliance for 

Suicide Prevention’s American Indian/Alaska Native Task Force. 

APPENDIX A 
appendix B 

Individuals and 

Organizations that 

Submitted Testimony 
164 

Hearing #1: December 9, 2013 - Bismarck, ND 

Dave Archambault II, Tribal Council Member, Standing Rock Sioux 

Tribe 

Don Bartlette, Public Speaker, Social Worker 

Sandra Marie Bercier, Training Director, Native American 

Training Institute 

Barbara Bettelyoun, PhD, Psychologist, Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

Sarah Deer, Assistant Professor, William Mitchell College of Law 

Cecilia Firethunder, President, Oglala Lakota Nation Education 

Coalition; Member, Board of Directors for Little Wound School and 

Tasunke Wakan Okolakiciye; Former Tribal President, Oglala Sioux 

Nation 

Donovan Foughty, State Court District Judge, North Dakota Indian 

Nations 

Leila Kawar Goldsmith, Child Advocacy Coordinator, Tulalip 

Tribes of Washington 

Lenny Hayes, Mental Health Therapist, Shakopee Mdewakanton 

Sioux Community; Psychotherapist, Tate Topa Consulting, LLC 

Lisa Thompson-Heth, Executive Director, Wiconi Wawokiya, Inc. 

Marilyn Hudson 

Chase Iron Eyes, Attorney, Last Real Indians, Inc. 

Sue Isbell, Extension Agent, Sioux County, ND 

Sarah Jumping Eagle, Pediatrician, Oglala Lakota and 

Mdewakantowan Dakota 

Cheryl Kary, PhD, Executive Director, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

Leander “Russ” McDonald, PhD, Chairman, Spirit Lake Nation 

Deborah Painte, Director, Native American Training Institute 

Michelle Rivard Parks, Assistant Director, Tribal Judicial Institute; 

Former Tribal Prosecutor 

Edward Reina, Tribal Law Enforcement Consultant, Retired Tribal 

Chief of Police 

Jennifer Mellette TaSunke Gli Nanji Win, Freelance presenter/ 

negotiator, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

Darla Thiele, Director, Sunka Wakan Ah Ku Program 

APPENDIX B 
165 

Linda Thompson, Executive Director, First Nations’ Women’s 

Alliance- Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalition
 

Joseph Vetsch, Prosecutor, Spirit Lake Tribal Court
 

Delores White, WS Liaison, Chairman Tex Hal, MHA Nation
 

Terri Yellowhammer, Technical Assistant Specialist, Native Steams 

Institute, Education Development Center
 

Hearing #2: February 11, 2014 – Phoenix, AZ 

Abby Abinanti, Chief Judge, Yurok Tribal Court 

Karen Allen 

Daniel Cauffman, Student, Grand Valley State University, Michigan 

Tracy Ching King 

Jessie Deardorff, Manager, Lummi Safe House 

Sheri Fremont, Director, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Community Child Advocacy Center 

Lea Geurts, Court Administrator; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribal Court 

and Instructor, Fox Valley Technical College
 

Carole Goldberg, Vice Chancellor, UCLA Academic Personnel
 

Jonathan Hale, Chairman of Health Education and Human Services 

Committee, Navajo Nation Council
 

Sherrie Harris, Public Defender, San Carlos Apache Tribe
 

Candida Hunter, Manager, Hualapai Green Reentry Program, 

Hualapai Juvenile Detention and Rehabilitation Center
 

Ethleen Iron Cloud-Two Dogs, Technical Assistance Specialist; 

Tribal Defending Childhood Initiative, Education Development 

Center, Inc.
 

Carole Justice, Coordinator, Indian Country Methamphetamine 

Program, Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes 

Debbie Manuel
 

Jose Martinez, Student, Arizona State University, Arizona
 

Cora Maxx Phillips, Former Executive Director, Navajo Nation 

Division of Social Services; CPS Worker
 

Gregory Mendoza, Governor, Gila River Indian Community
 

INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUBMITTED TESTIMONY 
166 

Ned Norris Jr., Chairman, Tohono O’odham Nation 

Theresa M. Pouley, Chief Judge, Tulalip Tribal Court; Member, 

Indian Law and Order Commission 

Addie Rolnick, Professor, William S. Boyd School of Law; Author 

Herman Schultz, Counselor, Salt River Tribe 

Nadia Seeratan, Senior Staff Attorney and Police Advocate, 

National Juvenile Defender Center 

William A. Thorne Jr., Appellate Court Judge, Utah Court of 

Appeals, retired 

Jonathan D. Varat, Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of 

Law; Member, Indian Law and Order Commission
 

Erma J. Vizenor, Chairwoman, White Earth Nation
 

Herb Yazzie, Chief Justice, Navajo Nation Supreme Court
 

Hearing #3: April 16-17, 2014 – Ft. Lauderdale, FL 

Brian Cladoosby, President, National Congress of American Indians 

(NCAI); Chairman, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community 

Aisha Uwais-Savage Concha, Attorney General, Rosebud Sioux 

Tribe 

Terry Cross, Executive Director, National Indian Child Welfare 

Association (NICWA) 

Chris Cuestas, Consultant, National Violence Prevention Resource 

Center 

Michael Lunderman, Prevention and Outreach Coordinator, 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe’s Defending Childhood Initiative 

Chris Meyer, Director of Education, Coeur d’Alene Tribe 

Chrissi Nimmo, Assistant Attorney General, Cherokee Nation of 

Oklahoma 

Iris PrettyPaint, Training and Technical Assistance Director and 

Native Aspirations Project Director, Kauffman & Associates, Inc. 

Edward Reina, Tribal Law Enforcement Consultant, Retired Tribal 

Chief of Police 

Cyril Scott, President, Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

Gerald Small, Member, Chippewa Cree Tribal Business Committee 

APPENDIX B 
167 

Shannon Smith, Executive Director/Attorney, Indian Child Welfare 

Act (ICWA) Law Center 

Matthew Taylor, Associate Director, National Native Children’s 

Trauma Center; Director, Montana Safe Schools Center; Associate 

Director, Institute of Education Research and Service, University of 

Montana 

Elaine Topsky, TANF Program Director, Rocky Boy’s Reservation, 

Montana 

Jack Trope, Executive Director, Association on Indian Affairs 

Erma Vizener, Chairwoman, White Earth Nation 

Gerry Weisner, Tribal Prosecutor, Oklahoma and Texas; Executive 

Director, Native American Children’s Alliance 

Sandy White Hawk, Director, First Nations Repatriation Institute 

Jeri Williams, Diversity and Civil Leadership Program Coordinator, 

Office of Neighborhood Involvement (Portland, OR) 

Marlene Wong, Assistant Dean and Clinical Professor, University of 

Southern California School of Social Work 

Sadie Young Bird, Director, Fort Berthold Coalition against 

Violence 

Hearing #4: June 11-12, 2014 – Anchorage, AK 

Ella Anagich, Attorney, Inupiat Tribe, Anchorage, Alaska 

Laura Avellaneda-Cruz, Social Worker, Alaska Native Tribal Health 

Consortium; Epidemiologist, Alaska Native Epidemiology Center 

Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, Medical Director, Alaska CARES 

Diana Bline, Director of Program Services, Covenant House Alaska 

Elsie Boudreau, Social Worker and Director, Alaska Native Unit 

within Alaska CARES, South-Central Foundation 

Robin Bronen, Executive Director, Alaska Institute for Justice 

Mary David, Executive Vice President, Kawerak, Inc. 

Valerie Davidson 

Troy Eid, Chairman, Indian Law and Order Commission 

Darlene Herbert 

INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUBMITTED TESTIMONY 
168 

Lenora Hootch, Founder, Native Village of Emmonak Women’s 

Shelter; Director, Yup’ik Women’s Coalition 

Jerry Isaac, Vice President, Alaska NCAI; Representative, 

Federation of Natives Interior Villages Representative; former 

President, Tanana Chiefs Conference 

Lisa Jaeger, Tribal Government Specialist, Tanana Chiefs 

Conference 

Michael Jeffery, Superior Court Judge, Second Judicial District, 

Barrow, Alaska 

Tamra Truett Jerue, Director of Social Services, Native Village of 

Anvik; Member, Anvik Tribal Council 

Becky Judd, Rural Community Action Program 

Tony Kaliss 

Sarah Hicks Kastelic, Deputy Director, National Indian Child 

Welfare Association 

Pam Karalunas, Chapter Coordinator, Alaska Children’s Alliance 

Julie Kitka, President, Alaska Federation of Natives 

Jon Lewis 

Kimberly Martus 

Leotis McCormack, Member, Naspers Tribal Council, Idaho 

Elizabeth Medicine Crow, President/CEO, First Alaskans Institute 

Amy Modig 

Walt Monegan, Former CEO, Alaska Native Justice Center; Alaska 

Commissioner of Public Safety; Chief of Police, Anchorage Police 

Department 

Laurie Morton, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence 

and Sexual Assault 

Myron Naneng, President, Association of Village Council 

Presidents 

Ukallaysaaq Okleasik, Executive Director, Native Village of 

Kotzebue 

Gloria O’Neill, President/CEO, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. 

Bobbi Outten, Director, Family Wellness Warriors Initiative, SouthCentral Foundation 

APPENDIX B 
169 

Jacqueline Pata, Executive Director, National Congress of American 

Indians
 

Diane Payne, Director, Justice for Native Children 

Evon Peter, Executive Director, Indigenous Leadership Institute; 

CEO, Gwanzhii, LLC
 

Richard J. Peterson, President, Central Council Tlingit & Haida 

Tribes of Alaska
 

M. Robinson 

March Runner, Tribal Administrator; ICWA Director, Galena 

Village, Louden Tribal Council, Alaska
 

Linda Sharp, Public School Teacher and Principal, retired
 

PJ Simon, Member, Tanana Chiefs Executive Board
 

David Smith, City Manager, rural Alaska, retired
 

Trevor J. Storrs, Executive Director, Alaska Children’s Trust
 

Andy Teuber, President/CEO, Kodiak Area Native Association; 

Chairman/President, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium
 

David Voluck, Tribal Judge, Central Council of Tlingit and Haida 

Tribes
 

Listening Session, May 20-21, 2014- Minneapolis, MN 

Frank Downwind, Youth Director, Little Earth of United Tribes 

Carol Author, Executive Director, Domestic Abuse Project 

David Campbell, Police Officer, Minneapolis, MN 

Travis DeCory, Chemical Dependency Prevention Advocate 

Scott DeMuth, Co-Developer, ADYC Cultural Evaluation Project 

Deb Foster, Executive Director, Ain Dah Yung Center 

Angela Gauthier, Family & Children’s Program Director 

Katie Johnson-Goodstar, Assistant Professor PhD, University of 

Minnesota; Co-Developer, ADYC Cultural Evaluation Project
 

Nancy Bordeaux, Minneapolis American Indian Center
 

Michael Harris, Counseling and Support Director, Indian Health 

Board, Minneapolis, MN
 

Eileen Hudon, Elder; Activist, White Earth/Ojibwe
 

INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUBMITTED TESTIMONY 
170 

Patina Park, Interim Executive Director, Minnesota Indian 

Women’s Resource Center (MIWRC) 

Georgette Christianson, Little Earth of United Tribes 

Sheri Riemers, Residential & Administrative Operations Director 

Rebecca Roepke, Oshkiniigikwe II Worker, Minnesota Indian 

Women’s Resource Center (MIWRC) 

Diane Carey, Social Worker, Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource 

Center 

Antony Stately, PhD, Psychologist, Ojibwe/Oneida 

Bill Ziegler, President, Little Earth of United Tribes 

Youth from Little Earth Youth Center and Ain Dah Yung Center 

Listening Session, June 9, 2014- Bethel, AK 

Christine Teganlakla, Outreach Coordinator, Yup’ik Women’s 

Coalition 

Janelle Vanasse, High School Principal, Bethel, AK 

Ray Daw, Director of Behavioral Health 

Cheryl Offt, Indian Child Welfare System 

Mary Safer 

Susan Taylor 

Sophia Jenkins 

Deborah Michael 

Monica Turrentine, Teacher, Special Education, Bethel, AK 

Michele DeWitt 

Mardy Hanson 

APPENDIX B 
appendix C 

The Attorney General’s

National Task Force on 

Children Exposed to Violence: 

Executive Summary 

173
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 

The Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children 

Exposed to Violence 

Exposure	to	violence	is	a	national	crisis	that	affects	approximately two out of every 

three of our children. Of the 76 million children currently residing in the United States, 

an	estimated	46	million	can	expect	to	have	their	lives	touched	by	violence,	crime,	

abuse, and psychological trauma this year. In 1979, U.S. Surgeon General Julius 

B. Richmond declared violence a public health crisis of the highest priority, and yet 

33	years	later	that	crisis	remains.	Whether	the	violence	occurs	in	children’s	homes,	

neighborhoods,	 schools,	 playgrounds	 or	 playing	 fields,	 locker	 rooms,	 places	 of	

worship,	shelters,	streets,	or	in	juvenile	detention	centers,	the	exposure	of	children	

to	violence	is	a	uniquely	traumatic	experience	that	has	the	potential	to	profoundly	

derail	the	child’s	security,	health,	happiness,	and	ability	to	grow	and	learn	—	with	

effects lasting well into adulthood. 

Exposure to violence in any form harms children, and different forms of 

violence have different negative impacts. 

Sexual abuse places	children	at	high	risk	for	serious	and	chronic	health	problems,	

including	posttraumatic	stress	disorder	(PTSD),	depression,	suicidality,	eating	disorders,	 sleep	 disorders,	 substance	 abuse,	 and	 deviant	 sexual	 behavior.	Sexually	

abused	children	often	become	hypervigilant	about	the	possibility	of	future	 sexual	

violation,	experience	feelings	of	betrayal	by	the	adults	who	failed	to	care	for	and	

protect them. 

Physical abuse puts	children	at	high	risk	for	lifelong	problems	with	medical	illness,

PTSD,	 suicidality,	 eating	disorders,	 substance	 abuse,	 and	deviant	 sexual	behavior.

Physically	 abused	 children	 are	 at	 heightened	risk	 for	 cognitive	 and	 developmental

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 3 
174 

impairments, which can lead to violent behavior as a form of self-protection and control. 

These children often feel powerless when faced with physical intimidation, threats, or 

conflict	and	may	compensate	by	becoming	isolated	(through	truancy	or	hiding)	or

aggressive	(by	bullying	or	joining	gangs	for	protection).	Physically	abused	children	are

at	risk	for	significant	impairment	in	memory	processing	and	problem	solving	and	for

developing defensive behaviors that lead to consistent avoidance of intimacy. 

Intimate partner violence within	families	puts	children	at	high	risk	for	severe	and	

potentially lifelong problems with physical health, mental health, and school and peer 

relationships as well as for disruptive behavior. Witnessing or living with domestic or 

intimate partner violence often burdens children with a sense of loss or profound guilt 

and	shame	because	of	their	mistaken	assumption	that	they	should	have	intervened	

or prevented the violence or, tragically, that they caused the violence. They frequently 

castigate themselves for having failed in what they assume to be their duty to protect 

a	parent	 or	 sibling(s)	 from	being	 harmed,	 for	 not	 having	taken	the	place	 of	their	

horribly	 injured	 or	 killed	 family	 member,	 or	 for	 having	 caused	 the	 offender	 to	 be	

violent.	Children	exposed	to	intimate	partner	violence	often	experience	a	sense	of	

terror and dread that they will lose an essential caregiver through permanent injury 

or death. They also fear losing their relationship with the offending parent, who may 

be	removed	from	the	home,	incarcerated,	or	even	executed.	Children	will	mistakenly	

blame themselves for having caused the batterer to be violent. If no one identifies 

these children and helps them heal and recover, they may bring this uncertainty, fear, 

grief, anger, shame, and sense of betrayal into all of their important relationships for 

the rest of their lives. 

Community violence in neighborhoods can result in children witnessing assaults 

and	even	killings	of	family	members,	peers,	trusted	adults,	innocent	bystanders,	and	

perpetrators	of	violence.	Violence	in	the	community	can	prevent	children	from	feeling	

safe	in	their	own	schools	and	neighborhoods.	Violence	and	ensuing	psychological	

trauma	can	lead	children	to	adopt	an	attitude	of	hypervigilance,	to	become	experts	at	

detecting	threat	or	perceived	threat	—	never	able	to	let	down	their	guard	in	order	to	

be	ready	for	the	next	outbreak	of	violence.	They	may	come	to	believe	that	violence	is	

“normal,” that violence is “here to stay,” and that relationships are too fragile to trust 

because	one	never	knows	when	violence	will	take	the	life	of	a	friend	or	loved	one.	

They may turn to gangs or criminal activities to prevent others from viewing them 

as	weak	and	to	counteract	feelings	of	despair	and	powerlessness,	perpetuating	the	

cycle	of	violence	and	increasing	their	risk	of	incarceration.	They	are	also	at	risk	for	

becoming victims of intimate partner violence in adolescence and in adulthood. 

4 | REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON CHILDREN EXPOSED TO VIOLENCE 
175
 

The	picture	becomes	even	more	complex	when	children	are	“polyvictims”	(exposed	

to	 multiple	 types	 of	 violence).	 As	 many	 as	 1	 in	 10	 children	 in	 this	 country	 are	

polyvictims, according to the Department of Justice and Centers for Disease Control 

and	Prevention’s	groundbreaking	National	Survey	of	Children’s	Exposure	to	Violence	

(NatSCEV).	The	toxic	combination	of	exposure	to	intimate	partner	violence,	physical	

abuse,	sexual	abuse,	and/or	exposure	to	community	violence	increases	the	risk	and	

severity of posttraumatic injuries and mental health disorders by at least twofold and 

up	to	as	much	as	tenfold.	Polyvictimized	children	are	at	very	high	risk	for	losing	the	

fundamental capacities necessary for normal development, successful learning, and 

a productive adulthood. 

The	 financial	 costs	 of	 children’s	 exposure	 to	 violence	 are	 astronomical.	 The	

financial burden on other public systems, including child welfare, social services, 

law enforcement, juvenile justice, and, in particular, education, is staggering when 

combined	with	the	loss	of	productivity	over	children’s	lifetimes.

It	is	time	to	ensure	that	our	nation’s	past	inadequate	response	to	children’s	exposure	

to	violence	does	not	negatively	affect	children’s	lives	any	further.	We	must	not	allow	

violence to deny any children their right to physical and mental health services or 

to the pathways necessary for maturation into successful students, productive 

workers,	responsible	family	members,	and	parents	and	citizens.

We can stem this epidemic if we commit to a strong national response. The longterm negative outcomes of exposure to violence can be prevented, and children 

exposed to violence can be helped to recover. Children exposed to violence can 

heal if we identify them early and give them specialized services, evidence-based 

treatment, and proper care and support. We have the power to end the damage to 

children from violence and abuse in our country; it does not need to be inevitable. 

We,	as	a	country,	have	the	creativity,	knowledge,	leadership,	economic	resources,	

and	talent	to	effectively	intervene	on	behalf	of	children	exposed	to	violence.	We	can	

provide	these	children	with	the	opportunity	to	recover	and,	with	hard	work,	to	claim	

their birthright ... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We invest in the future of 

our nation when we commit ourselves as citizens, service providers, and community 

members	to	helping	our	children	recover	from	exposure	to	violence	and	ending	all	

forms of violence in their lives. 

To	 prepare	 this	 report,	 U.S.	 Attorney	 General	 Eric	 Holder	 commissioned	 a	 task	

force	of	diverse	leaders	dedicated	to	protecting	children	from	exposure	to	violence	

and	to	healing	those	who	were	exposed.	The	report	calls	for	action	by	the	federal	

government, states, tribes, communities, and the private sector across the country 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 5
176 

to	marshal	the	best	available	knowledge	and	all	of	the	resources	needed	to	defend	

all	of	our	children	against	exposure	to	violence.	The	Attorney	General’s	task	force	

asks	all	readers	of	this	report	to	imagine	a	safe	country	for	our	children’s	creative,	

healthy development and to join together in developing a national plan to foster that 

reality. 

The	findings	and	recommendations	of	the	task	force	are	organized	into	six	chapters.	

The first chapter provides an overview of the problem and sets forth 10 foundational 

recommendations.	 The	 next	 two	 chapters	 offer	 a	 series	 of	 recommendations	 to	

ensure	that	we	reliably	identify,	screen,	and	assess	all	children	exposed	to	violence	

and thereafter give them support, treatment, and other services designed to address 

their	needs.	In	the	fourth	and	fifth	chapters,	the	task	force	focuses	on	prevention	and	

emphasizes the importance of effectively integrating prevention, intervention, and 

resilience across systems by nurturing children through warm, supportive, loving, 

and	nonviolent	relationships	in	our	homes	and	communities.	In	the	sixth	and	final	

chapter	of	this	report,	the	task	force	calls	for	a	new	approach	to	juvenile	justice,	one	

that	acknowledges	that	the	vast	majority	of	the	children	involved	in	that	system	have	

been	exposed	to	violence,	necessitating	the	prioritization	of	services	that	promote	

their healing. 

The	challenge	of	children’s	exposure	to	violence	and	ensuing	psychological	trauma	

is not one that government alone can solve. The problem requires a truly national 

response	that	draws	on	the	strengths	of	all	Americans.	Our	children’s	futures	are	

at	 stake.	 Every	 child	 we	 are	 able	 to	 help	recover	 from	 the	 impact	 of	 violence	 is	

an	 investment	 in	 our	 nation’s	 future.	 Therefore,	 this	 report	 calls	 for	 a	 collective	

investment	 nationwide	 in	 defending	 our	 children	 from	 exposure	 to	 violence	 and	

psychological trauma, in healing families and communities, and in enabling all of 

our children to imagine and claim their safe and creative development and their 

productive	futures.	The	time	for	action	is	now.	Together,	we	must	take	this	next	step	

and	build	a	nation	whose	communities	are	dedicated	to	ending	children’s	exposure	

to	violence	and	psychological	trauma.	To	that	end,	the	task	force	offers	the	following	

recommendations. 

6 | REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON CHILDREN EXPOSED TO VIOLENCE 
177
 

TASK FORCE 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Ending the Epidemic of Children Exposed to Violence 

1.1 Charge leaders at the highest levels of the executive and legislative 

branches of the federal government with the coordination and implementation of the recommendations in this report. 

The	executive	branch	should	designate	leadership	at	the	highest	levels	of	government	to	implement	the	recommendations	in	this	report.	Working	with	the	executive	

branch,	 Congress	 should	 take	 legislative	 action	 on	 the	recommendations	 in	 this	

report,	making	these	recommendations	a	bipartisan	priority.	

1.2 Appoint a federal task force or commission to examine the needs of 

American Indian/Alaska Native children exposed to violence. 

A	federal	task	force	or	commission	should	be	developed	to	examine	the	specific	

needs	of	American	Indian/Alaska	Native	(AIAN)	children	exposed	to	 violence	and	

recommend actions to protect AIAN children from abuse and neglect and reduce 

violence.	The	management	of	this	task	force	or	commission,	and	the	selection	of	

its members, should be carried out through an equal collaboration between the 

Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior. 

1.3 Engage youth as leaders and peer experts in all initiatives defending 

children against violence and its harmful effects. 

Local, state, and regional child-serving initiatives and agencies should be directed 

to involve youth as leaders, planners, problem solvers, and communicators and be 

given the support they need to do this. Engagement with youth is essential in order 

to	develop	effective	solutions	to	the	complex	problems	leading	to	and	resulting	from	

children’s	exposure	to	violence.	

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS | 9 
178 

1.4 Ensure universal public awareness of the crisis of children exposed to 

violence and change social norms to protect children from violence and its 

harmful effects. 

Precedents	exist	for	solving	epidemic	and	seemingly	intractable	problems.	Federal,	

state, and regional initiatives should be designed, developed, and implemented to 

launch a national public awareness campaign to create fundamental changes in 

perspective in every organization, community, and household in our country. 

1.5 Incorporate evidence-based trauma-informed principles in all applicable federal agency grant requirements. 

The federal government should lead the development of standards of care for 

identification, assessment, treatment, protection, and other crucial services for 

children	exposed	to	violence	and	psychological	trauma	as	well	as	the	development	

of protocols for monitoring the quality of these services as measured against the 

national standards. 

1.6 Launch a national initiative to promote professional education and 

training on the issue of children exposed to violence. 

Standards and a curriculum must be developed to ensure that all students and 

professionals	 working	 with	 children	 and	 families	 are	 aware	 of	 the	 scope	 of	 the	

problem	of	children’s	exposure	to	violence	as	well	as	their	responsibility	to	provide	

trauma-informed services and trauma-specific evidence-based treatment within the 

scope	of	their	professional	expertise.	

1.7 Continue to support and sustain the national data collection infrastructure for the monitoring of trends in children exposed to violence. 

Continued	 support	 for	 the	 National	 Survey	 of	 Children’s	 Exposure	 to	 Violence	

(NatSCEV)	is	essential	to	ensure	that	the	survey	is	conducted	at	frequent,	regular	

intervals.	The	government	must	gather	and	examine	additional	data	on	a	regular	

basis,	in	concert	with	the	NatSCEV,	to	address	related	justice,	education,	health,	

and	 human	 services	 issues;	 to	 establish	 a	 clear	 picture	 of	 children’s	 continuing	

exposure	to	violence;	and	to	track	and	demonstrate	the	progress	our	country	makes	

in ending this epidemic. 

1.8 Create national centers of excellence on children’s exposure to violence. 

To	ensure	the	success	of	this	report’s	recommendations,	national	centers	of	excellence should be established and fully funded to support the implementation of a 

sustained	 public	 awareness	 campaign,	 reforms	 to	 maximize	 efficiencies	 in	 funding, standards for professional education and practices, and ongoing monitoring 

10 | REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON CHILDREN EXPOSED TO VIOLENCE 
179
 

of	trends	and	the	translation	of	data;	and	to	bring	together	the	scientific,	clinical,	

technical,	and	policy	expertise	necessary	to	systematically	ensure	the	success	of	

each of the foregoing goals. 

1.9 Develop and implement public policy initiatives in state, tribal, and 

local governments to reduce and address the impact of childhood exposure 

to violence. 

Every	 community’s	 governing	 institutions	 and	 leaders	 should	 be	 provided	 with	

guidance	from	national	centers	of	excellence	to	enable	them	to	create	local	public	

policy initiatives, regulations, and services that ensure that children are protected 

against	the	harmful	effects	of	exposure	to	violence	and	psychological	trauma	to	the	

fullest	extent	possible.

1.10 Finance change by adjusting existing allocations and leveraging new 

funding. 

The federal government should provide financial incentives to states and communities to redirect funds to approaches with an established record of success in defending	children	against	exposure	to	 violence	and	enabling	 victimized	children	to	

heal and recover. 

2. Identifying Children Exposed to Violence 

Every	year,	millions	of	children	in	this	country	are	exposed	to	violence,	and	yet	very	

few of these children ever receive help in recovering from the psychological damage 

caused	by	this	experience.	The	first	crucial	step	in	protecting	our	children	is	to	identify 

and provide timely and effective help to those who already are being victimized 

by violence. The recommendations below are offered to address identification, 

assessment, and screening: 

2.1 Galvanize the public to identify and respond to children exposed to 

violence. 

Sustained public information and advocacy initiatives should be implemented in 

every community in order to create an informed citizenry that can advocate for 

higher	levels	of	 services	 and	 support	from	policymakers	for	both	prevention	 and	

early	intervention	for	children	exposed	to	 violence.	These	initiatives	are	crucial	to	

challenge	the	misplaced	pessimism	that	makes	violence	seem	like	an	inevitable	part	

of life. 

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS | 11 
180 

2.2 Ensure that all children exposed to violence are identified, screened, 

and assessed. 

Every professional and paraprofessional who comes into contact with pregnant 

women	 and	 children	 must	 routinely	 identify	 children	 exposed	 to	 (or	 at	 risk	 for)	

violence, provide them with trauma-informed care or services, and assist them and 

their families in accessing evidence-based trauma-specific treatment. 

2.3 Include curricula in all university undergraduate and graduate programs 

to ensure that every child- and family-serving professional receives training 

in multiple evidence-based methods for identifying and screening children 

for exposure to violence. 

It is imperative to equip all professionals who serve children and families with the 

knowledge	and	skills	they	need	to	recognize	and	address	the	impact	of	violence	and	

psychological trauma on children. 

2.4 Develop and disseminate standards in professional societies and 

associations for conducting comprehensive specialized assessments of 

children exposed to violence. 

Professional societies and associations of educators, law enforcement personnel, 

public	health	workers,	providers	of	faith-based	services,	athletic	coaches,	physicians,	

psychologists,	psychiatrists,	 social	workers,	 counselors,	 and	marriage	 and	family	

therapists	—	and	those	representing	specialists	in	child	abuse	and	domestic	violence	

prevention	and	treatment	—	should	develop,	update,	and	disseminate	standards	for	

training	and	practice	in	the	specialized	assessment	of	children	exposed	to	violence.	

3. Treatment and Healing of Exposure to Violence 

The	majority	of	children	in	our	country	who	are	identified	as	having	been	exposed	

to violence never receive services or treatment that effectively help them to stabilize 

themselves, regain their normal developmental trajectory, restore their safety, and 

heal	their	 social	 and	 emotional	wounds.	But	help	isn’t	optional	or	 a	luxury	when	

a	child’s	life	is	at	stake;	it’s	a	necessity.	Even	after	the	violence	has	ended,	these	

child	 survivors	 suffer	from	 severe	problems	with	anxiety,	depression,	anger,	grief,	

and posttraumatic stress that can mar their relationships and family life and limit 

their	 success	in	 school	or	work,	not	only	in	childhood	but	throughout	their	adult	

lives. Without services or treatment, even children who appear resilient and seem to 

recover	from	exposure	to	violence	still	bear	emotional	scars	that	may	lead	them	to	

experience	these	same	health	and	psychological	problems	years	or	decades	later.	

12 | REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON CHILDREN EXPOSED TO VIOLENCE 
181
 

3.1 Provide all children exposed to violence access to trauma-informed 

services and evidence-based trauma-specific treatment. 

Service	 and	treatment	providers	who	 help	 children	 and	their	families	 exposed	to	

violence and psychological trauma must provide trauma-informed care, traumaspecific treatment, or trauma-focused services. 

3.2 Adapt evidence-based treatments for children exposed to violence and 

psychological trauma to the cultural beliefs and practices of the recipients 

and their communities. 

Federal, regional, and state funding should be dedicated to the development, testing, 

and distribution of evidence-based, trauma-specific treatments that have been 

carefully	adapted	to	recipients’	cultural	beliefs	and	practices	in	order	to	reach	the	

millions of children currently in need in diverse communities throughout the country. 

3.3 Develop and provide trauma-informed care in all hospital-based 

trauma centers and emergency departments for all children exposed to 

violence. 

Hospital-based counseling and prevention programs should be established in all 

hospital	emergency	departments	—	especially	those	that	provide	services	to	victims	

of	 violence	—	including	 victims	of	gang	 violence.	Professionals	and	other	staff	in	

emergency medical services should be trained to identify and engage children who 

have	been	exposed	to	violence	or	to	prolonged,	extreme	psychological	trauma.	

3.4 Share information and implement coordinated and adaptive approaches 

to improve the quality of trauma-specific treatments and trauma-focused 

services and their delivery by organizations and professionals across 

settings and disciplines to children exposed to violence. 

To be effective, trauma-specific treatments and trauma-focused services must 

be provided in a consistent manner across the many systems, programs, and 

professions	dedicated	to	helping	children	exposed	to	violence.	

3.5 Provide trauma-specific treatments in all agencies and organizations 

serving children and families exposed to violence and psychological trauma 

that are suitable to their clinicians’ and staff members’ professional and 

paraprofessional roles and responsibilities. 

Agencies and organizations serving children and families should have access to 

training on and assistance in sustained, effective implementation of widely available 

trauma-specific treatments that have been shown scientifically to be effective with 

young children, school-age children, and adolescents. 

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS | 13 
 

182 

3.6 Ensure that every professional and advocate serving children exposed 

to violence and psychological trauma learns and provides trauma-informed 

care and trauma-focused services. 

Treatment providers should be made available in every setting in which children 

spend	their	days	—	schools,	youth	centers,	even	the	family’s	home	—	as	well	as	

where	children	receive	care	—	clinics,	hospitals,	counseling	centers,	the	offices	of	

child	protective	 services,	homeless	 shelters,	domestic	 violence	programs	—	 and	

where	they	encounter	the	legal	system	—	on	the	street	with	police	officers,	in	the	

courts,	in	probation	and	detention	centers	—	to	help	children	recover	from	violence	

and psychological trauma by providing trauma-informed care and trauma-focused 

services. 

3.7 Grow and sustain an adequate workforce of trauma-informed service 

providers, with particular attention paid to the recruitment, training, and 

retention of culturally diverse providers. 

Trauma-informed care and trauma-focused services should be taught as a 

required part of the curriculum for all graduate and undergraduate students 

enrolled in professional education programs in colleges, universities, and medical 

and law schools where these students are preparing for careers in the healthcare, 

human services, public health, child welfare, or juvenile justice fields. The same 

recommendation applies to technical and vocational schools in which the students 

are	preparing	to	work	in	similar	fields.

3.8 Ensure that professional societies develop, adopt, disseminate, and 

implement principles, practices, and standards for comprehensive 

evidence-based treatment of children exposed to violence or psychological 

trauma. 

Every professional society in the United States that represents children and families 

should develop and formally adopt principles, practices, guidelines, and standards 

for evidence-based trauma-informed care, trauma-specific treatments, and traumafocused	services	for	violence-exposed	children	and	their	families.	

3.9 Provide research funding to continue the clinical and scientific 

development of increasingly effective evidence-based treatments for 

children exposed to violence. 

Research and funding infrastructures that encourage the creation and testing of 

innovative practices and programs that allow for the evolution of increasingly effective 

evidence-based	treatments	for	children	exposed	to	violence	must	be	expanded	or	

newly developed. 

14 | REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON CHILDREN EXPOSED TO VIOLENCE 
183
 

3.10 Provide individuals who conduct services and treatment for children 

exposed to violence with workforce protection to prepare them for the 

personal impact of this work and to assist them in maintaining a safe and 

healthy workplace. 

All	providers	should	receive	training	and	resources	in	their	workplace	that	enable	

them to maintain their own emotional and physical health and professional and 

personal support systems. 

3.11 Incentivize healthcare providers and insurance providers to reimburse 

trauma-focused services and trauma-specific treatment. 

Even evidence-based treatments will fail if they are poorly implemented. Treatment 

providers must be incentivized in their practices to routinely monitor and report 

on the quality, reach, and outcomes of the evidence-based or evidence-informed 

services they provide using established methods for doing so. 

4. Creating Safe and Nurturing Homes 

Each	year,	millions	of	children	in	this	country	are	exposed	to	violence	and	abuse	

in	 their	 homes	 or,	 less	 often,	 outside	 the	 home.	 Violence	 in	 the	 home	 can	 take	

many	forms,	including,	but	not	limited	to,	physical	and	 sexual	abuse	of	children;	

intimate	partner	violence;	and	violence	among	family	members,	including	siblings,	

grandparents,	or	extended	family.	In	some	cases,	family	members	may	even	lose	

their lives because of criminal violence. 

Recognizing that the best place for children and adolescents to not only survive but 

also	to	thrive	is	in	families	that	keep	them	safe	and	nurture	their	development,	the	

task	force	offers	11	recommendations	that	are	described	below.

4.1 Expand access to home visiting services for families with children who 

are exposed to violence, focusing on safety and referral to services. 

Home	visitation	programs	should	be	expanded	to	address	the	dynamics	of	child	

abuse	 and	 domestic	 violence;	 to	 provide	 evidence-based	 safety	 planning	 for	

parents, including pregnant mothers who are victims of domestic violence and 

sexual	assault;	and	to	strengthen	the	connections	between	children	and	their	nonoffending	and	protective	parent(s),	recognizing	that	every	violence-exposed	child’s	

well-being	is	inextricably	linked	to	the	safety	of	that	child’s	home	and	the	well-being	

of	her/his	parents	and	caregivers.

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS | 15 
184 

4.2 Increase collaborative responses by police, mental health providers, 

domestic violence advocates, child protective service workers, and court 

personnel for women and children who are victimized by intimate partner 

violence. 

We need to enhance coordination between law enforcement and service providers 

to identify children who are traumatized by domestic violence in order to assess 

immediate and subsequent threats and to follow up with visits to evaluate safety and 

other concerns of victims. 

Coordinated responses must be developed to address safety issues, basic needs, 

trauma-focused assessment, and identification of children needing treatment, to 

support children’s recovery from the impact of exposure to intimate partner violence. 

Models for integrated planning and intervention following initial police responses to 

domestic disturbances to law enforcement, mental health, child protective services, 

and domestic violence services agencies and courts should be disseminated 

nationwide. 

4.3 Ensure that parents who are victims of domestic violence have access 

to services and counseling that help them protect and care for their children. 

Parents	who	have	experienced	intimate	partner	violence	should	be	provided	with	

trauma-informed services and treatment themselves in order to assist them in 

providing their children with emotional security and support for healthy development. 

4.4 When domestic violence and child sexual or physical abuse co-occur, 

ensure that the dependency and family courts, the child protection system, 

and domestic violence programs work together to create protocols and 

policies that protect children and adult victims. 

When domestic violence and child abuse co-occur in a family, all victims need 

protection. Adult caregivers who are victimized, and their children involved in custody 

and dependency cases, should be provided with coordinated trauma-informed 

services and trauma-specific treatment appropriate to their circumstances and 

developmental	stage.	Every	reasonable	effort	should	be	made	to	keep	the	violenceexposed	child	and	non-offending	parent(s)	or	other	family	caregiver(s)	together.		

4.5 Create multidisciplinary councils or coalitions to assure systemwide 

collaboration and coordinated community responses to children exposed 

to family violence. 

Every city, county, or tribe should be directed and supported to establish and sustain 

a	multidisciplinary	network	or	council	that	includes	every	provider	and	agency	that	

16 | REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON CHILDREN EXPOSED TO VIOLENCE 
185
 

touches	the	lives	of	children	exposed	to	 violence,	including	 key	decision	makers	

who affect policy, programs, and case management. 

Coordinated multidisciplinary teams that screen, assess, and respond to victims 

of family violence involved in the child protection and juvenile justice systems, and 

standards and procedures to prevent families and children who are exposed to 

violence in the home from becoming unnecessarily involved in those systems, are 

needed in every community. 

4.6 Provide families affected by sexual abuse, physical abuse, and domestic violence with education and services to prevent further abuse, to respond 

to the adverse effects on the family, and to enable the children to recover. 

Programs should be supported and developed to engage parents to help protect 

and	support	children,	ideally	working	to	stop	child	sexual	or	physical	abuse	before	

it	occurs	—	and	also	enabling	parents	to	assist	their	children	in	recovery	if	sexual	

or physical abuse does occur. Prevention programs that equip parents and other 

family	members	with	the	 skills	 needed	to	 establish	 healthy,	 supportive,	proactive	

relationships with children should be available to all families in every community. 

4.7 Ensure that parenting programs in child- and family-serving agencies, 

including fatherhood programs and other programs specifically for men, 

integrate strategies for preventing domestic violence and sexual assault 

and include reparation strategies when violence has already occurred. 

All	agencies,	programs,	and	providers	working	with	fathers	who	have	been	violent	

toward their children, partners, or other family members must provide in-depth 

assessment,	diagnosis,	treatment	planning,	and	educational	services	that	are	linked	

to the specific problems of each offender. Fathers who use violence also must be 

held	accountable	and	monitored,	as	change	does	not	always	come	easily	or	quickly.	

4.8 Provide support and counseling to address the unique consequences 

for children exposed to lethal violence, both in the home as a result of 

domestic violence homicides and suicides, and in the community. 

Evidence-based treatments that have been developed specifically to help children 

recover and heal from the traumatic grief of a violent death in their family should be 

available	to	all	children	who	experience	a	loss	due	to	violence,	in	every	community	

in this country. 

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS | 17 
186 

4.9 Develop interventions in all child- and family-serving agencies that 

build on the assets and values of each family’s culture of origin and incorporate the linguistic and acculturation challenges of immigrant children 

and parents. 

Evidence-based interventions should be created specifically for immigrant children 

and	their	families	who	have	been	exposed	to	violence,	providing	them	with	a	network	

of services and supports that are grounded in the beliefs and values of their culture 

and language of origin rather than forcing them to renounce or relinquish those 

crucial ties and foundations. 

4.10 Ensure compliance with the letter and spirit of the Indian Child Welfare 

Act (ICWA). 

Thirty-five years after its passage, full implementation of the ICWA remains elusive. 

Because the ICWA is a federal statute, successful implementation will be best 

ensured through strong, coordinated support from the Department of Interior, 

Bureau	of	Indian	Affairs;	Department	of	Health	and	Social	Services,	Administration	

for	Children	and	Families;	and	the	Department	of	Justice,	Office	of	Juvenile	Justice	

and Delinquency Prevention. 

4.11 Initiate a nationally sponsored program similar to the Department of 

Defense’s community and family support programs that provides military 

families with specialized services focused on building strengths and 

resilience, new parent support, youth programs, and forging partnerships 

with communities. 

The unique challenges of military families are widely recognized, but military families 

are too frequently underserved. Family support programs developed in concert with 

the	President’s	“Strengthening	Our	Military	Families”	initiative	should	be	expanded	

to fully provide for the safety and well-being of the children of military families and 

veterans living in civilian communities. 

5. Communities Rising Up Out of Violence 

Every year, community violence affects tens of millions of children in this country. This 

violence can occur in episodic incidents such as shootings in schools or other public 

places that cause children and families to feel terror in their own neighborhoods 

and schools and leave them to recover from the traumatic grief of losing friends or 

peers	who	are	killed	or	who	never	fully	recover.	In	addition,	countless	children	are	

victimized when violence becomes part of the fabric of American communities as a 

18 | REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON CHILDREN EXPOSED TO VIOLENCE 
187
 

result of gangs, or when bullying or corporal punishment is tolerated or sanctioned 

in schools or youth activities. 

To	reduce	the	extent	of	this	pandemic	of	children’s	exposure	to	community	violence,	

on	behalf	of	children	not	yet	exposed	to	community	violence,	and	to	help	children	

who have been victims recover and heal from the trauma and grief caused by 

violence	in	their	neighborhoods	and	schools,	the	task	force	proposes	the	following	

recommendations: 

5.1 Organize local coalitions in every community representing professionals from multiple disciplines and the full range of service systems (including law enforcement, the courts, health care, schools, family services, 

child protection, domestic violence programs, rape crisis centers, and child 

advocacy centers) as well as families and other community members, to 

assess local challenges and resources, develop strategies, and carry out 

coordinated responses to reduce violence and the number of children exposed to violence. 

Nationwide,	local	coalitions	should	be	formed	to	increase	children’s	safety	and	wellbeing through public awareness, wraparound support services, and immediate 

access to services that are tailored to meet the individual needs of children and 

families	exposed	to	violence	in	their	schools,	neighborhoods,	or	homes.	

5.2 Recognize and support the critical role of law enforcement’s participation in collaborative responses to violence. 

Child-serving professionals from all disciplines and law enforcement professionals 

should partner to provide protection and help in recovery and healing for children 

exposed	to	violence.	

5.3 Involve men and boys as critical partners in preventing violence. 

Initiatives	 must	 be	 supported	 and	 expanded	 to	 involve	 men	 and	 boys	 in	 using	

nonviolence	to	build	healthy	communities	and	to	develop	a	network	of	men	and	

boys across the country who are committed to creating widespread change that will 

help	break	the	cycle	of	violence	in	our	homes,	schools,	and	communities.

5.4 Foster, promote, and model healthy relationships for children and youth. 

Community- and school-based programs should be developed and supported to 

prevent violence within adolescent relationships, to promote healthy relationships, 

and to change social norms that tolerate and condone abuse. 

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS | 19 
188 

5.5 Develop and implement policies to improve the reporting of suspected 

child sexual abuse in every institution entrusted with the care and nurturing 

of children. 

To	break	the	silence	and	secrecy	that	shrouds	child	sexual	abuse,	every	institution	

entrusted with the care and safety of children must improve its policies on mandatory 

reporting, implement them fully, educate its employees about them, and ensure full 

compliance. 

5.6 Train and require child care providers to meet professional and legal 

standards for identifying young children exposed to violence and reducing 

their exposure to it. 

Child care providers must be trained and provided with ongoing supervision and 

continuing education so as to be able to recognize children in their care who have 

been	exposed	to	violence	and	to	be	able	to	help	their	families	to	access	the	services	

and treatment that these children need in order to recover. 

5.7 Provide schools with the resources they need to create and sustain 

safe places where children exposed to violence can get help. 

Every school in our country should have trauma-informed staff and consultants 

providing school-based trauma-specific treatment. In addition, these professionals 

should help children who have severe chronic problems to access evidence-based 

treatment at home or in clinics. 

5.8 Provide children, parents, schools, and communities with the tools 

they need to identify and stop bullying and to help children who have 

been bullied — including the bullies themselves — to recover from social, 

emotional, and school problems. 

Trauma-informed services and support should be provided to all children who are 

bullies or victims of bullying in order to stop the spread of emotional and physical 

violence in our schools and communities. 

5.9 Put programs to identify and protect children exposed to community 

violence who struggle with suicidality in place in every community. 

Every community in the nation should have immediate access to evidence-based, 

trauma-informed, trauma-specific, community-adaptive suicide prevention and 

treatment	 programs	 for	 children	 and	 youth	 at	 high	 risk	 because	 of	 their	 severe	

suicidality. 

20 | REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON CHILDREN EXPOSED TO VIOLENCE 
189
 

5.10 Support community programs that provide youth with mentoring as 

an intervention and as a prevention strategy, to reduce victimization by and 

involvement in violence and to promote healthy development by youths. 

All	children’s	mentoring	programs	should	provide	ongoing	trauma-informed	training	

and	supervision	to	their	adult	mentors	to	ensure	the	children’s	safety	and	maximize	

the benefits of the mentoring relationship. 

5.11 Help communities learn and share what works by investing in research. 

A coordinated national initiative should be created to develop public-private 

partnerships	and	funding	to	ensure	that	scientific	research	on	the	causes	of	children’s	

exposure	to	community	violence,	ways	to	prevent	such	exposure,	and	methods	of	

treating its adverse effects is translated into effective and efficient interventions that 

are available to, and used successfully in, every community in our country. 

6. Rethinking Our Juvenile Justice System 

The vast majority of children involved in the juvenile justice system have survived 

exposure	to	violence	and	are	living	with	the	trauma	of	those	experiences.	A	traumainformed approach to juvenile justice does not require wholesale abandonment of 

existing	 programs,	 but	 instead	 it	 can	 be	 used	 to	 make	 many	 existing	 programs	

more effective and cost-efficient. By correctly assessing the needs of youth in the 

justice	system,	including	youth	exposed	to	violence,	and	matching	services	directly	

to	those	needs,	the	system	can	help	children	recover	from	the	effects	of	exposure	

to violence and become whole. 

As	a	guide	to	addressing	the	needs	of	the	vast	majority	of	at-risk	and	justice-involved	

youth	who	have	been	exposed	to	violence,	the	task	force	offers	the	recommendations	

listed below. 

6.1 Make trauma-informed screening, assessment, and care the standard 

in juvenile justice services. 

All	children	who	enter	the	juvenile	justice	system	should	be	screened	for	exposure	

to	 violence.	 The	 initial	 screening	 should	 take	 place	 upon	 the	 child’s	 first	 contact	

with the juvenile justice system and should include youth who meet the criteria 

for	diversion	from	the	system.	Where	feasible,	juvenile	justice	stakeholders	should	

develop trauma-informed care and treatment for children diverted to prevention, 

mental health, or dependency programs. 

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS | 21 
190 

6.2 Abandon juvenile justice correctional practices that traumatize children and further reduce their opportunities to become productive members 

of society. 

Juvenile justice officials should rely on detention or incarceration as a last resort and 

only	for	youth	who	pose	a	safety	risk	or	who	cannot	receive	effective	treatment	in	

the community. Facilities must eliminate practices that traumatize and damage the 

youth in their care. 

6.3 Provide juvenile justice services appropriate to children’s ethnocultural 

background that are based on an assessment of each violence-exposed 

child’s individual needs. 

Culturally sensitive role models, practices, and programs aimed at healing 

traumatized	youth	and	preventing	youth	from	being	further	exposed	to	violence	in	

the	juvenile	justice	system	should	be	expanded	nationwide	and	incorporated	into	

statewide juvenile justice systems. 

6.4 Provide care and services to address the special circumstances and 

needs of girls in the juvenile justice system. 

Programs that provide gender-responsive services for girls healing from violence and 

other	traumatic	events,	including	sexual	and	physical	abuse,	should	be	supported	

and developed. 

6.5 Provide care and services to address the special circumstances and 

needs of LGBTQ (lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-questioning) youth in 

the juvenile justice system. 

Every	 individual	 who	 works	 in	 the	 juvenile	 justice	 system	 should	 be	 trained	 and

provided with ongoing supervision in order to be able to deliver trauma-informed care 

while	demonstrating	respect	and	support	for	the	sexual	orientation	of	every	youth.

6.6 Develop and implement policies in every school system across the 

country that aim to keep children in school rather than relying on policies 

that lead to suspension and expulsion and ultimately drive children into the 

juvenile justice system. 

Successful school-based programs that help students develop better ways of 

handling emotional distress, peer pressures, and problems in family and peer relationships	and	that	integrate	recovery	from	trauma	should	be	expanded	and	then	

embedded	into	existing	school	curricula	and	activities	to	increase	students’	abilities	

to	have	positive	experiences	with	education,	recreation,	peer	relationships,	and	the	

larger community. 

22 | REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON CHILDREN EXPOSED TO VIOLENCE 
191
 

6.7 Guarantee that all violence-exposed children accused of a crime have 

legal representation. 

We should ensure that all children have meaningful access to legal counsel in 

delinquency proceedings. Screen all children who enter the juvenile and adult justice 

systems	for	exposure	to	violence	and	provide	access	to	trauma-informed	services	

and treatment. Train defense attorneys who represent children to identify and obtain 

services	for	clients	who	have	been	exposed	to	 violence	and	to	help	identify	and	

prevent abuses of children in juvenile detention and placement programs. 

6.8 Help, do not punish, child victims of sex trafficking. 

Child	victims	of	commercial	sex	trafficking	should	not	be	treated	as	delinquents	or	

criminals. New laws, approaches to law enforcement, and judicial procedures must 

be	developed	that	apply	existing	victim	protection	laws	to	protect	the	rights	of	these	

child victims. 

6.9 Whenever possible, prosecute young offenders in the juvenile justice 

system instead of transferring their cases to adult courts. 

No juvenile offender should be viewed or treated as an adult. Laws and regulations 

prosecuting them as adults in adult courts, incarcerating them as adults, and 

sentencing them to harsh punishments that ignore and diminish their capacity to 

grow must be replaced or abandoned. 

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS | 23 

appendix d 

Indian Law and Order 

Commission: 

Executive Summary
 

195 

Preface 

The Indian Law and Order Commission is pleased to transmit its 

final report and recommendations—A RoAdmAp FoR mAking nAtive AmeRicA 

SAFeR—as required by the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, Public Law 

111-211 (TLOA). These recommendations are intended to make Native 

American and Alaska Native nations safer and more just for all U.S. citizens 

and to reduce the unacceptably high rates of violent crime that have 

plagued Indian country for decades. This report reflects one of the most 

comprehensive assessments ever undertaken of criminal justice systems 

servicing Native American and Alaska Native communities. 

The Indian Law and Order Commission is an independent national 

advisory commission created in July 2010 when the Tribal Law and Order 

Act was passed and extended earlier in 2013 by the Violence Against 

Women Act Reauthorization (VAWA Amendments). The President and 

the majority and minority leadership of the Congress appointed the nine 

Commissioners, all of whom have served as volunteers. Importantly, the 

findings and recommendations contained in this Roadmap represent the 

unanimous conclusions of all nine Commissioners—Democratic and 

Republican appointees alike—of what needs to be done now to make 

Native America safer.1 

As provided by TLOA, the Commission received limited funding 

from the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior to carry out its 

statutory responsibilities. To save taxpayers’ money, the Commission has 

operated entirely in the field—often on the road in federally recognized 

Indian country—and conducted its business primarily by phone and 

Internet email. The Commission had no offices. Its superb professional 

staff consists entirely of career Federal public officials who have been 

loaned to the Commission as provided by TLOA, and we are grateful to 

them and the Departments of Justice and the Interior. 

TLOA has three basic purposes. First, the Act was intended to make 

Federal departments and agencies more accountable for serving Native 

people and lands. Second, TLOA was designed to provide greater freedom 

for Indian Tribes and nations to design and run their own justice systems. 

This includes Tribal court systems generally, along with those communities 

that are subject to full or partial State criminal jurisdiction under 

P.L. 83-280. Third, the Act sought to enhance cooperation among Tribal, 

Federal, and State officials in key areas such as law enforcement training, 

interoperability, and access to criminal justice information. 

In addition to assessing the Act’s effectiveness, this Roadmap 

recommends long-term improvements to the structure of the justice 

system in Indian country. This includes changes to the basic division of 

responsibility among Federal, Tribal, and State officials and institutions. 

The theme here is to provide for greater local control and accountability 

while respecting the Federal constitutional rights of all U.S. citizens. 

Preface i 
196
 

Tribal governments, like all governments, have a moral duty to their citizens and guests 

to ensure the public’s safety. They are also the most appropriate and capable government 

to ensure such safety—they employ the local police, they are the first responders, and 

understand the needs of their community better than all others. Unfortunately, the 

American legal system—through legislation and case law—has significantly hamstrung 

their ability to ensure safety in Indian country. 

Brent Leonhard, Interim Lead Attorney, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

Written testimony for the Indian Law and Order Commission, Hearing on the Tulalip Reservation, WA 

September 7, 2011 

ii A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer 
197 

A Roadmap For Making Native America Safer 

Executive Summary 

American Indian and Alaska Native communities and lands are 

frequently less safe—and sometimes dramatically more dangerous—than 

most other places in our country. Ironically, the U.S. government, which 

has a trust responsibility for Indian Tribes, is fundamentally at fault for 

this public safety gap. Federal government policies have displaced and 

diminished the very institutions that are best positioned to provide trusted, 

accountable, accessible, and cost-effective justice in Tribal communities. 

In most U.S. communities, the Federal government plays an 

important but limited role in criminal justice through the enforcement 

of laws of general application—that is, those laws that apply to all U.S. 

citizens—creating drug-control task forces, anti-terrorism and homeland 

security partnerships, and so forth. Under this system of federalism, State 

and local leaders have the authority and responsibility to address virtually 

all other public safety concerns. 

Precisely the opposite is true in much of Indian country. The Federal 

government exercises substantial criminal jurisdiction on reservations. As 

a result, Native people—including juveniles—frequently are caught up in a 

wholly nonlocal justice system. This system was imposed on Indian nations 

without their consent in the late 19th century and is remarkably unchanged 

since that time. The system is complex, expensive, and simply cannot 

provide the criminal justice services that Native communities expect and 

deserve. 

It is time for change. 

Now is the time to eliminate the public safety gap that threatens 

so much of Native America. The United States should set a goal of closing 

the gap within the next decade. By 2024, coinciding with the centennial of 

the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924,1

 Native Americans and Alaska Natives 

should no longer be treated as second-class citizens when it comes to 

protecting their lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. 

“A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer” (Roadmap) provides 

a path to make Native American and Alaska Native communities safer and 

more just for all U.S. citizens and to reduce unacceptably high rates of 

violent crime rates in Indian country. 

The Roadmap is the culmination of hearings, meetings, and 

conversations between the Indian Law and Order Commission 

(Commission) and numerous Tribal, State, and Federal leaders, nonprofit organization representatives, and other key stakeholders across our 

country. 

Executive Summary v 
198 

About the Commission 

In 2010, Congress passed, and the President signed, the Tribal Law 

and Order Act, P.L. 111-211 (TLOA), which created the Indian Law and 

Order Commission. The Commission is an independent national advisory 

commission comprised of nine members who have all served as volunteers 

in unanimously developing the Roadmap. The President and the majority 

and minority leadership of Congress appointed these commissioners. 

TLOA directed the Commission to develop a comprehensive study of 

the criminal justice system relating to Indian country, including: 

1.	 jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian country and the impact 

of that jurisdiction on the investigation and prosecution of Indian 

crimes and residents of Indian land; 

2.	 the Tribal jail and Federal prison systems with respect to reducing 

Indian country crime and the rehabilitation of offenders; 

3.	 Tribal juvenile justice systems and the Federal juvenile justice 

system as it relates to Indian country and the effect of those systems 

and related programs in preventing juvenile crime, rehabilitating 

Indian youth in custody, and reducing recidivism among Indian 

youth; 

4.	 the impact of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 on the authority of 

Indian Tribes, the rights of defendants subject to Tribal government 

authority, and the fairness and effectiveness of Tribal criminal 

justice systems; and 

5.	 studies of such other subjects as the Commission determines 

relevant to achieve the purpose of the Tribal Law and Order Act. 

TLOA directed the Commission to develop recommendations on 

necessary modifications and improvements to the justice systems at the 

Tribal, State, and Federal levels. TLOA prescribed consideration of: 

1.	 simplifying jurisdiction in Indian country; 

2.	 improving services and programs to prevent juvenile crime on 

Indian land, to rehabilitate Indian youth in custody, and to reduce 

recidivism among Indian youth; 

3.	 adjusting the penal authority of Tribal courts and exploring the 

alternatives to incarceration; 

4.	 enhancing use of the Federal Magistrates Act in Indian country; 

5.	 identifying effective means of protecting the rights of victims and 

defendants in Tribal criminal justice systems; 

6.	 recommending changes to the Tribal jails and Federal prison 

systems; and 

7.	 examining other issues that the Commission determines would 

reduce violent crime in Indian country.

 TLOA provided the Commission with 2 years in which to complete 

this task, making the report due in 2012. However, due to Federal budget 

vi A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer 
199 

limitations, the Commission could not begin its work until late summer 

2011. Congress provided the Commission a 1-year statutory extension 

when it passed the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, 

P.L. 113-4. 

As provided by TLOA, the Commission received limited funding 

from the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior to carry out its 

statutory responsibilities. To save taxpayers’ money, the Commission 

operated entirely in the field—often in federally recognized Indian 

country—and completed its business primarily by phone and email. 

The Commission had no offices. Its professional staff consists entirely of 

career Federal public officials who have been loaned to the Commission 

as provided by TLOA. The Commission recruited each of its three staff 

members; when asked to serve, all three graciously did so. 

Upon completing these field hearings and meetings, the 

Commission developed this report. The report is called a “Roadmap” 

because the Commission has a particular destination in mind—to eliminate 

the public safety gap that threatens so much of Native America. 

About the Roadmap 

TLOA has three basic purposes. First, it was intended to make 

Federal departments and agencies more accountable for serving Tribal 

lands. Second, the Act was designed to provide greater freedom for Indian 

Tribes and nations to design and run their own justice systems. This 

includes Tribal court systems generally, along with those communities that 

are subject to full or partial State criminal jurisdiction under 

P.L. 83-280. Third, the Act sought to enhance cooperation among Tribal, 

Federal, and State officials in key areas such as law enforcement training, 

interoperability, and access to criminal justice information. This Roadmap 

assesses the effectiveness of these provisions. 

Additionally, the Roadmap recommends long-term improvements 

to the structure of the justice system in Indian country. This includes the 

basic division of responsibility among Federal, State, and Tribal officials 

and institutions. Some of these recommendations require legislative action. 

Others are matters of executive branch policy. Still others will require 

action by the Federal judiciary. Finally, much of what the Commission 

has proposed will require enlightened and energetic leadership from 

the governments of the several States and, ultimately, Indian Tribes and 

nations themselves. 

A major theme of this Roadmap is that public safety in Indian 

country can improve dramatically once Native nations and Tribes have 

greater freedom to build and maintain their own criminal justice systems. 

The Commission sees breathtaking possibilities for safer, strong Native 

communities achieved through homegrown, tribally based systems 

that respect the civil rights of all U.S. citizens. The Commission rejects 

Executive Summary vii 
200 

outmoded command-and-control policies, favoring increased local control, 

accountability, and transparency. 

The Roadmap contains six chapters, addressing: (1) Jurisdiction; (2) 

Reforming Justice for Alaska Natives; (3) Strengthening Tribal Justice; (4) 

Intergovernmental Cooperation; (5) Detention and Alternatives; and (6) 

Juvenile Justice. 

Each chapter contains a full discussion of the aforementioned topics, 

providing background information, data, and on-the-ground examples 

about the current challenges facing Indian country. Below is a summary 

of each chapter. All recommendations in this Roadmap represent the 

unanimous views of all nine members of the Commission, Republicans 

and Democrats alike. 

Chapter 1 - Jurisdiction: Bringing Clarity Out of Chaos 

Under the United States’ Federal system, States and localities have 

primary responsibility for criminal justice. They define crimes, conduct 

law enforcement activity, and impose sanctions on wrongdoers. Police 

officers, criminal investigators, prosecutors, public defenders and criminal 

defense counsel, juries, and magistrates and judges are accountable to the 

communities from which victims and defendants hail. Jails and detention 

centers are often located within those same communities. 

This framework contrasts with Indian country, where U.S. law 

requires Federal or State governments’ control of the vast majority 

of criminal justice services and programs over those of local Tribal 

governments. Federal courts, jails, and detention centers are often located 

far from Tribal communities. 

Disproportionately high rates of crime have called into question the 

effectiveness of current Federal and State predominance in criminal justice 

jurisdiction in Indian country. Because the systems that dispense justice in 

their communities originate in Federal and State law, rather than in Native 

nation choice and consent, Tribal citizens tend to view them as illegitimate: 

they do not align with Tribal citizens’ perceptions of the appropriate way to 

organize and exercise coercive authority. 

The current framework is institutionally complex. Deciding which 

jurisdiction delivers criminal justice to Indian country depends on a variety 

of factors, including but not limited to: where the crime was committed, 

whether or not the perpetrator is an Indian or non-Indian, whether or not 

the victim is Indian or non-Indian, and the type of crime committed. 

The extraordinary waste of governmental resources resulting from 

the so-called Indian country “jurisdictional maze” can be shocking, as is 

the cost in human lives. 

viii A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer 
201 

While problems associated with institutional illegitimacy and 

jurisdictional complexities occur across the board in Indian country, the 

Commission found them to be especially prevalent among Tribes subject 

to P.L. 83-280 or similar types of State jurisdiction. Distrust between Tribal 

communities and criminal justice authorities leads to communication 

failures, conflict, and diminished respect. 

Many Tribal governments have been active in seeking ways to make 

do with the current jurisdictional structure. However, working around 

the current jurisdictional maze will continue to deliver suboptimal justice 

because of holes in the patchwork system and these “work-arounds” still 

do not provide Tribal governments with full authority over all crime and all 

persons on their lands. 

The Commission has concluded that criminal jurisdiction in Indian 

country is an indefensible morass of complex, conflicting, and illogical 

commands, layered in over decades via congressional policies and court 

decisions and without the consent of Tribal nations. 

Ultimately, the imposition of non-Indian criminal justice institution 

in Indian country extracts a terrible price: limited law enforcement; 

delayed prosecutions, too few prosecutions, and other prosecution 

inefficiencies; trials in distant courthouses; justice system and players 

unfamiliar with or hostile to Indians and Tribes; and the exploitation 

of system failures by criminals, more criminal activity, and further 

endangerment of everyone living in and near Tribal communities. When 

Congress and the Administration ask why the crime rate is so high in 

Indian country, they need look no further than the archaic system in place, 

in which Federal and State authority displaces Tribal authority and often 

makes Tribal law enforcement meaningless. 

The Commission strongly believes, as the result of listening to Tribal 

communities, that for public safety to be achieved effectively in Indian 

country, Tribal justice systems must be allowed to flourish, Tribal authority 

should be restored to Tribal governments when they request it, and the 

Federal government, in particular, needs to take a back seat in Indian 

country, enforcing only those crimes that it would otherwise enforce on or 

off reservation. 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

1.1: Congress should clarify that any Tribe that so chooses can opt 

out immediately, fully or partially, of Federal Indian country criminal 

jurisdiction and/or congressionally authorized State jurisdiction, 

except for Federal laws of general application. Upon a Tribe’s exercise 

of opting out, Congress would immediately recognize the Tribe’s 

inherent criminal jurisdiction over all persons within the exterior 

boundaries of the Tribe’s lands as defined in the Federal Indian 

Country Act.2

 This recognition, however, would be based on the 

Executive Summary ix 
202 

“When Congress and the Administration ask why the 

crime rate is so high in Indian country, they need look no 

further than the archaic system in place, in which Federal 

and State authority displaces Tribal authority and often 

makes Tribal law enforcement meaningless.” 

x A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer 
203 

understanding that the Tribal government must also immediately 

afford all individuals charged with a crime with civil rights 

protections equivalent to those guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, 

subject to full Federal judicial appellate review as described below, 

following exhaustion of Tribal remedies, in addition to the continued 

availability of Federal habeas corpus remedies. 

1.2: To implement Tribes’ opt-out authority, Congress should establish 

a new Federal circuit court, the United States Court of Indian Appeals. 

This would be a full Federal appellate court as authorized by Article 

III of the U.S. Constitution, on par with any of the existing circuits, 

to hear all appeals relating to alleged violations of the 4th, 5th, 

6th, and 8th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by Tribal courts; 

to interpret Federal law related to criminal cases arising in Indian 

country throughout the United States; to hear and resolve Federal 

questions involving the jurisdiction of Tribal courts; and to address 

Federal habeas corpus petitions. Specialized circuit courts, such as 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears matters 

involving intellectual property rights protection, have proven to be 

cost effective and provide a successful precedent for the approach 

that the Commission recommends. A U.S. Court of Indian Appeals is 

needed because it would establish a more consistent, uniform, and 

predictable body of case law dealing with civil rights issues and 

matters of Federal law interpretation arising in Indian country. 

Before appealing to this new circuit court, all defendants would first 

be required to exhaust remedies in Tribal courts pursuant to the 

current Federal Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, which would be 

amended to apply to Tribal court proceedings so as to ensure that 

defendants’ Federal constitutional rights are fully protected. Appeals 

from the U.S. Court of Indian Appeals would lie with the United States 

Supreme Court according to the current discretionary review process. 

1.3: The Commission stresses that an Indian nation’s sovereign choice 

to opt out of current jurisdictional arrangements should and must 

not preclude a later choice to return to partial or full Federal or 

State criminal jurisdiction. The legislation implementing the opt-out 

provisions must, therefore, contain a reciprocal right to opt back in if 

a Tribe so chooses. 

1.4: Finally, as an element of Federal Indian country jurisdiction, 

the opt-out would necessarily include opting out from the sentencing 

restrictions of the Indian Civil Rights Act (IRCA). Critically, the rights 

protections in the recommendation more appropriately circumscribe 

Tribal sentencing authority. Like Federal and State governments do, 

Tribal governments can devise sentences appropriate to the crimes 

they define. In this process of Tribal code development, Tribes may 

find guidance in the well-developed sentencing schemes at the State 

and Federal levels. 

Executive Summary xi 
204 

Chapter 2—Reforming Justice for Alaska Natives: 

The Time is Now 

Congress exempted Alaska from legislation aimed at reducing crime 

in Indian country, such as the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 and the 

Violence Against Women Act 2013 reauthorization (VAWA Amendments). 

Yet, the problems in Alaska are so severe and the number of Alaska Native 

communities affected so large, that continuing to exempt the State from 

national policy change is wrong. It sets Alaska apart from the progress that 

has become possible in the rest of Indian country. The public safety issues 

in Alaska—and the law and policy at the root of those problems—beg to 

be addressed. These are no longer just Alaska’s issues; they are national 

issues. 

The strongly centralized law enforcement and justice systems of the 

State of Alaska are of critical concern. Devolving authority to Alaska Native 

communities is essential for addressing local crime. Their governments are 

best positioned to effectively arrest, prosecute, and punish, and they should 

have the authority to do so—or to work out voluntary agreements with the 

State and local governments on mutually beneficial terms. 

Forty percent of the federally recognized tribes in the United States 

are in Alaska, and Alaska Natives represent one-fifth of the total State 

population. Yet these simple statements cannot capture the vastness or 

the Nativeness of Alaska. The State covers 586,412 square miles, an area 

greater than Texas, California, and Montana combined. Many of the 229 

recognized tribes in Alaska are villages located off the road system, often 

resembling villages in developing countries. Frequently, Native villages 

are accessible only by plane, or during the winter when rivers are frozen, 

by snow-machine. Food, gasoline, and other necessities are expensive and 

often in short supply. Subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering are a part 

of everyday life. Villages are politically independent from one another, and 

have institutions that support that local autonomy—village councils and 

village Corporations.3

 Unsurprisingly, these conditions pose significant 

challenges to the effective provision of public safety for Alaska Natives. 

Problems with safety in Tribal communities are severe across the 

United States—but they are systemically worst in Alaska. Most Alaska 

Native communities lack regular access to police, courts, and related 

services. Alaska Natives are disproportionately affected by crime, and these 

effects are felt most strongly in Native communities. High rates of suicide, 

alcohol abuse, crimes attributed to alcohol, and alcohol abuse-related 

mortality plague these communities. 

In Alaska’s criminal justice system, State government authority 

is privileged over all other possibilities: the State has asserted exclusive 

criminal jurisdiction over all lands once controlled by Tribes, and it 

exercises this jurisdiction through the provision of law enforcement 

xii A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer 
205 

and judicial services from a set of regional centers, under the direction 

and control of the relevant State commissioners. This approach has led 

to a dramatic under-provision of criminal justice services in rural and 

Native regions of the State. It also has limited collaboration with local 

governments (Alaska Native or not), which could be the State’s most 

valuable partners in crime prevention and the restoration of public safety. 

This is emphatically not to criticize the many dedicated and 

accomplished State officials who serve Alaska Native communities day 

in and day out. They deserve the nation’s respect, and they have the 

Commission’s. 

Nonetheless, it bears repeating that the Commission’s findings 

and conclusions represent the unanimous view of nine independent 

citizens, Republicans and Democrats alike, that Alaska’s approach to 

criminal justice issues is fundamentally on the wrong track. The status 

quo in Alaska tends to marginalize—and frequently ignores—the potential 

of tribally based justice systems, as well as intertribal institutions and 

organizations to provide more cost-effective and responsive alternatives to 

prevent crime and keep all Alaskans safer. If given an opportunity to work, 

Tribal approaches can be reasonably expected to work better—and at less 

cost. 

Because of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) 

and Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government4

, the Alaska 

Attorney General takes the view that there is very little Indian country in 

Alaska and thus, its law enforcement authority is exclusive throughout 

the State because Tribes do not have a land base on which to exercise any 

inherent criminal jurisdiction. 

The Commission respectfully and unanimously disagrees. 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

2.1: Congress should overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 

Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, by amending 

ANCSA to provide that former reservation lands acquired in fee by 

Alaska Native villages and other lands transferred in fee to Native 

villages pursuant to ANCSA are Indian country. 

2.2: Congress and the President should amend the definitions of 

Indian country to clarify (or affirm) that Native allotments and 

Native-owned town sites in Alaska are Indian country. 

2.3: Congress should amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act to allow a transfer of lands from Regional Corporations to 

Tribal governments; to allow transferred lands to be put into trust 

and included within the definition of Indian country in the Federal 

criminal code; to allow Alaska Native Tribes to put tribally owned 

Executive Summary xiii 
206 

fee simple land similarly into trust; and to channel more resources 

directly to Alaska Native Tribal governments for the provision of 

governmental services in those communities. 

2.4: Congress should repeal Section 910 of Title IX of the Violence 

Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA Amendments), 

and thereby permit Alaska Native communities and their courts to 

address domestic violence and sexual assault, committed by Tribal 

members and non-Natives, the same as now will be done in the lower 

48. 

2.5: Congress should affirm the inherent criminal jurisdiction of 

Alaska Native Tribal governments over their members within the 

external boundaries of their villages. 

Chapter 3—Strengthening Tribal Justice: Law 

Enforcement, Prosecution, and Courts 

Parity in Law Enforcement. A foundational premise of this report is 

that Indian Tribes and nations throughout our country would benefit 

enormously if locally based and accountable law enforcement officers 

were staffed at force levels comparable to similarly situated communities 

off-reservation. From 2009-2011, the Office of Justice Services (OJS) in 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) increased staffing levels on four Indian 

reservations to achieve such parity. This approach—through a “High 

Performance Priority Goal” (HPPG) Initiative—on average, reduced crime 

significantly on the selected reservations. 

While the HPPG Initiative demonstrates what can work in Indian 

country, the Commission hastens to note that HPPG’s results can neither 

be replicated nor sustained on very many other Tribal reservations due to 

the extremely limited Federal and State funding options currently available 

to Indian country. Despite the current budget reality, the results of the 

HPPG Initiative should not be forgotten: parity in law enforcement services 

prevents crime and reduces violent crime rates. 

In P.L. 83-280 States, the Federal government has transferred 

Federal criminal jurisdiction on Indian lands to State governments and 

approved the enforcement of a State’s criminal code by State and local law 

enforcement officers in Indian country. As a consequence of P.L. 83-280 

and similar settlement acts, Federal investment in Tribal justice systems 

has been even more limited than elsewhere in Indian country. Nor is much 

help forthcoming from State governments; they have found it difficult to 

satisfy the demands of what is essentially an unfunded Federal mandate. 

xiv A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer 
207 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

3.1: Congress and the executive branch should direct sufficient 

funds to Indian country law enforcement to bring Indian country’s 

coverage numbers into parity with the rest of the United States. 

Funding should be made equally available to a) Tribes whose lands 

are under Federal criminal jurisdiction and those whose lands are 

under State jurisdiction through P.L. 83-280 or other congressional 

authorization; b) Tribes that contract or compact under P.L. 93-638 

and its amendments or not; and c) Tribes that do or do not opt out (in 

full or in part) from Federal or State criminal jurisdiction as provided 

in Recommendation 1.1 of this report. 

Data Deficits. When Tribes have accurate data, they can plan and assess 

their law enforcement and other justice activities. Without data and 

access to such data, community assessment, targeted action, and norming 

against standards are impossible. The Commission found that systems for 

generating crime and law enforcement data about Indian country either 

are nascent or undeveloped. 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

3.2: To generate accurate crime reports for Indian country, especially 

in Tribal areas subject to P.L. 83-280, Congress should amend the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Criminal Justice Information 

Services reporting requirements for State and local law enforcement 

agencies’ crime data to include information about the location at 

which a crime occurred and on victims’ and offenders’ Indian status. 

Similarly, it should require the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to 

provide reservation-level victimization data in its annual reports to 

Congress on Indian country crime. Congress also should ensure the 

production of data and data reports required by the Tribal Law and 

Order Act of 2010, which are vital to Tribes as they seek to increase the 

effectiveness of their law enforcement and justice systems, by allowing 

Tribal governments to sue the U.S. Departments of Justice and the 

Interior should they fail to produce and submit the required reports. 

Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys (“SAUSAs”). The Indian country SAUSA 

program makes it possible for U.S. Attorneys to appoint appropriately 

qualified prosecutors to work in the capacity of an Assistant U.S. Attorney 

for the prosecution of certain Indian country cases. The SAUSA model is 

a positive and worthwhile development in making Indian country safer. 

SAUSAs boost Tribal prosecutors’ ability to protect and serve. SAUSAs 

sometimes work with their respective U.S. Attorney’s Offices to refer cases 

arising on Indian lands so that the investigations do not fall through the 

cracks. Further, all Tribal SAUSAs are required to undergo a rigorous FBI 

background check prior to their appointment. This vetting allows SAUSAs 

to legally obtain access to Law Enforcement Sensitive information. Such 

information helps determine how Tribal prosecutors allocate resources and 

implement their public safety priorities. 

Executive Summary xv 
208 

Despite better utilization of the SAUSA program in recent years, a 

more fundamental issue remains: Federal agencies’ stingy support of Tribal 

court proceedings. Many Federal officials still see information sharing 

with Tribal prosecutors’ offices as more or less optional. Routine refusal 

by many Federal law enforcement officials to testify as witnesses in Tribal 

court proceedings stymies the successful prosecution of Indian country 

crime. 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

3.3: The Attorney General of the United States should affirm that 

federally deputized Tribal prosecutors (that is, those appointed as 

Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys or “SAUSAs” by the U.S. Department 

of Justice pursuant to existing law) should be presumptively and 

immediately entitled to all Law Enforcement Sensitive information 

needed to perform their jobs for the Tribes they serve. 

3.4: The U.S. Attorney General should clarify the ability and 

importance of Federal officials serving as witnesses in Tribal court 

proceedings and streamline the process for expediting their ability to 

testify when subpoenaed or otherwise directed by Tribal judges. 

3.5: To further strengthen Tribal justice systems, the Commission 

suggests that Federal public defenders, who are employees of the 

judicial branch of the Federal government within the respective 

judicial districts where they serve, consider developing their own 

program modeled on Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys. 

Federal Magistrate Judges. TLOA directs the Commission to consider 

enhanced use of Federal magistrate judges to improve justice systems. 

The Commission has considered the concept of cross-deputizing Tribal 

court judges to serve as “Special Federal Magistrate Judges” to help 

expedite Federal criminal investigations, arrests, and indictments of crimes 

occurring in Indian country. However, despite repeated attempts to garner 

opinions on this topic, there was no public testimony on this topic. 

While Federal magistrate judges play an important role in Indian 

country, there are obviously many instances where only an Article III 

judge can perform certain functions in Indian country that are required by 

law. Yet, not one U.S. District Court Judge is permanently based in Indian 

country, nor are there any Federal courthouses there. 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

3.6: Congress and the executive branch should encourage U.S. District 

Courts that hear Indian country cases to provide more judicial 

services in and near Indian country. In particular, they should be 

expected to hold more judicial proceedings in and near Indian 

country. Toward this end, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Judicial 

xvi A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer 
209 

Conference of the United States should develop a policy aimed at 

increasing the Federal judicial presence and access to Federal judges 

in and near Indian country. 

3.7: Congress and the executive branch should consider 

commissioning a study of the usefulness and feasibility of creating 

Special Federal Magistrate Judges. 

Federal Funding and Federal Administrative Reform. The Roadmap sets 

forth a vision of Tribal governments having the lead role in strengthening 

Tribal justice. To achieve this goal, they must be able to communicate 

clearly and effectively with their Federal and State government partners 

about their justice capabilities and needs. 

Most Tribal governments need financial support and a more rational 

Federal administrative structure for the management of criminal justice 

programs in Indian country. The need for resources is obvious if Tribes are 

to pursue successful strategies such as the HPPG Initiative. Administrative 

changes at the Federal level should make it possible to redirect spending 

that at present is duplicative, over managed, and misallocated. Thus, 

reform may not only improve information sharing, but also generate 

savings so that less “new money” is needed for investment in ideas that 

work. 

Since the late 1980s, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has 

become a major funder of Indian country criminal justice system activities. 

DOJ’s involvement has been of great benefit to Tribes in areas such as 

program development and opening certain funding streams. 

Despite these benefits, DOJ’s grant-based funding approach creates 

uncertainties in system planning; Tribal governments legitimately ask 

why—unlike their State and local counterparts—should they rely on such 

inconsistent sources to pay for governmental functions. Grant funding also 

requires Tribal governments to compete for and “win” grant funds, which 

means other Tribes did not. Further, small Tribes and Tribes with thinly 

stretched human capital lack the capacity to write a “winning” application, 

yet these Tribes often have disproportionate criminal justice needs. Finally, 

many grants awarded to Tribes contain so much bureaucratic red tape that 

the balance of the Federal funds awarded goes unused. 

Additionally, Tribes must navigate the separate DOJ and U.S. 

Department of Interior (DOI) systems, which have substantial roles in the 

administration of Indian country justice programming. This arrangement 

creates costly duplication, confusion concerning lines of accountability, 

and wasteful outcomes. For example, the Commission learned of detention 

facilities built with DOJ funds that, once completed, could not be staffed 

because they were not included in the DOI budget for facilities operations 

and maintenance. 

Executive Summary xvii 
210 

Some of these problems could be resolved if Tribal governments 

were able to access DOJ Indian country resources that allow Tribal 

governments to manage Federal funds. An alternative and preferred route 

would be to merge or combine these Federal responsibilities for Indian 

country criminal justice in a single Federal department. 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

3.8: Congress should eliminate the Office of Justice Services (OJS) 

within the Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

consolidate all OJS criminal justice programs and all Department of 

Justice Indian country programs and services into a single “Indian 

country component” in the U.S. Department of Justice (including an 

appropriate number FBI agents and their support resources), and 

direct the U.S. Attorney General to designate an Assistant Attorney 

General to oversee this unit. The enacting legislation should affirm 

that the new agency retains a trust responsibility for Indian country 

and requires Indian preference in all hiring decisions; amend 

P.L. 93-638 so that Tribal governments have the opportunity to 

contract or compact with the new agency; and authorize the provision 

of direct services to Tribes as necessary. Congress also should direct 

cost savings from the consolidation to the Indian country agency and 

continue to appropriate this total level of spending over time. 

3.9: Congress should end all grant-based and competitive Indian 

country criminal justice funding in DOJ and instead pool these monies 

to establish a permanent, recurring base funding system for Tribal 

law enforcement and justice services, administered by the new Tribal 

agency in DOJ. Federal base funding for Tribal justice systems should 

be made available on equal terms to all federally recognized Tribes, 

whether their lands are under Federal jurisdiction or congressionally 

authorized State jurisdiction and whether they opt out of Federal 

and/or State jurisdiction (as provided in Recommendation 1.1). In 

order to transition to base funding, the enacting legislation should: 

a.	 Direct the U.S. Department of Justice to consult with Tribes to 

develop a formula for the distribution of base funds (which, 

working from a minimum base that all federally recognized 

Tribes would receive, might additionally take account of Tribes’ 

reservation populations, acreages, and crime rates) and develop a 

method for awarding capacity-building dollars. 

b.	 Designate base fund monies as “no year” so that Tribes that 

are unable to immediately qualify for access do not lose their 

allocations. 

c.	 Authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to annually set aside 

five (5) percent of the consolidated former grant monies as a 

designated Tribal criminal justice system capacity-building fund, 

xviii A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer 
211 

which will assist Tribes in taking maximum advantage of base 

funds and strengthen the foundation for Tribal local control. 

3.10: Congress should enact the funding requests for Indian country 

public safety in the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) 

“Indian Country Budget Request FY 2014,” and consolidate these 

funds into appropriate programs within the new DOJ Tribal agency. 

Among other requests, NCAI directs Congress to fully fund each 

provision of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 that authorizes 

additional funding for Tribal nation law and order programs, 

both for FY 2014 and future years; to finally fund the Indian Tribal 

Justice Act of 1993, which authorized an additional $50 million per 

year for each of seven (7) years for Tribal court base funding; and 

to create a seven (7) percent Tribal set-aside from funding for all 

discretionary Office of Justice Programs (OJP) programs, which at 

a minimum should equal the amount of funding that Tribal justice 

programs received from OJP in FY 2010. In the spirit of NCAI’s 

recommendations, Congress also should fund the Legal Services 

Corporation (LSC) at a level that will allow LSC to fulfill Congress’ 

directives in the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 and Violence 

Against Women Act 2013 reauthorization. 

Chapter 4—Intergovernmental Cooperation: Working 

Relationships that Transcend Jurisdictional Lines 

Stronger coordination among Federal, State, and Tribal law 

enforcement can make Native nations safer and close the public safety gap 

with similarly situated communities. It also is a proven way to combat offreservation crime. The Federal government cannot and should not force 

Tribal and State leaders to work together. Local priorities and concerns 

ought to drive cooperation, and it needs to be voluntary. But the President 

and Congress can take steps to promote and support the conditions in 

which more positive forms of collaboration can take root. 

A principal goal in intergovernmental cooperation is to find the right 

mechanisms to facilitate the entry into Tribal-State and Tribal-Federal law 

enforcement agreements and Memoranda of Understanding, including 

Special Law Enforcement Commission and local deputization and crossdeputization agreements. 

Special Law Enforcement Commission (SLEC). With a SLEC, a Tribal police 

officer, employed by a Tribal justice agency, can exercise essentially the 

same arrest powers of a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) officer assigned 

to Indian country without compensation by the Federal government. The 

SLEC enables a Tribal police office to make an arrest for a violation of the 

General Crimes Act or the Major Crimes Act in the non-P.L. 83-280 States 

or Tribal jurisdictions. While the SLEC appears to be precisely the kind of 

intergovernmental cooperation that would greatly enhance public safety in 

Executive Summary xix 
212 

Indian country, the Commission heard testimony that the BIA certification 

of the SLEC commissions is often delayed far too long. 

State and Local Agreements. The Commission believes the recognition of 

Tribal government and jurisdictional powers through agreements with 

State and local jurisdictions will develop partnerships, allow the sharing of 

knowledge and resources, and result in better chances to coordinate police 

enforcement. Greater intergovernmental cooperation often results in better 

services for Indian country, is more cost effective, culturally compatible, 

and provides better arrest and prosecution rates. 

The use of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) or other similar 

agreements between local law enforcement agencies and Tribal public 

safety permit, or “deputize,” the Tribal officers to enforce State criminal 

law. In most cases, this mechanism has served to ease the burden on 

non-Indian police forces. It also allows a full arrest of a suspect, which is 

necessary to secure a crime scene, protect evidence and witnesses, and 

ensure an appropriate arraignment and prosecution. However, liability 

concerns can hinder adoption of such agreements. 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

4.1: Federal policy should provide incentives for States and Tribes 

to increase participation in deputization agreements and other 

recognition agreements between State and Tribal law enforcement 

agencies. 

Without limitation, Congress should: 

a) Support the development of a model Tribal-State law enforcement 

agreement program that addresses the concerns of States and Tribes 

equally, to help State legislatures and Governors to formulate uniform 

laws to enable such MOUs and agreements, in both P.L. 83-280 and 

non-P.L. 83-280 States; 

b) Support the training costs and requirements for Tribes seeking to 

certify under State agencies to qualify for peace office status in a State 

in a deputization agreement; 

c) Create a federally subsidized insurance pool or similar affordable 

arrangement for tort liability for Tribes seeking to enter into a 

deputization agreement for the enforcement of State law by Tribal 

police; 

d) For Tribal officers using a SLEC, amend the Federal Tort Claims 

Act5

 to include unequivocal coverage (subject to all other legally 

established guidelines concerning allowable claims under the Act), not 

subject to the discretion of a U.S. Attorney or other Federal official; 

and 

xx A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer 
213 

e) Improve the SLEC process by shifting its management to the 

U.S. Department of Justice and directing DOJ to streamline the 

commissioning process (while retaining the requirements necessary 

to ensure that only qualified officers are provided with SLECs). (Also 

see Recommendation 4.8.) 

Tribal Notification of Arrest, Court Proceedings, and Reentry. On the Federal 

side, United States Attorney’s Offices sometimes do not communicate 

effectively, or at all, with Tribal jurisdictions when declining cases for 

Federal prosecution. Without notification, local Tribal courts often do not 

take up the case in Tribal court by exercising their concurrent jurisdiction. 

Tribal government notification at the time of a Tribal citizen’s 

arrest—and appropriate Tribal government involvement from that point 

forward (during trial, detention, and reentry)—can reasonably be expected 

to improve outcomes for the offender and for the offender’s family and 

Tribe, as well as improve law enforcement outcomes overall. 

4.2: Federal or State authorities should notify the relevant Tribal 

government when they arrest Tribal citizens who reside in Indian 

country. 

4.3: When any Tribal citizen resident in Indian country is involved 

as a criminal defendant in a State or Federal proceeding, the Tribal 

government should be notified at all steps of the process and be 

invited to have representatives present at any hearing. Tribes should 

similarly keep the Federal or State authorities informed of the 

appropriate point of contact within the Tribe. These mutual reporting 

requirements will help ensure the effective exercise of concurrent 

jurisdiction, when applicable, and the provision of wrap-around and 

other governmental services to assist the offender, his or her family, as 

well as the victims of crime. 

4.4: All three sovereigns—Federal, State, and Tribal—should enter 

into voluntary agreements to provide written notice regarding any 

Tribal citizens who are reentering Tribal lands from jail or prison. 

This requirement should apply regardless if that citizen formerly 

resided on the reservation. This policy will allow the Tribe to 

determine if it has services of use to the offender, and to alert victims 

about the offender’s current status and location. 

Intergovernmental Data Collection and Sharing. Good criminal justice 

information—and, as necessary, sharing of information—are key to the 

effective operation of a criminal justice program. Indian country is seen as 

a data gap. Some Tribes are working with State and Federal law officials 

on innovative ways to collect and distribute data. However, more can and 

should be done to encourage data sharing, particularly at the State and 

local level. 

Executive Summary xxi 
214 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

4.5: Congress should provide specific Edward J. Byrne Memorial 

Justice Assistance Grants (Byrne grants) or COPS grants for datasharing ventures to local and State governments, conditioned on 

the State or local government entering into agreements to provide 

criminal offenders’ history records with federally recognized Indian 

Tribes with operating law enforcement agencies that request to share 

data about offenders’ criminal records; any local, State, or Tribal 

entity that fails to comply will be ineligible for COPS and Byrne 

grants. 

Chapter 5—Detention and Alternatives: Coming Full 

Circle, from Crow Dog to TLOA and VAWA 

In August 1881, Crow Dog, a Brule Lakota man, shot and killed 

Spotted Tail, a fellow member of his Tribe. The matter was settled 

according to long-standing Lakota custom and tradition, which required 

Crow Dog to make restitution by giving Spotted Tail’s family $600, eight 

horses, and a blanket. After a public outcry that the sentence was not 

harsher, Federal officials charged Crow Dog with murder in a Dakota 

Territory court. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. The U.S. 

Supreme Court ultimately affirmed Tribal jurisdiction in this case, noting 

that the territorial court had inappropriately measured Lakota standards 

for punishment “by the maxims of the white man’s morality.”6 Members of 

Congress, outraged by the Supreme Court’s ruling, overturned the decision 

by enacting the Major Crimes Act of 1885, which for the first time extended 

Federal criminal jurisdiction to a list of felonies committed on reservations 

by Indians against both Indians and non-Indians. 

In the 130 years since, detention and imprisonment have risen 

in prominence as responses to crime in Indian country, and Tribal 

governments have struggled to reassert their views about the value of 

reparation, restoration, and rehabilitation. 

In recent years, the TLOA and VAWA Amendments have allowed 

Tribal governments to regain significant authority over criminal 

sentencing. But more could be done. By investing in alternatives to 

incarceration, the Commission also is hopeful that significant cost savings 

in Federal and State resources can be realized. 

Deficiencies in Detention. Indians who offend in Indian country and are 

sentenced to serve time may be held in Tribal, Federal, or State facilities. 

While there are hardships associated with any incarceration, American 

Indians and Alaska Natives serving time in State and Federal detention 

systems experience a particular set of problems. One is systemic 

disproportionality in sentencing. The other is distance from their homes. 

xxii A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer 
215 

Further, such detention systems fail to provide culturally relevant support 

to offenders and community reentry becomes more difficult and may be ill 

coordinated. 

Indians offenders also could be placed in an Indian country 

detention facility. There is an increasing number of exemplary facilities 

that serve as anchors along a continuum of care from corrections to 

community reentry and that are able to connect detainees with core 

rehabilitation services. For many Tribes, financial assistance from the 

Federal government for facility planning, renovation, expansion, staffing, 

and operations has been important in these efforts. 

On the other hand, eight Tribal detention facilities permanently 

closed between 2004 and 2012. In most cases, deficiencies in funding, 

staff, and appropriate space proved their undoing. Indeed, the Commission 

visited detention facilities with deplorable living conditions. Funding for 

new jails and funding for operations remains a challenge. And while the 

number of violent offenders in Indian country detention facilities has fallen 

slightly in recent years, new sentencing authorities provided by TLOA and 

the VAWA Amendments may result in an increased the number of violent 

offenders in Indian country detention facilities. 

Opportunities in Alternatives. “Alternatives to incarceration” or “alternatives 

to detention” are programs in which a judge may send criminal offenders 

elsewhere instead of sentencing them to jail. By addressing the core 

problems that lead offenders to crime (which may include substance abuse, 

mental health problems, and limited job market skills) and by helping 

them develop new behaviors that support the choice to not commit crimes, 

alternative sentencing aims to create pathways away from recidivism. Jail 

may still be part of an offender’s experience with an alternative sentence, 

but it would be used more sparingly and as a shorter-term measure, 

functioning as a component in a more comprehensive program involving 

intensive supervision, coordinated service provision, and high expectations 

for offender accountability. 

A considerable amount of data demonstrates the effectiveness 

of some alternatives to detention across a wide range of court settings 

and offense categories. Effectiveness can translate to cost savings. 

Governments save money by diverting offenders away from jail and into 

alternative programs. 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

5.1: Congress should set aside a commensurate portion of the 

resources (funding, technical assistance, training, etc.) it is investing 

in reentry, second-chance, and alternatives to incarceration 

monies for Indian country, and in the same way it does for State 

governments, to help ensure that Tribal government funding for 

these purposes is ongoing. In line with the Commission’s overarching 

Executive Summary xxiii 
216 

recommendation on funding for Tribal justice, these resources 

should be managed by the recommended Indian country unit in the 

U.S. Department of Justice and administered using a base funding 

model. Tribes are specifically encouraged to develop and enhance 

drug courts, wellness courts, residential treatment programs, 

combined substance abuse treatment-mental health care programs, 

electronic monitoring programs, veterans’ courts, clean and sober 

housing facilities, halfway houses, and other diversion and reentry 

options, and to develop data that further inform the prioritization of 

alternatives to detention. 

To increase intergovernmental collaboration, as suggested 

elsewhere in this report, Tribal, State, and Federal governments should 

collaborate to ensure that Tribal governments are knowledgeable about 

which of its citizens are in the custody of non-Tribal governments. This 

would afford each offender’s Tribal government the option to be engaged 

in decision making regarding corrections placement and supervision and 

allow the nation to be informed about, and prepared for, the offender’s 

eventual reentry to the Tribal community. 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

5.2: Congress should amend the Major Crimes Act, General Crimes 

Act, and P.L. 83-280 to require both Federal and State courts 

exercising transferred Federal jurisdiction 1) to inform the relevant 

Tribal government when a Tribal citizen is convicted for a crime in 

Indian country, 2) to collaborate, if the Tribal government so chooses, 

in choices involving corrections placement or community supervision, 

and 3) to inform the Tribal government when that offender is slated 

for return to the community. 

Tribes must receive a fair share of funds available at the Federal 

level for corrections systems creation and operation. While some 

corrections funds are specifically designated for Tribes, most are allocated 

in a manner that privileges State and local governments above Tribal 

governments. Savings realized through the creation and increased use of 

alternatives to detention should not be lost to Tribal governments, which is 

the case today. Instead, funding should “follow the offender,” so that if an 

offender’s time served is reduced, money that would have been spent on 

detention is then available for service provision. 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

5.3: Recognizing that several Federal programs support the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of jails, prisons, and other 

corrections programs that serve offenders convicted under Tribal 

law, appropriate portions of these funds should be set aside for Tribal 

governments and administered by a single component of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. This includes any funds specifically intended 

xxiv A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer 
217 

for Tribal jails and other Tribal corrections programs (e.g., those 

available through the Bureau of Indian Affairs) and a commensurate 

Tribal share of all other corrections funding provided by the Federal 

government (e.g., Bureau of Prisons funding and Edward J. Byrne 

Memorial Justice Assistance Grants/JAG program funding). To the 

extent that alternatives to detention eventually reduce necessary 

prison and jail time for Tribal-citizen offenders, savings should be 

reinvested in Indian country corrections programs and not be used as 

a justification for decreased funding. 

5.4: Given that even with a renewed focus on alternatives to 

incarceration, Tribes will continue to have a need for detention space: 

a) Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice should provide 

incentives for the development of high-quality regional Indian 

country detention facilities, capable of housing offenders in need of 

higher security and providing programming beyond “warehousing,” 

by prioritizing these facilities in their funding authorization and 

investment decisions; and, 

b) Congress should convert the Bureau of Prisons pilot program 

created by the Tribal Law and Order Act into a permanent 

programmatic option that Tribes can use to house prisoners. 

Chapter 6—Juvenile Justice: Failing the Next 

Generation 

Indian country juvenile justice exposes the worst consequences 

of our broken Indian country justice system. Native youth are among the 

most vulnerable group of children in the United States. In comparison to 

the general population, poverty, substance abuse, suicide, and exposure to 

violence and loss disproportionately plague Native youth. Not surprisingly, 

and detailed in the Roadmap, these conditions negatively influence how 

Native children enter adulthood. 

The same complexities and inadequacies of the Indian country adult 

criminal justice impair juvenile justice as well. The Federal court system 

has no juvenile division—no specialized juvenile court judges, no juvenile 

probation system. The U.S. Bureau of Prisons has no juvenile detention, 

diversion, or rehabilitation facilities. For Indian country youth who become 

part of State juvenile justice systems, there is generally no requirement 

that a child’s Tribe be contacted if an Indian child is involved. Thus, the 

unique circumstances of Native youth are often overlooked and their 

outcomes are difficult to track. Juveniles effectively “go missing” from the 

Tribe. 

Executive Summary xxv 
218 

Although data about Indian country juveniles in Federal and State 

systems are limited, the available data reveal alarming trends regarding 

processing, sentencing, and incarceration of Native youth. Native youth 

are overrepresented in both Federal and State juvenile justice systems and 

receive harsher sentences. 

Jurisdiction Reforms for Native Youth. Just as Tribal self-determination and 

local control are the right goals for adult criminal matters, they are the 

right goals for juvenile matters. 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

6.1: Congress should empower Tribes to opt out of Federal Indian 

country juvenile jurisdiction entirely and/or congressionally 

authorized State juvenile jurisdiction, except for Federal laws of 

general application. 

Analogous to the mechanism set forth in Chapter 1 (Jurisdiction: 

Bringing Clarity Out of Chaos), for any Tribe that exercises this option, 

Congress would recognize the Tribe’s inherent jurisdiction over those 

juvenile matters, subject to the understanding that the Tribe would afford 

all constitutionally guaranteed rights to the juveniles brought before the 

Tribal system, and the juveniles would be entitled to Federal civil rights 

review of any judgments entered against them in a newly created United 

States Court of Indian Appeals. As in adult criminal court, the Tribe opting 

for this exclusive jurisdiction could offer alternative forms of justice, 

such as a juvenile wellness court, a teen court, or a more traditional 

peacemaking process, as long as the juvenile properly waived his or her 

rights. 

If Tribes choose not to opt out entirely from the Federal criminal 

justice system for offenses allegedly committed by their juvenile citizens, 

Tribal governments should still be provided with a second option: 

6.2: Congress should provide Tribes with the right to consent to any 

U.S. Attorney’s decision before Federal criminal charges against any 

juvenile can be filed. 

The U.S. Criminal Code already provides for such Tribal 

governmental consent in adult cases where Federal prosecutors are 

considering seeking the death penalty. The same reasoning ought to apply 

to U.S. Attorneys’ decisions to file Federal charges against Native juveniles 

for Indian country offenses. 

Strengthening Tribal Justice for Native Youth. Similarly, in the interests of 

achieving parity between Tribal and non-Indian justice systems, resources 

for Indian country juvenile justice must be more effectively deployed. 

xxvi A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer 
219 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

6.3: Because resources should follow jurisdiction, and the rationale 

for Tribal control is especially compelling with respect to Tribal youth, 

resources currently absorbed by the Federal and State systems should 

flow to Tribes willing to assume exclusive jurisdiction over juvenile 

justice. 

6.4: Because Tribal youth have often been victimized themselves, 

and investments in community-oriented policing, prevention, and 

treatment produce savings in costs of detention and reduced juvenile 

and adult criminal behavior, Federal resources for Tribal juvenile 

justice should be reorganized in the same way this Commission 

has recommended for the adult criminal justice system. That is, 

they should be consolidated in a single Federal agency within the 

U.S. Department of Justice, allocated to Tribes in block funding 

rather than unpredictable and burdensome grant programs, and 

provided at a level of parity with non-Indian systems. Tribes should 

be able to redirect funds currently devoted to detaining juveniles to 

more demonstrably beneficial programs, such as trauma-informed 

treatment and greater coordination between Tribal child welfare and 

juvenile justice agencies. 

6.5: Because Tribal communities deserve to know where their 

children are and what is happening to them in State and Federal 

justice systems, and because it is impossible to hold justice systems 

accountable without data, both Federal and State juvenile justice 

systems must be required to maintain proper records of Tribal youth 

whose actions within Indian country brought them into contact with 

those systems. All system records at every stage of proceedings in State 

and Federal systems should include a consistently designated field 

indicating Tribal membership and location of the underlying conduct 

within Indian country and should allow for tracking of individual 

children. If State and Federal systems are uncertain whether a 

juvenile arrested in Indian country is in fact a Tribal member, they 

should be required to make inquiries, just as they are for dependency 

cases covered by the Indian Child Welfare Act. 

6.6: Because American Indian/Alaska Native children have an 

exceptional degree of unmet need and the Federal government has 

a unique responsibility to these children, a single Federal agency 

should be created to coordinate the data collection, examine the 

specific needs, and make recommendations for American Indian/ 

Alaska Native youth. This should be the same agency within the U.S. 

Department of Justice referenced in Recommendation 6.4. A very 

similar recommendation can be found in the 2013 Final Report of 

the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to 

Violence. 

Executive Summary xxvii 
220 

“... data show that Federal and State juvenile justice 

systems take Indian children, who are the least well, and 

make them the most incarcerated. Furthermore, conditions 

of detention often contribute to the very trauma that Native 

children experience. Detention is often the wrong alternative 

for Indian country youth and should be the last resort.” 

xxviii A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer 
221 

Detention and Alternatives for Native Youth. Alternatives to detention are 

even more imperative for Tribal youth than for adult offenders. Experts in 

juvenile justice believe detention should be a rare and last resort for all 

troubled youth, limited to those who pose a safety risk or cannot receive 

effective treatment in the community. More specifically, data show that 

Federal and State juvenile justice systems take Indian children, who 

are the least well, and make them the most incarcerated. Furthermore, 

conditions of detention often contribute to the very trauma that Native 

children experience. Detention is often the wrong alternative for Indian 

country youth and should be the last resort. 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

6.7: Whether they are in Federal, State, or Tribal juvenile justice 

systems, children brought before juvenile authorities for behavior that 

took place in Tribal communities should be provided with traumainformed screening and care, which may entail close collaboration 

among juvenile justice agencies, Tribal child welfare, and behavioral 

health agencies. A legal preference should be established in State and 

Federal juvenile justice systems for community-based treatment of 

Indian country juveniles rather than detention in distant locations, 

beginning with the youth’s first encounters with juvenile justice. 

Tribes should be able to redirect Federal funding for construction and 

operation of juvenile detention facilities to the types of assessment, 

treatment, and other services that attend to juvenile trauma. 

6.8: Where violent juveniles require treatment in some form of secure 

detention, whether it be through BOP-contracted State facilities, State 

facilities in P.L. 83-280 or similar jurisdictions, or BIA facilities, that 

treatment should be provided within a reasonable distance from the 

juvenile’s home and informed by the latest and best trauma research 

as applied to Indian country. 

Intergovernmental Cooperation for Native Youth. Where juveniles are 

involved, intergovernmental cooperation can enable Tribes to ensure that 

their often-traumatized youth receive proper assessment and treatment 

that is attentive to the resources and healing potential of Tribal cultures. 

Yet, Federal law, as prescribed by the Federal Delinquency Act, limits the 

ability to consider Tribal law and the unique needs and circumstances of a 

juvenile offender, particularly if that offender may be tried as an adult. 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

6.9: The Federal Delinquency Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5032, which currently 

fosters Federal consultation and coordination only with States and 

U.S. territories, should be amended to add “or tribe” after the word 

“state” in subsections (1) and (2). 

Executive Summary xxix 
222 

6.10: The Federal Delinquency Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5032, should be 

amended so that the Tribal election to allow or disallow transfer of 

juveniles for prosecution as adults applies to all juveniles subject to 

discretionary transfer, regardless of age or offense. 

6.11: Federal courts hearing Indian country juvenile matters should 

be statutorily directed to establish pretrial diversion programs for 

such cases that allow sentencing in Tribal courts. 

Finally, there are two key mechanisms of enhanced Tribal-State 

cooperation: notice to Tribes when their children enter State juvenile 

justice systems and opportunities for Tribes to participate more fully in 

determining the disposition of juvenile cases. 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: 

6.12: The Indian Child Welfare Act7

 should be amended to provide 

that when a State court initiates any delinquency proceeding 

involving an Indian child for acts that took place on the reservation, 

all of the notice, intervention, and transfer provisions of ICWA will 

apply. For all other Indian children involved in State delinquency 

proceedings, ICWA should be amended to require notice to the Tribe 

and a right to intervene. 

Conclusion 

These recommendations are the result of Commission field hearings 

and site visits to all 12 of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ regions across the 

United States, along with hundreds of letters, emails, and other input from 

every corner of our country. They are intended to make Native America 

safer and more just for all U.S. citizens and to save taxpayers’ money by 

replacing outdated top-down policies and bureaucracies with locally based 

approaches that are more directly accountable to the people who depend 

on them most and can make them work. 

Many of these recommendations will require Federal legislation. 

Others are matters of internal executive branch policy. Still others will 

require action by the Federal judiciary. And much of what the Commission 

has proposed will demand enlightened and energetic leadership from the 

affected State governments. This includes the development of model and 

uniform State codes and best practices. Ultimately, Indian Tribes, nations, 

pueblos, villages, and rancherias must choose if and when to implement 

these reforms. 

This is a defining moment for our nation and for this generation. 

How we choose to deal with the current public safety crisis in Native 

America—a crisis largely of the Federal government’s own making over 

more than a century of failed laws and policies—can set our generation 

apart from the legacy that remains one of great unfinished challenges of 

the Civil Rights Movement. 

xxx A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer 
223 

Public safety in Indian country can and will improve dramatically 

once Native American nations and Alaska Native Tribes have greater 

freedom to build and maintain their own criminal justice systems. We see 

breathtaking possibilities for safer, strong Native communities achieved 

through home-grown, tribally based systems, respective of the civil 

rights of all U.S. citizens, systems that reject outmoded command-andcontrol policies in favor of increased local control, accountability, and 

transparency. Lives are at stake, and there is no time to waste. 

Endnotes
 1 Also known as the Snyder Act, the Indian Citizenship Act, 43 Stat. 253, conferred U.S. 

citizenship on “all non-citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States,” 

thereby enabling Native Americans to vote in Federal elections.
 

2 18 U.S.C § 1151.
 

3 Alaska Native Corporations are discussed in Chapter 2, notably at endnote 9.
 

4 522 U.S. 520 (1998).
 

5 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)
 

6 Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556, 571 (1883).
 

7 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.
 

Executive Summary xxxi 

appendix e 

Glossary Terms

and Acronyms
 
226 

638 (aka 638 Contract): Refers to the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act, Public Law 93-638 (January 1975). Tribal 

programs operating under a 638 Contract receive the funds from the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and/or the Indian Health Service (IHS) 

to operate those programs, which BIA and/or IHS would have used to 

operate a direct service program for the tribe. For example many tribes 

receive funding that the BIA would have used to operate a law enforcement program, and use those funds to finance their own tribal police 

department under a 638 contract. 

Adverse Childhood Experience Study (ACE): The largest investigations 

ever conducted to assess associations between childhood maltreatment 

and later-life health and well-being. The study is a collaboration between 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Kaiser Permanente’s 

Health Appraisal Clinic in San Diego. The ACE Study findings suggest that 

certain experiences are major risk factors for illness, death, and poor 

quality of life in the United States. 

Allotment: The policy subdividing Indian reservations into individual 

privately owned parcels of land, eliminating communal ownership of 

tribal land and resources. The federal policy was ended in 1934, but left a 

“checkerboard” landownership on Indian reservations where the tribe, 

non-Natives, and allottees own scattered properties. 

American Indian/Alaska Native: As a general principle, an Indian is 

a person who is of some degree Indian blood and is recognized as an 

Indian by a tribe and/or the United States. No single federal or tribal 

criterion establishes a person’s identity as an Indian. Government agencies use differing criteria to determine eligibility for programs and 

services. Tribes also have varying eligibility criteria for membership. It 

is important to distinguish between the ethnological term Indian and the 

political/legal term Indian. The protections and services provided by the 

United States for tribal members flow not from an individual’s status as 

an American Indian in an ethnological sense, but because the person is 

a member of a tribe recognized by the United States and with which the 

United States has a special trust relationship. (Please see http://www. 

justice.gov/otj/nafaqs.htm.) 

Batterer: A person that commits acts of domestic violence. 

Braided Funding: Braided funding involves multiple funding streams 

within—or across—state, tribal, and federal agencies to support a 

program or special initiative. The term braided is used because multiple 

funding streams are brought together to pay for more than any one 

stream can support alone. 

APPENDIX E 
227 

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA): The law (PL 

93-247) that provides a foundation for a national definition of child 

abuse and neglect. CAPTA defines child abuse and neglect as “at a 

minimum, any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or 

caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, 

sexual abuse or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an 

imminent risk of serious harm.” 

Child Exposed to Violence: Any individual who is not yet an adult 

(typically from birth to either eighteen or twenty-one years old) who is 

exposed to violence that poses a threat to the individual’s or an affiliated person’s life or bodily integrity. Children exposed to violence are 

at much greater risk of developing lethal medical illnesses in their early 

adult years; utilizing disproportionately costly medical, psychological, 

and public health services; and dying prematurely. 

Child Maltreatment: Any act or series of acts of commission or omission by a parent or other caregiver (e.g., clergy, coach, teacher) that 

results in harm, potential for harm, or threat of harm to a child. 

Child Protective Services: The agency of the federal government, of 

a state, or of an Indian tribe that has the primary responsibility for 

child protection on any Indian reservation or within any community in 

Indian country. 

Cultural-Based Practice: Reviewing and changing the structure of a 

program or practice to more appropriately fit the needs and preferences 

of a particular cultural group or community. 

Domestic Violence: Domestic violence is a pattern of abusive behavior 

in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain 

power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence 

can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions 

or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any 

behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, 

terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone. 

Other terms used to describe this pattern of behavior are battering, intimate partner violence, and interpersonal violence. 

Evidence-Based Practice: An intervention that has been consistently 

shown in several research studies to assist consumers in achieving their 

desired goals of health and wellness. 

Evidence-Based Treatment: Interventions and services provided by 

a credentialed professional or paraprofessional to serve as a therapy 

GLOSSARY TERMS AND ACRONYMS 
228 

or community-based service to promote recovery from psychosocial, 

psychological, or medical problems or to prevent these problems altogether. These interventions and services: 

(a) Have been scientifically tested and demonstrated to be effective; 

(b) Have clearly defined procedures that can be taught and implemented 

consistently with fidelity; 

(c) Are feasible and useful for clinical practitioners and programs; and 

(d) Are credible and acceptable to the recipients. 

Expert Testimony: Opinions stated during trial or deposition by a specialist 

qualified as an expert on a subject relevant to the lawsuit or a criminal case. 

Failure to Protect: Some states have attempted to protect children 

by including exposure to domestic violence as “failure to protect” 

under child abuse and neglect laws. Charges have been brought against 

domestic violence victims for failure to act or fulfill a duty recognized by 

the law to protect children from exposure to domestic violence. 

Foster Care: Supervised care for orphaned, neglected, or delinquent 

children in a substitute home or an institution. 

Historical Trauma: Historical trauma refers to cumulative emotional 

and psychological wounding, exceeding over an individual life span and 

across generations, caused by significant group traumatic experiences. 

Holistic: Refers to a method of healing and focuses on the whole person 

(physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects), not just one aspect. 

Indian Country: A legal term of art set forth in 18 U.S. Code Section 1151 

defined as: (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the 

jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any 

patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the 

original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without 

the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not 

been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same. 

Intimate Partner Violence: Used interchangeably in this report with 

domestic violence. Term includes physical violence, sexual violence, 

threats of physical or sexual violence, and psychological/emotional 

violence between intimate partners. 

Jurisdiction: The authority given by law to a court to try cases and rule 

on legal matters within a particular geographic area and/or over certain 

types of legal cases. 

APPENDIX E 
229 

Juvenile Court: A special court or department of a trial court that 

deals with civil and criminal issues involving minors. The typical age 

of these defendants is less than eighteen, but juvenile court does not 

have jurisdiction in cases in which minors are charged as adults. While 

attorneys may be present, the procedure in juvenile court is not always 

adversarial. Juvenile court can involve parents, social workers, and 

probation officers in the process to achieve positive results and save the 

minor from involvement in future crimes. However, serious crimes and 

repeated offenses can result in sentencing juvenile offenders to prison. 

Where parental neglect or loss of control is a problem, the juvenile court 

may seek out foster homes for the juvenile, treating the child as a ward 

of the court. 

Juvenile Delinquent: A person who is under age (usually less than 

eighteen), who is found to have committed a crime in states that have 

declared by law that a minor lacks responsibility and thus may not be 

sentenced as an adult. 

Mediation: The attempt to settle a legal dispute through active participation of a third party (mediator) who works to find points of agreement 

and make those in conflict agree on a fair result. Mediation differs from 

arbitration, in which the third party (arbitrator) acts much like a judge 

in an out-of-court, less formal setting but does not actively participate in 

the discussion. Mediation has become very common in trying to resolve 

domestic relations disputes (divorce, child custody, visitation) and is 

often ordered by the judge in such cases. 

Multidisciplinary Team (MDT): Multiagency, multijurisdictional team 

that is responsible for the coordination of investigations involving child 

abuse and/or neglect cases. A key responsibility of the MDT is to reduce 

trauma to the child victim. The MDT shall have members who have 

experience and training in prevention, identification, investigation, and 

treatment of incidents of child abuse and neglect. 

Offender: An accused defendant in a criminal case or one convicted of 

a crime. 

Parent: A person’s father or mother to include by adoption. 

Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT): An empirically supported 

treatment for young children with emotional and behavioral disorders 

that places emphasis on improving the quality of the parent-child relationship and changing parent-child interaction patterns. 

GLOSSARY TERMS AND ACRONYMS 
230 

Practice-Based Evidence: A range of interventions and services that 

are derived from, and supportive of, the positive cultural attributes 

of the local society and traditions. Practice based evidence services 

are accepted as effective by the local community, through community 

consensus, and address the therapeutic and healing needs of individuals 

and families from a culturally-specific framework. Practitioners of practice based evidence models draw upon cultural knowledge and traditions 

for treatment and services. Practice –based evidence is distinct from 

evidenced based practices. Many promising practices for Native populations do not have the level of evidence necessary to be deemed an 

evidence based practice, but nonetheless, they have shown to be effective for tribal populations. 

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): A debilitating psychological 

condition triggered by a major traumatic event, such as rape, war, a 

terrorist act, death of a loved one, a natural disaster, or a catastrophic 

accident. It is marked by upsetting memories or thoughts of the ordeal, 

“blunting” of emotions, increased arousal, and sometimes severe 

personality changes. 

Protocol: A set of policies, procedures, and agreements. Typically, a 

protocol is a written document outlining each agency’s role and responsibility. The agencies and individuals signing the document signify their 

mutual commitment to the team and the team’s mission statement. 

Public Law 280 Tribes: Public Law 280 (1953) transferred criminal and 

civil jurisdiction in Indian country from the federal government to the 

states of Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin. 

Other states were given the option to assume jurisdiction by legislation. 

The act was amended in 1968, requiring tribal consent to the transfer 

of jurisdiction. 

Regional Corporation: Created by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act, which divided Alaska into twelve regions with one Regional 

Corporation for each region. These corporations were authorized to 

select lands and hold subsurface rights to “Village Corporations” lands. 

Later, a thirteenth Regional Corporation was formed for non-resident 

Alaska Natives. 

Resilience: Capacity to adapt successfully and to function competently 

despite adversity. 

Safe House: A place for sanctuary from hostile actors or actions, or from 

retribution, threats, or perceived danger. 

APPENDIX E 
231 

Screening: Asking brief questions or gathering existing information to 

determine if an individual should be identified as having a specific need 

or problem. 

Silo: A mind-set present wherein certain agencies or individuals do not 

wish to share information with others in the same service. 

Stovepipe: An organization that has a structure that largely or entirely 

restricts the flow of information within the organization to up-down 

through lines of control, inhibiting or preventing cross-organizational 

communication. Many traditional, large (especially governmental 

or transnational) organizations have, or risk falling into having, a 

stovepipe pattern. 

Subsistence: A form of food hunting and gathering, including fishing, 

that many American Indian/ Alaska Native tribes still depend on to 

supplement their diet and to conduct traditional tribal ceremonies. 

Title IV-E Agency: The state or tribal Title IV-E agency designated to 

administer or supervise the administration of the programs under this 

plan. It is also the agency that administers or supervises the administration of the State/Tribal Child Welfare Services Plan under subpart 1 of 

Title IV-B of the act. 

Title IV-E Funding: Annual appropriated funding authorized by Title 

IV-E of the Social Security Act, as amended, and implemented under the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 45 CFR parts 1355, 1356, and 1357 

with specific eligibility requirements and fixed allowable uses of funds. 

Funding is awarded by formula as an open-ended entitlement grant and 

is contingent upon an approved Title IV-E plan to administer or supervise the administration of the program. 

Trauma: A deeply distressing or disturbing experience. 

Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A model of psychotherapy that effectively combines trauma-sensitive interventions with 

cognitive behavioral therapy. It is designed to address the needs of children with posttraumatic stress disorder or other significant behavioral 

problems related to traumatic life experiences. 

Trauma-Focused Services: Services are considered trauma-focused 

when caregivers (such as biological, foster, or adoptive parents; mentors, 

spiritual advisors, or coaches; or line staff in child-serving programs) or 

professionals providing services: 

GLOSSARY TERMS AND ACRONYMS 
232 

(a) Realize (understand) the impact that exposure to violence and trauma 

have on victims’ physical, psychological, and psychosocial development 

and well-being; 

(b) Recognize when a specific person who has been exposed to violence 

and trauma is in need of help to recover from trauma’s adverse impacts; 

and 

(c) Respond by helping in ways that reflect awareness of trauma’s adverse 

impacts and consistently support the person’s recovery from them and 

actively seeks to resist re-traumatization. 

Trauma-Informed Care: This is a new form of evidence-based interventions and service delivery, implemented by multiple service providers, 

that identifies, assesses, and heals people injured by, or exposed to, 

violence and other traumatic events. 

Trauma-Specific Treatment: Medical, physiological, psychological, and 

psychosocial therapies that are: 

(a) Free from the use of coercion, restraints, seclusion, and isolation; 

(b) Provided by a trained professional to an individual, a family, or a 

group adversely affected by violence exposure and trauma; and 

(c) Designed specifically to promote recovery from the adverse impacts 

of violence exposure and trauma on physical, psychological, and psychosocial development, health, and well-being. 

Toxic Stress: Experiences, particularly in childhood, that can affect 

brain architecture and brain chemistry. These typically are experiences 

that are bad for an individual during development, such as severe abuse. 

Violence: The World Report on Violence and Health (WRVH) (http:// 

www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/ 

en/) defines violence as “the intentional use of physical force or power, 

threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group 

or community that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting 

in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.” 

Violence Exposure: Violence exposure can be direct, where the victim 

or community of victims is the direct target of the intentional use of 

force or power, but it can also be indirect, where the victim or community of victims is witness to the intentional use of force or power or has 

lost a loved one to violence. In both cases, more than twenty years of 

scientific literature on the impact of violence demonstrates that violence 

exposure results in significant short- and long-term debilitating and 

costly impacts on the victim’s physical, emotional, cognitive, and social 

health and well-being. 

APPENDIX E 
 

233 

Frequently Used Acronyms
 

ACE	 Adverse Childhood Experience Study 

ACF	 Administration of Children and Families 

AFCARS	 Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System 

AI/AN	 American Indian/Alaska Native 

ANCSA	 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

ASFVA	 Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act of 2014 

BIA	 Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BIE	 Bureau of Indian Education 

CAPTA	 Child Abuse Prevention Treatment Act 

CBO	 Congressional Budget Office 

CFSR	 Child and Family Services Review 

CTAS	 Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation 

DHHS	 Department of Health and Human Services 

DOI	 Department of Interior 

DOJ	 Department of Justice 

FERPA	 Federal Education Right and Privacy Act 

HHS	 Health and Human Services 

HUD	 Housing Urban Development 

ICRA	 Indian Civil Rights Act 

ICWA	 Indian Child Welfare Act 

IHS	 Indian Health Service 

ILOC	 Indian Law and Order Commission 

LGBTQ/2S	 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, and 

Two-Spirit 

MOU	 Memorandum of Understanding 

NCAI	 National Congress of American Indians 

NCANDS	 National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System 

OJP	 Office of Justice Programs 

OJJDP	 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

TLOA	 Tribal Law and Order Act 

VOCA	 Victims of Crime Act 

GLOSSARY TERMS AND ACRONYMS 

appendix F 

Suggested Further 

Reading Print and

Internet Sources
 
 

236 

Tribal Sovereignty and Federal Indian Policy 

Cadawalader, S., Deloria Jr., V., Aggressions of Civilization: Federal Indian 

Policy since the 1880s, Philadelphia: Temple University Press (1984). 

Canby Jr., William C., American Indian Law, In a Nutshell, 5th ed., St. Paul, 

MN: West (2009). 

Carpenter, K., Fletcher, M., Riley, A., eds., The Indian Civil Rights Act at 

Forty, Los Angeles: UCLA American Indian Studies Center (2012). 

Clark, B., Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: Treaty Rights and Indian Law at the End of 

the 19th Century, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press (1994). 

Clinton, Robert N., et al., American Indian Law: Cases and Materials, 5th ed., 

San Francisco: Lexis Nexis, (2007). 

Cooter, Robert, Indian Common Law: The Role of Custom in American Indian 

Tribal Courts, available at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/ 

newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_ 

magazine_index/indianchildwelfareact.html. 

Deer, S., Garrow, C. E., Tribal Criminal Law and Procedure, Walnut Creek, 

CA: Alta Mira Press (2004). 

Deer, S., Richland, J., Introduction to Tribal Legal Studies, 2nd ed., Lanham, 

MD: Rowman and Littlefield (2010). 

Fixico, Donald, Termination and Relocation: Federal Indian Policy (1945–1960), 

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press (1990). 

Fletcher, Matthew, Rethinking Customary Law in Tribal Court Jurisprudence, 

available at: http://www.law.msu.edu/indigenous/papers/2006-04.pdf. 

Fletcher, Matthew L. M., American Indian Tribal Law, New York: Aspen 

Publishers (2011). 

Fortin, Seth J., The Two-Tiered Program of the Tribal Law and Order Act, 

available at: http://www.uclalawreview.org/?p=4439. 

Gardner, J., Melton, A., Public Law 280: Issues and Concerns for Victims of 

Crime in Indian Country, available at: http://www.tribal-institute.org/ 

articles/gardner1.htm. 

Getches, David, et al., Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law, 6th ed., St. 

Paul, MN: West (2011). 

Goldberg, Carole, Questions and Answers about Public Law 280, available at: 

http://www.tribal-institute.org/articles/goldberg.htm. 

Goldberg-Ambrose, Carole, Planting Tail Feathers: Tribal Survival and Public 

Law 280, Los Angeles: American Indian Studies Center Publications 

(1997). 

Indian Law—Tribal Courts—Congress Recognizes and Affirms Tribal Courts’ 

Special Domestic Violence Jurisdiction over Non-Indian Defendants—The 

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, available at: 

http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ 

violence_against_women_reauthorization_act1.pdf. 

APPENDIX F 
 

237 

Jones, B. J., et al., The Indian Child Welfare Act Handbook: A Legal Guide to 

the Custody and Adoption of Native American Children, American Bar 

Association (2009). 

Krakoff, Sarah, Inextricably Political: Race Membership, and Tribal Sovereignty, 

available at: http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/ 

bitstream/handle/1773.1/1184/87WLR1041.pdf?sequence=1. 

National American Indian Court Judges Association, Indian Courts and the 

Future, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library (repr., 1978). 

Native American Rights Fund, A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare 

Act, Boulder, CO: Native American Rights Fund (2007). 

Newton, Nell Jessup, ed. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, San 

Francisco: Lexis Nexis (2012). 

Pevar, Stephen L., The Rights of Indians and Tribes, Carbondale: Southern 

Illinois University Press (1992). 

Philp, Kenneth, “Stride towards Freedom: The Relocation of Indians to 

Cities, 1952–1960,” Western Historical Quarterly 16(2) (1985): 175-190. 

Pommersheim, Frank, Tribal Courts: Providers of Justice and Protectors of 

Sovereignty, available at: http://www.tribal-institute.org/articles/ 

pommer~1.htm. 

Prucha, F., American Indian Policy in Crisis: Christian Reformers and the 

Indian, 1865–1900, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press (1976). 

Prucha, F., ed., Americanizing the American Indians, Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University Press (1973). 

Resnik, Judith, Multiple Sovereignties: Indian Tribes, States, and the Federal Government, available at: http://www.tribal-institute.org/articles/resnik1.htm. 

Ross, Jeffrey I., ed., American Indians at Risk, Vols. 1 and 2, Santa Barbara, 

CA: ABC-CILO (2013). 

Shoemaker, Nancy, “Urban Indians and Ethnic Choices: American 

Indian Organizations in Minneapolis, 1920–1950,” Western Historical 

Quarterly 19(4) (1988): 431-447. 

Tatum, M., et al., Structuring Sovereignty: Constitutions of Native Nations, Los 

Angeles: American Indian Studies Center Publications (2014). 

Tatum, Melissa, Law Enforcement Authority in Indian Country, available at: 

http://tlj.unm.edu/tribal-law-journal/articles/volume_4/tatum/. 

Tribal Law and Policy Institute, Promising Strategies: Public Law 280, available 

at: http://www.walkingoncommonground.org/files/TLPI%20 

Promising%20Strategies%20280_FINAL_Updated%20%208-16-13.pdf. 

Tribal Law and Policy Institute, Promising Strategies: Tribal-State Court 

Relations, available at: http://www.walkingoncommonground.org/files/ 

TLPI%20Promising%20Strategies%20Tribal-State%20Court%20Relations_ 

FINAL_Updated%208-15-13.pdf. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in 

Indian Country, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2003). 

SUGGESTED FURTHER READING PRINT AND INTERNET SOURCES 
238 

Domestic Violence, Sexual Abuse, and 

Child Maltreatment 

Agtuca, Jacqueline, Safety for Native Women: VAWA and American Indian 

Tribes, Lame Deer, MT: National Indigenous Women’s Resource 

Center (2014). 

Amnesty International USA, Maze of Injustice: The Failure to Protect 

Indigenous Women from Sexual Violence in the United States, New York: 

Amnesty International Publications (2007). 

Bancroft, L., Silverman, J., The Batterer as Parent: Addressing the Impact 

of Domestic Violence on Family Dynamics, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications (2002). 

BigFoot, Dolores S., Dealing with Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse, 

Native American Topic, available at: http://www.icctc.org/ 

Disclosuremonograph.pdf. 

BigFoot, Dolores S., History of Victimization Issues in Native Communities, 

available at: http://www.unifiedsolutions.org/Pubs/history_of_ 

victimization_in_native_communities.pdf. 

Deer, Sarah, Expanding the Network of Safety: Tribal Protection Orders for 

Survivors of Sexual Assault, available at: http://tlj.unm.edu/triballaw-journal/articles/volume_4/violence,%20women/index.php. 

Deer, Sarah, Relocation Revisited: Sex Trafficking of Native Women in 

the United States, available at: http://open.wmitchell.edu/cgi/ 

viewcontent.cgi?article=1157&context=facsch. 

Deer, Sarah, Sovereignty of the Soul: Exploring the Intersection of Rape Law 

Reform and Federal Indian Law, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/ 

sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=987702. 

Deer, Sarah, et al., Final Report: Focus Group on Public Law 280 and the Sexual 

Assault of Native Women, available at: http://www.tribalinstitute.org/ 

download/Final%20280%20FG%20Report.pdf. 

Deer, Sarah, et al., ed., Sharing Our Stories of Survival: Native Women 

Surviving Violence, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield (2008). 

Deluzio, Christopher, Tribes and Race: The Court’s Missed Opportunity in 

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, available at: http://digitalcommons.pace. 

edu/plr/vol34/iss2/1. 

Dobie, Kathy, Tiny Little Laws, A Plague of Sexual Violence in Indian 

Country, available at: http://harpers.org/archive/2011/02/ 

tiny-little-laws/2/. 

EchoHawk, Larry, Child Sexual Abuse in Indian Country: Is the Guardian 

Keeping in Mind the 

Seventh Generation?, available at: http://www.unified-solutions.org/pubs/ 

child_sexual_abuse_in_ic_larry_echohawk.pdf. 

APPENDIX F 
239 

EchoHawk, L., Meyer Santiago, T., What Indian Tribes Can Do to Combat 

Child Sexual Abuse, available at: http://lawschool.unm.edu/tlj/triballaw-journal/articles/volume_4/abuse/index.php. 

Edleson, Jeffrey, et al., Report of the Attorney General’s National Advisory 

Committee on Violence Against Women, Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (2012). 

Farley, Melissa, et al., Garden of Truth: The Prostitution and Trafficking of 

Native Women in Minnesota, available at: http://miwsac.org/images/ 

pdf/Garden%20of%20Truth%20Final%20Project%20WEB.pdf. 

Garrow, C., Hollebeke, M., Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl: A Summary, 

available at: http://www.srmt-nsn.gov/_uploads/site_files/GarrowHollebeke-Mar-Apr2014.pdf. 

Hart, William, et al., Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on 

Family Violence, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice (1984). 

Herrington, Lois, et al., Report of the President’s National Task Force on 

Victims of Crime, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice (1982). 

Jones, B. J., Indian Child Welfare Act: The Need for a Separate Law, 

available at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/ 

publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/ 

indianchildwelfareact.html. 

McCold, P., Wachtel, B., Community Is Not a Place: A New Look at Community 

Justice Initiatives, available at: http://www.iirp.edu/article_detail. 

php?article_id=NDc1. 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Checklist to Promote 

Perpetrator Accountability in Dependency Cases Involving Domestic 

Violence, available at: http://www.icadvinc.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2011/11/2011-checklist-for-CHINS-ct..pdf. 

Simoni, Jane M., et al., “Triangle of Risk: Urban American Indian 

Women’s Sexual Trauma, Injection Drug Use, and HIV Sexual Risk 

Behaviors,” AIDS and Behavior 8(1) (2004): 33–45. 

Stoof, Melvin R., Domestic Violence, Child Welfare and Supervised Visitation 

in Native American Communities, available at: http://mshoop.org/ 

brochurespdf/DV%20Child%20Welfare%20and%20SVC%20in%20 

Native%20communities.pdf. 

Trope, J., Smith, A., The Continued Protection of Indian Children and Families 

after Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl: What the Case Means and How to 

Respond, available at: http://www.law.seattleu.edu/Documents/ailj/ 

Spring%202014/Trope-and-Smith.pdf. 

Weber, G., Zuni, C., Domestic Violence and Tribal Protection of Indigenous 

Women in the United States, available at: http://www.law-lib. 

utoronto.ca/Diana/fulltext/zuni.htm. 

SUGGESTED FURTHER READING PRINT AND INTERNET SOURCES 
 

240 

White, H., Larrington, J., Intersection of Domestic Violence and Child 

Victimization in Indian Country, available at: http://www.swclap.org/ 

pdfs/INTERSECTIONDVANDKIDS.pdf. 

White Eagle, Maureen, Keeping Native Children Safe When Sexual Abuse 

Allegations Are Raised in Custody Disputes, available at no cost by 

calling Minnesota Indian Women’s Sexual Assault Coalition at 

651-646-4800. 

White Eagle, Maureen, et al., Responses to the Co-Occurrence of Domestic 

Violence and Child Maltreatment in Indian Country: Repairing the Harm and 

Protection Children and Mothers, available at: http://www.tribalinstitute. 

org/download/OVWGreenbookReportHVS_TD_7-18.pdf. 

Issues on Community Violence 

BigFoot, Dolores S., ed., Multidisciplinary Teams and Child Protection Teams, 

available at: https://www.oumedicine.com/docs/ad-pediatricsworkfiles/mdtcpt.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, American Indians and Crime, 1992–2002, 

available at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aic02.pdf. 

Craig, J., Hull-Jilly, D., “Characteristics of Suicide among Alaska 

Native and Alaska Non-Native People, 2003–2008,” State of Alaska 

Epidemiology Bulletin 15(1) (2012). 

Elton, P., Stewart, M., How Multidisciplinary Teams Achieve Success in Indian 

Country, available at: http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/ 

index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2889&issue_id=32013. 

Gardner, Jerry, Improving the Relationship between Indian Nations, the Federal 

Government, and State Governments, available at: http://www.tribalinstitute.org/articles/mou.htm. 

Lucero, Nancy, Working with Urban Indian Families with Child Protection and 

Substance Abuse Challenges, available at: http://www.nrc4tribes.org/ 

files/Urban%20Indian%20guide.pdf. 

Major, Aline K., Egley Jr., Arlen, Howell, James C., et al., “Youth Gangs in 

Indian Country,” OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2004). 

Reyhner, Jon, Family, Community and School Impacts on AI/AN Students’ 

Success, available at: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/jar/AIE/Family.html. 

Sarche, M. C., Whitesell, N. R., “Child Development Research in North 

American Native Communities—Looking Back and Moving Forward: 

Introduction.” Child Development Perspectives 6 (2012): 42–8. 

Stiffman, A. R., et al. “American Indian Youth: Southwestern Urban and 

Reservation Youth’s Need for Services and Whom They Turn to for 

Help,” Journal of Child and Family Studies 12 (2005): 319–33. 

APPENDIX F 
241 

Trujillo, O., Alston, D., A Report on the Status of American Indians and 

Alaska Natives in Education: Historical Legacy to Cultural Empowerment, 

Washington, D.C.: National Education Association (2005). 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education, Statistics 

Status and Trends in the Education of American Indians and Alaska 

Natives, available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/nativetrends/ 

ind_3_2.asp. 

Volkow, Nora, “Substance Abuse in American Indian Youth 

Is Worse Than We Thought,” Nora’s Blog, National 

Institute on Drug Abuse (2014), available at: http:// 

www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2014/09/ 

substance-use-in-american-indian-youth-worse-than-we-thought. 

Trauma and Healing 

Barnes, Patricia M., et al., “Health Characteristics of the American Indian 

or Alaska Native Adult Population: United States, 2004–2008,” 

National Health Statistics Reports 20, Hyattsville, MD: National Center 

for Health Statistics (2010). 

Bartgis, J., BigFoot, D.S., The State of Best Practice in Indian Country, 

available at: http://www.icctc.org/BartgisBigfoot%20The%20State%20of%20Best%20Practices%20in%20Indian%20 

Country%20(2).pdf. 

BigFoot, Dolores S., Schmidt, Susan, Honoring Children, Mending the Circle: 

Cultural Adaptation of Trauma-Focused Cognitive-Behavior Therapy 

for American Indian and Alaska Native Children, available at: http:// 

www.itcmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TBCAC-culturaladaptation-article2010.pdf. 

Buller, Ed, Aboriginal Community Healing Process in Canada, available at: 

http://www.iirp.edu/pdf/man05/man05_buller.pdf. 

Colmant, Stephen, et al., “Constructing Meaning to the Indian Boarding 

School Experience,” Journal of American Indian Education 43(3) (2004): 

22–40. 

Dickerson, Daniel L., et al., “Mental Health and Substance Abuse 

Characteristics among a Clinical Sample of Urban American Indian/ 

Alaska Native Youths in a Large California Metropolitan Area: A 

Descriptive Study,” Community Mental Health Journal, Springerlink. 

com (2010). 

Federal Partners Committee on Women and Trauma, Trauma Informed 

Approaches: Federal Activities and Initiatives, available at: http://www. 

nasmhpd.org/docs/Women%20and%20Trauma/2013FederalPartner 

sReportFinal.pdf. 

SUGGESTED FURTHER READING PRINT AND INTERNET SOURCES 
242 

Finkelhor, David, et al., “Trends in Childhood Violence and Abuse 

Exposure,” Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 164(3) (2010): 238–42. 

Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America 

Safer: Report to the President and Congress of the United States (2013), 

available at: http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/iloc/report/index.html. 

James, Cara, et al., “A Profile of American Indians and Alaska Natives 

and Their Health Coverage,” Race, Ethnicity and Health Care: Issue 

Brief, available at: http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress. 

com/2013/01/7977.pdf. 

Koltko-Rivera, Mark E., “The Psychology of Worldviews,” Review of 

General Psychology 8 (2004): 3–58. 

Koss M. P., et al., “Adverse Childhood Exposures and Alcohol Dependence 

among Seven Native American Tribes,” American Journal of 

Preventative Medicine (2003): 238-244. 

LaFromboise, Teresa D., et al., “Family, Community, and School 

Influences on Resilience among American Indian Adolescents in 

the Upper Midwest,” Journal of Community Psychology 34(2) (2006): 

193–209. 

Listenbee Jr., Robert L., et al., Report of the Attorney General’s National 

Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence, Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (2012). 

Mihesuah, Devon A., “Commonalty of Difference: American Indian 

Women and History,” Special Issue: Writing about American 

Indians, American Indian Quarterly 20 (1996): 15–27. 

Sarche, Michelle C., et al., American Indian and Alaska Native Children and 

Mental Health: Development, Context, Prevention, and Treatment, Santa 

Barbara, CA: ABC-CILO (2011). 

Sawatsky, J., Ross, R., The Ethic of Traditional Communities and the Spirit of 

Healing Justice, Studies from Hollow Water, the Iona Community and Plum 

Village, Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publisher (2007). 

Shonle, Ruth, “The Christianizing Process among Preliterate Peoples,” 

The Journal of Religion 4 (1924): 261–80. 

Smith, Andrea, “Soul Wound: The Legacy of Native American Schools,” 

Amnesty International Magazine, available at: http://www. 

amnestyusa.org/node/87342. 

Stamm, B. Hudnall, et al., “Considering a Theory of Cultural Trauma and 

Loss,” Journal of Loss and Trauma 9 (2001): 1–22. 

Strand, J. A., Peacock, R., “Resource Guide for Cultural Resilience,” Tribal 

College Journal of American Indian Higher Education 14(4) (2003): 28-31. 

Thurman, Pamela J., et al., “The Circles of Care Evaluation: Doing 

Participatory Evaluation with American Indian and Alaska Native 

APPENDIX F 
243 

Communities,” American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health 

Research, Journal of the National Center 11(2) (2004): 139–54.
 

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, State of the 

World’s Indigenous Peoples, New York: United Nations (2009). 

Wilkins, Natalie, et al., Connecting the Dots: An Overview of the Links among 

Multiple Forms of Violence, Atlanta: National Center for Injury 

Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

and Prevention Institute (2014). 

Yellow Horse Braveheart, Maria, Historical Trauma, available at: http:// 

www.historicaltrauma.com/. 

Zvolensku, Michael J., et al., “Assessment of Anxiety Sensitivity in Young 

American Indians and Alaska Natives,” Behavior of Research and 

Therapy 39 (2001): 477–93. 

Juvenile Justice 

Adams, E. J., “Healing Invisible Wounds: Why Investing in TraumaInformed Care for Children Makes Sense,” Justice Policy Institute, 

available at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/10-07_ 

REP_HealingInvisibleWounds_JJ-PS.pdf. 

Alexie, Sherman, Flight: A Novel, New York: Black Cat (2007). 

The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative 

Annual Results Report (2009), available at: http://jdaiannualreports. 

com/pastreports.php . 

The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Planning for Juvenile Detention: A 

Structured Approach, available at: http://www.aecf.org/resources/ 

planning-for-juvenile-detention-reforms/. 

Arya, Neelum, Rolnick, Addie, “A Tangled Web of Justice: American 

Indian and Alaska Native Youth in Federal, State, and Tribal Justice 

Systems,” Washington, D.C.: Campaign for Youth Justice Policy Brief 1 

(2008): n6. 

Bonnie, Richard J., ed., et al., Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental 

Approach, National Research Council, Committee on Assessing 

Juvenile Justice Reform, Committee on Law and Justice, Division of 

Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Washington, D.C.: 

The National Academies Press (2013). 

Cauffman, Elizabeth, “Understanding the Female Offender,” Future of 

Children (18) (2008): 119-142. 

Center for Children’s Law and Policy, Understanding the BJS Study of Sexual 

Victimization in Juvenile Facilities, available at: http://www.cclp.org/ 

documents/PREA/Fact%20Sheet%20--%202012%20BJS%20Sexual%20 

Victimization%20Study.pdf. 

SUGGESTED FURTHER READING PRINT AND INTERNET SOURCES 
A P P E N D I X F 

244 

Declaration on the Rights of a Child, United Nations General Assembly 

Resolution 1386(XVI) (1959), available at: http://www.unicef.org/ 

malaysia/1959-Declaration-of-the-Rights-of-the-Child.pdf. 

Henning, Kris, “Loyalty, Paternalism, and Rights: Client Counseling 

Theory and the Role of Child’s Counsel in Delinquency Cases,” Notre 

Dame L. Rev. 81 (2005): 245-324. 

Holman, B., Ziedenberg, J., The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of 

Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Congregate 

Facilities, available at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/ 

upload/06-11_REP_DangersOfDetention_JJ.pdf. 

Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America 

Safer: Report to the President and Congress of the United States (2013): 

149–80, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/iloc/report/files/ 

Chapter_6_Juvenile_Justice.pdf. 

Levick, Marsha, et al., “The Eighth Amendment Evolves: Defining Cruel 

and Unusual Punishment through the Lens of Childhood and 

Adolescence,” U. Pa. J.L. and Soc. Change 15 (2012): 285-337. 

Majd, Katayoon, et al., Hidden Injustice: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and 

Transgender Youth in Juvenile Courts, available at: http://www. 

equityproject.org/pdfs/hidden_injustice.pdf. 

Melton, Ada P., Building Culturally Relevant Youth Court in Tribal 

Communities, available at: http://aidainc.net/Publications/ 

monograph.pdf. 

Melton, Ada P., Collaboration and Resource Sharing to Improve Services 

to Indian Youth, available at: http://aidainc.net/Publications/ 

collaboration.htm. 

Mendel, Richard, No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile 

Incarceration, available at: http://www.aecf.org/resources/ 

no-place-for-kids-full-report/. 

No Turning Back: Promising Approaches to Reducing Racial and Ethnic 

Disparities Affecting Youth of Color in the Justice System, available at: 

http://www.cclp.org/documents/BBY/ntb_fullreport.pdf. 

Sherman, Francine, Testimony before Congress on Meeting the Needs of Girls 

in the Juvenile Justice System, available at: http://www.youtube.com/ 

watch?v=-vP6GRSC8Yc. 

Smink, J., Zorn, J., Legal and Economic Implications of Truancy, Clemson, SC: 

National Dropout Prevention Center/Network, College of Health, 

Education, and Human Development, Clemson University (2005). 

Soler, Mark, et al., “Juvenile Justice: Lessons for a New Era,” Georgetown J. 

Poverty Law and Pol’y 16 (2009): 483-541. 

Sprague, C., “Informing Judges About Child Trauma,” NCTSN Service 

System Briefs 2 (2008): 396-404. 
 

245 

Taylor, R. W., Fritsch, E. J., Juvenile Justice: Policies, Programs, and Practices, 

3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill (2011). 

Teske, Steve, et al., Collaborative Role of Courts in Promoting Outcomes 

for Students: The Relationship between Arrests, Graduation Rates, and 

School Safety, available at: http://school-justicesummit.org/pdfs/ 

journal-web_paper_9.pdf. 

Walton, Stephanie, New Ways to Address Truancy, Denver, CO: National 

Conference of State Legislatures (2006). 

Alaska Special Issues 

Carlson, B. E., “Children Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence: Research 

Findings and Implications for Intervention,” Trauma, Violence, and 

Abuse 1(4) (2000): 321-342. 

Case, D. S., Voluck, D. A., Alaska Natives and American Laws, 3rd ed., 

Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press (2012). 

Denetsosie, Warren, Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government: 

Redefining “Indian Country,” available at: http://www.tribal-institute. 

org/articles/denetsosie.htm. 

Goodkind, J. R., et al., “Promoting Healing and Restoring Trust: Policy 

Recommendations for Improving Behavioral Health Care for 

American Indian/Alaska Native Adolescents,” American Journal of 

Community Psychology 46 (2010): 386-394. 

Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America 

Safer: Report to the President and Congress of the United States (2013): 

55–61, available at: http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/iloc/report/files/ 

Chapter_2_Alaska.pdf. 

Leiber, M. J., et al., An Examination of the Factors That Influence Justice 

Decision Making in Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska, available at: 

http://dhss.alaska.gov/djj/Documents/ReportsAndPublications/ 

DMC/06AssessmentStudy.pdf. 

Strommer, G., Osborne, S., “Indian Country” and the Nature and Scope of 

Tribal Self-Government in Alaska, available at: http://scholarship.law. 

duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=alr. 

SUGGESTED FURTHER READING PRINT AND INTERNET SOURCES 
246 

Internet Sources 

ACE Study Summary: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ 

acestudy/index.html 

Alaska Native Issues: http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/alaska.htm 

Alaska Rural Justice Commission: http://www.akjusticecommission.org/ 

The Annie E. Casey Foundation: http://www.aecf.org/resources/ 

urban-indian-america/ 

Center for Native American Youth at the Aspen Institute, Fast Facts: 

Native American Youth and Indian Country, available at: http://www. 

aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Native%20 

Youth%20Fast%20Facts%20Update_04-2014.pdf 

Child Abuse and Neglect Resources: http://www.tribal-institute.org/ 

lists/child.htm 

Domestic Violence Resources: http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/ 

domestic.htm 

Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention: http://www. 

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/25/chapter-34 

Indian Child Welfare Act: http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/icwa.htm 

Indian Country Child Trauma Center: http://www.icctc.org/ 

Indian Self-Determination Act: http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/ 

pl93-638.htm 

Juvenile Justice: http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/juvenile.htm 

National Indian Education Association: http://www.niea.org/ 

National Native Children’s Trauma Center: http://iers.umt.edu/ 

National_Native_Childrens_Trauma_Center/ 

Tribal Court Clearinghouse: http://www.tlpi.org 

Tribal Jurisdiction: http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/jurisdiction.htm 

Tribal Law and Order Act: http://www.narf.org/nill/resources/tloa.html 

Violence Against Women Act: http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/ 

vawa_2013.htm 

Walking On Common Ground: http://www.WalkingOnCommonGround.org 

APPENDIX F 
To download the full final report, go to: 

www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood