The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Violence Against American Indian and Alaska 

Native Women and the Criminal Justice 

Response: What is Known 

Author: Ronet Bachman, Heather Zaykowski, Rachel 

Kallmyer, Margarita Poteyeva, Christina Lanier 

Document No.: 223691 

Date Received: August 2008 

Award Number: 1705-219 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to 

traditional paper copies. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
2

Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and the Criminal Justice 

Response: What is Known* 

By

Ronet Bachman1

Heather Zaykowski1

Rachel Kallmyer1

Margarita Poteyeva1

Christina Lanier2

1 Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of Delaware

2 Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of North Carolina, Wilmington

*This project was supported by Contract #1705-219 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, and U.S. Department of Justice. Findings and conclusions of the research reported 

here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 14

Part 1: HOMICIDE VICTIMIZATION.......................................................................... 27

i. National Level Homicide Data 19

ii. County Level Homicide Data 23

Part 2: NONFATAL VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION ...................................................... 27

i Police Reports 27

ii. Victimization Surveys 28

Part 3. RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT........................................................................ 31

i. National Surveys 31

a. The National Crime Victimization Survey

 1. Variables Used in the NCVS Contextual Analysis

 2. Results of NCVS Contextual Analysis for Rape/Sexual Assault

b. The National Violence Against Women Survey

ii. Local Surveys 41

Part 4. PHYSICAL ASSAULT ........................................................................................ 46

i. National Surveys 47

a. The National Crime Victimization Survey

 1. Results of NCVS Contextual Analysis for Physical Assaults

b. The National Violence Against Women Survey

c. The National Family Violence Survey 

ii. Local Surveys of Assaults Against American Indian & Alaska Native Women 55

Part 5. DATING VIOLENCE.......................................................................................... 57

Part 6. STALKING .......................................................................................................... 58

i. National Studies 58

ii. Local Studies 60

Part 7. REASONS FOR VARIABILITY IN ESTIMATES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST 

AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN ............................. 61

i. Screening Questions 61

ii. Reference Period Used 63

iii.Sampling Differences 64

a. Random versus Availability Samples

b. Random Digit Dialing versus In Person Solicitation

iv.Cultural Sensitivity of Interviewers 65

Part 8. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM’S RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE 

AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN ........ 67

i. Historical Context 68

ii. Federal Indian Law 70

iii.Major Crimes Act 71

iv. Indian Civil Rights Act 72

a. Non-American Indian and Alaska Native Offenders in Tribal Courts

v. Public Law 280 75

vi.The Violence Against Women Act 77

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
4

Part 9. LAW ENFORCEMENT ...................................................................................... 78

i. Police Department Characteristics and Problems 80

ii. Cultural and Social Barriers to Effective Law Enforcement 84

Part 10. COURTS AND PROSECUTION ........................................................................ 86

i. Tribal Judicial Systems 86

ii. State Judicial Systems 87

iii. Federal Judicial Systems 88

iv. Peacemaking and Tribal Justice 90

Part 11. PROTECTION ORDERS AND FULL FAITH AND CREDIT......................... 94

i. Obtaining Protection Orders 94

ii. Enforcing Protection Orders 96

Part 12. INCARCERATION AND CORRECTIONS....................................................... 98

i. Federal Prisons 98

ii. Tribal Correctional Systems 99

Part 13. LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING PHYSICAL ASSAULT AGAINST 

AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN......................... 100

i. Stalking 101

ii. Dating Violence 102

iii. Law Enforcement and Intimate Partner Violence 102

iv. Reporting to Police 105

v. Criminal Justice Response to Dating Violence 105

Part 14. LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT AGAINST 

AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN......................... 106

i. Federal and State Response to Sexual Assault 107

ii. Law Enforcement of Rape and Sexual Assault 108

iii. Reporting Rape 109

iv. Courts and Prosecution 109

v. Protection Orders and Sexual Assault 111

vi. Tribal Response to Rape and Sexual Assault 111

vii. Tribal and State Courts and Prosecution 112

Part 15. NONCRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSES TO VIOLENCE AGAINST 

AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN......................... 113

i. Barriers to the Utilization of Services 114

Part 16. CULTURALLY SENSITIVE INTERVENTIONS ........................................... 116

i. Health Care-Based Interventions 122

ii. Victim Services Interventions 126

iii.Offender Oriented Interventions 130

iv. Education and Community Awareness 132

Part 17. FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES........................................ 133

Part 18. CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL THOUGHTS ................................................... 139

APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................... 158

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report was to provide an overview of the epidemiology of violence 

against American Indian and Alaska Native women as well as an accounting of the criminal 

justice responses to this violence. Key findings include:

• National rates of homicide victimization against American Indian and Alaska Native 

women are second to those of their African American counterparts, but higher than those 

for white women. However, these national averages hide the extremely high rates of 

murder against American Indian and Alaska Native women present in some counties 

comprised primarily of tribal lands. Some counties have rates of murder against 

American Indian and Alaska Native women that are over ten times the national average. 

Like other women, American Indian and Alaska Native women are more likely to be 

killed by their intimate partners compared to other offenders. 

• Using information to estimate nonfatal victimizations from official police report data, 

such as the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) or the National Incident Based Reporting 

System (NIBRS) compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation is extremely 

problematic since we know less than half of violent victimizations against women are 

ever reported to police. Random sample surveys of women are the most appropriate 

method for estimating incidence rates. Unfortunately, a majority of studies that have 

examined violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women have relied on 

convenience samples of women (e.g. those available for study such as women seeking 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
6

medical care at a clinic), which cannot be generalized to the population of all women, 

even women in a particular tribe. The extreme diversity in social, cultural, and economic 

conditions across tribes as well as the differences that may exist between American 

Indian and Alaska Native women who reside in urban areas (roughly 60%) off tribal 

lands, makes estimating rates of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native 

women problematic. Making comparisons of incident rates is also difficult because of the 

extremely diverse nature of the survey questions used to uncover victimizations.

• An analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) reveals that rates of 

rape and other sexual assaults are higher for American Indian and Alaska Native women 

compared to both African American and white women. Rape and sexual assaults against 

all women regardless of race were more likely to be committed known offenders. These 

results are consistent with findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey 

(NVAWS) that found American Indian and Alaska Native women were significantly 

more likely to experience a rape in their lifetimes compared to other women. 

• With few exceptions, surveys of American Indian and Alaska Native women conducted 

in local areas including those residing on tribal lands as well as those residing in urban 

areas also generally find high rates of rape and sexual assault victimization. However, 

because of the extreme variation in the wording of the questions used, it is not always 

possible to know whether these victimizations were completed rapes or other sexual 

assaults. There has been one very rigorous survey that employed a random sampling 

design to uncover rape victimizations, both completed and attempted, within six tribal 

nations, which generally found high rates of rape with the exception of one tribe. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
7

• According to NCVS data, rape and sexual assault victimizations against American Indian 

and Alaska Native women are just as likely to be reported to police compared to 

victimizations against other women, however, a friend, family member, or another 

official are most likely to do the reporting, not the victim herself. In only 6% of the 

victimizations that were reported were victims aware that the offender had been arrested. 

This is similar to the percent of other women who report that an arrest was made in their 

case. 

• National annual incidence rates and lifetime prevalence rates for physical assaults are 

also higher for American Indian and Alaska Native women compared to other women. 

Like other women, American Indian and Alaska Native women are more likely to be 

assaulted by known offenders compared to strangers. Roughly equal proportions of these 

victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native women are reported to police 

compared to other women. In addition, reports to police by American Indian and Alaska 

Native women are just as likely to result in arrest compared to reports made by other 

women. These national patterns do not, however, reflect variation in reporting and arrest 

rates that may occur across tribal nations. 

• The unique position of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes as both sovereign and 

dependent creates problematic jurisdictional barriers that sometimes prohibit an effective 

criminal justice response to American Indian and Alaska Native victims of violence. 

Several federal laws have limited tribal government’s power to prosecute offenders 

including the Major Crimes Act (1885), which mandated that virtually all violent crimes 

committed on tribal lands were to be prosecuted by the federal government. Although 

tribes have the power to concurrently prosecute cases of violence, the Indian Civil Rights 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
8

Act (1968) mandates that tribal courts are not permitted to punish offenders with more

than $5,000 in fines, one year in jail or both. Importantly, tribal sovereignty in punishing 

offenders does not apply to non-American Indian and Alaska Natives (Oliphant v. 

Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 1978). 

• Complicating jurisdictional issues even more is Public Law 280 (1953), which gave state 

governments jurisdiction over offenses committed against American Indian and Alaska 

Natives on tribal land in six “mandatory” states including Alaska, California, Minnesota, 

Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin, and some states that also assumed part or total 

jurisdiction over some tribes within state boundaries including Arizona, Florida, Idaho, 

Iowa, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington. Since 

Public Law 280 (PL-280), however, several states have retroceded authority to specific 

tribes making jurisdictional issues even more complicated. 

• Complicated jurisdictional issues still produce unique barriers to American Indian and 

Alaska Native women seeking help from a criminal justice authority on tribal lands. 

When an act of violence occurs on tribal lands, there are several possible law 

enforcement officials who may respond including tribal officers, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation officers, Bureau of Indian Affairs officers, and in PL-280 states, state police 

officers. Deciding who has jurisdictional authority is dependent on several factors 

including the crime that was committed, whether the offender or the victim was an 

American Indian and Alaska Native, and whether the crime was committed exclusively 

on tribal land. The jurisdictional confusion that may ensue when an act of violence occurs 

sometimes produces an inadequate and delayed response to female victims. Importantly, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
9

some tribes have worked out cross-deputization agreements with state police authorities, 

which serve to alleviate the jurisdictional confusion over authority.

• Additional problems in law enforcement are exacerbated on many tribal lands by 

insufficient funding, inadequate training, and victims’ lack of trust for outside authority. 

• Although tribal governments do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-American Indian 

and Alaska Native offenders in criminal courts, they do have authority to enact civil 

orders against them, including Personal Protection Orders (PPOs). PPOs provide 

injunctive relief for petitioners who seek to use legal remedies to end threatening 

behavior, cease contact with another individual, or to alter custody arrangements. The 

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 established “Full Faith and Credit” for 

PPOs, which mandates jurisdictions to honor PPOs enacted in other jurisdictions. 

Importantly, this means that States and tribal governments must enforce the protection 

orders of other State and tribal jurisdictions. In reality, however, the variety of orders and 

accompanying legal punishments and the understanding of the intent of the order vary by 

each State and tribal government, creating significant barriers to the enforcement of “Full 

Faith and Credit.” 

• In addition to legal barriers that may impede American Indian and Alaska Native women 

from obtaining justice, there are also other barriers including the social isolation of many 

tribal lands that precludes some American Indian and Alaska Native women from 

obtaining adequate medical care including the availability of rape kits being performed 

by trained medical staff to aid prosecution. Cultural barriers also prevent some American 

Indian and Alaska Native women from seeking assistance from those outside the 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
10

community, while issues of privacy may also prevent others from seeking help inside 

close-knit tribal communities where “everyone knows everyone else’s business.” 

• Some American Indian and Alaska Native communities are developing culturally 

sensitive interventions for violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women 

both within and outside of the criminal justice system. These family or community 

forums emphasize restorative and reparative approaches to justice. One example of this is 

the Navajo Peacemaking system. Other culturally sensitive victim support services are 

being created across the country, in both urban settings as well as on rural tribal lands.

• A great deal of progress has been made to combat violence against American Indian and 

Alaska Native women as a result of the VAWA 1994 and its reauthorizations in 2000 and 

2005. Initiated in 1995, one of the most significant initiatives administered specifically 

for American Indian and Alaska Native communities has been the Services-TrainingOfficers-Prosecutors (STOP) Violence Against Indian Women (VAIW) program. The 

primary purpose of the STOP VAIW Discretionary Grants Program was to reduce violent 

crimes against American Indian and Alaska Native women. In 2006, over $6.7 million 

was awarded to 35 American Indian and Alaska Native communities under this initiative. 

Additionally, American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments and tribal 

associations could obtain funding under other grant programs including the Legal 

Assistance for Victims Program, the Rural Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual 

Assault, and Stalking Assistance Program, The Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange 

Program, and the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection 

Orders Program. Over $21 million dollars were awarded to tribal communities under 

these initiatives in 2006 and 2007. Title IX of VAWA 2005 significantly increased 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
11

existing set-asides to tribal nations and created a new consolidated initiative called the 

Tribal Government Program, which gives tribal governments a longer list of options on 

how funds can be utilized to combat violence against American Indian and Alaska Native 

women. 

In the past few decades, we have learned a tremendous amount about the vulnerabilities that 

American Indian and Alaska Native women have to violent victimization as well as the unique 

obstacles they face when seeking help from law enforcement authorities and other officials for 

these victimizations. We have several recommendations that we believe will provide more 

fruitful investments to combat this violence in the future:

• Valid and reliable data on violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women 

are essential in formulating policies likely to prevent this violence and to respond 

effectively. Importantly, without solid baseline rates of violence against American Indian 

and Alaska Native women at both national and local levels, there is no way to assess the 

overall effectiveness of interventions. Using official data from police reports is not 

desirable for these endeavors because police reporting by female victims can be 

influenced by a number of factors. Moreover, since less than half of all violent 

victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native women are ever reported to 

police, using survey methodology is the only reliable way to estimate and track trends in 

violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women. However, because many 

local tribes will not have the resources to conduct surveys, official data from police will 

likely remain the principal means to monitor levels of violence. As such, it is important 

that efforts be made to improve the official databases that exist at the local tribal level. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
12

We recommend using the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) developed 

by the Federal Bureau of Investigation since its data template allows the collection of 

detailed information about the incidents including the victim/offender relationship along 

with other socio-demographic characteristics of the victim and offender. The 

jurisdictional issues described in this report should not prevent tribes from creating 

databases from initial victim reports.

• We now have consistent and reliable evidence from several random sample surveys 

conducted at the local tribal level, as well as from two national random sample surveys 

that violence disproportionately affects American Indian and Alaska Native women. It is 

important, however, that victimization of American Indian and Alaska Native women 

continue to be monitored by already existing surveys. Since the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS) remains the only large-scale survey conducted annually, 

every attempt should be made to restore the sample size of the NCVS in order to monitor 

violence against small subsets of the population, including American Indian and Alaska 

Native women. The current sample of the NCVS is insufficient to monitor patterns and 

trends of different forms of victimization (rape, assault) against American Indian and 

Alaska Native women, even when multiple years are aggregated. Future survey research 

efforts should be focused on understanding the causes of violence against American 

Indian and Alaska Native women, not just measuring the magnitude of this violence. To 

do this, collection efforts must be theoretically guided.

• Different research designs using different wording in questions to uncover victimization 

events at the local level will continue to produce disparate findings in the future. We 

contend that new resources directed at counting “how many” American Indian and 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
13

Alaska Native women are victims are misguided. Even the most conservative estimates 

indicate that violence is an extremely serious problem in many American Indian and 

Alaska Native communities. The limited resources that are available would be better 

invested in developing interventions and prevention programs, scientifically evaluating 

their efficacy for protecting American Indian and Alaska Native women, and making sure 

all female victims of violence have safe havens in the meantime. 

• Research intended to evaluate the efficacy of programs and policies created to protect 

American Indian and Alaska Native women must employ scientifically rigorous 

standards when possible to determine if programs had their intended “impacts.” 

Unfortunately, much of the evaluation research to date has predominately evaluated the 

“process” by which programs were implemented. While these are important, they do not 

tell us anything about whether programs had the intended consequences of protecting 

women. We are not alone in this call. The National Research Council Committee on the 

Assessment of Family Violence Interventions similarly identifies improving the standards 

of evidence used in the evaluation of family violence programs as critical. We have 

learned far too many times that ineffective policies can sometimes do more harm that 

good. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
14

INTRODUCTION

While recent research has illuminated the reality of violence present in some American 

Indian and Alaskan Native communities, only relatively recently has scholarly and 

Congressional attention been given to the vulnerability that American Indian and Alaska Native 

women face to violent victimization. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 was 

extremely important legislation for protecting female victims of violence in general, and even 

more important for American Indian Alaska Native women. VAWA 1994, along with its 

subsequent revision in 2000 and 2005, have explicitly set aside funds to combat and respond to 

violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women. For example, VAWA 1994 set 

aside 4% of its allotment for Services and Training for Officers and Prosecutors (STOP) Grants 

for American Indian and Alaska Native federally recognized tribes.1 In the reauthorization of 

VAWA in 2000, this allotment was increased to 5%. In addition, many of the sections in the 

2000 reauthorization of VAWA allotted 5% to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. For 

example, 5% of the funds established for Safe Havens for Children Pilot Programs, which grants 

money to provide supervised visitation and safe visitation exchange of children by and between 

parents in situations involving domestic violence, were set aside for American Indian and Alaska 

Native tribes.2

Because of the high rates of victimization against American Indian and Alaska Native 

women have been uncovered at both the local tribal levels and at the national level, section 904 

of the 2005 VAWA reauthorization Act explicitly called for a baseline study to: (1) examine 

violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women; and (2) examine the effectiveness 

of local, tribal, state and federal responses to such violence. In addition, section 904 required the 

 1

 Section 40121 authorized 25% of allotments to go to police, 25% to go to prosecutors, and 25% to go to victim 

services. Tribes could apply for funds as individual nations or as a consortium of tribes together. 

2

 Section 1301 of VAWA 2000.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
15

establishment of a task force to assist with developing and implementing the study consisting of 

representatives from a) national tribal domestic violence and sexual assault nonprofit 

organizations, b) tribal governments, and c) national tribal organizations. 

The goal of this report is to provide a synthesis of the empirical literature at both the local 

and national levels that has provided magnitude estimates of violence against American Indian 

and Alaska Native women along with a review of the methodologies on which the estimates are 

based. The report includes the crimes of homicide, rape and sexual assault, physical assault, and 

stalking. In addition to this review, we conduct original data analyses of homicide data from the 

Indian Health Service and the Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) as well as rape and 

assault data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to provide an 

epidemiological assessment of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women and 

how the contextual characteristics of these victimization differ from women of other groups 

including white, African American, and Asian American women. 

Finally, we provide a detailed review of what is known about criminal justice responses 

to violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women including the barriers to the legal 

interventions of such violence. Included here is a synthesis of other interventions that have been 

used at local levels to respond to and prevent violence against American Indian and Alaska 

Native women including such innovations as Navajo Peacemaking. We conclude with our 

recommendations for future research. Before we begin, however, it is first important to define 

what we mean by the term American Indian/Alaska Native. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
16

Who is an American Indian or an Alaskan Native?

There are many obstacles in determining exactly who is an American Indian and Alaska 

Native primarily because there is a great deal of variation in definitions across government 

agencies and across Indian nations. According to the federal government’s Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA), an American Indian is legally defined as a person who is an enrolled or registered 

member of a tribe or whose blood quantum is one-fourth or more, genealogically derived. This 

level varies, however, with some tribes setting their blood quantum requirements much lower 

and some setting them higher. In contrast, the U.S. Bureau of the Census relies on selfidentification, that is, you are an American Indian and Alaska Native if you say you are. 

In the 2000 Census, respondents were asked to report one or more races they consider 

themselves to be. In 2000, 2,475,956 people considered themselves to be American Indian and 

Alaska Native alone (0.9% of the population) and an additional 1,643,345 considered themselves 

to be American Indian and Alaska Native in combination with one or more other races (0.6% of 

the population), the majority of which were in combination with white. In sum, 4,119,301 

people, or 1.5% of the U.S. population, described themselves entirely or partially as American 

Indian and Alaska Native in 2000 (U.S. Census, 2002). Males and females represent roughly 

equal proportions of the total American Indian and Alaska Native population, 49% and 51% 

respectively. About one-third of both males and females are under the age of 18. Regarding 

socioeconomic factors, many American Indian and Alaska Natives who reside on isolated tribal 

lands have very few educational and economic opportunities. This is reflected in national 

averages for educational attainment and income. A higher percentage of American Indian and 

Alaska Natives have less than a high school education and fewer American Indian and Alaska 

Natives have a bachelor’s degree compared to the general population. The median income for 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
17

both American Indian and Alaska Native men and women is also significantly lower than their 

male and female counterparts in the general population. Moreover, the percent of the American

Indian and Alaska Native population American Indian and Alaska Natives who live under the 

poverty threshold is almost double that of the total population (25.7% compared to 12.4%) (U.S. 

Census, 2002). 

Although American Indian and Alaska Natives reside in every state, there are some areas 

of the country with larger American Indian and Alaska Native populations. In 2000, 43% lived in 

the West, 31% in the South, 17% in the Midwest, and 9% lived in the Northeast. More than half 

of American Indian and Alaska Natives resided in urban areas. Of cities with 100,000 or more 

population, New York and Los Angeles had the largest number of American Indian and Alaska 

Natives followed by Phoenix, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and Anchorage. States with the greatest 

percentage of American Indian and Alaska Natives include Alaska (19%), Oklahoma (11.4%), 

New Mexico (10.5%), South Dakota (9%), Montana (7.4%), Arizona, (5.7%), and North Dakota 

(5.5%) (U.S. Census, 2002). 

It is often assumed that most American Indian and Alaska Natives reside on tribal lands, 

however, almost 60% of American Indian and Alaska Native individuals reside in urban areas. 

Only about 40% live in rural locations, most often on tribal lands (U.S. Census, 2002). 

Moreover, there is also a great deal of variability in whether American Indian and Alaska 

Natives accept traditionalism or become acculturated to mainstream society. The continuum 

stretches from someone who was born and remains on tribal lands to those who were born in a 

city and feels little connection to their ancestral tribe. Moreover, this cultural and social diversity 

exists even within a single reservation. For example, some American Indian and Alaska Natives 

on a reservation may live in a very traditional manner, speaking the native language and 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
18

practicing traditional religions, while others may be fully entrenched in modern society with no 

ties to traditional practices. In fact, about one-quarter of individuals who self-identified 

themselves as American Indian and Alaska Native to the U.S. Census did not have formal ties to 

a tribe (U.S. Census, 2002). 

In sum, making generalizations about the characteristics of the entire population of 

“American Indian and Alaska Natives” is extremely problematic. Nevertheless, estimating the 

unique vulnerabilities to violence among this population is extremely important. As the U.S. 

Census states, “all levels of government need information on race to implement and evaluate 

programs or enforce laws” (U.S. Census, 2002, p. 10) including such laws as the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Act, the Voting Rights Act, and for our purposes, the Violence Against 

Women Act. The purpose of this report is to provide such an accounting of violence against 

American Indian and Alaska Native women.

HOMICIDE VICTIMIZATION

We know from previous research that homicide victimization rates for American Indian 

and Alaska Natives living on certain tribal lands are significantly higher than rates for any other 

race/ethnic group in the United States (Bachman, 1992). However, we know very little about 

homicide victimization against American Indian and Alaska Native women specifically. To 

understand as much as possible about homicides against American Indian and Alaska Native 

women, two sources of data and two different geographical units of analysis were analyzed in 

this report, data at the county level and data at the national level. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
19

National Level Homicide Data

National level data were obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) 

Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program: Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) for 1976 

through 2002 (Fox, 2005).3 Although there is variation in definitions of murder across states, the 

UCR generally defines murder and non-negligent manslaughter as the willful killing of one 

human being by another. Riedel further states, “As a general rule, any death due to injuries 

received in a fight, argument, quarrel, assault, or commission of a crime is counted as a murder 

or non-negligent manslaughter” (Riedel, 1999). The UCR program collects detailed information 

on all murders known to the police in local jurisdictions, including the age, sex, and race of the 

victim and, if known, of the perpetrator; the weapons used, the relationship between the victim 

and the offender; and the circumstances of the murder. Of course, the reliability of these data is 

only as good as the local law enforcement agencies that originally collect the information. That 

is, a case first has to be defined by law enforcement as a homicide to be recorded. This reliability 

may be further compromised by the complicated jurisdictional issues that surround the 

adjudication of violent crime in Indian Country4 (see section on Criminal Justice Responses on 

pages 67-79 for a more detailed discussion of this issue). 

In the national level analysis, total homicides against American Indian and Alaska 

Native, white, and African American females were examined for the entire 1976-2002 time 

period. During this time period, American Indian and Alaska Native females were more 

 3

 SHR data were obtained from the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), Study 

Number 4179 (Fox, 2005). 4

 “Indian Country” is defined in the Major Crimes Act 18 U.S.C. § 1153 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.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
20

frequently represented among homicides within their racial group (27%) followed closely by 

white females (26%). African American females represented only 19% of all African American 

homicides (see Figure 1). 

For the 1976 through 2002 time period, using the average annual number of homicides 

for females for each racial group and estimates from the 1990 Census for a population base for 

the denominators, total homicide rates of victimization per 100,000 females in each racial group 

were 7.3 for American Indian and Alaska Natives (average annual number of victimizations = 

36), 10.4 for African Americans (average annual number = 1,160), and 5.0 for whites (average 

annual number = 2,578). Thus, at the national level, although African American women make up 

a lower proportion of homicides within their racial group, rates of victimization indicate that they 

are at greater risk of homicide compared to either American Indian and Alaska Native or white 

females. American Indian and Alaska Native females, however, are at a greater risk of being 

murdered than white females. However, as we shall see in the next section, American Indian and 

Alaska Native women living in some communities experience significantly higher rates of 

homicide victimization than this national average would indicate. 

When the contextual characteristics of homicide victimization against women are 

examined by race, we see more similarities than differences. For example, when examining the 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
21

age of victims, it can be seen that the majority of female homicide victimizations regardless of 

race occur between the ages of 18 and 49 (Figure 2). 

Women of all races are more likely to be killed by their intimate partners (such as 

spouses, boy/girlfriends, and exes), followed by other known offenders such as friends and 

acquaintances (Figure 3). Other non-intimate family members kill an average of 15% of all 

female victims. Women of all races are least likely to be killed by strangers. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
22

As shown in Figure 4, the precipitating circumstance of homicides against women, 

regardless of race, is most likely to be conflict situations (Alvarez & Bachman, 2007). Although 

American Indian and Alaska Native females are less likely to be killed as the result of another 

felony (e.g. robbery) compared to white and African American females, they are slightly more 

likely to be killed as the result of a rape or sexual assault: 7% of all American Indian and Alaska 

Native female homicides compared to 5% for white females, and 4% of all African American 

females. 

The weapons involved in homicides against American Indian and Alaska Native women 

show a somewhat different distribution compared to either white or African American female 

victims. While firearms represent the most likely weapon to be used in murders against women 

regardless of race, American Indian and Alaska Native women are more likely to be killed by 

both knives and blunt objects compared to other women (Figure 5). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
23

County Level Homicide Data

The county level data presented in this report were obtained for American Indian and 

Alaska Natives from Indian Health Services, Vital Statistics, National Center for Health 

Statistics (NCHS), 1994-1998.5 Unlike UCR data, the information for this data was obtained via 

standardized death certificates, not from law enforcement agencies. Because these data do not 

rely on reports to police, they do not suffer as much as the UCR from the problem of underreporting. One limitation of homicide data from the NCHS reporting system is classification; that 

is, it is the responsibility of the certifier to determine if a death was in fact a homicide, regardless 

of any legal intervention that may or may not have occurred. This is a crucial decision that 

 5

 The data used to calculate rates at the county level were not obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation but 

from Indian Health Service, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which relies on data from the Vital 

Statistics, which are based on death certificates from Medical Examiners Officers, not from police reports. These 

data are published at that national level by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unlike the 

Supplementary Homicide Reports compiled by the FBI, these data are not available to the public at the ICPSR 

website. They were obtained through personal correspondence with Joanne Pappalardo at the Indian Health Service. 

In addition, like all vital statistics homicide data and FBI Supplementary Homicide Report Data, the numerator for 

rate calculation includes those victims who were killed within a particular jurisdiction (e.g. county, state). As such, it 

is possible that a victim may be included within a county that she/he did not actually reside. For example, rates of 

homicide for county X will include all victims killed within that county during a given time period regardless of a 

victim’s actual location of residence. Unlike the SHR data, only 5 years of data could be made readily available at 

the county level. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
24

impacts the reliability and validity of this information. Additionally, the death certificate 

information must be provided to the National Center for Health Statistics to ensure the data is 

recorded. Another disadvantage of the NCHS data is that there is no information on the offender 

or the precipitating circumstance of the killing.

The selection of county-level data was based on two criteria: 1) the race specific county 

population must be reflective of the national percentage reported in the 2000 U.S. Census and 2) 

the race specific county level population must contain at least 100 American Indian and Alaska 

Natives. Specifically, those U.S. counties that had at least 1% American Indian and Alaska 

Natives and at least 100 American Indian and Alaska Native persons within the county were 

included. Specifically, rates are expressed as per 100,000 American Indian and Alaska Native 

females and calculated as follows:

Number of AI FemaleVictims X 100,000

Total AI Female Population

Rate ! " =# $ % &

Table 1 displays the rate of homicide for American Indian and Alaska Native females by 

county; for ease of presentation, only those counties with at least 1 homicide (non-zero counties) 

are displayed. As can be seen, the low rate of homicide occurred in San Bernardino County, 

California (2.06) and the highest rate occurred in Bon Homme County in South Dakota (555). A 

glance across the table illuminates the reality of homicide risk for American Indian and Alaska 

Native women who live in American Indian and Alaska Native communities. In fact, the 

majority of these communities have extremely higher rates of homicide compared to the national 

average for American Indian and Alaska Native females.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
25

Table 1. Average American Indian and Alaska Native homicide rates against females for US 

counties with at least 1% American Indian and Alaska Native population, at least 

100 American Indian and Alaska Natives, and at least 1 homicide during the 1994-

1998 period, NCHS, Indian Health Service.

State County Rate Per 100,000 American Indian

and Alaska Native Women

AK Aleutians East Borough 43.57

AK Anchorage Municipality 15.51

AK Bethel Census Area 3.18

AK Bristol Bay Borough 78.13

AK Fairbanks North Star Borough 12.82

AK Valdez-Cordova Census Area 29.24

AK Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 27.65

AZ Apache County 6.63

AZ Coconino County 3.59

AZ Gila County 12.23

AZ Maricopa County 12.47

AZ Mohave County 29.94

AZ Navajo County 3.31

AZ Pima County 9.85

AZ Pinal County 21.02

AR Sebastian County 18.55

CA Fresno County 3.1

CA Humboldt County 10.96

CA Kern County 4.19

VA Sacramento County 2.79

CA San Bernardino County 2.06

CA Sonoma County 7.97

CO Denver County 28.24

CO La Plata County 33.56

ID Bingham County 14.23

IA Woodbury County 43.38

KS Labette County 73.26

KS Sedgwick County 8.4

LA Terrebonne Parish 7.72

MN Beltrami County 5.15

MN Mille Lacs County 45.15

MN St. Louis County 10.8

MS Neshoba County 11.09

MT Hill County 14.48

MT Missoula County 16.58

MT Yellowstone County 10.16

NE Dakota County 92.17

NE Knox County 62.11

NV Humboldt County 56.34

NV Washoe County 6.25

NM Bernalillo County 18.22

NM Dona Ana County 16.5

NM McKinley County 6.18

NM Sandoval County 2.61

NM San Juan County 3.76

NM Santa Fe County 9.74

NC Bladen County 57.97

NC Cumberland County 9.06

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
26

State County Rate Per 100,000 American Indian

and Alaska Native Women

NC Graham County 70.18

NC Harnett County 89.69

NC Hoke County 9.89

NC Robeson County 10.98

NC Scotland County 12.52

NC Warren County 39.6

ND Burleigh County 38.54

ND Ward County 30.4

OK Adair County 4.42

OK Blaine County 42.28

OK Cherokee County 5.77

OK Cleveland County 4.52

OK Coal County 38.61

OK Craig County 17.29

OK Custer County 25.09

OK Garfield County 30.63

OK Kay County 21.53

OK Latimer County 80.97

OK Muskogee County 3.78

OK Oklahoma County 16.7

OK Okmulgee County 24.09

OK Osage County 6.11

OK Payne County 13.44

OK Pontotoc County 7.16

OK Pottawatomie County 5.23

OK Tulsa County 8.04

OR Multnomah County 5.96

SD Bennett County 21.62

SD Bon Homme County 555.56

SD Charles Mix County 14.19

SD Minnehaha County 25.96

SD Pennington County 11.86

SD Todd County 10.49

UT Iron County 62.7

UT San Juan County 9.67

WA Ferry County 32.79

WA Okanogan County 8.73

WA Pierce County 19.32

WA Snohomish County 4.89

WA Spokane County 6.7

WA Yakima County 20.72

WI Brown County 14.09

WI Forest County 39.14

WI Menominee County 10.49

WY Fremont County 11.47

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
27

NONFATAL VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION

Despite over twenty years of research, the magnitude of nonfatal violence against women 

is still frequently disputed. For many reasons that include the stigma often attached to intimate 

partner violence, the fear of retaliation from their perpetrators, and numerous other safety 

concerns, estimating incidence rates of this violence has always been a difficult task and cannot 

be appropriately discussed without adequate attention given to the methodologies used to collect 

the data. Scholars and activists typically rely on a number of different sources of data for 

information on the nature and scope of violence, particularly violence perpetrated by intimate 

partners. Each of them, however, has significant deficiencies that affect the quality of the 

information gathered.

Police Reports 

Uniform Crime Reports (UCR): Relying on police reports, such as those used by the 

UCR to estimate incidence rates of violence is especially problematic for intimate partner 

violence. The primary reason is that a large percentage of these crimes are never reported to 

police. For example, survey data reveals that, at best, only about 50% of intimate partner assaults 

are reported to police and, at worst, less than one in four are ever reported (Bachman, 2000; 

Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998a). Another problem with using police report data is that, except for the 

crime of homicide, the current UCR program does not include information on the 

victim/offender relationship within its reports. Thus, it is not even possible to determine the 

magnitude of violence perpetrated by specific offenders such as intimates within UCR data. To 

remedy this problem, in 1988 the FBI implemented a change in its collection of crime 

information that includes more characteristics of the incident and is appropriately called the 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
28

National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). 

NIBRS data is very specific and includes many more offenses for which local agencies 

must report including many details of an incident such as the age, gender, race, ethnicity, and 

resident status, of victims and offenders. In total, NIBRS categorizes each incident and arrest in 

one of 22 basic crime categories that span 46 separate offenses. A total of 53 data elements about 

the victim, property, and the offender are collected under NIBRS. Because of the resources 

involved in gathering this much detail, just over half of all States currently use the NIBRS format 

for collecting information about reported crimes. This deficiency is further exacerbated by the 

fact that most of those American Indian and Alaska Native women living on tribal lands do not 

fall under the jurisdiction of state or local jurisdictions for crimes of violence (see section on 

Criminal Justice Responses to Violence, pp. 67-78). However, in the end, NIBRS data suffer the 

same fundamental problem as the UCR data – a crime has to be reported to police to be counted.

Victimization Surveys

Both the UCR and the NIBRS data collection methods are problematic when estimating 

incidence rates of violence. If victimizations are not reported to police, they are never counted in 

either data collection effort, particularly rapes and violence that occurs between intimates. 

Because of this weakness in police reports, random sample surveys of the population are 

typically the social science tool of choice for uncovering and measuring incidents of violent 

victimization. However, surveys employing diverse methodologies (e.g. different sampling 

techniques, different questions to uncover victimization) and different definitions of violence 

have resulted in tremendously diverse estimates, especially for small populations like American 

Indian and Alaska Natives. For example, for the general population of women, survey estimates 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
29

of how many women experience violence by an intimate partner annually range from 9.3 per 

1,000 women to 116 per 1,000 women. Further, the methodological differences across survey 

methodologies often preclude direct comparison across studies (Bachman, 2000). 

One of the most important distinctions across survey methodologies has to do with how 

samples are selected. To accurately estimate incidence rates of violence against American Indian 

and Alaska Native women, surveys must be based on probability sampling methods, meaning 

that they must be randomly selected (Bachman & Schutt, 2007). Probability sampling is a 

systematic way to select respondents from a target population so that every person (or other 

element such as school, prison, etc.) has an equal, independent and known probability of being 

selected. Only in this way can the information (e.g. rates of victimization) be generalized to some 

larger population. Unfortunately, much of the research investigating violence against women in 

the general population, and violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women in 

particular is based on convenience samples. These samples are simply available to researchers, 

such as samples of women who go to a clinic, women who seek help at shelters, women who are 

involved in some community group, and so on. Information obtained from these types of nonprobability samples cannot be generalized to any population. In reality, because of the diversity 

in the American Indian and Alaska Native population already discussed, obtaining a 

representative sample of American Indian and Alaska Native women is especially problematic. 

A nationally representative sample of American Indian and Alaska Native women has the 

advantage of illuminating the patterns and magnitude of violence against this group overall, but a 

national sample will not capture the tribal-to-tribal variation that exists in victimization. On the 

other hand, while representative samples of specific tribes may be able to capture the unique 

vulnerabilities that exist across certain tribes, they would not be able to measure the general 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
30

vulnerability of all American Indian and Alaska Native women compared to other women, nor 

would they be able to measure victimization against American Indian and Alaska Native women 

residing in urban locations, which as stated above, comprise over half of the American Indian 

and Alaska Native population. As such, both national level data and local surveys provide us 

with important insight into the magnitude of violence against American Indian and Alaska 

Native women. 

In the sections that follow, we will describe what is known about rape and sexual assault, 

physical assault, and stalking from surveys at both the national and local levels. Because 

estimates of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women are inextricably related 

to sample selection and the screening questions used, these methodological details will be 

highlighted. Before we continue, it is important to underscore a few issues. First, the definitions 

of violence used in the studies reviewed in this report for each offense varied. More importantly, 

even when researchers were purporting to measure the same offense (e.g. rape), the questions 

used to uncover these victimizations also varied. For example, two studies may attempt to be 

measuring rape victimization but one may ask respondents, “Have you been a victim of a sexual 

attack in the last 12 months?” and the another may ask, “Have you been forced or coerced to 

engage in sexual intercourse (vaginal, anal or oral) against your will by someone, even someone 

you know, in the last 12 months?” Clearly, the types and number of victimizations obtained from 

each of these questions would be different, even though results of both would be purported to 

measure “rape.” This variability is question wording is true for studies attempting to measure 

intimate partner assault and stalking as well. Consequently, it is extremely important to 

remember that the numbers of victims uncovered in each survey for various types of crimes is 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
31

inextricably tied to the methodologies used. Throughout our discussion, we will highlight the 

methodologies associated with each study and, in addition, they are summarized in Appendix A. 

Second, many state rape statutes have replaced the label of “rape” with a gradation of 

offenses, typically labeled as “sexual assaults,” which are ordered according to severity with the 

most serious offense typically reserved for those involving forced or coerced intercourse, either 

vaginally, orally, or anally (Bachman & Paternoster, 1993). This most severe offense, regardless 

of its label across states, is what the criminal justice system typically defines as rape. However, 

many studies described in the next section may purport to measure rape, when in fact it is 

impossible to determine from the questions asked of respondents whether the victimization 

involved “sexual intercourse” or involved some other sexual offense. Because of these issues, we 

use the term “rape and sexual assault” throughout the report as a global category of sexual 

violence, unless we are referring specifically to study findings that could validly isolate incidents 

of “forced or coerced sexual intercourse” from other sexual assaults. In this case, we use the term 

“completed rape.” 

RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT

National Surveys

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS): The only survey that monitors rape 

and sexual assault on an annual basis is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The 

NCVS relies on a nationally representative sample of American households. The data used for 

the contextual analyses presented here were obtained from the NCVS for 1992-2005, Study 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
32

Number 4699, which is publicly available at the Inter-University Consortium for Political and 

Social Research6.

During 1992-2005, the NCVS annually interviewed an average of 80,000 individuals 12 

years of age and older, asking them about their victimization experiences during the six months 

prior to the interview. Importantly, because of funding cuts, the sample size for the NCVS has 

been significantly reduced for the past several years. For example, in 1992, there were 

approximately 100,000 individuals interviewed, but by 2005, the sample size had been cut to 

67,000 individuals7. These sample cuts have had serious implications for the estimation of 

victimization for the population in general, but particularly for subsets of the population like 

American Indian and Alaska Natives. If these cuts continue, it will no longer be possible to use 

the NCVS to monitor victimization against populations such as American Indian and Alaska 

Natives and other subsets of the population (e.g. other race/ethnic groups, the elderly). The low 

base rate of victimization for rapes and sexual assaults combined with the sample cuts and small 

population size required us to aggregate all available data (1992-2005) for the NCVS. 

The NCVS has the capacity to estimate rates of both completed and attempted rape in 

addition to other sexual assaults. In addition to directly asking respondents if they have 

experienced “Any rape, attempted rape, or other type of sexual attack,” NCVS interviewers also 

ask the following question:

Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual acts are often difficult to talk about. Have you 

been forced or coerced to engage in unwanted sexual activity by:

a. Someone you didn’t know before?

b. A casual acquaintance?

c. Someone you know well?

 6

 Available at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR/STUDY/04699.xml. 7

 See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/cvus05mt.pdf for a detailed list of sample sizes from 1996 in the 

NCVS statistical tables listed on the Bureau of Justice Statistics Website.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
33

If respondents reply “Yes” to one of these questions, they are then asked, “Do you mean forced 

or coerced sexual intercourse?” to determine whether the incident should be recorded as a rape or 

as another type of sexual attack. After we present annual victimization rates from published 

reports, we will present an original data analysis of the NCVS to explore how the contextual 

characteristics of rape and sexual assault victimization of American Indian and Alaska Native 

women differ from those of white, African American, and Asian/Pacific Islander women. 

Table 2 below presents of the combined rates of rape and sexual assault victimization by 

race for 1992 through 2001 that were obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Perry, 

2004). As can be seen, American Indian and Alaska Native women are almost 3 times as likely 

to experience a rape or sexual assault compared to either white, African American or Asian 

American women. To reiterate, these are national estimates and include American Indian and 

Alaska Natives who reside both on and off tribal lands. 

Table 2: Average annual rates of rape and sexual assault victimizations by race, NCVS 1992-

2001.

Average Annual Rate per 1,000 persons

Age 12 and over

All races 2

American Indian and Alaska Native 5

White 2

African American 2

Asian American 1

Source: To be consistent with Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates of victimization, this table was obtained from Perry (2004), Table 7. 

Next, we present our own analysis of the NCVS rape and sexual assault data for 1992 

through 2005. The tables that follow are original data analyses generated from the ICPSR public 

use data tape for the National Crime Victimization Survey, 1992-2005: Concatenated IncidentLevel File (ICPRS 4699). These tables are based on weighted sample estimates and are meant to 

be used for descriptive purposes only. As Table 3 illustrates, while males also experience rape 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
34

and sexual assault, they comprise a very small percentage of all victims. In the subsequent 

analyses, we restrict our sample to female victims only.

Table 3: Average annual number of rape and sexual assault victimizations by race, and 

gender of victim, NCVS 1992-2005.

Average Annual 

Number

% Female 

Victims

% Male 

Victims

All races 342,420 91 9

American Indian and Alaska Native 6,956 87 13

White 272,866 91 9

African American 56,146 93 7

Asian American 6,454 82 18

Source: Original data analysis. 

Table 4 presents the percent of rapes and sexual assaults that were completed rapes by 

race/ethnicity; victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native women were more 

likely to result in a completed rape compared to other women. 

Table 4: Average annual percent of rape and sexual assault victimizations against females by 

race, and completed status, NCVS 1992-2005.

Percent Completed 

Rape

All races 36

American Indian and Alaska Native 40

White 36

African American 38

Asian American 30

Source: Original data analysis. 

Variables Used in the NCVS Contextual Analysis

Legally, rapes and sexual assaults can involve force or the threat of force. To examine the 

extent of physical force used in incidents of sexual violence, we looked at several variables that 

were intended to measure the severity of the victimization. First, victims were asked, “Did the 

offender hit you or knock you down?” The second variable measured the extent to which victims 

sustained other injuries in addition to the rape and sexual assault injuries including gun shot or 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
35

stab wounds, broken bones, internal injuries, chipped teeth, bruises, black eye, cuts, or swelling. 

In addition to injuries, victims were also asked if they “were injured to the extent that you 

received any medical care, including self treatment?” And finally, weapon presence was 

measured by asking victims, “Did the offender have a weapon such as a gun or knife, or 

something to use as a weapon, such as a bottle or wrench?”

Offender information was also examined insofar as the victim could recall them. The 

victim/offender relationship was aggregated into four categories, which included intimate 

(spouse or ex-spouse, boy/girlfriend or ex-boy/girlfriend), other family member (sibling, parent 

including step-parent, aunt/uncle, grandparent including step-grandparent), other known, and 

stranger. Victims were also asked the perceived race of the offender, which could include white, 

African American, or other, which could include American Indian and Alaska Native or Asian 

American. The final variable regarding offenders was whether victims perceived that the 

offender was under the influence drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense.

In addition to these contextual characteristics of the offense, we also examined the police 

reporting behavior of victims and whether an arrest or charge was made after a report. Victims 

were asked if the police were “informed or did they find out about this incident in any way?” If 

they said “Yes”, they were asked, “How did the police find out about it?” To ascertain if an 

arrest was made, for those victimizations reported to police, victims were also asked, “As far as 

you know, was anyone arrested or were charges brought against anyone in connection with this 

incident?” 

Results of NCVS Contextual Analysis for Rape/Sexual Assaults

Table 5 presents the distribution of rape and sexual assault victims that were hit or 

knocked down during the attack by race of the victim. As can be seen, American Indian and 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
36

Alaska Native women were much more likely to be hit during the commission of their sexual 

victimization compared to all other women. 

Table 5: Average annual percent of rape and sexual assault victimizations against females by race, in 

which the victim was hit, 1992-2005.

Percent of Victimizations 

in which the Victim was Hit

All races 72

American Indian and Alaska Native 91

White 71

African American 78

Asian American 62

Source: Original data analysis . 

By NCVS definition, all rapes are categorized as resulting in physical rape injuries. In 

addition to the rape related injuries victims sustained, we next examined the percent of 

victimizations that resulted in other physical injuries, such as cuts and bruises and broken bones, 

and the percent of these injuries that required medical care, as presented in Table 6. American 

Indian and Alaska Native women were more likely to be injured than either white or African 

American women. Moreover, injured American Indian and Alaska Native women were more 

likely to require medical care compared to injured victims of all other races. 

Table 6: Average annual percent of rape and sexual assault victimizations against females by race, in 

which the victim sustained injuries in addition to rape injuries and percent of injuries 

requiring medical care, 1992-2005

Percent of Victimizations in 

which Victim was Injured

Percent of Injuries 

Requiring Medical Care

All races 17 34

American Indian and Alaska Native 20 47

White 16 33

African American 16 35

Asian American 24 36

Source: Original data analysis. 

Weapon presence, of course, is also an indicator of violence present in the victimization. 

Table 7 presents the percent distribution of victimizations in which the offender brandished a 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
37

weapon. Again, American Indian and Alaska Native women were more likely to face an armed 

offender than women of other races. In fact, American Indian and Alaska Native women were 

over two times as likely to face an armed offender compared to other women. 

Table 7: Average annual percent of rape and sexual assault victimization against females in 

which the offender had a weapon, 1992-2005

Percent of Victimizations 

in which Offender Had Weapon

All races 9

American Indian and Alaska Native 25

White 9

African American 9

Asian American 6

Source: Original data analysis. 

We next examined other contextual characteristics of the rape and sexual assault 

victimizations by looking at the victim and offender relationship, the race of the offenders 

involved, and perceived drug and alcohol usage by offenders. 

Table 8 presents the percentage distribution for the victim and offender relationship 

categories of intimate (spouses, boy/girlfriends, and exes), other family members (e.g. parents

and step parents, siblings, other extended family), other known (e.g. friends and acquaintances), 

and strangers. As can be seen in Table 8, the majority of all rape and sexual assaults against 

women, regardless of race, are committed by known offenders. Of the known offenders, a larger 

percent of these victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native women are 

committed by intimate partners compared to other women. Consistent with this, data also 

indicate that the majority of sexual assaults occurred in private compared to public locations. 

Sixty-five percent of sexual assaults against American Indian and Alaska Native women 

occurred at or near their private residence.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
38

Table 8: Average annual percent of rape and sexual assault victimizations against females by 

race and perceived relationship status of offender(s), NCVS 1992-2005.

Intimate Other 

Family

Other 

Known

Stranger

All races 24 5 45 26

American Indian and Alaska Native 38 0 33 29

White 24 5 44 27

African American 23 6 47 25

Asian American 20 4 45 31

Source: Original data analysis. 

The percentage distribution of the racial identity of offenders is presented in Table 8. 

While the majority of rapes and sexual assaults against other women were intra-racial, 

victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native women were more likely to be interracial. That is, a larger percent of victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native 

women are committed by white offenders compared to American Indian and Alaska Native 

offenders. However, based on the data from the last table, it cannot be inferred that these white 

offenders are necessarily strangers since the majority of victimizations are committed by known 

offenders. About one-third of victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native women 

were committed by other American Indian and Alaska Native offenders. 

Table 9: Average annual percent of rape and sexual assault victimization against females by 

race, and perceived racial/ethnicity status of offender(s), NCVS 1992-2005.

White 

Offender(s)

African 

American 

Offender(s)

Other* 

Offender(s)

All races 63% 25% 13%

American Indian and Alaska Native 57 10 33

White 76 12 12

African American 6 88 7

Asian American 35 13 52

Source: Original data analysis. 

* Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native and Asian American

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
39

Alcohol and drugs appear to play a larger role in the sexual attacks of American Indian 

and Alaska Native women compared to other women. Over two-thirds (68%) of American Indian 

and Alaska Native sexual assault victims believed their attackers had been drinking and/or taking 

drugs before the offense compared to 34% of white victims, 35% of African American victims, 

and 27% of Asian American victims. 

To determine the extent of police involvement in rape and sexual assault victimizations, 

victims were asked if the police were notified about the victimization. Table 10 presents the 

percentage distributions of those victimizations in which police were notified and the percent of 

these notifications in which the victim, herself, reported the incident to police. As can be seen, a 

greater percent of sexual assaults against American Indian and Alaska Native women were 

reported to police compared to other women, however, less than one in five (17%) of victims 

made the report herself. In the other cases, another household member, some official, or some 

other person reported the incident to police. This low percent of victim reporting is consistent 

with percentages for all women. 

Table 10: Average annual percent of rape and sexual assault victimization against females by 

race, in which the victimization was reported to police and the percent of these 

reports that were made by the victim herself, 1992-2001.

Percent of Victimizations 

Reported to Police

Percent of Reports that 

were Reported by Victim

All races 34% 21%

American Indian and Alaska Native 49 17

White 34 21

African American 35 21

Asian American 27 13

Source: Original data analysis. 

Clearly, if a sexual assault is not reported to police, there is no opportunity for the 

victimization to be adjudicated and for punishment to be handed down. However, when rape and 

sexual assault victims who reported their victimization to police were asked whether an arrest 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
40

was made in their cases, it appears arrest was a rare event for these reports regardless of racial 

status. While American Indian and Alaska Native victims were less likely to report an arrest 

being made in their cases (6%) compared to other women, women of other races were also very 

unlikely to report an arrest being made. Only 10% of white, 12% of African American, and 10% 

of Asian American women who reported their victimizations to police reported that an arrest had 

been made. 

The National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) 

Conducted in 1995 through 1996, the NVAWS relied on a nationally representative 

sample of 8,000 women. Unlike the screening questions used by the NCVS, the instrument used 

to uncover rape victimizations in the NVAWS utilized very behavior-specific questions that 

solicited information about all forms of rape including vaginal, anal, and oral penetration. These 

questions are provided in Table 11 and are intended to measure both completed and attempted 

rapes, but not other forms of sexual assault. 

Table 11. Questions Used in the National Violence Against Women Survey to uncover 

incidents of rape and sexual assault.

1. Has a man or boy ever made you have sex by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to 

you? Just so there is no mistake by sex we mean putting a penis in your vagina.

2. Has anyone, male or female, ever made you have oral sex by using force or threat of force? Just so there is 

no mistake, by oral sex we mean that a man or boy put his penis in your mouth or someone, male or female, 

penetrated your vagina or anus with their mouth.

3. Has anyone ever made you have anal sex by using force or threat of harm? Just so there is no mistake, by 

anal sex we mean that a man or boy put his penis in your anus. 

4. Has anyone, male or female, ever put fingers or objects in your vagina or anus against your will or by using 

force or threats? 

5. Has anyone, male or female, ever attempted to make you have vaginal, oral, or anal sex against your will, 

but intercourse or penetration did not occur? 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
41

As can be seen from Table 11, these questions provide many more cues for respondents 

to recall incidents of rape that they may have experienced. In addition, to asking respondents 

about their victimization experiences in the “previous 12 months,” the NVAWS also asked 

respondents about victimizations that occurred “during their lifetime.”

According to the NVAWS, 34% of American Indian and Alaska Native women had 

experienced a completed or attempted rape in their lifetimes compared to 18% of white, 19% of 

African American, and 7% of Asian and Pacific Islander women. Because of the small number 

of American Indian and Alaska Native women in the sample, annual victimization rates could 

not be reliably calculated. However, it is important to note that a recent version of the NVAWS 

that is currently in the field intends to conduct an over-sample of American Indian and Alaska 

Natives so more reliable annual victimization estimates can be produced. 

Both of these national surveys provide important information about the magnitude of rape 

and sexual assaults against American Indian and Alaska Native women and how this 

vulnerability compares to other women. However, it does not provide information about the 

unique vulnerabilities American Indian and Alaska Native women who reside in specific 

locations face. For this, local surveys are needed. 

Local Surveys 

Consistent with the findings from these national studies, the majority of local studies 

have found a moderately high prevalence of rape and sexual assault against American Indian and 

Alaska Natives. To reiterate, we have provided a table listing the methodological details 

including the sample and screening questions of these local surveys in Appendix A. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
42

The most extensive and rigorous study at the local level to date was conducted by Yuan, 

Koss, Polacca and Goldman (2006). Participants from six tribes were randomly selected from 

tribal enrollment lists, voting registers, or health service registries. Respondents of the survey 

were personally interviewed by American Indian and Alaska Natives of the same tribe or a 

different tribe. A total of 1,374 respondents 18 years of age or older were interviewed, 575 men 

and 793 women. This rigorous sampling strategy is important; it allows the findings of the study 

to be generalized to the larger tribes. Although the specific tribes were not released to protect 

confidentiality, three tribes were from the Southwest, one was from the Northwest, one was from 

the Northern Plains, and one was from the Northeast. All participants were living on or near 

tribal lands. These researchers used questions modeled after the NVAWS to solicit incidents of 

rape, however, the reference period for victimization was since “you were 18.” As such, annual 

incidence rates could not be completed from this survey.

Yuan et al. (2006) found that across all six tribes, 14% of respondents reported 

experiencing a completed or attempted rape since the age of 18. It is not possible to make 

comparisons of this rate with those from the NVAWS because the NVAWS uses “in your 

lifetime” as the reference period, which may include incidents that occurred before respondents 

reached the age of 18. In fact, NVAWS data indicate that the vast majority of these “lifetime” 

reports were, in fact, for victimizations that occurred in childhood. 

Yuan and her colleagues also found that the majority of these victims were raped by a 

male relative, followed by romantic partners and other known persons. There was variation in the 

rate of rape across the six tribes with the lowest lifetime prevalence of rape being 4% and the 

highest being 29%. Researchers cautioned that respondents from the tribe with the 4% lifetime 

prevalence rate were interviewed by tribal members from the same tribe and that the tribe that 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
43

was “characterized by social unrest and political infighting among tribal members at the time of 

data collection” (Yuan et al. 2006, p.1586). It is logical to assume that rates of disclosure about 

victimizations committed by a family member may be reduced if respondents knew the 

interviewers, as known interviewers could not reasonably be expected to provide them with 

anonymity or even confidentiality. This coupled with the social unrest and political infighting 

among tribal members at the time of the interviews may have contributed to a low rate of candor 

by respondents when disclosing incidents of victimization.

Another recent study of violence against American Indian females was conducted by 

Zahnd, Holtby, Klein and McCain (2002), who interviewed American Indian women residing in 

California. Because the majority of American Indians reside in urban areas in California, they 

primarily recruited a convenience sample of women from American Indian service agencies in 

several urban areas of California, but also included women residing in rural tribal lands (total 

n=110). Although the women lived in urban areas, 71% of them reported having a reservation 

and 42% reported living on a reservation at some time during their childhood. Zahnd et al. asked 

respondents about childhood experiences with victimizations (before the age of 18), about 

experiences they had since the age of 18, and about experiences they had in the past 12 months. 

Their focus was also limited to victimizations by known offenders. They did not utilize behaviorspecific questions to uncover victimizations, but instead, for childhood victimizations, asked 

respondents if they had experienced a “sexual incident” including sexual touching, unwanted 

sexual force, penetration or rape (p.40). The question about adulthood rape was, “ever forced to

have sex by any adult, including anyone who was a member of your family, or anyone outside 

your family” (p.42). Over one in four of the women (26%) reported being forced to have sex and 

58% reported some other type of sexual incident before the age of 18. Since becoming an adult 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
44

(18 years of age), 26% reported being forced to have sex (because of the small sample size, 

results were not reported for previous 12 month rape victimizations separately). Despite the 

general question on rape, this prevalence rate is much higher than either that reported by the 

NVAWS or the study conducted by Yuan et al. Almost three in four (73%) of all victimizations 

perpetrated were by intimate partners. It is important to note, however, that it was not a random 

sample. 

Another study focused on American Indian women residing in the New York City area. 

Simoni, Sehgal and Walters (2004) examined the prevalence of rape and sexual assault among a

convenience sample of female American Indians recruited from an American Indian community 

center in New York City. Respondents were asked if they had ever been “sexually abused” by a 

spouse or sexual partner or by someone other than a spouse or sexual partner. Results showed 

that 20% of respondents reported being sexually abused by an intimate partner, 34% reported 

sexual abuse perpetrated by a non-partner, 15% of respondents had been sexually victimized by 

both an intimate and non-partner at least once during their lifetime. Unfortunately, because of 

question wording, it is not clear what behaviors constituted “sexual abuse.”

There have been other local attempts to measure rape and sexual assault against 

American Indian and Alaska Native women, but they have focused specifically on victimizations 

perpetrated by intimate partners. For example, Robin, Chester and Rasmussen (1998) examined 

the prevalence of intimate partner perpetrated rape and sexual assault in a southwestern 

American Indian tribe. A questionnaire was administered to a convenience sample of 104 male 

and female tribal members over the age of 21. When asked if they had ever “been forced to have 

sex” by their intimate partners, 28.6% of female respondents reported that they had at least once 

in their life. Another study by Fairchild, Fairchild and Stoner (1998) conducted a convenience 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
45

survey of 341 American Indian women who obtained routine ambulatory care at a Navajo Indian 

Health Service (IHS) center. They found that 12.1% of respondents had experienced “sexual 

abuse” by a domestic partner during their lifetime. Unfortunately, the exact questions used to 

solicit information on these incidents of “sexual abuse” were not reported in the study so it is 

unclear what victimizations were actually measured. 

Another study examining intimate partner perpetrated rape was performed by Malcoe and 

Duran (2004) who examined the prevalence of lifetime and recent violence among a convenience 

sample of 422 American Indian women who were patrons or volunteers at a tribally operated 

clinic in Oklahoma. Respondents were asked if their intimate partners had “insisted on any type 

of sex with you, when you did not want to, but did not use physical force,” “used verbal threats 

to make you have sex with him,” or “used force, like hitting you, holding you down, or using a 

weapon, to make you have any type of sex with him.” Their sample reported higher rates of rape 

and sexual assault; about one in five respondents (20.9%) reported they had been a victim of at 

least one of these incidents in their lifetime. 

When samples of even more “captive” populations such as women seeking help in 

domestic violence shelters or substance abuse treatment are used, higher estimates of 

victimization are usually obtained. Adding even more uncertainty to these studies is the 

ambiguous nature of the questions used, which typically asked respondents about “sexual abuse.” 

In their convenience sample of respondents at a domestic abuse shelter in the Rocky Mountain 

Region, Norton and Manson (1995) found that 38% of respondents had experienced completed 

partner rape and 12% reported attempted partner rape within the previous year. An even higher 

prevalence of sexual abuse was found when Saylors and Daliparthy (2006) investigated the 

victimization experiences of American Indian women in substance abuse treatment centers in 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
46

California. The authors found that over two-thirds (67%) of respondents had been a victim of 

sexual abuse during their lifetime. Of these women, 77% reported that the abuse had occurred 

multiple times. Again, estimates from convenience samples of this kind cannot be generalized to 

the larger population of American Indian and Alaska Native women.

Although we will discuss physical assault in the next section, it is important to note here 

that several researchers have found a strong relationship between sexual and physical violence. 

That is, forms of victimization are generally not mutually exclusive; women who are victims of 

rape and sexual assault are also often victims of physical assault (Hamby, 2004). For example, 

Saylors and Daliparthy (2006) found that over 96% of American Indian respondents who had 

been a victim of rape or sexual assault had experienced other physical abuse as well. Similarly, 

Malcoe and Duran (2004) found that women who reported being severely physically abused by a 

partner were much more likely to be sexually assaulted by a partner, compared to women who 

were not severely physically abused. 

PHYSICAL ASSAULT

Similar to rape and sexual assault victimizations, researchers interested in estimating 

magnitude estimates of physical assault against women, particularly intimate partner assaults, 

typically rely on survey methodology. In this section, we will again describe what is known 

about assault victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native women at both the 

national and local levels, however, we will not reiterate the sampling methodologies of those 

surveys highlighted above. In the next section examining the NCVS, we will also provide a 

contextual analysis of assault victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native women 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
47

and how they compare to victimizations of other women, using the same variables described 

earlier.

National Surveys

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS): To measure incidents of violence, the 

NCVS asks the following questions: 

Other than any incidents already mentioned, has anyone attacked or threatened you in any of these ways: 

a. With any weapon, for instance, a gun or knife 

b. With anything like a baseball bat, frying pan, scissors, or a stick –

c. By something thrown, such as a rock or bottle –

d. Include any grabbing, punching, or choking –

e. Any rape, attempted rape or other type of sexual attack –

 f. Any face-to-face threats –

g. Any attack or threat or use of force by anyone at all? Please mention it even if you are not 

certain it was a crime.

To further cue respondents about incidents of victimization not perpetrated by strangers, 

they are then asked: 

3) People often don't think of incidents committed by someone they know. Did you have something stolen 

from you OR were you attacked or threatened by –

a. Someone at work or school –

b. A neighbor or friend –

c. A relative or family member –

d. Any other person you've met or known?

4) Did you call the police to report something that happened to you which you thought was a crime?

5) Did anything happen to you which you thought was a crime, but did NOT report to the police?

NCVS rates of intimate partner violence, which includes all forms of violence measured 

by the NCVS including rapes, robberies, and assaults (the majority are assaults), indicate that 

American Indian and Alaska Native women have the highest rate of victimization (18.2) 

compared to either African American (8.2), white (6.3), or Asian American (1.5) women 

(Catalano, 2007). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
48

Using the same NCVS 1992-2005 data that was used in the previous section, we will 

provide a descriptive analysis of the contextual characteristics of physical assaults against 

American Indian and Alaska Native women and how they compare to victimizations against 

white, African American, and Asian American females. 

Results of NCVS Contextual Analysis for Physical Assaults

As shown in Table 12, almost half of all assault victimizations (47%) against American 

Indian and Alaska Natives are against females. 

Table 12: Average annual number of assault victimizations by race, and gender of victim, 

NCVS 1992-2005.

Average Annual 

Number

% Female 

Victims

% Male 

Victims

All races 6,241,382 42% 58%

American Indian and Alaska Native 98,830 47 53

White 5,188,657 41 58

African American 854,266 50 50

Asian American 99,627 39 61

Source: Original data analysis. 

We begin our contextual analysis of NCVS assault data by looking at indicators of 

severity, beginning with the attack. Table 13 presents the percent distribution of assault 

victimizations in which female victims were hit by race/ethnicity. As can be seen, American 

Indian and Alaska Native females, followed closely by African American females, were more 

likely to be hit, compared to white or Asian American females.

Table 13: Average annual percent of assault victimizations against females by race, in which 

the victim was hit by the offender, NCVS 1992-2005.

Percent of Victimizations 

in which Victim was Hit

All races 45%

American Indian and Alaska Native 51

White 44

African American 50

Asian American 43

Source: Original data analysis. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
49

We next examined the percent victimizations that resulted in injuries and the percent of 

these injuries that required medical care, as presented in Table 14. American Indian and Alaska 

Native women were more likely to be injured than women of all other groups and more of these 

injuries required medical care. 

Table 14: Average annual percent of assault victimizations against females by race, in which 

the victim sustained injuries, NCVS 1992-2005

Percent of Victimizations in 

which Victim was Injured

Percent of Injuries 

Requiring Medical Care

All races 61% 41%

American Indian and Alaska Native 70 56

White 60 38

African American 63 49

Asian American 53 53

Source: Original data analysis. 

Table 15 presents the percent distribution of victimizations in which the offender 

brandished a weapon. Although American Indian and Alaska Native women were more likely to 

face an armed offender compared to either white or Asian American women, African American

women were the most likely to be assaulted with a weapon. 

Table 15: Average annual percent of assault victimizations against females in which the 

offender had a weapon, NCVS 1992-2005.

Percent of Victimizations 

in which Offender Had Weapon

All races 18%

American Indian and Alaska Native 21

White 17

African American 27

Asian American 22

Source: Original data analysis. 

We next examined other contextual characteristics of assault victimizations by looking at 

the victim and offender relationship, the race of the offenders involved, and perceived drug and 

alcohol usage by offenders. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
50

Table 16 presents the percentage distribution for the victim and offender relationship 

categories of intimate (spouses, ex-spouses, boy/girlfriends, and ex-boy/girlfriends), other family 

members (e.g. parents and step parents, siblings, other extended family), other known (e.g. 

friends and acquaintances), and strangers. As can be seen, the majority of assaults against 

women regardless of race were committed by known offenders. Of the known offenders, a larger 

percent of assaults against American Indian and Alaska Native women were committed by 

known offenders such as friends and acquaintances followed by intimate partners. A higher 

proportion of American Indian and Alaska Natives were also assaulted by other family members 

compared to other women and less likely to be assaulted by strangers. Data also indicate that the 

majority of assaults against American Indian and Alaska Native women occurred in private, at or 

near a private residence (59%) compared to public locations. 

Table 16: Average annual percent of assault victimizations against females by race and 

perceived relationship status of offender(s), NCVS 1992-2005.

Intimate Other 

Family

Other 

Known Stranger

All races 26% 9% 34% 30%

American Indian and Alaska Native 28 14 35 23

White 26 9 35 30

African American 26 9 36 29

Asian American 17 11 25 47

Source: Original data analysis. 

The percentage distribution for the racial identity of offenders is presented in Table 17. 

The majority of assaults against white and African American women were intra-racial. However, 

similar to sexual violence, assault victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native 

women were more likely to be inter-racial; a larger percent of victimizations against American 

Indian and Alaska Native women were committed by white offenders compared to American 

Indian and Alaska Native offenders. However, because less than one in four of these 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
51

victimization are perpetrated by strangers (Table 16), we cannot infer that these white offenders 

are all strangers to the victim. 

Table 17: Average annual percent of assault victimization against females by race and 

perceived racial/ethnicity status of offender(s), NCVS 1992-2005.

White 

Offender(s)

African 

American 

Offender(s)

Other* 

Offender(s)

All races 63% 25% 11%

American Indian and Alaska Native 55 8 36

White 74 14 12

African American 11 84 5

Asian American 45 23 33

Source: Original data analysis. 

* Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native and Asian American

Similar to rape and sexual assault victimizations, alcohol and drugs appear to play a 

larger role in the assaults of American Indian and Alaska Native women compared to other 

women. Over one in three (38%) of American Indian and Alaska Native assault victims believed 

their attackers had been drinking and/or taking drugs before the offense compared to 29% of 

white victims, 27% of African American victims, and 19% of Asian American victims. 

To determine the extent of police involvement in victimizations, victims were asked if the 

police were notified of the victimization. Table 18 presents the percentage distributions of those 

victimizations in which police were notified and the percent of these notifications in which the 

victim, herself, reported the incident to police. Over half (53%) of all assaults against American 

Indian and Alaska Native women were reported to police. As can be seen, a greater percent of 

assaults against American Indian and Alaska Native women were reported to police compared to 

white or Asian American women, but only 32% of these were made by the victim herself. Only 

about a third of reports made to police were made by the victim herself. This low percent of 

victim-reporting is consistent with percentages for all women. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
52

Table 18: Average annual percent of assault victimization against females by race, in which 

the victimization was reported to police, NCVS 1992-2001.

Percent of Victimizations 

Reported to Police

Percent of Reports that 

were Reported by Victim

All races 47% 30%

American Indian and Alaska Native 53 32

White 45 29

African American 56 34

Asian American 35 24

Source: Original data analysis. 

Overall, assault victimizations reported to police were more likely to result in an arrest 

compared to rape and sexual assault victimizations. American Indian and Alaska Native women 

who reported their victimizations to police were slightly more likely to report that an arrest had 

been made (18%), followed closely by African American women (16%), white women (14%), 

and Asian American women (13%). 

The National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS): The NVAWS measured 

physical assault by using a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (Strauss & Gelles, 

1990). Respondents were asked about assaults that occurred as a child and as adults using the 

following screening questions: 

 “Not counting any incidents you have already mentioned, after you became an adult did any other adult, 

male or female ever...

a. Throw something at you that could hurt?

b. Push, grab or shove you? 

c. Pull your hair? 

d. Slap or hit you?

e. Kick or bite you? 

f. Choke or attempt to drown you? 

g. Hit you with some object? 

h. Beat you up? 

i. Threaten you with a gun? 

j. Threaten you with a knife or other weapon? 

k. Use a gun on you? 

l. Use a knife or other weapon on you?” 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
53

Respondents were also asked about victimization in relation to both current and former 

intimate partners. Because of the small number of American Indian and Alaska Natives 

interviewed for the NVAWS, published documents only report lifetime prevalence estimates of 

victimization by intimate partners. Lifetime prevalence rates of both assaults in general and 

assaults perpetrated by intimate partners are both higher for American Indian and Alaska Native 

women compared to women of other racial groups. Almost two-thirds (61.4%) of American 

Indian and Alaska Native women have been assaulted in their lifetimes compared to 51.3% of 

white women, 52.1% of African American women, and 49.6% of Asian American women 

(Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998a). A higher percent of American Indian and Alaska Native women 

(30.7%) had also experienced intimate partner assault in their lifetimes compared to white 

women (21.3%), African American women (26.3), or Asian or Pacific Islander women (12.8%) 

(Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). 

The National Family Violence Survey (NFVS): Bachman (1992) examined 204

American Indian and Alaska Native couples who were interviewed in the 1985 NFVS. The 

majority of the sample resided in urban or suburban settings, and 41% lived in rural areas, but 

respondents were not asked whether they resided on or off tribal lands. This survey used the 

original Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) (Straus, 1979) to measure a variety of behaviors used in 

conflicts between family members during a reference period of “the past year.” It asked 

respondents to recall the times “in the past year” when they and their partner “disagree on major 

decisions, get annoyed about something the other person does, or just have spats or fights 

because they’re in a bad mood or tired or for some other reason.” The instructions went on to 

say: “I’m going to read a list of some things that you and your partner might have done when 

you had a dispute and would like you to tell me for each one how often you did it in the past 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
54

year.” The list spans many techniques including reasoning, verbal aggression, and finally 

physical aggression or “violence.” The CTS items are often subdivided into “minor” and 

“severe” violence. The minor violence items include: threw something at the other family 

member; pushed, grabbed, or shoved; and slapped. The severe violence index measures assaults 

that have a relatively high likelihood of causing injury and include: kicked, bit, or punched; hit or 

tried to hit with an object; beat up; choked; threatened with a knife or gun, or used a knife or gun. 

Results from Bachman’s (1992) analyses indicated that compared to white couples, American 

Indian and Alaska Native couples were more likely to experience all forms of violence, including 

incidents of severe violence. More than 1 in 12 American Indian and Alaska Native women 

(12.2%) experienced some form of violence by their husbands in the past year (Bachman, 1992). 

Local Surveys of Assaults Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women

Since many of the studies examining sexual violence also measured incidents of physical 

assault, the table in Appendix A also provides detailed methodological information about the 

studies presented in this section. As noted above, the most extensive research at the tribal level to 

measure violence against women was recently conducted by Yuan, Koss, Polacca and Goldman 

(2006) (see previous section on p. 42 for sampling methodology). To measure incidents of 

physical assault, screening questions from the NVAWS were used. Results indicated that 45% of 

the female respondents reported experiencing a physical assault since the age of 18; and that 

intimate partners perpetrated the vast majority of these assaults. Similar to rape victimizations, 

there was a great deal of variability across the six tribes. The same tribe with the lowest 

prevalence of rape also had the lowest prevalence of physical assault (27%) compared to the high 

percent of women experiencing assault since the age of 18 for Tribe Six (65%). Again, 

comparisons to the national average of American Indian and Alaska Native women assaulted in 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
55

their lifetime cannot be made since the reference period used in the Yuan et al. (2006) research 

was “since the age of 18.”

Zahnd et al. also conducted an in-depth study of violence against American Indian

women living in California (2000) (see previous section p. 43 for a discussion of their sampling 

methodology). To uncover incidents of violence, respondents in this convenience sample 

(N=110) were asked questions modeled after the NVAWS. With perhaps the largest prevalence 

rate found across all studies, Zahnd and her colleagues found that 81% of women in their sample 

had experienced some form of violence in childhood (under the age of 18), and 80% of women 

had experienced some form of violence since adulthood (after the age of 18). These incidents 

were frequently severe and included such victimizations as kicking, biting, choking, attempting 

to drown, hitting with an object, beating up, threatening with a weapon, or using a weapon. As 

stated above, the majority of all victimizations were perpetrated by intimate partners. 

The majority of the other local studies of assault against American Indian and Alaska 

Native women have primarily focused on intimate partner assaults and also relied on 

convenience samples. For example, using questions similar to those on the NVAWS but cued for 

intimate partners only, Malcoe, Duran and Montgomery (2004) investigated the prevalence of 

intimate partner violence among 312 American Indian women who utilized the services of a 

Women, Infants and Children (WIC) clinic in southwest Oklahoma during the summer of 1997. 

Nearly 60 percent (58.7%) of respondents reported being victims of physical or sexual intimate 

partner violence during their lifetime, with 26.3% reporting that this violence had occurred 

during the previous 12 months. Indicators of severity for these physical assaults were fairly 

high. For example, over half of the sample (57.8%) indicated that they had been punched or hit 

with a fist, been thrown against a wall (49.3%), thrown across a room (40.3%), kicked (39.1%) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
56

and choked (35.4%). The severe abuse reported often resulted in visible injuries. Nearly half of 

the respondents (49.9%) reported having a black eye, while 18.6% sustained a broken nose or 

bone. The most startling finding involved the prevalence of repeated injuries. Almost one-quarter 

(22.2%) of the respondents reported being injured on 20 or more occasions, and 6.6% of the 

sample reported sustaining injuries in excess of 50 times at the hands of an intimate partner.

Fairchild, Fairchild and Stoner (1998) conducted a survey of 341 women who obtained 

routine ambulatory care at an Indian Health Service (IHS) center that provided services to a large 

Navajo reservation in the southwest United States. Results indicated that 41.9% of respondents 

had experienced partner-perpetrated physical violence at least once in their lifetime and 16.4% 

were victims of intimate partner violence in the previous 12 months. Even higher prevalence 

rates were found from a sample of tribal members from a Southwestern tribe by Robin, Chester, 

& Rasmussen (1998). Using a version of the CTS similar to that used by the NVAWS, these 

researchers found that nearly equivalent percentages of American Indian men and women (75%) 

reported physical abuse in their lifetimes and in the recent 12 months (32%). However, this 

gender symmetry in victimization is misleading as a majority of female offenders reported that 

their assaultive behavior was in self-defense to an attack by their partners. Moreover, female 

victims from this sample were almost ten times more likely to require medical care for injuries 

sustained during their victimizations compared to American Indian male victims. 

Not all local level studies have found high rates of assault victimization for American 

Indian and Alaska Native women. For example, Harwell, Moore and Spence (2003) found low 

rates of intimate partner violence in a convenience sample from Montana. A total of 1,006 

surveys of American Indian adults living on or near a reservation in Montana were completed. 

Surprisingly, the authors found no difference between rates of past-year IPV for men and 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
57

women. Additionally, contrary to the findings of most other studies, the authors found that 

annual rates of intimate partner violence for American Indian and Alaska Native women (3%) 

were consistent with the findings for women in Montana overall (2%). 

DATING VIOLENCE

An emphasis on dating violence was added to the 2005 VAWA and was defined as 

follows: violence that is committed by a person— “(A) who is or has been in a social 

relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the victim; and (B) where the existence of such 

a relationship shall be determined based on a consideration of the following factors: (i) The 

length of the relationship; (ii) The type of relationship; (iii) The frequency of interaction between 

the persons involved in the relationship” (VAWA, 2005, §40002 (a) (8)).

There were no published studies found that were devoted exclusively to dating violence. 

While there are no age parameters set for victims of dating violence in the general literature nor 

in the above definition, it is typically assumed that dating violence occurs in adolescence and 

young adulthood. It is possible, therefore, to use the NCVS examine the extent to which assaults 

against American Indian and Alaska Native women were perpetrated by boy/girlfriends or exboy/girlfriends across age groups. Table 19 reports the percent distribution of assaults against 

American Indian and Alaska Native women by age and victim/offender relationship. 

Table 19: Average annual percent of assault victimization against American Indian and Alaska 

Native females by age and specific victim/offender relationship, NCVS 1992-2005.

Victim Age Group Intimate Other 

Family

Other 

Known Stranger

12-17 3 6 60 30

18-29 40 16 21 23

30-39 26 14 38 22

50 and older 11 16 47 26

Source: Original data analysis. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
58

Results from the NCVS indicate that, compared to other American Indian and Alaska 

Native women, young adolescent American Indian and Alaska Native women are the least likely 

to experience intimate partner assault followed by those aged 50 and older. Those most likely to 

assault young American Indian and Alaska Native adolescents are other known offenders such as 

friends and acquaintances. 

STALKING

Only recently has stalking been addressed as a critical social problem. Stalking literature 

evolved from “celebrity stalking” (see Dietz et al. 1991), which influenced the development of 

anti-stalking legislation in California in 1990 (Goode, 1995; Fischer, Cullen & Turner, 2002; 

Mullen & Pathe, 2002), now addresses legal, social, economic, and health concerns. More 

specifically, “star stalking” became a “women’s issue” alongside domestic violence (Lowney & 

Best, 1995; Mullen & Pathe, 2002). However, while stalking is viewed today as an issue of 

increasing importance, there has been very little research investigating this type of victimization 

and virtually no quantitative or qualitative data collected on how this affects American Indian 

and Alaska Native women. 

National Studies

The NCVS conducted a supplemental survey to their larger study to examine the 

prevalence of stalking in 2006. However, results are not yet available. The only published 

national study to date that has measured stalking victimizations has been the NVAWS (Tjaden & 

Thoennes, 1998b). The survey defined stalking as “a course of conduct directed at a specific 

person that involves repeated visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or 

verbal, written or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
59

person fear,” with repeated meaning on two or more occasions. Because it was the first, the 

NVAWS has set the standard for screening questions used to uncover stalking victimizations. As 

with all of its questions, the NVAWS avoided the term “stalking” in favor of several 

behaviorally specific questions that, together, constituted the definition of stalking in most state 

statutes. Respondents were asked the following questions:

“Not including bill collectors, telephone solicitors, or other sales people, has anyone, male or female, 

ever...

a. Followed or spied on you?

b. Sent you unsolicited letters or written correspondence?

c. Made unsolicited phone calls to you?

d. Stood outside your home, school, or workplace?

e. Showed up at places you were even though he or she had no business being there?

f. Left unwanted items for you to find?

g. Tried to communicate in other ways against you?

h. Vandalized your property or destroyed something you loved?”

Respondents who answered “Yes” to one or more of these questions were asked whether anyone 

had ever done any of these things to them on more than one occasion. Because stalking involves 

repeated behaviors, only respondents who answered in the affirmative were considered possible 

stalking victims. Because stalking must also include an element of fear by victims, respondents 

who reported being victimized on more than one occasion were then asked how frightened the 

victimizations made them feel and whether they feared the offender would seriously harm them 

or someone close to them. ONLY those respondents who were very frightened or feared bodily 

harm were counted as stalking victims. This methodological rigor is important when attempting 

to measure stalking because unlike other violent victimizations, the “fear element” is necessary 

to constitute stalking in most state criminal codes.

Consistent with other prevalence rates of victimization for rape and physical assault, the 

NVAWS found that American Indian and Alaska Native women were more likely to have 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
60

experienced stalking in their lifetimes compared to women of other racial groups. The percentage 

of women experiencing stalking in their lifetimes from each group are as follows: American 

Indian and Alaska Native 17%, white 8.2%, African American 6.5%; Asian American 4.5%. 

Although the results were not broken down by race, Tjaden and Thoennes (1998b) found that 

stalking victimizations were most likely to be perpetrated by intimate partners. 

Using the NVAWS data, Dietz and Martin (2007) examined the impact of eliminating the 

“fear” requirement in the definition of stalking among female victims. They found that when 

fear is not required in the definition of stalking, the levels of lifetime victimization increase 

dramatically from 8 to 17 percent in the national sample, and from 17 to 27 percent among 

American Indian and Alaska Native women. 

Local Studies

We could find only one published local study that provided an estimate of stalking for 

American Indians, however, this was not for a local tribe, but for the state of Texas. Kercher and 

Johnson (2007) evaluated the stalking supplement of the Crime Victims’ Institute Telephone 

Victimization Survey in 2006, which was generated through random digit dialing (CATI 

system). Respondents in the study were asked about stalking experiences, which were defined as 

“deliberate but unwanted acts by a person to get your attention because he or she wants to have a 

relationship with you, has a relationship with you, or assumes there is a relationship with you 

when there is not” (Kercher & Johnson, 2007, p.6). Based on the series of questions, 128 of the 

701 respondents reported at least one form of stalking behavior in the past 24 months 

(approximately 18%). It is important to note that these questions did not require a pattern of 

conduct or an element of fear on the part of the victim. Results indicate that American Indians, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
61

both male and female, who comprised 1.4% of the study population, accounted for 2% of 

stalking victimizations. Unfortunately, results were not presented by the gender of the victim.

REASONS FOR VARIABILITY IN ESTIMATES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST 

AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALAKSA NATIVE WOMEN

As the previous sections have blatantly illustrated, there is extreme variability in 

prevalence rates of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women across studies. 

As noted earlier, it is not surprising that research employing diverse methodologies and samples 

will obtain such diverse estimates of victimization. While there is undoubtedly variability across 

local tribal communities, much of the variability in estimates is related to methodological 

differences across studies. We will highlight these methodological issues in greater detail below. 

We want to begin with the assumption that underreporting plagues our ability to obtain estimates 

of all victimizations for a number of reasons, regardless of the rigor of a particular survey and 

sampling methodology. Victims are not only reluctant to report their experiences to law 

enforcement, but may also be reluctant to report to survey interviewers for a number of reasons 

including fear that their reports will not remain anonymous, shame and embarrassment, and fear 

of reprisal from the offender. 

Screening Questions

Regardless of the definitions of violence stated by researchers in published reports, these 

conceptual definitions are essentially meaningless when divorced from the operational 

definitions and screening questions used to measure an incident. For example, regardless of how 

broadly a researcher defines rape (e.g. including anal, oral, and vaginal penetration), unless they 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
62

ask specifically about each manifestation of rape, they will not be measuring all manifestations 

of rape.

At the national level, the screening questions used by the NCVS and the NVAWS vary 

considerably in the behavior-specific language and also in the number of questions asked. 

Regarding physical assault, although many of the behaviors used in the screening instruments are 

the same across surveys (e.g. grabbing, choking, throwing something), there are a few behavioral 

cues present in the NVAWS (pulled hair, slapped, bit) that are not present in the NCVS. 

Importantly, however, the manner in which the questions are asked across surveys is quite 

different. Lynch (1996) describes the NCVS questions as a “short cue” strategy, in which “a 

single syntactically correct question is followed by a large number of short cues. This approach 

maximizes the number and types of cues that can be asked, and at the same time, minimizes the 

time required to administer the cues” (Lynch, 1996, p. 420). In contrast, the NVAWS uses 

several syntactically correct questions to elicit reports of victimizations that were perpetrated by 

a number of different offenders including current and former spouses, boy/girlfriends and former 

boy/girlfriends, and so on. The NCVS does not cue respondents about such specific relationship 

types, but rather with general categories like “a relative or family member.” Undoubtedly, the 

number and specificity of relationship and behavioral cues will serve to increase recall of reports 

from respondents.

The differences in screening questions used in the NCVS and the NVAWS to measure 

incidents of rape and sexual assault are more evident. As displayed in Table 11 the NVAWS uses 

several behaviorally specific questions to uncover a wide range of victimizations that meet the 

legal definition of rape in most states. These questions are further cued by specific relationship 

categories. It is logical that multiple behaviorally specific cues such as these will be associated 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
63

with a greater disclosure by survey respondents compared to the one question about sexual 

intercourse posed by the NCVS. In fact, Fisher et al (2000) have demonstrated that when subsamples from the same population are given the two different sets of rape screening questions, 

estimates obtained using the NVAWS questions result in higher prevalence rates of 

victimization. Research shows that when sample parameters are made as similar as possible 

across the NCVS and the NVAWS (e.g. victims 18 years of age or older and single offender 

victimizations), the NVAWS screening questions still estimate a higher number of intimate 

partner violence incidents (Bachman, 2000).

Differences in screening questions also affect the magnitude and quality of estimates 

obtained from local surveys. While being sensitive to cultural differences across tribes, it is 

important for researchers interested in obtaining estimates at the local tribal level to seek 

guidance from research that has already been done on measuring violence against women. For 

example, Yuan et al (2006) relied on questions already developed by the NVAWS, as did 

Malcoe and Duran (2004) and Zahnd and her colleagues (2002). Using survey questions that 

have a national equivalent also allows researchers to make comparisons across local and national 

estimates of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women. 

Reference Period Used

In many published reports and literature reviews therein, estimates of violence against 

American Indian and Alaska Native women are provided without regard to the screening 

questions and without regard for the various types of “reference periods” utilized across studies. 

Prevalence rates are very different for those estimating victimization in a respondent’s 

“lifetime,” or since a respondent turned “18 years of age,” or “during the past 12 months.” A 

glance across surveys conducted at the local level show a wide range of reference periods 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
64

employed and attention to this detail is important when making estimate comparisons across 

studies. There are other differences between the NCVS and other surveys regarding the accuracy 

of appropriately placing a victimization within a specified period of time (e.g. last six months) 

that requires eliminating victimizations reported in the first interview (called bounding) that also 

serve to decrease NCVS estimates relative to survey estimates that are not bounded (see 

Bachman, 2000 for a detailed discussion).8

Sampling Differences

Random versus Availability Samples: One of the most important sampling distinctions 

across surveys is whether the sample was obtained through a random sampling procedure or was 

based on a nonrandom procedure such as a convenience sample that was simply available to the 

researcher (Bachman & Schutt, 2007). This latter type includes “captive samples” obtained from 

programs such as substance abuse treatment centers or domestic violence shelters. Not 

surprisingly, these populations are at an increased risk of being victimized. As a result, findings 

from these studies would represent an inflated prevalence of violence and abuse compared to the 

general population (Wahab & Olson, 2004; Hamby, 2000). Although these captive samples 

probably pose the greatest threats to the generalizability of samples, nonrandom samples also 

include those obtained from other “available” groups such as those who are involved in a social 

group, who go to the hospital, and so on. Although these samples are easier to obtain in terms of 

time and money than a random sample, there is no way to ensure that the respondents obtained 

from these samples are representative of the larger American Indian and Alaska Native 

 8

 Bounding is best explained by example, during each interview, respondents are asked about any victimization they 

may have experienced within the past 6 months. Interviews then focus on the specific period during which the 

incident occurred. Incidents reported in that interview are compared with incidents reported in a previous interview. 

When a report appears to be a duplicate of an earlier reported incident, respondents are reminded of the earlier repot 

and are asked whether the new report represents the incident mentioned previously or a different incident. The sole 

purpose of the first interview in the NCVS, then, is to set an initial time reference (bounding). Data collected at the 

first interview are not included in published NCVS estimates of violence by BJS or in the public-use data tapes. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
65

population, regardless of whether the target population is a small local tribe or the entire 

American Indian and Alaska Native population nationally. 

Random Digit Dialing Versus In Person Solicitation: The way that researchers obtain 

survey participants can also alter the findings of studies. In order to save money and include a 

large sample size, many studies, such as the NVAWS utilize a sampling strategy that uses 

random digit dialing of telephone numbers to obtain the sample. In contrast, the NCVS relies on 

census addresses as the sampling frame, and the first interview is usually conducted in person. 

This in-person-solicitation is undoubtedly responsible for the high response rate (number of 

individuals originally asked who actually agree to complete the survey) obtained by the NCVS 

(94%) compared to the NVAWS (72%). The Census sampling frame used by the NCVS contains 

households that may or may not have telephones. This is important, especially in Indian Country, 

where many poor or isolated individuals do not have telephone access and lack specific mailing 

addresses. These individuals would not be captured in random digit dialing sampling strategies. 

This is especially problematic because individuals with lower incomes are generally more at risk

of violence compared to their more affluent counterparts. As such, surveys that do not attempt to 

represent all people from a selected population, both those with telephones and those without, 

will not obtain a representative sample (Wahab & Olson, 2004; Hamby, 2000; Yuan et al., 2006). 

To date, the only study examining violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women 

conducted at the local level to utilize a rigorous random sampling design was Yuan et al. (2006).

Cultural Sensitivity of Interviewers

Survey interviewers, especially those interviewing respondents in person, can also have a 

major impact on the results of studies. Often interviewers are not knowledgeable of the distinct 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
66

aspects of tribal culture and language. As a result, participants may be less open to sharing 

intimate aspects of their lives, such as abuse, with someone that they consider to be an outsider. 

Additionally, interviewers may be less likely to understand the unique features and language of 

the American Indian and Alaska Native community, which can lead to incorrect findings and 

conclusions (Wahab & Olson, 2004; Hamby, 2000).

Researchers such as Yuan et al. (2006) and Zahnd et al. (2002) went to great lengths to 

ensure that American Indian interviewers were used and appropriately trained in interviewing 

techniques for sensitive topics such as victimization. Yuan et al. (2006) state, “We selected and 

trained five American Indian interviewers, based on their experience with unbiased interviewing, 

their familiarity with American Indian culture, their concern with confidentiality, and their 

sensitivity.” When tribal communities are small, it is probably best to use interviewers from a 

different tribe in order to ensure confidentiality to respondents (Bachman & Schutt, 2007). 

Is it a necessity that interviewers be of the same and ethnicity as respondents? The 

empirical literature is fairly equivocal on this topic with some contending that interviewers of the 

same race (just like interviewers of the same gender) are more likely to obtain honest disclosures 

from respondents if the questions are about issues relevant to gender and race (Davis, 1997). 

Others, however, contend that provided interviews are sensitive and trained in the art of 

developing rapport with their respondents there is no difference in rates of disclosure (Reese & 

Brown, 1995; Tate, 1994).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
67

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM’S RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST 

AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN

Although American Indian and Alaska Native women share most of the same obstacles 

that women of the general population face when seeking protection from the criminal justice 

system, in many cases the criminal justice system’s response to American Indian and Alaska 

Native is complicated by a variety of legal, social, economic and political barriers. This section 

describes both the shared experiences and unique conditions American Indian and Alaska Native

women face when seeking justice through federal, state and tribal justice systems.

Historical Context

Scholars often suggest that violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women 

directly relates to historical victimization (BigFoot, 2000; Bubar & Thurman, 2004; Poupart, 

2002; Smith, 2003). According to proponents of this idea, domination and oppression of native 

peoples increased both economic deprivation and dependency through retracting tribal rights and 

sovereignty. Consequently, American Indian and Alaska Natives today are believed to suffer 

from internalized oppression and the normalization of violence (Bubar & Thurman, 2004; 

Peacock et al., 2002; Perry, 2002; Poupart, 2002). Colonization aided a breakdown of traditional 

support systems through intergenerational trauma and the forced removal of tribal communities 

to reservations and more recently, the removal of American Indian and Alaska Native children 

into boarding schools (BigFoot, 2000; Bubar & Thurman, 2004; Magen & Wood, 2006). 

Historical and ongoing marginalization in terms of social, economic and political rights places 

American Indian and Alaska Natives at greater risk for victimization than other groups who did 

not share similar historical inequalities (Perry, 2002; Poupart, 2002). And importantly for this 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
68

report, scholars have also argued that the methods of colonization encouraged male authority and 

gender dominance (Berger, 2004; Bubar & Thurman, 2004; Coker, 1999; Hamby, 2000; Smith, 

2003).

Supreme Court decisions passed by the Marshall courts in the middle of the nineteenth 

century established the United States government’s “paternalistic” attitude toward indigenous 

Americans (Poupart, 2002, p. 149). While American Indian and Alaska Native tribes are

sovereign nations,9 they still bear the relationship as a domestic dependent to the United States 

federal government.10 Indian Nations are neither extra-national powers nor states. Only the 

federal government, not individual states can intervene in tribal affairs.11 Importantly, this unique 

relationship created significant problems in the criminal justice system, particularly in how law 

enforcement responds to crimes involving American Indian and Alaska Natives on and off 

designated tribal lands, and what jurisdiction holds authority to prosecute offenders.

The foundation of the American legal system and that of most tribal legal systems also 

differ in perspective. The American legal system typically views justice as a system based on 

deterrence, which seeks retribution and punishment. Addressing problems under Western 

concepts of law focuses on individual cases, while indigenous views of law and order are based 

on communal values (Deer, 2005; Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). Traditional American Indian 

and Alaska Native judicial systems emphasize healing the victim and offender’s relationship and 

the restoration of harmony within the community (Gray & Lauderdale, 2006; Peacock et al.,

2002). Many traditional tribal judicial procedures address the victim’s needs through allowing 

their story to be shared. Unlike Western systems of justice, which concentrate on punishing the 

offender, native traditions typically encouraged the victim to actively participate in the criminal 

 9 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, US (5 Pet.) 1, 16 (1831). 10 Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 574 (1823). 11 Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
69

justice process (Deer, 2004a; Poupart, 2002; Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). Some contend that 

tribal systems of justice offer women more protection (Deer, 2004a; Poupart, 2002; ValenciaWeber & Zuni, 1995), and that American Indian and Alaska Native women do not feel that 

Westernized criminal justice systems sufficiently address the needs of the victim (Peacock et al.,

2002). 

The impact of federal intervention in tribal affairs may have served to hinder the ability of 

tribal governments to effectively address violence against American Indian and Alaska Native

women (BigFoot, 2000). In addition to practical problems of funding, training, coordination, and 

jurisdictional complexities, tribal governments suffer from an inability to use what sovereignty 

duties they are realistically allowed to implement. Researchers such as Peacock et al. suggest that 

the erosion of the tribal government’s ability to address crime significantly harms American 

Indian and Alaska Native women in particular. They argue that policies such as the Indian 

Reorganization Act of 193412 removed power from American Indian families in addition to 

spiritual and community leaders in tribal justice systems. Moreover, through integrating 

American Indians into American law in the earlier twentieth century, Peacock et al. argue that 

American Indian women thus, “received the same protection that non-Indian women in nonIndian communities received”(Peacock et al., 2002, p. 324). 

Federal Indian Law

Several notable federal laws regulate violence within sovereign borders of Indian 

Country. While federal restrictions may have intended to protect American Indian and Alaska 

Native women (Berger, 2004), some researchers contend that federal intervention actually

inhibits the ability to effectively punish offenders by restricting maximum penalties under tribal 

 12 Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act, 25 U.S. C.A. §461 et seq.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
70

law, prohibiting American Indians to prosecute non-Indians, and not following traditional tribal 

peacemaking (Berger, 2004; Christofferson, 1991; Deer, 2004a; Radon, 2004; Waheed, 2004). 

Moreover, the unique position of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes as both sovereign 

and dependent creates a problematic legal structure with jurisdictional barriers (Bubar &

Thurman, 2004; Deer, 2005; Peacock et al., 2002; O’Brien, 1991; Tatum, 2002; Valencia-Weber 

& Zuni, 1995). 

As we have seen, violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women is not 

entirely bound to incidents within Indian Country. As we noted at the beginning of this report, 

contrary to typical conceptions of American Indian and Alaska Natives residing solely on rural 

reservations, many live outside reservation boundaries in urban and suburban locations. 

American Indian and Alaska Native victims who are members of tribes living on reservations, 

however, face the greatest barriers to prosecution. 

In the following sections, we will highlight the laws established by Congress that limit 

tribal government’s power to prosecute offenders (a) if the offender or victim is Non-American 

Indian or Alaska Native, (b) if the victim is American Indian or Alaska Native but was assaulted 

outside Indian Country, and (c) if the offense is a particular violent crime noted in the Major 

Crimes Act (1885). 

Major Crimes Act13

The federal government asserted jurisdiction over certain crimes committed in Indian 

Country under the Major Crimes Act (1885). Responding to demands from the Non-American 

 13 Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
71

Indian and Alaska Native population after Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883),14 Congress declared 

authority over “major crimes,” even if the offense was between two American Indian and Alaska 

Natives within Indian Territory (Deer, 2004a, p. 20). Major crimes under the U.S. Code include 

murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, incest, assault with intent to commit murder, 

assault with a dangerous weapon, assault against an individual under sixteen including felony 

child abuse and neglect, arson, burglary, robbery, any felony under section 661 of the title within 

Indian Country, and felonies under chapter 109A.15 Violent crimes against women in non-PL280 states (discussed on page 75) such as aggravated assault, rape and homicide are also 

prosecuted at the federal level.

The passing of the Major Crimes Act restricts the power of tribal governments to address 

serious crimes within Indian Country. Crimes against women such as murder, rape and 

aggravated assault must be prosecuted by the federal government. Tribes are not, however, 

prohibited from engaging in simultaneous prosecution of such cases if only American Indian and 

Alaska Native parties are involved.

16 Nonetheless, other legal barriers restrict the power of tribal 

courts in matters involving serious crimes to enact adequate punishment for violent offenders, 

which we highlight next.

Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA)17

The Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) of 1968 generally sought to limit abusive power of tribal 

governments and was intended to mimic provisions listed under the United States Bill of Rights 

 14 Ex Parte Crow Dog (109 U.S. 556, 3 S.Ct. 396, 27 L.Ed. 1030 (1883)). In Ex Parte Crow Dog, the Supreme 

Court recognized the sovereignty of the Lakota Indian tribe and placing jurisdiction to address the murder of one 

Lakota tribe member by another Lakota tribe member.

15 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (a); section 661 deals with embezzlement and theft; chapter 9 involves sexual assault as well as 

child abuse and neglect (18 U.S.C. § 1162 2246) 16 United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004); The Supreme Court found that the Double Jeopardy clause does not 

apply prosecution in the United States and Indian Country. 17 Indian Civil Rights Act (25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1303)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
72

(Deer, 2004a). However, while the IRCA was intended to “protect” American Indian and Alaska 

Natives from themselves, in reality it degraded the ability of tribal courts to provide adequate 

punishment for serious offenders (Christofferson, 1991, note 109). According to William Canby 

(1988), American Indian and Alaska Natives saw this effort as an intrusion on their sovereignty. 

Although the federal government intended to improve individual rights and protections, they 

removed the collective right of American Indian and Alaska Natives to regulate their own 

people.

For the first twenty years, tribal courts were not permitted to punish offenders with more than 

$500 in fines, six months in jail, or both (Deer, 2004a, p. 21). This increased to $5000, one year 

in jail, or both in 1986, and these remain the limits today (ICRA 25 U.S.C. § 1302 (7)). These 

enhanced penalties arose primarily from efforts to deter drug use on reservations (Deer, 2005). 

While Indian Nations did not traditionally punish offenders with incarceration, scholars suggest 

that federal limitations on tribal sentencing fueled the belief that tribes were unable to prosecute 

serious crimes (Deer, 2004a; Waheed, 2004). Clearly, these punitive restrictions are inadequate 

to fit the severity of major crimes committed by offenders within Indian Country. Thus, even 

though tribes are allowed dual jurisdiction for major crimes (see United States v. Lara for 

example), in reality they are unable to enact punishments that fit the severity of these crimes.

Prosecuting Non-American Indian and Alaska Native Offenders in Tribal Courts 

Another jurisdictional issue concerns a tribe’s ability to prosecute based on the identity of the 

offender and the victim. As Waheed (2004) notes, “the distinction between reservation and nonreservation dwelling Indians is important because tribal sovereignty exists only in Indian 

country” (Waheed, 2004, p. 289). However, according to Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
73

(1978),18 American Indian and Alaska Natives do not have jurisdiction over Non-American 

Indian and Alaska Natives, even in tribal territory. Sarah Deer argues that tribal government’s 

inability to prosecute non-American Indian and Alaska Natives attracts offenders of various 

crimes to Indian Country (Deer, 2004a; 2005). Oliphant does not, however, limit tribal 

governments ability to impose civil sanctions on non-American Indian and Alaska Natives 

(Stetson, 1981 cited in Deer 2003/2004).

Shortly after Oliphant, the Court took a different stance on sovereignty. In Santa Clara 

Pueblo v. Martinez (1978),19 Martinez, a female member of the Santa Clara Pueblo tribe, claimed 

that her relationship with the tribe had changed as a result of marriage to a non-member. 

According to Santa Clara laws, males could retain membership with the tribe, but the status of 

females changed through marriage outside the tribe. The Supreme Court affirmed that the Court 

did not have jurisdiction to regulate rules of membership based on tribal rules, thus affirming 

sovereignty, but denied equality to American Indian and Alaska Native women who sought equal 

protection (Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995).

In Duro v. Reina (1990),20 the Supreme Court declared that tribal governments could not 

prosecute non-member American Indian and Alaska Natives in criminal courts. However, this 

decision was overturned by Congress who amended the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) to grant 

tribal courts jurisdiction over all American Indian and Alaska Natives who have any federally 

recognized tribal affiliation21 (Burelson, 2007). Today, tribal justice systems have criminal 

jurisdiction in cases that involve American Indian and Alaska Natives as both the victim and 

offender. Again, however, while tribal courts may prosecute serious offenses under the Major 

 18 Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435 U.S. (1978)

19 Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 US 49 (1978). 20 Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990) 21 The "Duro Fix," was enacted through congress in the Criminal Jurisdiction Over Indians Act of 1991, Public Law 

No 102-137, amended to the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. §1301(2) (2000).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
74

Crimes Act, the limitations under the ICRA strictly curtail the punishment of violent offenders, 

and only if both parties are American Indian and Alaska Natives.

As we discussed in the introduction, another legal issue is how “American Indian” is defined. 

U.S. code defines American Indians as those who are members of politically affiliated tribes,

22

however, research often uses self-reported data on census information, crime reports, or

victimization surveys.23 For example, virtually all surveys described in this report have relied on 

respondents’ self-reporting of their racial status. The difference between racial identity and 

political identity adds extra complexity for research involving legal issues and victimization. 

For many American Indian and Alaska Natives who do reside in Indian country, the complex 

jurisdictional maze is further complicated by the initiation of Public Law 280 (PL-280).

Public Law 28024

Passed in 1953, Public Law 280 gave state governments jurisdiction over offenses committed 

in Indian Country or involving American Indian and Alaska Natives in PL-280 states. Six 

“mandatory” states were required to adopt PL-280, including Alaska, California, Minnesota, 

 22 25 U.S.C § 1603 (c) “Indians” or “Indian”, unless otherwise designated, means any person who is a member of an 

Indian tribe, as defined in subsection (d) of this section, except that, for the purpose of sections 1612 and 1613 of 

this title, such terms shall mean any individual who (1), irrespective of whether he or she lives on or near a 

reservation, is a member of a tribe, band, or other organized group of Indians, including those tribes, bands, or 

groups terminated since 1940 and those recognized now or in the future by the State in which they reside, or who is 

a descendant, in the first or second degree, of any such member, or (2) is an Eskimo or Aleut or other Alaska Native, 

or (3) is considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be an Indian for any purpose, or (4) is determined to be an 

Indian under regulations promulgated by the Secretary. For criminal justice, American Indians are defined through 

political status, not as a racial or ethnic group (Burelson, 2007). Also see United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 

(1977) (stating that while many individuals may be racially classified as ‘Indians,’ it is proof of membership that 

differentiates Indians from non-Indians under criminal law). 23 US Census 2000 information asks respondents what they identify as their tribal membership or primary tribal 

membership, but does not distinguish between state and federally recognized tribes. Of those who reported 

themselves as American Indian, approximately 21 percent did not report a specific tribal membership (Perry, 2004). 

The National Crime Victimization Survey and the National Violence Against Women Survey ask respondents their 

racial identity, but does not ask about tribal membership or Indian Country residency. 24 Public Law 83-280 (18 U.S.C. § 1162, 28 U.S.C. § 1360)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
75

Nebraska, Oregon and Wisconsin.25 PL-280 also applies to “optional” states that could choose to 

assume part or total jurisdictional authority over American Indian and Alaska Native affairs 

within their state.26 Importantly, creation and implementation of PL-280 did not include 

permission or input from any American Indian and Alaska Native tribe (Goldberg & Singleton, 

2005).

In 1968, the law was amended to allow states to return jurisdictional duties to the federal 

government. Again, tribes were not given voice in the retrocession process. However, the 

revision required the consent of American Indian tribes in any additional states that wished to 

adopt PL-280. Since this amendment, no tribe has consented. In addition, several states 

consequently retroceded authority to specific tribes within PL-280 jurisdiction (Goldberg &

Singleton, 2005).27 

In addition to bolstering jurisdictional confusion, PL-280 created problems for American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribal justice systems through the withdrawal of federal funding. 

While many tribes can receive assistance by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), a division of the 

federal government, tribes in PL-280 states often remain unfunded. Furthermore, PL-280 itself is 

an unfunded mandate (Goldberg & Singleton, 2005). Clearly, funding deficiencies impact the 

ability of laws to be carried out through law enforcement and prosecution. Several studies 

indicate that funding issues, particularly in PL-280 states, have a significant negative impact on 

 25 State Jurisdiction Over Offenses Committed by or Against Indians in the Indian Country, 18 U.S.C. § 1162; State 

Civil Jurisdiction in Actions to Which Indians Are Parties, 20 U.S.C. § 1360. The Red Lake Reservation in 

Minnesota and the Warm Springs Reservation in Oregon are not included.

26 Optional states included; Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, 

and Washington.

27Sole jurisdiction was allocated to several tribes in some mandatory (Nebraska, Wisconsin, Oregon and Minnesota), 

and some optional (Washington, Nevada and Montana) PL 280 states. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
76

the efficacy of law enforcement (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002; Peacock et al., 2002; Wakeling et 

al., 2001).28

In sum, not only did PL-280 bestow some states jurisdiction in American Indian and Alaska 

Native affairs, but it also damaged the trust relationship between the federal government and 

“sovereign” Indian Nations (Deer, 2003/2004). Although concurrent jurisdiction still existed, the 

practical reality added even greater barriers for tribal ability to criminally sanction offenders. 

Critics contend that PL-280 further weakens tribes’ ability to respond to criminal behavior in 

general, and violence against women in particular (Deer, 2004a).

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

Congress implemented the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as part of the Violent 

Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.29 It was amended and reauthorized under the 

Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000,

30 and most recently as the Violence Against 

Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005.31 VAWA criminalizes interstate 

violence against women, provides funding for education, training and shelters, and requires 

courts to give full faith and credit to enforce foreign state or tribal laws.32 This Act demonstrates 

a government interest to address not only violence against women, but violence against specific 

vulnerable populations (e.g. immigrant and minority women, and those with limited resources). 

 28 The effects of PL-280 and other legal barriers will be discussed later in further detail.

29 H.R.3355. 30 Public Law 106-386. 31 H.R. 3452.

32 Violence Against Women Act, Title IV of the Violent Crime Control Enforcement Act of 1994. Provision include, 

but are not limited to: Gender bias (42 U.S.C. 104002 (2000); Provides funding for education, training and shelters 

(42 U.S.C. 10402(a)(1); Criminalizes interstate domestic violence (18 U.S.C. 2262 (2000); Excludes victims sexual 

history (Federal Rules of Evidence 412); Requires courts to give full faith (18 U.S.C. 2265); Civil remedy to sue 

based on gendered-violence (42 U.S.C. 13981) [May 2000 civil remedy turned down in the interstate commerce 

clause]

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
77

Nonetheless, VAWA faces significant challenges for victims in Indian Country because the legal 

constraints33 described earlier limit tribal authority to prosecute offenders.

VAWA (1994) included provisions for safe streets for women, safe homes for women, 

civil rights for women, equal justice for women in the courts, improvements to previous 

strategies that address violence against women, reducing stalking and domestic violence, and 

enhancing protections for battered immigrant women and children. VAWA increased penalties 

for domestic violence and other forms of intimate partner abuse through federalization (Raeder, 

2006). The Violence Against Women Act was the first national legislation for domestic violence, 

which addressed gender-based crimes, created new penalties for offenders, and provided a “civil 

rights” cause of action (Crais, 2005, p. 407). However, the civil rights remedy was found 

unconstitutional in United States v. Morrison (2000) because congress exceeded their power 

under the Commerce Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.34

Subsequent renewals of VAWA included more funds for educational programs to combat 

violence against women and for both criminal and non-criminal justice response services (see 

VAWA 2000, 2005). Other federal initiatives35 increased penalties for offenses involving 

weapons in misdemeanor domestic violence offenses, including law enforcement officers, from 

buying, owning or possessing firearms (Crais, 2005). These actions impact American Indian 

women in the same manner as the protection of women in interstate travel. Because American 

Indian women living in Indian Country do not reside in specific states, these laws enhance 

protection beyond state law, which generally holds jurisdiction in misdemeanor offenses. 

VAWA’s reauthorization in 2005 specifically addresses violence against American 

Indian and Alaska Native women in Title IX of the Act. Under Title IX, provisions include 

 33 See Major Crimes Act; Indian Civil Rights Act, Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe (1978); Public Law 280 (1953) 34 United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) 35 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
78

annual consultations between the United States and tribal governments about the distribution of 

funds and program evaluations among others. The Act also grants tribal access to national 

criminal databases, creates a national tribal sex offender registry, and mandates national studies 

to examine violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women and the effectiveness of 

federal, state and tribal responses to this violence. VAWA grants such as STOP (ServicesTraining-Officers-Prosecutors) VAIW (Violence Against Indian Women) provide grant funding

to improve law enforcement, establish victim services, and enhance coordination between 

jurisdictions and various agencies (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). VAWA focuses on four central 

types of violence against women, including domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, 

and stalking. We will discuss each in greater detail next as they pertain to particular areas of the 

criminal justice response and grant evaluations.

The following sections will outline issues in law enforcement, courts and corrections. 

The subsequent section will focus on protection orders and “full faith and credit” and addresses 

issues in the judicial process and law enforcement. Next, a brief overview outlines alternative 

tribal justice programs. Finally, the last sections will cover laws as they relate to intimate partner 

violence (including domestic violence, stalking, and non-domestic intimate partner violence; 

both misdemeanors and felonies), and sexual assault and rape (both misdemeanor and felony 

charges.

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Because of the legal statutes outlined above, fundamental law enforcement problems 

arise because of jurisdictional complexities, insufficient funding, inadequate training, and 

victims’ perceptions of law enforcement. To reiterate, jurisdiction over law enforcement varies 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
79

by the location of the offense (on or off reservation land), what parties are involved (the 

race/ethnicity of the victim and offender), the nature of the crime (major crime or misdemeanor), 

and if the tribe resides in a PL-280 state. As such, officers who have jurisdiction on reservations 

include Federal Bureau of Investigation officers, Bureau of Indian Affairs officers, tribal 

government police, and in PL-280 states, state police officers. While the recent Amnesty 

International report (2007) brought media attention to the problems with law enforcement on 

some reservations, others have illuminated these problems as well (Dupree, 2000; International 

Association of Chiefs of Police, 2001; Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002; Luna-Firebaugh, 2006; 

National Sexual Violence Resource Center, n.d.; Peacock et al., 2002; Reina, 2000; Wakeling et 

al., 2001). 

In addition to the jurisdictional confusion and lack of funding, other issues plaguing the 

efficacy of law enforcement to combat violence against American Indian and Alaska Native 

women include inadequate training, limited specialized officers for particular types of 

victimization including rape and intimate partner violence, high turnover and low morale among 

officers, geographic and natural barriers, social, cultural and economic conditions, and 

underreporting of victimization (see Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002; Wakeling et al., 2001 for 

example). Research on law enforcement in Indian Country ranges from jurisdictional analyses 

(Radon, 2004; Ritcheske, 2005; Tatum, 2002; 2003a; 2003b), demographics of law enforcement 

(Hickman, 2003; Perry, 2005; Wakeling et al., 2001), victim experiences (Amnesty International, 

2007; Peacock et al., 2002; Shepherd, 2001; Thurman et al., 2003), or grant and policy 

evaluations (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002; Luna-Firebaugh, 2006). Many scholars have focused

on the impacts of various law enforcement provisions of the Violence Against Women Acts

(Crais, 2005; King-Reis, 2005; Lininger, 2003; Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002; Luna-Firebaugh, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
80

2006; McKinley, 1996; Stevenson, 1997), with particular focus on the role of law enforcement 

with protection orders and “full faith and credit” (Fine, 1998; Schmieder, 2003; Tatum, 2002; 

2003b). Others have focused on tribal law enforcement and tribal justice systems (Coker, 1999; 

Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). These studies suggest that significant improvements are needed

to protect American Indian and Alaska Native women.

Police Department Characteristics and Problems

There are over 170 law enforcement agencies operated by tribal law enforcement, and 37 

operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (Hickman, 2003). Like many rural law enforcement 

agencies, these officials suffer from departmental and administrative problems in addition to 

geographical, social and economic barriers to connect with victims. Although these issues are not 

unique to American Indian and Alaska Native women, scholars frequently argue that problems 

are intensified on tribal lands due to cultural insensitivity, jurisdictional confusion and the 

extreme isolation of many reservations. Jurisdictional confusion and funding deficiencies in turn 

lead to other problems in inadequate training, absence of specialized officers, archaic or 

nonexistent data collection, understaffing and general dissatisfaction among officers. 

In addition to these issues, there is also variation between each tribe’s relationship to state 

and federal governments through contracts or agreements. For example, some tribes are 

supported solely by tribal funds, while others receive assistance through grants and contracts 

with federal and state authorities. As part of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 

Assistance Act of 1975 (Public Law 93-638), tribes can agree to oversight by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs in exchange for funding (Luna, 1998). Public Law 93-638 is the most common 

administrative arrangement of police departments (Wakeling et al., 2001). Other tribes are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
81

funded solely by tribal means, which allows them to control and develop their own model of law 

enforcement (Luna, 1998; Wakeling et al, 2001). 

Federal law enforcement officers are rarely the first to respond to a violent crime in 

Indian Country. Their role is to enforce the Major Crimes Act,36 and respond to situations that 

require federal intervention. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), under the department of the 

Interior also represents law enforcement in Indian Country. The role of BIA officers is to 

enforce federal and tribal laws. Depending on the relationship to the tribe and availability, BIA 

officers may respond before local tribal police (Tatum, 2003a). 

Except in PL-280 states, state officers generally do not have jurisdiction in Indian 

Country. In PL-280 states, tribal and state officers generally work concurrently in law 

enforcement (Luna, 1998). Tribal and state governments can also enforce laws through crossdeputization (Tatum, 2003a). While some tribes receive financial assistance from the BIA, PL280 tribes are not eligible for these benefits (Goldberg-Ambrose, 1997). The Supreme Court 

recently affirmed37 that state officers (regardless of PL-280 status) are allowed to investigate 

crimes that were committed off tribal lands (Tatum, 2003a). This creates a significant barrier for 

tribes to realistically enforce laws where they are legally permitted, but are unable in terms of 

resources. Moreover, tribal police are not permitted the same authority to investigate offenses 

against tribal members that occurred off tribal lands. 

These jurisdictional issues may sometimes lead to slow responses or no response at all by 

law enforcement (Amnesty International, 2007; Wakeling et al., 2001). Studies have found that 

officers may hesitate because they believe the crime should be addressed by a different agency 

(Amnesty International, 2007; Luna-Firebaugh, 2002; Wakeling et al., 2001) which sometimes 

 36 Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153). 

37 Nevada v. Hicks (121 S. Ct. 2304 2001).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
82

results in cases “fall[ing] through the cracks” (Amnesty International, 2007, p. 62). The process 

of law enforcement is illuminated in the anecdote described in the Final Report of the Ninth 

Circuit Gender Bias Task Force:

The first enforcement officials called to the scene may be tribal police of BIA 

[Bureau of Indian Affairs] officers, and these officers may initiate investigation 

and/or detain a suspect. Then a decision has to be made whether the crime is of 

the type warranting federal intervention, and then federal law enforcement 

officials (usually the FBI) needs to be notified. These officers then decide if they 

will refer the case to the U.S. Attorney’s office. After referral, the U.S. Attorney 

may call for further investigation, pursue prosecution, or dismiss the case

(O’Connor, 1994).

Clearly, criminal cases in Indian Country must follow many steps before proper jurisdiction is 

decided. 

Tracking cases through the adjudication process and creating sustainable data collection 

efforts is also hindered by jurisdictional issues (Amnesty International, 2007; Wakeling et al., 

2001). As of 2001, 75% of tribes recorded crimes within reservations manually and/or 

electronically, but fewer than 12% were electronically linked to share data with other agencies. 

A slight majority of tribes had access to the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) 

(Perry, 2005). 

According to Goldberg and Valdez Singleton (2005), most tribes in PL-280 states do not 

report crime to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In a study by Mending the Sacred Hoop that 

surveyed 131 STOP VAIW programs, it was found that over a dozen different agencies were in 

charge of collecting data for their tribe (National Sexual Violence Research Center, n.d.). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
83

Statistical analysis is problematic even when data is collected because of missing or 

underreported cases. 

Efforts to improve police administration as well as police responses include increased 

funding through grant projects, and cross-deputization agreements between tribes, states, and 

federal authorities. Of the 314 responding tribes in the 2002 census of tribal justice agencies, 

almost all (99%) had cross deputization with other tribal or public agencies. Fifty three percent 

of the tribes employing one or more full-time sworn officers were recognized by states with 

arrest authority (Perry, 2005). While these agreements between agencies have shown to be 

effective to overcome some jurisdictional barriers, the process to organize cross-deputization is 

highly complex.

Funding is also a central concern for law enforcement. Limited resources affect salaries 

and how many officers can be hired. Inadequate funding also contributes to poor training, 

absence of specialized training, inability to collect and share data, and overall dissatisfaction. 

There are often relatively few officers who cover a wide region, particularly on large isolated 

reservations. Clearly, a limited number of available responding law enforcement agents create 

delays in response to victimization (Wakeling et al., 2001). Aside from a deficiency in number 

of officers, law enforcement agents have also been found to have high turnovers and low 

employee morale (Wakeling et al., 2001). Turnover may be less apparent for BIA officers 

compared to local tribal officers because under a division of the US government, the BIA 

provides “job security, livable salaries, competitive retirement packages, and protection from 

undue political pressure in the uncertain political environment typical of many tribes” (Wakeling 

et al., 2001, p. 43). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
84

Other issues related to turnover have been found in extremely remote regions. For 

example, a study of Alaskan Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs)38 found that employee 

turnover was not always the result of low pay or job related stress, but because of a lack of 

support from other officers, or because they held jurisdiction in unfamiliar communities (Wood, 

2001).

Understaffed federal, state, and tribal police forces often do not receive adequate training 

for cultural sensitivity (Luna Firebaugh et al., 2002; Wakeling et al., 2001). Moreover, tribal 

police are typically trained through state police academies, which place little focus on specific 

cultural, social, economic and geographic features of Indian Country (Wakeling et al., 2001).

When cultural sensitivity training is available, it is often not mandatory (Wakeling et al., 2001). 

Most tribal police departments do not have enough officers to specialize in intimate partner 

violence or rape/sexual assault, and are thus unable to provide the best assistance for these 

victimizations (Reina, 2000). In sum, funding not only affects the number of responding officers, 

but the quality of policing and the ability to upkeep efficient data collection and sharing.

Cultural and Social Barriers to Effective Law Enforcement

Geographic, social, cultural and economic barriers limit an officer’s ability to help 

victims. Geographic distance is problematic for victims in need of immediate assistance, and for 

officers with limited staff, which often results in a delay time before the victim can be reached. 

According to Wakeling et al., some tribal police departments are significantly hampered by the 

huge area they must cover. For example, some police departments cover a landmass of 500,000 

acres and serve several thousand individuals with only a handful of officers. This would equal 

 38 VPSO’s are local foot police who enforce a wide range of public safety services in Alaskan Native villages, 

including law enforcement.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
85

an area the size of Delaware, with 10,000 residents covered by three or fewer patrolling officers 

(Wakeling et al., 2001). 

Additional factors such as poverty, language barriers, cultural insensitivity and alcohol 

abuse also affect law enforcement’s capacity to respond. For example, those who are poor are 

less likely to have telephone access, be educated about legal remedies, or be able to afford and 

develop their own criminal justice system (Wakeling et al., 2001). Peacock et al. (2002) also 

found that some tribal officers may marginalize the needs of indigenous women who recently

experienced physical or sexual assault by threatening women to extract information or coerce 

them into pressing criminal charges – even against the victim’s desire. Some American Indian 

and Alaska Native women believe non-native officers hold racial prejudices or stereotypes of 

American Indian and Alaska Native people (Ewing & Guadalupe, 2001; Reina, 2000). These 

beliefs may also encourage officers to charge offenders with more serious crimes (Erwin & 

Vidales, 2001). 

Finally, several studies suggest that law enforcement officers can be abusers themselves 

(Deer, 2004a). In Luna-Firebaugh et al.’s (2002) STOP VAIW evaluation, many tribes noted the 

issue of “cops who batter,” meaning police officers who are themselves, known instigators of 

domestic violence. While this is an issue for non-American Indian and Alaska Native 

communities as well, it is particularly difficult to combat in small, integrated tribal communities 

(Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). 

In sum, administrative problems and poor relations with victims can obviously lead to 

ineffective responses to violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women, as they can 

with all women regardless of their race or ethnicity. For victims, law enforcement may be slow 

or unable to respond, or incapable of addressing their needs through assisting and informing 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
86

them about access to other resources such as shelters and medical facilities. American Indian and 

Alaska Native women who do not respect or trust law enforcement are less likely to report their 

victimization. Promising legislation such as VAWA, which has provided funding to many tribal 

governments and other VAWA funded-grant projects can successfully improve law enforcement 

through training, and creating task forces to alleviate jurisdictional issues (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 

2002). Some researchers contend that more authority to administer, police and prosecute cases 

must be granted to tribes (Wakeling et al., 2001) while others acknowledge that any 

consolidation of services would improve coordination of the criminal justice systems involved 

(Reina, 2000).

COURTS & PROSECUTION

Tribal Judicial Systems

As with law enforcement, prosecution also varies by type of crime, the race/ethnicity of 

the victim and offender, and the location of the offense. Of the 314 reporting tribes in the 2002 

census, approximately 59% had some type of tribal judicial system (Perry, 2005)39. These 

systems varied greatly in how much influence Western ideals had on resolution and punishment 

(Amnesty International, 2007; Jones, 2000; Perry, 2005). The Court of Indian Offenses was 

established after Ex Parte Crow Dog40 to address criminal matters and disputes among American 

Indian and Alaska Natives on reservations. The intent was to assimilate American Indian and 

Alaska Natives into American society (Jones, 2000). The Indian Reorganization Act of 193441

was the first time that tribes could establish and run their own tribal governments under U.S. 

policy (Jones, 2000). This helped tribal nations in the short run to regain land and financial 

 39 According to the report, the majority of the 314 responding tribes were in PL-280 states (123 in mandatory states; 

81 in optional states). The remaining tribes were located in non-PL-280 regions. Only those tribes in the lower 48 

states were included for this analysis.

40 Ex Parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 566 (1883) 41 Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act, 25 U.S. C.A. § 461 et seq.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
87

responsibilities, but also imposed Western frameworks of government in tribal practices as most 

tribal courts were restructured according to Western standards (Peacock et al., 2002). The 

reorganization of Indian Country and tribal courts contributed to dissolving traditional tribal 

roles in families and the community for many tribes (Peacock et al., 2002). 

Some tribal courts are managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), while others are 

operated solely by tribes themselves. Courts operated by the BIA adhere by the Code of Indian 

Offenses in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These courts offer features that tribal 

governments lack. The benefit is that the system is run entirely on BIA funds, which also provide 

public defenders. The downside is that tribes who use CFR courts cannot establish their own 

laws and policies (Jones, 2000).

As noted earlier, all tribal courts can run concurrent prosecution on major crimes,42 but 

the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) restricts their ability to carry out strict penalties. Tribal courts 

cannot prosecute non-American Indian and Alaska Natives in criminal cases,43 but have some 

leeway in civil cases (Jones, 2000). Legal actors in tribal courts are not always attorneys or 

judges, but “lay advocates” who are knowledgeable about tribal law (Jones, 2000). Additionally, 

tribal courts are not required to provide defense attorneys (Jones, 2000). 

State Judicial Systems

In PL-280 states, state courts have the authority to prosecute both American Indian and 

Alaska Natives and non-American Indian and Alaska Native offenders. Although they are 

legally entitled to have dual jurisdiction, tribes may not operate their own judicial system 

(Goldberg-Ambrose, 1997; Jones, 2000) and hear limited types of cases (Jones, 2000). The 

degree of activity by tribal judicial systems varies across each PL-280 state. Important factors in 

 42 States v. Wheeler, 435 US 313 (1978) 43 See Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435 U.S. (1978)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
88

this variation include the state’s willingness to support tribal governments, federal assistance, 

and each tribe’s ability to work alongside the state’s system (Goldberg & Valdez Singleton, 

2005). Although preliminary qualitative studies have shown dissatisfaction with the relationship 

between state and tribal governments, according to Goldberg and Valdez Singleton (2005), 

researchers have yet to examine the “practical operation of concurrent jurisdiction in order to 

determine its effectiveness” (p. 17).

Federal Judicial Systems

When intimate partner violence falls under the Major Crimes Act44 or an offender is nonAmerican Indian and Alaska Native, the federal government has jurisdiction to arrest and 

prosecute offenders. In contrast to PL-280 states that address misdemeanor crimes involving 

American Indians, cases involving Indians in non PL-280 are prosecuted in the federal courts. 

Due to heavy workloads and limited resources at the federal level, violence by an intimate 

partner may be plead to a lesser penalty, or not prosecuted at all (Radon, 2004). As with all 

prosecutors, after investigating a crime, the U.S. attorney may decline prosecution. For nonAmerican Indian and Alaska Native crimes, criminal charges are addressed at lower courts, or 

state jurisdictions (Perry, 2004). However, as decided in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 

tribal governments cannot prosecute crimes involving non-American Indian and Alaska 

Natives.45

Radon (2004) argues that an American Indian and Alaska Native woman abused by a 

Non-American Indian and Alaska Native man has less protection against intimate partner 

violence than women in the general population. Compared to major crimes, intimate partner 

 44 Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153). 

45 Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), (stating that Congress allocated jurisdiction for Federal 

courts to prosecute Indian offenders who commit serious offenses under the Major Crimes Act of 1885)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
89

violence may not be considered a priority for federal prosecutors. Therefore, misdemeanor cases 

involving non-American Indian and Alaska Native offenders may not receive sufficient attention 

(Radon, 2004). At the time of Radon’s (2004) legal critique, there were no data available to 

accurately determine the number of prosecutions for violence against American Indian and 

Alaska Native women specifically. However, between 2000 and 2001 federal authorities 

declined to prosecute 42.9% of assault cases in total (Radon, 2004).46 Radon infers that through 

the disproportionate cases involving American Indian and Alaska Natives coupled by the number 

of declined prosecutions, American Indian and Alaska Native victims of intimate partner 

violence may likely find their cases declined.

Another problem with prosecution at the federal level is that resources to prosecute cases 

of domestic violence are often limited (Radon, 2004). For example, according to a study 

supported by Mending the Sacred Hoop, prosecutors lacked the resources to handle cases 

through hearings, even in cases where intimate partner violence was severe (Peacock et al.,

2002). 

Peacock and his colleagues (2002) also found that as victims moved through federal and 

state justice systems, “[their] voices are increasingly muffled, their experiences are increasingly 

fragmented and their agency is steadily diminished by institutional protocols and legal 

processes” (p. 306). The American Indian and Alaska Native women in their study reported that 

courts, lawyers and other legal actors failed to respect and trust victims; these women felt 

uncomfortable with others who did not understand tribal culture. As a result, their needs were not 

satisfied through the impersonal nature of the legal system (Peacock et al., 2002). While this is 

 46 Violent offenses were defined as threatening, attempting, or actually using physical force against a person, 

including murder, negligent manslaughter, assault robbery, sexual abuse, kidnapping, and threats against the 

President; assault was defined as intentionally inflicting or attempting or threatening to inflict bodily injury to 

another person.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
90

often a problem for victims of intimate partner violence in the general population, Erwin and

Vidales (2001) similarly report that minority women find the prosecution process complex, 

lengthy and unclear. 

Peacemaking and Tribal Justice

Tribal courts often resemble federal and state models, but they may also represent more 

traditional systems of tribal adjudication (Coker, 1999; Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002; O’Connor, 

1997; Ritcheske, 2005; Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). Most Westernized courts represent 

government models from the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (O’Connor, 1997; Peacock et al.,

2002). Tribal courts can also act more quickly than their federal and state counterparts, provide 

informal solutions, and reflect unique values of individual tribal beliefs (O’Connor, 1997). 

According to the former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, “the role of tribal 

courts continues to expand, and these courts have an increasingly important role to play in the 

administration of the laws [in America]” (p. 5). 

Some scholars suggest that tribal responses are more effective to combat intimate partner 

violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women than Western forms of justice 

(Coker, 1999; Radon, 2004; Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). After comparing laws, procedures 

and punishments among several American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, Valencia-Weber and 

Zuni (1995, p.112) concluded, “The majority of the tribal codes reviewed provide greater or 

equal protection to victims of domestic violence when compared to the states in which these 

tribes are located.” They explain that tribes often include more expansive definitions of 

violence, and a variety of means to resolve domestic disputes including formal and informal 

intervention (Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
91

The Navajo Peacekeeping method of justice is an example of a hybrid model that 

combines methods of peacekeeping with formal justice systems. Peacemakers are community 

leaders who work with Navajo nation courts to help resolve domestic abuse by “talking things 

out” (Valencia-Weber & Zuni 1995, p. 113). Unlike Western mediation and arbitration, 

peacemaking involves not only the immediate parties involved, but their family and other 

members of the community (Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). Similarly, the Pueblo Indians give

plaintiffs the option of using traditional methods of healing or going to court to intervene in cases 

of domestic assault. 

Donna Coker (1999) reviewed the Navajo Peacemaking system of justice and suggests 

that peacemaking addresses the needs of the victim and the community by acknowledging the 

crime and providing material assistance for the victim. Coker argues that, “Peacemaking, unlike 

Anglo adjudication, allows parties to reach the underlying problems, diminishes the ability of the 

offender to deny and minimize his abuse or his responsibility for the abuse, and provides support 

for the victim” (Coker 1999, p. 8). Victims and offenders are able to share their stories under 

watch of the peacemaker, whose role is to mediate the conversation, and not to make judgments

of guilt. As such, the offender cannot escape guilt because they are forced to have direct contact 

with their victim, and in turn, the victim is given voice. Coker believes that federal and state 

systems, based on Westernized concepts of justice could benefit from the restorative qualities 

found in Navajo Peacemaking. We will return to these and other alternatives later. 

It is important to note that other studies have shown that, in addition to traditional 

methods, Westernized law enforcement and judicial systems are also widely supported by 

victims (Magen & Wood, 2006). According to Magen and Wood (2006), as long as law 

enforcement effectively detains offenders and respects victims, both tribal and non-tribal officers 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
92

can be legitimate response mechanisms. Of course, issues of procedural justice are important for 

all victims of crime. If American Indian and Alaska Native women view law enforcement 

positively, they will be more likely to report victimization and seek help from outsiders (Magen 

& Wood, 2006). 

Prosecution under tribal judicial systems, similar to tribal law enforcement, also suffers 

from a range of jurisdictional and financial complications. First, tribes often suffer from 

insufficient resources to sustain sophisticated judicial systems. As mentioned earlier, tribes have 

traditionally supported peacemaking and informal resolutions, rather than formal processes and 

sentencing. Radon (2004) argues that although not all tribes can afford to develop and maintain 

judiciary systems, it does not mean that they will not want or be able to do so in the future. 

Moreover, some tribes, such as the Navajo nation, have developed highly advanced judiciary 

systems comparable, and in some cases superior, to the American judicial system (ValenciaWeber & Zuni, 1995). Other tribes such as the Pueblo Indians have also successfully integrated 

peacemaking alongside formal judicial systems (Radon, 2004; Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). 

Although some tribal laws may interpret intimate partner violence more expansively than 

state law, and provide a variety of methods to address the needs of victims, not all tribes include 

specific codes that address violence against women (Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). Sanctions 

also vary between tribes. For tribes that prosecute criminal offenses, the process is often similar 

to Western judicial systems. Once guilt has been determined, tribal codes generally prescribe 

incarceration, fines, probation or counseling (Valencia-Weber & Zuni 1995). Tribes also 

provide civil remedies, and for many, these may be the only means to address misdemeanor 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
93

violence against women (Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). Civil codes often include protection 

orders47 and sometimes include counseling.

Second, tribal prosecution is limited by federal law that restricts who can be prosecuted, 

and to what extent they can be punished. As noted earlier, due to limitations placed on 

sentencing in the Indian Civil Rights Act,48 tribes cannot exceed punishments beyond $5000 

fine, one year in jail, or both. Tribes are also prohibited from prosecuting non-Indians in 

criminal cases.49 Therefore, even if tribes had sufficient resources to develop formal justice 

systems, their ability to prosecute offenders is still limited to minimum penalties and restricted to 

American Indian offenders. 

In sum, tribal concepts of justice are sometimes more effective in addressing the needs of 

American Indian and Alaska Native women through informal justice, where victims and 

offenders confront one another through a peacekeeping process. However, tribes are typically 

limited by federal laws and lack sufficient resources and may therefore be unable to address 

violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women. Scholars suggest that tribes must 

be granted more authority to govern their own people through either formal or informal justice to 

ensure American Indian women the best protection from violence (Deer, 2004a; Radon, 2004; 

Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995).

 47 See the section on Protection Orders and Full Faith and Credit below. 48 Indian Civil Rights Act (25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1303)

49 Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
94

PROTECTION ORDERS & FULL FAITH & CREDIT

Obtaining Protection Orders

While tribal governments do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-American Indian and 

Alaska Natives in criminal courts, they do have some authority to enact civil orders against nonAmerican Indian and Alaska Native offenders (Ritcheske, 2005). Although civil remedies do not 

have the same deterrent effect or extensive penalties as criminal orders, civil protection orders 

are better than no remedy at all (Ritcheske, 2005).

Personal protection orders (PPOs) provide injunctive relief for petitioners who seek to 

use legal remedies to end threatening behavior, cease contact with another individual, or to alter 

custody arrangements. Protection orders vary in duration (temporary or permanent) and are 

issued through a variety of means; in either civil or criminal courts, as part of release or bond, or 

in conjunction with criminal parole conditions (Tatum, 2002). While PPOs are generally civil 

remedies, the violation of a PPO may lead to criminal sanctions (DeJong & Burgess-Proctor, 

2006).

Protection orders generally fall under state or tribal legal jurisdiction. However, federal 

laws also address protection orders under the Violence Against Women Act of 199450, which 

established federal criminal penalties for PPO violations or interstate domestic violence crimes 

(DeJong & Burgess-Proctor, 2006). VAWA contains several provisions including “Full Faith 

and Credit” and provides for the invalidation of mutual protection orders where sufficient 

evidence shows violence has been committed by both parties. 

 50 Domestic violence crimes (U.S.C 18 § 2261); PPO violations (U.S.C 18 § 2262).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
95

Under full faith and credit, states and tribal governments must enforce the protection 

orders of other state and tribal jurisdictions.51 While the interstate enforcement addresses 

interstate enforcement of protection orders, several barriers affect the actual employment of 

VAWA’s full faith and credit provision. For example, VAWA does not require its language be 

translated in state and tribal codes (DeJong & Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Tatum, 2002). Significant 

variation also exists across state and tribal laws and increases the complexity in enforcing the 

laws of other regions. Differences exist in who is eligible to petition for a PPO, the process of 

filing PPOs and the penalties attached for PPO violations, and law enforcement and legal actors 

may be unfamiliar with the differences in the PPO laws in other jurisdictions (DeJong & 

Burgess-Proctor, 2006). Importantly, tribal courts have full civil jurisdiction to enforce 

protection orders.52

Unfortunately, victims often find that the process to obtain protection orders at federal, 

state and tribal levels does not help, and in some cases, makes situations worse. Although 

VAWA (2000) attempts to make the process of obtaining protection orders easier, research 

indicates that American Indian and Alaska Native women experience significant problems 

including delays and excessive paperwork (Peacock et al., 2002). In addition, before VAWA 

2002, victims would also frequently have to pay the costs associated with applying for a PPO. 

 51 U.S.C 18 § 2265, mandates that protection orders under “one State, Indian tribe, or territory (the issuing State, 

Indian tribe, or territory) shall be accorded full faith and credit by the court of another State, Indian tribe, or territory 

(the enforcing State, Indian tribe, or territory) and enforced by the court and law enforcement personnel of the other 

State, Indian tribal government or Territory as if it were the order of the enforcing State, Indian tribe, or territory” (§ 

2261a, italics added). The law further defines protection order as fulfilling two criteria; first, “such court has 

jurisdiction over the parties and matter under the law of such State, Indian tribe, or territory;” and second, 

“reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard is given to the person against whom the order is sought sufficient to 

protect that person's right to due process. In the case of ex parte orders, notice and opportunity to be heard must be 

provided within the time required by State, tribal, or territorial law, and in any event within a reasonable time after 

the order is issued, sufficient to protect the respondent's due process rights.” (U.S.C 18 § 2265(b)(1)(2), emphasis 

added). 

52 Under U.S.C 18 § 2265(e), “For purposes of this section, a tribal court shall have full civil jurisdiction to enforce 

protection orders, including authority to enforce any orders through civil contempt proceedings, exclusion of 

violators from Indian lands, and other appropriate mechanisms, in matters arising within the authority of the tribe.” 

Subsection (e) was added as an amendment in 2000.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
96

However, VAWA 2002 mandated that for state, tribal or local governments to receive federal 

funding, its laws, policies, and practices must not “require, in connection with the prosecution of 

any misdemeanor or felony domestic violence offense, or in connection with the filing, issuance, 

registration, or service of a protection order, or a petition for a protection order,” that victims of 

violence bear the cost of associated with processing their case.53 

Enforcing Protection Orders

VAWA (1994) requires that PPOs within the United States and Indian Country “shall be 

afforded full faith and credit by the court of another state or Indian tribe” (18 U.S.C. § 2265). 

Protection order violations should be punished according to the laws of the state or tribe where 

the violation occurred (DeJong & Burgess-Proctor, 2006). However, the Act did not provide 

details of how law enforcement should enforce this provision.

While VAWA requires “full faith and credit,” tribal court orders and judgments do not 

uniformly embrace this terminology (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). Some scholars, such as 

Schmieder (2003), argue that American Indian and Alaska Native tribes refuse to create statutes 

supporting full faith and credit. Schmieder (2003) goes so far as to argue that Congress should 

force tribes to adopt the Violence Against Women Act. Tribal refusal to adopt VAWA arises 

from the belief that any outside law infringes tribal sovereignty (Schmeider, 2003). In contrast, 

other scholars explain that it is not refusal to comply, but complications arising from funding and 

the way legal initiatives are imposed on tribal governments that create the problems (Deer & 

Tatum, 2003).54 

In reality, the types of orders, legal punishments and understanding of the intent of the 

order vary by each state and tribal government. Scholars suggest that legal barriers of the law, 

 53 42 U.S.C § 3796gg-5(a)(1) 54 For further discussion of Protection Orders, see Tatum 2002.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
97

and status of Indian lands as similar to “states” or “territories” contribute to this variance (Deer 

& Tatum, 2003; Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002; Tatum, 2002; 2003b). Deer and Tatum (2003) 

suggest that while tribes may wish to enforce protection orders with “full faith and credit,” their 

ability to prosecute non-American Indian and Alaska Natives restricts their ability to do so. 

The confusion over tribal jurisdiction under full faith and credit was clarified under

VAWA 2000. In the revised statute, tribal governments are allowed to enforce civil protection 

orders, not criminal, when the case involves non-American Indian and Alaska Natives (Tatum, 

2002). As mentioned earlier, the U.S. code § 2265(e) grants tribes “full civil jurisdiction to 

enforce protection orders.” The code allows tribes to “enforce any orders through civil contempt 

proceedings, exclusion of violators from Indian lands, and other appropriate mechanisms, in 

matters arising within the authority of the tribe.”55

Other problems with implementing full faith and credit still persist. For example, some 

state courts have found that tribes are ‘territories’ of the U.S. government. This suggests that 

tribal law may be enforced through “comity,”56 which is not mandatory (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 

2002, p. 80). Little recourse exists for tribal victims of domestic violence when an offreservation law enforcement agency fails to recognize and enforce a tribal court order. Comity, 

unlike full faith and credit, cannot be claimed as a right, but only as a favor or courtesy. (LunaFirebaugh et al., 2002). Amnesty International (2007) received many anecdotal reports that state 

law enforcement agencies refused to act on protection orders issued by tribal courts. There is 

often no system to alert other jurisdictions of a protection order, particularly in many tribal courts 

where computer systems are not available. In addition, there is no uniform law across states and 

 55 U.S.C.§ 2265(e), italics added.

56 Comity refers to “the cordial recognition given by the courts of one state or jurisdiction of the laws and judicial 

decisions of another” (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002, p. 80). Some states have used this notion similar to enforcing 

laws in other countries, in that law enforcement is not required, but instead is discretionary.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
98

tribal governments defining protection order features and penalties. Because of this 

discontinuity other jurisdictions may find the protection order unclear (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 

2002).

INCARCERATION & CORRECTIONS

Federal Prisons

Because a large percentage of major crimes against American Indian and Alaska Natives

are prosecuted by federal courts, American Indian and Alaska Natives are disproportionately 

represented in federal prisons. According to the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), in 2001 

American Indian and Alaska Natives represented 16% of all violent crime offenders entering 

Federal prisons (Perry, 2004). While statistics provide information about how many American 

Indian and Alaska Natives are incarcerated in the federal system, it is unclear how many 

individuals are in federal prisons for violent crimes against American Indian and Alaska Native

women, regardless of the race of the offender.

Tribal Correctional Systems

Incarceration is not typically a traditional means to punish offenders in American Indian 

and Alaska Native justice systems. This feature was integrated through Western ideals of justice 

and punishment (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003). Communities that follow traditional interventions of 

violent offenders, such as the Navajo Peacekeeping program, (Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995; 

Coker, 1999; Ritcheske, 2005) often do not use formal incarceration as punishment, but instead 

aim to resolve disputes through alternative programs or sentencing circles (Luna-Firebaugh, 

2003). Other alternate programs include electronic monitoring, home detention, community 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
99

service, or daily check-ins with authorities (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003). Luna-Firebaugh et al.’s 

(2002) evaluation of STOP VAIW, found that of the 123 tribes in the study, 68% had non-jail 

options available to the court judge; 79% percent of courts utilized sanctions for non-compliance 

with court orders or probation, and 60% had tracking systems to increase accountability. 

Similar to law enforcement and courts, funding and jurisdiction issues affect tribal 

corrections. Luna-Firebaugh (2003) explained that tribal prisons suffer from similar problems 

throughout tribal justice responses, such as requirements to comply with federal laws and 

guidelines, high costs to run jail facilities, and staffing shortages. Tribal jails are often 

overcrowded, especially in smaller facilities (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003). These problems are 

echoed in a report by the U.S. Department of the Interior (2004) that concluded, “The BIA has 

failed to provide safe and secure detention facilities throughout Indian Country” (p. 3). Some 

specific problems the report cites include inadequate reporting and accountability of BIA offices, 

understaffing of facilities, mismanaging financial resources, inconsistent training, and failure to 

keep the facilities consistent with health and safety requirements (US Department of the Interior, 

2004). In response to this report, the BIA will receive aid through the Safe Indian Communities 

Initiative, including $5 million of additional funding for FY 2008. This funding will be 

distributed based on financial need to increase and train staff, and for improving the operation 

and maintenance of the detention centers (US Department of the Interior, 2007).

Despite these problems, tribal jails may offer benefits to American Indian and Alaska 

Natives such as locations closer to tribes and families, cultural sensitivity, and affirming tribal 

power to hold offenders accountable (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003). Tribal jails may have greater 

emphasis on religious and cultural activities, as well as race and gender sensitive informal

intervention services (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
100

As of 2002, tribal governments and the Bureau of Indian Affairs operated 70 jails in 

Indian Country. Of those imprisoned, the most common crimes were misdemeanors (86%), 

followed by non-domestic violent offenses (20%) and drug & alcohol convictions (11%) (Perry, 

2004). Because the Indian Civil Rights Act mandates that tribal courts can only hold offenders 

for up to one year, sentences in tribal courts are relatively short compared to state and federal 

prison stays.

LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING PHYSICAL ASSAULT AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN 

AND ALAKSA NATIVE WOMEN

The original 1994 Violence Against Women Act addressed physical assault through 

provisions regarding domestic violence,57 stalking,58 and protection order violations59 across 

jurisdictional boundaries. An addition, VAWA (2000) mandated that dating partners60 may also 

seek remedies through VAWA. Specifically, VAWA (2000) addresses offenses in which an 

offender who travels “in interstate or foreign commerce or enters or leaves Indian country or 

within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States with the intent to kill, 

injure, harass, or intimidate a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner, and who, in the course 

of or as a result of such travel, commits or attempts to commit a crime of violence against that 

 57 18 USC § 2261. Offenders may be either spouses or intimate partners. More specifically, under 18 USC § 

2266(7), this includes, “(I) a spouse or former spouse of the abuser, a person who shares a child in common with the 

abuser, and a person who cohabits or has cohabited as a spouse with the abuser; or (II) a person who is or has been 

in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the abuser, as determined by the length of the 

relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the 

relationship; and (ii) section 2261A, a spouse or former spouse of the target of the stalking, a person who shares a 

child in common with the target of the stalking, and a person who cohabits or has cohabited as a spouse with the 

target of the stalking; and (B) any other person similarly situated to a spouse who is protected by the domestic or 

family violence laws of the State or tribal jurisdiction in which the injury occurred or where the victim resides.”

58 18 USC § 2261(A)

59 § 2262. (see also p. 87 of this report, “Protection Orders and Full Faith and Credit”) 60 “Dating partner” is defined as “a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate 

nature with the abuser and the existence of such a relationship based on a consideration of— (A) the length of the 

relationship; and (B) the type of relationship; and (C) the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in 

the relationship. (18 USC § 2266 (a)(10))

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
101

spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner.”61 The law also applies to offenders who cause their 

victim to travel interstate or to enter or leave Indian Country “by force, coercion, duress, or 

fraud, and who, in the course of, as a result of, or to facilitate such conduct or travel, commits or 

attempts to commit a crime of violence.”62

Tribal codes vary in how they define physical assault in intimate relationships. 

According to Valencia-Weber and Zuni (1995), some tribes describe victims and offenders in 

narrow terms that limit abuse to spousal relationships, while others uphold more extensive codes, 

which include extended family members or use gender-neutral language. Some codes, such as 

that of the Navajo nation, extend victim protection to other intimate partners, past or present 

(Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995).

Stalking

In 1996, VAWA extended interstate violence to include stalking (Fine, 1998). The Act 

prohibits offenders from traveling across state lines or entering or leaving Indian Country, “with 

the intent to injure or harass another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel 

places that person, a member of the immediate family... of that person, or the spouse or intimate 

partner of that person.”63 The statute also prohibits stalking in the form of mail, or any facility of 

interstate or foreign commerce under the same course of conduct.64 Offenders who violate this 

statute can be punished by fine, imprisonment, or both.65

In 2005, VAWA improved stalking intervention by adopting surveillance technology 

(such as Global Positioning Systems [GPS]), or other computer services to increase 

 61 18 USC § 2261 (a)(1)

62 18 USC § 2261(a)(2) 63 18 USC § 2261(A) 64 18 USC § 2261(a)(2)(B) 65 18 USC § 2261(b)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
102

accountability. Minimum stalking penalties double when the offender has committed prior 

violations.66 While VAWA stresses stricter penalties for stalking crimes, many tribes still do not 

have codes prohibiting stalking. In some cases, however, stalking behavior may be seen in other 

types of violation such as harassment (Luna-Firebaugh, 2002).

Dating Violence

The definition of intimate partner violence has expanded tremendously in recent years. 

This is evident with the addition of dating violence to domestic violence crimes under VAWA 

2000. Under Section 2261(a) of Title 18, provisions listing “intimate partner” were changed to 

include “intimate partner, or dating partner.” “Dating partner” could be a person who is, or has 

been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the abuser and the existence of 

such a relationship based on the consideration of (A) the length of relationship, and (B) the type 

of relationship, and (C) the frequency of interactions between the persons in the relationship.

67 

This includes individuals in dating relationships that have sought protection orders under 18 

USC § 2261(a).

Law Enforcement & Intimate Partner Violence

While many tribal laws address intimate partner violence, Federal laws and insufficient 

funding limit their power to enforce legal codes and arrest offenders. As described earlier, tribal 

law enforcement is only allowed to detain non-American Indian and Alaska Natives for a limited 

time68 before they are transferred to federal authorities (or state officers in PL-280 regions)

(Radon, 2004). Jurisdictional issues may limit the ability of law enforcement to protect victims 

and prosecute offenders (Goldberg-Ambrose, 1997; Tatum, 2002). These factors may contribute 

 66 18 U.S.C. § 2265A(a) 67 18 U.S.C. § 2266(10) 68 See Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435 U.S. (1978).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
103

to an environment in which tribal police and prosecutors cannot effectively address violence 

against American Indian and Alaska Native women (Goldberg-Ambrose, 1997). This is 

especially critical with interracial domestic situations (Tatum, 2002).

In a recent evaluation of the STOP VAIW grant program, Luna-Firebaugh and her 

colleagues (2002) found that of the 123 programs studied, 25% of Tribal Police Departments had

sole responsibility to respond to domestic violence, while the remaining 75% had multiple law 

enforcement responses, which included a combination of tribal, local, state or federal officers. 

For example, responses in Alaska may include Village Public Safety Officers (VPOs), Village 

Police, and State Troopers. Despite many scholars’ suggestions that jurisdictional problems have 

harmed criminal justice responses, a significant number of interviewees found that multiple 

agencies had a positive influence, in that they could “back each other up” until jurisdictional 

matters were resolved (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002, p. 63). Fifty percent of programs had crossdeputization agreements with other law enforcement agencies, with an additional 8% in process 

of development (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). 

Because of jurisdictional problems with the arrest and prosecution of non-American 

Indian and Alaska Native offenders, tribes reported that cross-deputization “really helped [the 

tribal police] because of the inter-racial marriages on the reservations” (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 

2002, p. 66). Even when tribes did not have jurisdiction they pursued cases anyway, especially 

where American Indian and Alaska Native women were involved (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). 

Funding from the STOP VAIW grant program has significantly improved law enforcement

responses to domestic violence calls. Such funds have been used to improve the documentation 

of evidence and report writing through training officers about domestic violence, as well as 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
104

increasing communication between responding jurisdictions. As a result, the number of offender 

arrests also has increased (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002).

Reporting to Police

As presented earlier, the NCVS estimates that a similar percent of women who are 

assaulted report their victimization to police regardless of race. American Indian and Alaska 

Native women may not report victimization for many of the same reasons given by other women. 

Research indicates that women may distrust police (Thurman et al., 2003; Wakeling et al., 2001), 

believe they will take too long to respond (Wakeling et al., 2001), or overall do not feel the law 

will be enforced (Radon, 2004). They may also fail to report incidents because of shame or 

humiliation (Magen & Wood, 2006; Wakeling et al., 2001), fear of retaliation from the offender 

(Wakeling et al., 2001), or view the offense as a one-time minor occurrence (Magen & Wood, 

2006). Perry (2002) suggests that victimization is not reported because victims feel they are 

targets of verbal and physical abuse by police, do not want outside interference in personal 

problems, or feel “powerless” to address their victimization (p. 242). Moreover, rural women in 

particular may suffer from geographic barriers, such as distance from police stations or lack of 

phone access69 (Wakeling et al., 2001). American Indian and Alaska Native women may also be 

hesitant to report to federal powers because they believe that it infringes their sovereignty 

(Reina, 2000). In more general terms, American Indian and Alaska Natives may simply reject 

any outsider’s help (Thurman et al., 2003).70

 69 Wakeling and his colleagues noted that compared to the majority of Americans, American Indian and Alaska 

Natives living on reservations were far more likely to be without phones.

70 Thurman et al (2003) used quantitative and qualitative data, including in-depth interviews and focus groups. 

Fifty-four respondents were surveyed among 15 communities. Three were chosen for semi-structured interviews. 

The goal was to establish the level of “community readiness” through asking about awareness, VAIW programs and 

resource use.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
105

In the STOP VAIW assessment (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002), the most prominent 

reasons why women did not report to police were because they feared retaliation (31%), loss of 

spousal income (30%), and shame or embarrassment (29%). Other reasons included fear of 

losing custody of children (25%), didn’t want law enforcement to become involved (22%), lack 

of faith in courts (19%) and pressure from family (19%). Using NCVS data, Rennison (2001) 

also found that reasons why victims did not report intimate partner violence to authorities were

similar across racial/ ethnic groups. The most common reasons included that the offense was a 

“private or personal matter,” they “feared reprisal,” or the victim wished to “protect the 

offender” (Rennison 2001, p. 9). 

Thus, although researchers often assume that American Indian and Alaska Native women 

have greater barriers to report intimate partner violence than other racial/ethnic groups for 

example historical victimization (Reina, 2000; Smith, 2003), or barriers caused by location or 

lack of economic resources (Wakeling et al., 2001), their reasons for not reporting victimization 

reflect the same beliefs held by the vast majority of female victims. Intimate partner victims 

often do not report because they fear their offender, because they feel shame or embarrassment, 

or they do not want the criminal justice system involved. 

Criminal Justice Response to Dating Violence

Intimate partner violence scholars began to look at “dating” or “courtship” violence in the 

1980s (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). While the law does not suggest that dating violence relates 

only to adolescent and young adult relationships,71 the majority of social research uses this term 

 71 Dating Violence means; violence committed by a “dating partner” who is (or has been) in a social relationship of 

a romantic or intimate nature with the victim. A relationship is defined by the type, length, and frequency of contact 

between dating partners (18 USC § 2266 (10)).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
106

for violence among younger populations. Prior to the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, 

there was no specific federal law prohibiting dating violence. 

Victims of dating violence may seek justice by obtaining protection orders, or filing

charges based on specific types of dating violence (e.g. physical assault, sexual assault, stalking). 

As of 2005, thirty-three states and the District of Columbia permit victims of dating violence to

obtain protection orders regardless of the nature of the dating relationship. All 50 states allow 

individuals access to protection orders where the parties involved have children together (Green 

& Mohlhenrich, 2005). Among mandatory PL-280 states, Alaska, California, Minnesota and 

Wisconsin have protection orders that cover dating violence. Of these states, California and 

Wisconsin allow petitioners to apply for protection without adult consent (Green & Mohlhenrich, 

2005).

While the research on dating violence is growing, there has been little evaluation of the 

criminal justice response to this violence in general, and none that could be found on dating 

violence among American Indian and Alaska Native women.

LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT AGAINST AMERICAN 

INDIAN AND ALAKSA NATIVE WOMEN

According to survivors of rape, sexual assault is much more than a physical attack. 

Women suffer from psychological and spiritual ramifications (Deer, 2004b), which in turn 

impacts the community as a whole. Deer (2004b) explains that “rape is conceived as a violation 

of a person’s humanity” (p. 137). Some scholars explain that sexual abuse of indigenous women 

has existed through colonization (Smith, 2003 for example). Historically, rape was a much more 

common crime against American Indian and Alaska Native women by European men than 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
107

indigenous men (Deer, 2004b). Sexual violence is also used as a weapon of war (Deer, 2004b). 

According to Deer (2004b), “Colonization and sexual violence... share a common history and a 

common language of dehumanization, power, dominance, and conquest... Although women of 

all races experience sexual violence, the high rate and elevated violence experienced by Native 

women (and other indigenous women) indicate that the history of conquest and seizure has a 

disparate impact on the indigenous populations” (p. 131). This contention has recently been 

supported by the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously voted in favor of a 

resolution classifying rape as a weapon of war (“UN Classifies rape a war tactic”, 2008). 

Federal & State Response to Sexual Assault

Rape law reforms during the late 1970s and early 1980s varied in their 

comprehensiveness across jurisdictions, however, there were generally four common reform 

themes: 1) many states replaced the single crime of “rape” with a series of offenses graded by 

seriousness, which are typically gender- and relationship-neutral; 2) many laws have modified or 

eliminated the requirement that the victim resist the attacker; 3) most laws now eliminate the 

corroboration requirement because victimizations most often take place in a private place 

without a witness; and 4) most states have enacted rape shield laws that placed restrictions on the 

introduction of evidence of the victim’s prior sexual conduct. Unfortunately, research indicates 

that the efficacy of these reforms in increasing both reporting of rape cases and the adjudication 

of cases that are reported to police has been mixed at best (Bachman & Paternoster, 1993; 

Horney & Spohn, 1991). To address the inadequacies of the criminal justice system’s response to 

rape, VAWA (1994) created programs for victim services and training programs for law 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
108

enforcement in addition to funds for prevention and education. The Act also established that law 

enforcement was responsible to pay for, and hold forensic evidence in rape cases.72 

Of course, legislation does not always translate into action, and problems still persist in 

the adjudication of rape and sexual assault cases across all levels of government, particularly for 

American Indian and Alaska Native women. One of the primary concerns for VAWA was to 

address the improper handling of sexual assault cases in law enforcement and prosecution. 

VAWA allocated funding for training law enforcement and prosecutors to effectively identify 

and respond to sexual assault, for law enforcement departments to develop policies, protocols 

and services specifically dedicated to preventing sexual assault, and to develop and install more 

efficient and effective data collection and communication systems. In addition, VAWA 

increased penalties for sex offenders and sexual assault crimes, and created procedural reforms 

that would encourage victims to report victimization (Roe, 2004). 

Law Enforcement of Rape and Sexual Assault

The same problems that plague the law enforcement response to intimate partner violence 

among American Indian and Alaska Native women also plague their responses to victims of rape 

and sexual assaults. Many federal sexual abuse cases involve children as victims, so it is difficult 

to measure the actual response of federal authorities in sexual assault cases in general (Deer, 

2004b). For major crimes like rape, victims must often travel great distances to appear in federal 

or state courts, even if the state is under PL-280. Anecdotally, Amnesty International (2007) 

found frequent delays of federal law enforcement (FBI) to investigate sexual assaults against 

American Indian and Alaska Native women. 

 72 42 USCS § 3796gg-4

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
109

Reporting Rape

The NCVS data presented above indicates that rape and sexual assault victimizations 

against American Indian and Alaska Native women were more likely to be reported to police 

than victimizations against women of other racial groups, but less than one in five were actually 

reported by the victim herself. Similar to intimate partner assaults, researchers find that reasons 

for not reporting sexual assault vary, but maintain central themes such as fear of the offender, 

shame or embarrassment, lack of faith in the criminal justice system (Clairmont, 1999; LunaFirebaugh et al., 2002; National Sexual Violence Resource Center, n.d.; Tjaden & Thoennes, 

2006). Others suggest pressure from family (Clairmont, 1999; Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2000), fear 

of past legal problems or that reporting will be generally counterproductive (Clairmont, 1999; 

Kerstetter, 1990). It is clear that while women choose not to report sexual assaults for a variety 

of reasons, the belief that formal justice is unhelpful presents significant problems. Drawing 

from Roe’s (2004) critique, improvements in VAWA may be better suited to address sexual 

assault through awareness and prevention. 

Courts & Prosecution

Amnesty International’s recent report (2007) highlighted some of the problems in 

prosecuting rapes against American Indian and Alaska Native women in federal courts. For 

example, they found that federal prosecutors did not pursue 60% of rape and sexual assaults in a 

one-year period (October 1st 2002- September 30th 2003). While these data did not distinguish 

cases against American Indian and Alaska Native women, they discovered that the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA), which governs many tribal lands, typically had the highest percentage of 

cases declined at the federal level (Amnesty International, 2007). Amnesty International also 

investigated sexual violence cases from Indian Country through the Executive Office for US 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
110

Attorneys. Of the 84 cases provided, only 20 involved adult women. The majority of victims 

were children, eight were males, non-American Indian and Alaska Natives or did not have age 

included (Amnesty International 2007). The report concluded that there was little accountability 

for failure to investigate or prosecute, which could mean months or years living in “fear and 

insecurity” (Amnesty International 2007, p. 9). 

There are many reasons that cases do not go forward in the adjudication process 

including lack of evidence, which may be the reason for a large percentage of these dropped 

cases. For example, prosecutors at all levels reported to Amnesty International (2007) that they 

frequently received inadequate cases reports, including missing information such as the name or 

address of the victim or witnesses. Peacock and his colleagues (2002) also found that for both 

misdemeanor and felony charges across different jurisdictions, police reports significantly 

impacted the prosecution of the victim’s case. They found that some reporting styles 

reconstructed incidents through very descriptive narratives, while others followed a “checklist” 

format that frequently overlooked details of the victimization (Peackock et al., 2002).

 Importantly, analysis of the NCVS data reported earlier revealed that rape and sexual 

assault victimizations that were reported to police were extremely unlikely to result in an arrest, 

regardless of the race of the victim (6% for victimizations against American Indian and Alaska 

Native women, and 10%, 12%, and 10% for whites, African American, and Asian American 

victims respectively). This national data, however, masks the variation that exists across local 

jurisdictions. Moreover, it is important to remember that an arrest has a zero probability of 

occurring unless a report is made to police. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
111

Protection Orders & Sexual Assault

While tribes may be restricted in their ability to prosecute criminal cases against nonAmerican Indian and Alaska Natives, they may use civil sanctions, such as protection orders. 

Obtaining protection orders in tribal courts have increased in recent years for intimate partner 

violence, but these codes are often specific to domestic cases where a history of victimization 

exists. Therefore, victims of sexual assault without a pattern of previous violence may not be 

able to receive protection orders. Also important is the relationship between the victim and the 

offender. Under many tribal protection order codes, victims of sexual assault who are not 

intimately related to the offender may not be able to obtain protection orders (Deer, 2003/2004). 

Deer (2003/2004) contends that to adequately address sexual assault of American Indian and 

Alaska Native women, it is important to recognize and restore the dignity of victims. This would 

best be carried out by American Indian and Alaska Native communities and tribal governments 

where restoring strength resides in the community. Because VAWA’s full faith and credit section 

does not explicitly require protection orders for intimate partner assaults only, tribes are in a 

“unique position” to adopt these progressive remedies for rape victims (Deer, 2003/2004).

Tribal Response to Rape and Sexual Assault

As we have already discussed, tribes can prosecute all criminal cases, but only under 

restrictions of the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA). This is also true in PL-280 states, where both 

tribal and state governments may process rape cases (Deer, 2004b). To reiterate, while tribal 

justice systems may prosecute felonies, their ability to bestow adequate punishments is unlikely. 

When cases involve non-American Indian and Alaska Natives, tribal governments may only use 

alternate responses, such as civil remedies (Deer, 2004b). Tribal governments also lack adequate 

resources to revise their systems of justice (Deer, 2005). For example, tribes that have adopted 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
112

Western government styles do not necessarily reflect the rape law reforms that have been 

implemented in most states. For example, tribal laws often require physical proof of violence or 

force, in contrast to viewing rape as an issue of lack of consent (Deer, 2003/2004; Amnesty 

International, 2007). Tribes also may have laws with “marital rape” exceptions (Deer, 2004b), 

and some tribes do not address sex crimes at all (Amnesty International, 2007; Deer, 2003/2004). 

In Luna-Firebaugh and her colleague’s (2002) evaluation of STOP VAIW, only 61% of 

tribes reviewed had codes to address sexual assault. This is problematic when federal and state 

authorities fail to successfully prosecute sexual assault cases (Burelson, 2007). Of the tribes 

evaluated in the STOP VAIW grant project, sexual assault, rape or attempted rape was classified 

at a variety of levels; as a misdemeanor (50%), a felony (25%), or both (23%). In four percent of 

tribal codes, sexual violence was not addressed (Luna-Firebaugh, 2002).

With VAWA 2005, tribes have opportunities to enhance data collection and coordination 

with other jurisdictions. Some tribes have adopted sex offender registries, or sex offender 

notification (Megan’s) laws (Deer, 2004b). The adoption of sex-offender registries for American 

Indian and Alaska Natives has, in part, been related to tribal frustration with the lack of 

prosecution at the state and federal levels (Deer, 2003/2004). Currently, the Adam Walsh Child 

Protection & Safety Act of 2006 (Title I), also known at the Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act (SORNA) required tribes to comply with its provisions for sexual offender 

registration by July 27, 2007 or cede authority to states for a new sex offender registration and 

notification system.

Tribal and State Courts & Prosecution

Although sexual assault is a major crime, and tribes are limited in their ability to prosecute 

felony offenses by legal barriers, some tribes do take action against sexual assault offenders. For 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
113

example, the Navajo nation Department of Public Safety investigated 99 cases of rape in 2002, 

which led to 58 charges (Amnesty International 2007). Tribes can also alternatively establish 

penalties such as terminate employment if the offender is an employee of the tribal nation 

(Amnesty International, 2007; Deer, 2003/2004).73

NONCRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSES TO VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN 

INDIAN AND ALAKSA NATIVE WOMEN

As this report has shown, violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women is 

a complex problem requiring a multifaceted approach in criminal justice responses. Although 

seeking relief through the criminal justice system has served as the main vehicle in a 

community's formal response to domestic violence for the general population, many 

communities, including many American Indian and Alaska Native communities, are trying to 

incorporate other interventions into their response services. Unfortunately, documentation and 

evaluation of such programs is limited (Norton & Manson, 1997; Wahab & Olson, 2004).

A report published by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) investigating the tribal 

responses to violence against women (Thurman et al., 2003) revealed there are many tribal 

communities that doubt they possess satisfactory efforts or resources to address family violence, 

much less effective intervention programs. Those communities that reported they had an 

availability of services were generally referring to shelters in larger communities at some 

distance or services that are non-native focused. 

 73 Banishment was recently approved through the Alaska Superior Court (Amnesty International, 2007).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
114

Barriers to the Utilization of Services

We have already noted a number of legal barriers that may impede American Indian and 

Alaska Native females from obtaining justice, but there are several other barriers that we will 

briefly describe here. The social isolation of many American Indian and Alaska Native 

reservations provides a significant geographical barrier to American Indian and Alaska Native 

women residing on these reservations from obtaining many services that may be available to 

urban women. In some of these communities, transportation and telephone services are difficult 

to access. A recent study of remote American Indian communities in Arizona, Oklahoma, North 

Dakota, and South Dakota found only 43% to 72% of households had telephones (Stoddardt et 

al., 2000). 

American Indian and Alaska Native women who reside on very rural and isolated 

reservations must often travel great distances to obtain medical care. This is extremely 

problematic for a rape victim who requires a rape kit be performed by a qualified nurse or 

practitioner in a timely manner. A final report evaluating the effectiveness of the STOP VAIW 

Discretionary Grant Program stated that in 63 communities interviewed through site visits and 

phone interviews, rides to medical care for victimized women were most often provided by an 

STOP program advocate (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). The second most common means of 

transportation was by ambulance followed by tribal police, city and county police, and finally 

family and friends of the service recipient.

As we noted earlier, confidentiality remains a very serious and valid concern for women 

survivors of physical violence and sexual assault. Norton and Manson (1997) reported that some 

Alaskan Native women refused to participate in a domestic violence support group due to 

confidentiality concerns. Similar to confidentiality issues in all small communities, on 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
115

reservations, clients fear their problems will be broadcast along the “tribal telegraph” (Norton & 

Manson, 1997). These fears are also shared in the urban setting where a local urban American 

Indian and Alaska Native community may be similar in closeness to a rural village.

Qualitative data from interviews with health care providers also supports this notion. For 

example, one service provider mentioned that domestic violence survivors choose to go to a 

regional hospital some distance from their community in order to remain anonymous (LunaFirebaugh et al., 2002). The mandatory reporting requirements in some jurisdictions also prohibit 

some women from seeking medical care. For example, some states have laws that mandate 

reporting to police any injuries that were caused through non-accidental means or through 

violence, and at least six states (New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Kentucky, California, Colorado, 

and New Mexico) explicitly address reporting of intimate partner violence, although they vary in 

their provisions (Hyman, 1997). Shepherd (2001) noted an Alaskan village health aid who said 

that many battered women do not come to the clinic because health aides have to report the 

inflicted injuries to the state troopers. Women are afraid that state troopers will arrest the 

perpetrator even if they [women] choose not to press charges. Unfortunately, this threat is very 

real. In his study of Indian Health Service facilities, Clark (2001) found that 31 different tribes 

mandated reporting of domestic violence.

American Indian and Alaska Native women may also be reluctant to leave their tribal 

lands to seek assistance, even if intimate relationships become dangerous (Shepherd, 2001). 

Traveling substantial distances to an urban area with a shelter may not only be overwhelming 

and expensive, but also unwanted. Moving away from family, friends and traditions may create 

additional stress. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
116

Language barriers may also present problems. For example, Hamby (2004) maintains that 

some American Indian and Alaska Native women might not be easily fluent in English and the 

subtleties of languages spoken by the victim and the service providers might impede 

communication. Furthermore, recommendations made by the service providers who are not 

steeped in the realities of life of American Indian and Alaska Native women might not be 

compatible with their cultural values. 

CULTURALLY SENSITIVE INTERVENTIONS

American Indian and Alaska Native women who have suffered violent or sexual 

victimization often rely on their own communities for help and support. For example, in Alaskan 

villages, Shepherd (2001) found that family members provided the primary source of strength 

and help for battered women. However, other research indicates that American Indian and 

Alaska Native women are reluctant to go to family members if they require help or assistance in 

abusive situations (Thurman et al., 2003). Some women believed that to do so would ostracize 

their spouse/partner from their families.

Many American Indian and Alaska Native communities have unique cultural ceremonies 

that can be important resources for women healing from victimization. Such traditional practices 

as talking circles, naming ceremonies, and sweat lodge ceremonies have been recognized for 

their therapeutic and curing potential for centuries. In contrast to law-enforcement strategies, 

some advocacy groups have developed holistic programs that use tradition to "heal" the impacts 

of intimate partner violence. For example, Pamela Risling, an advocate with Niwhongwh xw 

E:na:wh (Stop the Violence Coalition) in Hoopa, California, said that her group’s education 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
117

programs focus on "retraditionalization" – reestablishing the "old, traditional style of family, and 

protecting the family, and taking care of one another" (Chen, 2006).

American Indian and Alaska Native women can also turn to available native healers for 

help in dealing with violent victimization as well as other problems. Despite the fact that 

Western health and social service providers might espouse philosophies quite different from that 

of native healers, Kim and Kwok (1998) report that American Indian and Alaska Natives are 

comfortable seeking both types of counsel. They found that 62% of Navajo patients had used 

native healers and 39% used native healers on a regular basis. They also found that the victim’s 

age, education, income, and fluency in English had no effect on the likelihood to use native 

healers. However, Christian Pentecostal patients used native healers less than patients of other 

faiths. Patients were rarely cognizant of the potential conflict between native healers and 

conventional medicine. The most serious barrier for seeking help from a healer was the cost 

associated with the healer’s services.

The STOP program Evaluation Report also cites the importance of traditional healers and 

natural helpers in physical and emotional healing. Respondents were specifically asked if they 

had sought help from traditional healers (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). It was not uncommon for 

survivors to mention seeking help from native healers, even when service providers had not

brought up the presence of this type of help. In one of the cases the healer also testified in the

tribal court in support of the victim. Another survivor indicated that she was referred to a healer 

by an advocate for emotional counseling. In another community, the service providers and the 

survivors recognize the important work of the traditional healer in helping women through one 

on one interaction and in women’s groups. Having a traditional healer on staff in a STOP victim 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
118

assistance program has permitted the use of cultural aspects, art, and culturally specific and 

appropriate counseling methods.

There are also alternative tribal justice forums in some American Indian and Alaska 

Native communities (Hamby, 2004). These family or community forums emphasize restorative

and reparative approaches to justice rather than the adversarial system found in the US court 

system. As we briefly described earlier, one indigenous form of dispute resolution that has 

recently become an increasingly popular example of restorative justice, has transcended the US 

boundaries and received extensive international attention is Navajo Peacemaking (Grohowski, 

1995; Zion, 1998). Peacemakers have been a part of traditional Navajo justice for centuries. In 

1982 the first formal peacemakers courts were established, turning peacemaking into a formal 

part of the Navajo legal system, developed and overseen by the Navajo nation judiciary. Cases 

are either referred to peacemaking by the court or are initiated by the aggrieved party. In 2003, 

peacemakers were further directed by the Navajo Nation Council to offer traditional counseling, 

education and advice to judges, clients of the courts, and the general public.

In contrast with a “vertical” Anglo version of justice, which is adversarial, the Navajo 

concept of "horizontal" justice has a much wider "zone of dispute" and relies on healing (Coker,

1999). The Honorable Robert Yazzie, Chief Justice for the Supreme Court of the Navajo Nation 

has stated that the goal of the Navajo law is nourishment of the “ongoing relationships with the 

immediate and extended family, relatives, neighbors and community" (Coker 1999, p. 33).

As the name implies, in a peacemaking process, parties meet with a peacemaker. A 

peacemaker is a highly respected member of the community, a community leader whose 

leadership does not depend on a position of power and authority. He or she must be someone 

who possesses the power of persuasion, and knowledge of traditional Navajo stories. Other 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
119

individuals, who either have a special relationship to the parties (e.g., family and friends) or 

possess relevant expertise (e.g., alcohol treatment counselors and hospital social workers) may 

be present during the peacemaking session. All participants are treated as equals with the 

purpose of preserving ongoing relationships and restoring harmony among involved parties. In 

peacemaking there is no coercion, and no adversarial process. That is, the parties are not labeled 

as the offender or the victim, the plaintiff or the defendant (Zion, 1998). Peacemaking consists of 

a number of procedural steps. Each participant is given a chance to describe the problem that the 

petitioner has identified as the reason for the session. The peacemaker then guides the group in 

developing suggestions and agreements intended to ameliorate or resolve the problem.

Coker (1999) argues that peacemaking offers several potential benefits for battered 

women. First, peacemaking has the ability to attend to both systemic and personal aspects of 

battering and thus disrupt the familial and social supports for battering. Second, it has the 

potential to promote social and personal change through the use of traditional Navajo creation 

narratives based on gender-egalitarian perspectives on male and female relations. Finally, 

women's multiple loyalties, including their commitment to relationships with men who have 

been abusive, are not regarded as aberrant. Importantly, some scholars contend that restorative 

justice approaches, such as the Navajo Peacemaking program, ignore the fact in cases of intimate 

partner violence, the offender is often a major source of oppression and domination who will 

ultimately affect the choices, opportunities, and resources that are available to their victims 

(Hopkins & Koss, 2005). As such, unlike violence perpetrated by strangers, restorative justice 

approaches may not be appropriate for intimate partner violence. Hopkins and Koss (2005) 

argue, “The simple and real fear of future violence alone may cause a victim of ongoing violence 

to accede to terms to which she would not otherwise agree...these power dynamics can skew 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
120

bargaining power... and yield an agreement that does not adequately or accurately reflect the 

survivor’s interests or wishes (Hopkins & Koss, 2005, p. 712).

Still, the importance of adopting culturally sensitive practices by various intervention 

programs dealing with victimized American Indian and Alaska Native women have been 

numerously stressed both by scholars and practitioners (E. Duran et al., 1998; Hamby, 2004; 

Thurman et al., 2003; Shepherd, 2001). While some scholars maintain that it would be wrong to 

automatically assume that American Indian and Alaska Native women will prefer traditional 

cultural services over mainstream interventions (Groginsky & Freeman, 1995), the general 

tendency has been to integrate culturally appropriate elements into intervention programs 

designed to mitigate the problem of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native 

women.

Other researchers argue that community-level interventions are the most appropriate 

strategies in American Indian and Alaska Native communities to respond to the problem of 

violence against women (B. Duran et al., 1998; McEachern et al., 1998, Oetzel & Duran, 2004). 

Community-level interventions may not only help the victims of violence, but prevent the 

violence from occurring in the first place. For example, McEachern and colleagues (1998) 

discuss how a “dialogue group” approach, which is consonant with American Indian and Alaska 

Native cultural values, could help American Indian and Alaska Native men understand how 

different forms of oppression have shaped their position in life and potentially contributed to the 

prevalence of violence in their household. Another illustration of a community level approach is 

the use of healing rituals to address historical trauma in general, which also helps to prevent 

violence in general and intimate partner violence in particular (B. Duran et al., 1998). The 

authors used a memorial ceremony for the massacre at Wounded Knee in the Lakota community 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
121

to illustrate. This Lakota ritual revolves around facilitating mourning, embracing the effects that 

accompany trauma, and validating and normalizing the traumatic response. According to the 

authors, all participants who participated in the ceremony felt better about themselves after the 

intervention with 75% expressing high agreement that the intervention helped them overcome 

feelings of cultural shame (B. Duran et al., 1998).

Durst (1991) presents a dichotomy of responses to intimate partner violence in Alaskan 

Native communities. He maintains that interventions to the problem can contain the elements of 

both a privatization and communitarian response. Privatization is a characteristic of most social 

work strategies, and includes such things as having a professional therapist privately and 

separately counsel the perpetrator and the victim. Communitarian responses involve the larger 

community. Durst found that social work interventions that focused on the community at large 

have a positive impact on changing attitudes about intimate partner violence and thus promote 

community-wide action against the problem. 

Another community approach is the Kanuhkwene project (Hagen & House, 1995). This 

project was developed by Oneida women on their Wisconsin reservation to address certain 

critical social issues including domestic violence. The women consistently reported gaps in the 

delivery system of other interventions, such as the lack of transportation, lack of childcare, and 

lack of programs to serve pregnant women. Their meetings to discover causes of problems 

gradually evolved into circles of mutual assistance wherein women themselves took care of one 

another. They also returned to traditional methods of help: using herbs for medicine rather than 

pharmaceuticals, natural childbirth techniques, sweat lodge cleansings, and others. An 

organization of women based on Oneida values of community and connection with the social and 

natural world was born. “Kanuhkwene” means "women's dance" and refers to a ceremonial 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
122

dance in which women's feet massage the back of Mother Earth to relieve Her stress. Although

the evidence is anecdotal, the Kanuhkwene project demonstrates the possibilities for women to 

create a network of support for themselves to deal with important social issues in a culturally 

appropriate manner. Programs such as this, of course, would be beneficial for all female victims 

of violence, regardless of race. 

It is imperative to point out that while community-based approaches and culturally 

sensitive practices are important to incorporate into the non-criminal justice interventions of 

violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women, the efficacy of these approaches 

and strategies should not be generalized across all American Indian and Alaska Native 

populations (Hamby, 2004; Oetzel & Duran, 2004; Norton & Manson, 1997). Each approach 

might be appropriate and/or inappropriate for a particular American Indian and Alaska Native 

community. Thus, interventions have to be created for specific communities.

Health Care-Based Interventions

Interventions occurring in healthcare settings that address IPV and rape and sexual assault 

within American Indian and Alaska Native communities primarily revolve around screening and 

referral practices. Typically, healthcare interventions do not engage in remediation interventions 

like offering victims counseling services and advocacy (Wahab & Olson, 2004). Many of the 

healthcare interventions are designed to identify the occurrence of physical violence and sexual 

assault in the lives of their patients, as well to provide resources and referrals when appropriate. 

Access to medical care might be problematic for American Indian and Alaska Native women due 

to insurance coverage requirements (Zuckerman et al., 2004) and due to the relative isolation of 

many tribal communities (Katz, 2004). The STOP program evaluation report found that although 

there may be more than one service facility per area, most often the choice victims are given is 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
123

restricted to only Indian Health Service facilities or to a tribal health center (Luna-Firebaugh et 

al., 2002). Norton and Manson (1997) contend that the instability of programs in urban American 

Indian and Alaska Native health centers is a major barrier to the provision of services to 

American Indian and Alaska Native community.

Members of federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes are entitled 

to services at Indian Health Service (IHS) facilities or at tribal facilities that receive IHS funding. 

IHS services are administered through a system of 12 area offices and 163 IHS and tribally 

managed service units. In fact, 70% of IHS employees are American Indian and Alaska Native, 

but it is unclear what percent of these are professional medical staff and what percent are 

custodial and clerical (IHS, 2008). In IHS facilities, American Indian and Alaska Native women 

can get treatment for injuries, sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, and other consequences 

of sexual victimization with fewer financial concerns than many non-American Indian and 

Alaska Native women. They also have access to free psychotherapy, if they can locate an IHS

therapist with expertise in dealing with victimization and trauma (Norton & Manson, 1997).

However, as we have already noted, the lack of anonymity in these facilities sometimes prohibits 

American Indian and Alaska Native women from seeking care. 

The efficacy of health services in Indian Country remains unknown. For example, a 

report by the US Commission on Civil Rights in 2003 found that federal spending on health 

services for American Indian and Alaska Natives via the IHS was far below spending on all other 

groups (US Commission on Civil Rights, 2003). The report also suggests that services for 

survivors of sexual violence – such as testing and prophylaxis for transmitted infections 

including HIV, pregnancy testing, emergency contraception and culturally appropriate support 

services were inadequate. Similar to most rural health centers, IHS facilities suffer from 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
124

problems of understaffing, high turnover rate and poor facility conditions (US Commission on 

Civil Rights, 2004). The average IHS facility is 40 years old. The STOP program evaluation 

report found that many of the IHS facilities were not equipped with emergency technology

required to treat seriously injured survivors (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). Most of the IHS

facilities only offer services in the daytime. One service provider explained, “In some cases, they 

(survivors) may have to wait until Monday morning to receive direct medical care if the health 

clinic is closed on weekends.” In some areas, it is necessary to go to a regional hospital for 

evidence collection for sexual assault cases. 

Many IHS facilities do not have standardized policies and protocols when it comes to 

dealing with domestic violence cases. Clark (2001) looked at screening rates of domestic 

violence cases in a sample of IHS facilities and found that screening for domestic violence is 

promoted by the presence of relevant policies. Where these policies and procedures for handling 

domestic violence exist, screening is more likely to occur. Sixty-four percent of sites had policies 

and procedures for domestic violence, however, less than half of these sites evaluated the use of 

these policies and procedures. Hospitals were more likely to have policies and procedures than 

clinics, as were sites administered by the IHS rather than those administered by a tribal contract. 

This lack of screening was also found in another study of hospital records; Martins et al. (1992) 

found that physicians’ files recorded only one percent of possible cases in a population with an 

intimate partner violence prevalence of 30% (including physical and emotional violence).

These problems filter down from the institutional level to the individual level as well. For 

example, in a qualitative study of patient perceptions of health care providers on one reservation, 

Fifer (1996) found that some patients had negative experiences with providers. Patients stated 

that providers showed superior attitudes, used confusing terminology, and avoided the 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
125

reservation outside of working hours. In one study of women and domestic violence in rural 

Alaska, Shepherd (2001) also reported comments on the existing dichotomy between Native 

residents and professional non-Native service providers that resided in the area. All the medical 

personnel at the regional center hospital and all but one counselor at the mental health center 

were non-Native and had moved to the area for employment.

A number of scholars and practitioners point out that healthcare interventions should also 

target clinicians (Wahab & Olson, 2004; Hamby, 2004; Oetzel & Duran, 2004; Bohn, 1993). The 

Amnesty International (2007) report on the response to sexual violence against American Indian 

and Alaska Native women stresses the importance of increasing the cultural sensitivity of 

medical staff. Oetzel and Duran (2004) argue that healthcare providers need training on how to 

screen and talk about intimate partner violence with patients to increase the honesty of 

disclosure. In addition, medical practitioners need to be aware of social and cultural norms, 

traditional healing practices and medicines, and economic and geographical conditions of the 

patients. Some rituals carried out by American Indian and Alaska Native patients (e.g. having an 

item that carries a special curative meaning on their bodies) or certain customs (e.g. being 

surrounded by many family members while one is sick) may be misunderstood by medical 

personnel and not taken seriously or treated with respect (Bohn, 1993; Primeaux, 1977). The 

extent of culturally sensitive training or training related to violence against women offered in 

IHS and non-IHS facilities remains largely unexplored.

Finally, while some of the more than 50% of American Indian and Alaska Natives who 

reside in urban and suburban areas have access to IHS facilities, many do not. According to a 

study by the Seattle Indian Health Board’s Urban Indian Health Institute (2004), American 

Indian and Alaska Natives living in urban areas suffer from poorer health than the general United 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
126

States population. Most urban American Indian and Alaska Native women living far from 

reservations do not have access to IHS facilities and full provision of free services. The IHS does 

help to pay for selected health services provided at non-IHS facilities, however, state and local 

facilities are less likely to be culturally appropriate and familiar with traditional forms of care.

Victim Services Interventions

There are a number of community-based interventions that serve American Indian and 

Alaska Native individuals and groups at the tribal and regional (state) levels that are focused on 

remediation. Many of these initiatives are non-profit organizations and stem from grass roots 

efforts (Wahab & Olson, 2004). The types of services provided by these community basedinterventions vary tremendously – from 24-hour crisis hotlines and crisis interventions to shelters 

and legal support and mental health therapy. Programs may also provide victim advocacy, 

individual and group counseling, help with victim relocation, in-patient drug/alcohol treatment, 

assisting women with filing restraining orders, providing court accompaniment and liaison 

services, and other services.

One the most widespread forms of victim-services organizations designed for female 

victims of physical violence and rape and sexual assault are shelters. The first shelter on an 

Indian reservation was open in 1977 by the White Buffalo Calf Women’s Society of the Rosebud 

Reservation (DeBruyn et al., 1990). Since then, a number of reservation and urban communities 

have started local programs in response to the problem of violence against American Indian and 

Alaska Native women. According to the STOP program Evaluation report, shelters may be of 

three types:

1) Tribally-affiliated non-profit shelters: These most often house American Indian and Alaska 

Native women on community premises and are chartered by American Indian and Alaska 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
127

Native community members. Grantees of the STOP program have reported 23 of these 

facilities.

2) Tribal collaborative shelters: These facilities may be located in mainstream areas, or on the 

reservation, but they are chartered by a non-profit or another agency that cultivates an 

effective working relationship with the tribe. Twenty-seven tribal-collaborative shelters were

reported among the STOP grant recipients.

3) Mainstream shelters: These shelters are situated in off-reservation rural or urban areas, and 

are usually county or city affiliated. Grantees of the STOP program have reported utilizing 33 

of these facilities.

One of the most serious problems currently facing victim services programs and shelters 

run by tribal communities is a lack of funding (Office for Victims of Crime, 2004; Amnesty 

International, 2007; Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). These programs usually operate with a mix of 

federal, state and tribal funds as well as private donations. But this funding is often limited. For 

example, one director of a STOP program commented, “There’s such a lack of resources. The 

available shelters are so full so she [the survivor] ends up going home” (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 

2002, p. 138). These factors, of course, affect non-native shelter services for the general 

population as well. 

Another serious concern revolves around the provision of culturally appropriate, 

supportive and non-discriminative environments in shelters servicing American Indian and 

Alaska Native women. Amnesty International (2007) reported that shelters sometimes fail to 

provide such an environment. One anecdotal report received by Amnesty International concerns 

a shelter located between several reservations that required a signed statement from the IHS that 

American Indian and Alaska Native women and their children had been checked for lice and 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
128

were “clean” upon arriving at the shelter; the shelter did not require this of non-American Indian 

and Alaska Native residents. 

Shelters designed specifically for American Indian and Alaska Native victims are very 

few. For example, as of 2004 the Osage Nation Counseling Center in Pawhuska, OK was the 

only such domestic violence shelter (Office for Victims of Crime, 2004). Emmonak Women’s 

Shelter in Alaska is the only completely Native-operated and managed facility that serves Native 

and non-Native Alaskan victims. It is also the only shelter in the state that is in a village setting. 

Established in 1984, the shelter epitomizes a culturally appropriate victim services facility 

(Shepherd, 2001). The building, provided by the village government, is designed and decorated 

to look and feel like a Yup’ik home. Traditional foods are provided to the residents, and one 

employee’s job description includes subsistence hunting and fishing for the shelter. A fish camp 

is built for the residents to spend time at in the summer. 

The Two Feathers Native American Family Services in McKinleyville, California 

represents another example of incorporating culturally appropriate practices into the victim 

services program curriculum. The program holds a Native Women’s Healing Group for adult 

women, which combines therapy and basketry. A therapist and a cultural expert are co-leaders of 

these activities (Office for Victims of Crime, 2004). Another program run by the Sault Ste. Marie 

Tribe Victim Services Program also maintains the teaching of Chippewa culture. Victimized 

women attend a women’s talking circle, and educational groups for victims of domestic violence, 

sexual assault, and stalking. Native teachings are incorporated into the group process. Other 

cultural activities include arts and crafts, sweat lodge ceremonies, and seasonal women’s 

ceremonies.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
129

Literature on the provision of culturally sensitive counseling (Trimble & Fleming, 1989; 

Norton & Monson, 1997) reiterates the importance of flexibility and trust for the counselor-client 

relationship. Norton and Manson (1997) describe a domestic violence program located in an 

urban Indian Health Services center. The program was staffed by two American Indian and 

Alaska Native women, and provided a range of social service interventions such as housing, 

emergency clothing, and transportation to appointments. Most of the clients of the program were 

referred by the nurse practitioner in the medical clinic. Drop out in the program emerged as a 

problem; most clients would only attend a few individual sessions at the health center, and not 

return for scheduled appointments. Many clients also seemed distant and disconnected during the 

counseling sessions. Attempts to conduct an educational domestic violence group with the victim 

advocate were not successful due to minimal attendance. The program advocates began 

exploring alternatives to traditional office-based interventions with their American Indian and 

Alaska Native clients. Traveling to the clients’ homes proved to be more successful in 

establishing an emotional connection with women. Another attempt was made at a domestic 

violence group, but this time over a potluck dinner, which created an informal atmosphere to 

share problems and concerns. Initially the women did not interact with one another directly, but 

slowly became more comfortable and responded with advice and support. The authors argue that 

this setting was more consonant with American Indian and Alaska Native traditions (such as the 

sharing of meals) and reminiscent of a traditional healing practice – the talking circle.

In addition to shelters, “safe houses” are also available in several American Indian and 

Alaska Native communities. Over 20 years ago, Shinkwin (1983) found that American Indian 

and Alaska Native women in her sample often fled to the homes of other women when being 

abused. This is consistent with the strong tradition of taking others in times of crisis. Perhaps 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
130

similar to women in the general population, American Indian and Alaska Native women often 

flee to a relative or a friend who will give them shelter. Safe houses are housing options 

volunteered by a private household, which may be mainstream affiliated or located in American 

Indian and Alaska Native homes. There were 14 safe house networks reported in use by the 

STOP grant recipients (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). Similarly, hotels and motels used as safe 

houses may be on-reservation or off-reservation. In one STOP program community, the 

survivors preferred to use motels or off-reservation shelters rather than safe homes due to privacy 

concerns. 

Offender-Oriented Interventions

A vital component of responding to the problem of violence against women is direct 

intervention with offenders. The NIJ VAIW report noted a concern among American Indian and 

Alaska Native women that there were virtually no batterer-treatment programs available in tribal 

communities (Thurman et al., 2003). Very little is known about individual counseling or general 

programs that exist for American Indian and Alaska Native men in the community. While some 

efforts have been made to help American Indian and Alaska Native men change their behavior, 

such as workshops for batterers to help them “unlearn” abusive behavior, and in some cases, 

come to terms with past trauma from their own abuse experiences, the efficacy of these programs 

remains unknown.

Shepherd (2001), noting the connection between family abuse and alcohol in rural 

Alaska, stated that lack of social services and treatment for abusers is a serious problem. In the 

regional center, a residential alcohol treatment program and an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) 

group were available, but in the surrounding villages, these services were very limited. For 

example, mental health counselors visit villages for a few days a month or every two months, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
131

and there were no AA support groups. An anger management class was periodically offered in 

the regional center that some abusers are court mandated to attend, but such services were not 

available in the villages. 

As part of the Tribal Strategies against Violence (TSAV) initiative in Grand Traverse

Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, in 1999 the Tribe’s Substance Abuse program assumed 

responsibility for establishing a men’s anger management group (Nichols et al., 2002a). The 

purpose of forming this group was to assist abusers in better handling their stress and anger and 

to help them learn conflict resolution skills. Participation in this group occurs through Tribal 

Court referrals. Similarly, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians (North Dakota) also 

designed specific activities to address rehabilitation of perpetrators of domestic violence 

(Nichols et al., 2002b). The tribe has utilized TSAV funds for the formation of both teen and 

men’s anger management groups. The tribe also has a local Fifth Generation Center – an 

outpatient referral and treatment center for substance abuse.

Zellerer (2003) examined the presence of programs for abusers in prison. She contacted 

the central departments of the Bureau of Prisons in Washington, DC, all regional offices, and 

state departments of corrections with a comparatively high proportion of American Indian and 

Alaska Natives among their inmate population. Zellerer (2003) could not locate any family 

violence programs for American Indian and Alaska Native inmates that were culturally specific. 

Contacted agencies suggested that specific issues concerning American Indian and Alaska 

Native offenders might be addressed within the framework of general programs (e.g. substance 

abuse or anger management) or in individual counseling. However, as we have seen with victim 

interventions, offender treatment programs may be more effective if traditional interventions 

such as spiritual teachings or ceremonies are used in combination with contemporary 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
132

approaches. Thus, service providers should strive to make treatment programs culturally specific. 

Shepherd (2001) similarly argued that it would be beneficial if intervention programs for men 

incorporated elements of basic belief systems concerning male-female relationships.

Education and Community Awareness

Public outreach and education are an important element in creating an environment in 

which survivors feel able to report victimizations. Community-wide awareness of violence 

against women in all populations empowers victims, informs them of their options, and helps 

secure potential resources to address the problem (e.g. people would volunteer at the local 

shelter). Some shelters are involved in bringing education and awareness to the community. 

Other communities utilize federal and state funds for special educational programs. For example, 

the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians used a portion of the TSAV grants to 

institute an annual Women’s Wellness Conference to develop community-wide awareness of 

family violence and related issues (Nichols et al., 2002a). This conference also serves to 

familiarize local families with the range of potential tribal/local programs available for assisting 

victims of family violence. 

The Tribal Law and Policy Institute is in the process of designing, developing, and 

implementing a violence against Indian women course for tribal colleges (Office for Victims of 

Crime, 2004). An accompanying textbook with instructor guides and student workbooks will be 

published and agreements will be established with tribal college partners to provide college 

credit for existing violence against Indian women trainings and conferences. The Institute also 

envisions development of a feasible distant learning component for this course.

Many domestic violence programs are receiving extensive community support in the 

form of volunteers who serve as shelter workers and victim advocates. It is common to find

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
133

specialized training for volunteers. The STOP program evaluation final report refers to one 

community where twenty village-based volunteers in twelve villages were trained through STOP 

grant funds (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). During the first year of the STOP grant, this program 

presented four sub-regional training sessions for volunteers. Once the training was completed, 

these volunteers were certified as Crisis Intervention Advocates. Volunteers reported that they 

felt the training was effective and prepared them to better perform their duties in the villages. 

Some programs interviewed during the STOP site visits have urged their tribal council

members to attend domestic violence training sessions and guarantee that domestic violence 

educational information is made available to council members (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). 

Other communities have created cultural competency training for local physicians and state 

police. Shepherd (2001) advocates for educational programs to be delivered through distance 

education and other innovative means that offer site-bound students in rural regions access to 

mental health training. Such programs could increase the number of culturally sensitive 

practitioners in rural regions.

FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES 

The Federal government and other national organizations play a vital role in creating and 

facilitating the provision of services that target the problem of violence against American Indian 

and Alaska Native women. Another function federal agencies and national organizations serve is 

to address macro-level issues that set the context for the problem of female victimization -

including sexism and institutionalized oppression (Wahab & Olson, 2007). 

As noted in the introduction, the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW), created in 

1995, is the government branch of the Department of Justice (DOJ) that attends to the legal and 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
134

policy matters concerning violence against women. The office also manages the DOJ’s formula 

and discretionary grant programs authorized by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 

1994 and the Act’s revisions. Currently there are 12 grant programs administered by OVW that 

are designed to help communities to decrease the incidence of domestic violence, dating 

violence, sexual assault and stalking. In 2007, DOJ announced that tribal communities received 

more than $82.7 million in grant funds and assistance to improve their criminal justice systems 

(Department Of Justice Press Release, November 28, 2007). 

One of the most significant and long-running initiatives administered specifically for 

American Indian and Alaska Native communities has been the Services-Training-OfficersProsecutors (STOP) Violence Against Indian Women (VAIW) program, which was initiated in 

1995. Authorized by VAWA 1994, the primary purpose of the STOP VAIW Discretionary 

Grants Program was to reduce violent crimes against American Indian and Alaska Native 

Women. Tribal governments were given federal financial assistance to reform the response of 

American Indian and Alaska Native justice systems to violent crimes against women. According 

to a review of 123 grantees that received STOP VAIW funding from 1996 to 2001, prior to this 

initiative a majority (56%) of the tribes did not have any domestic violence programs (LunaFirebaugh et al., 2002). The evaluation report of the STOP discretionary grant program 

highlights a number of specific programs and services that were supported by STOP funds. 

Among the services that have received priority attention from the majority of grantees was 

victim advocacy (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). Other emphasized services included public 

outreach, agency training and legal advocacy. Fewer participating sites have utilized the STOP 

funds to provide shelter services and other emergency services (e.g. food, clothing, childcare). In 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
135

2006 alone over $ 6.7 million was awarded74 to 35 American Indian and Alaska Native 

communities, but it is important to stress that most of the programs were not supported solely 

through STOP funds (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). Additional funding has been obtained from 

many other sources including Alaska Native Corporations, tribal governments, or the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, as well as various federal, state, county, and municipal grants, and individuals or 

private organizations. 

Prior to the adoption of VAWA 2005, in addition to the STOP VAIW grant program, 

American Indian and Alaska Native tribes were eligible to apply to OVW for funding from other 

grant programs, four of which contained a special five-percent set-aside for tribal governments. 

The Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders program (often 

referred to as the Arrest Program) is designed to promote a perspective that crimes of domestic 

violence, sexual assault and stalking deserve serious treatment and coordinated response of the 

whole criminal justice system.

75 In 2006 and 2007, over $5 million was awarded to a number of 

American Indian and Alaska Native communities under this grant program to develop, 

implement and strengthen various pro-arrest policies, educational programs and training meant to 

reinforce services to victims and hold offenders accountable (OVW, 2006a). 

American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments and tribal associations may also 

apply for funding under the Legal Assistance for Victims Grant Program. This initiative is 

designed to improve civil and criminal legal assistance for victims of domestic and dating 

violence, as well as sexual assault and stalking.76 In 2007 grants averaging $400,000 were 

allocated to several tribes (Sitka Tribe of Alaska, the Hopi Tribe, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of 

 74 Unless specified otherwise, award amounts for the respective programs and initiatives were obtained from the 

OVW’s State-by-State Grant Activities webpage located at http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/grantactivities.htm. Data is 

available for years 2004-2007. 75 Program Brief available at http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/arrest_grant_desc.htm 76 Program Brief available at http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/lav_grant_desc.htm

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
136

Chippewa Indians, and several others) and American Indian and Alaska Native organizations 

(e.g. Cangleska, Inc in South Dakota and DOVES in Montana) for these purposes. 

The third discretionary grant program is the Rural Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, 

Sexual Assault, and Stalking Assistance Grant Program. It is intended to promote community 

involvement in extending a coordinated response to crimes against women.77 Almost $15 million 

has been awarded in the past two years (2006/2007) under this initiative to a number of tribal 

governments and American Indian and Alaska Native non-profit organizations. This funding is 

utilized to establish new or support existing counseling, treatment and advocacy centers, develop 

various education programs and prevention strategies in the communities, as well as develop 

approaches to strengthen the cooperation between the criminal justice agencies, victim advocacy 

groups and the community in responding to these crimes (OVW 2006a).

Finally, American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments can receive funding 

under the Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Grant Program (also known as Safe Havens). 

The purpose of this initiative is to help communities establish and maintain “supervised 

visitation and safe exchange of children ... in situations involving domestic violence, dating 

violence, child abuse, sexual assault, or stalking” (OVW, 2006, p. 1). In the last two years

(2006/2007), four tribal governments and one non-profit organization (the Alaska Native 

Women’s Coalition) have received funding through this program, with grants ranging from 

$200,000 to $600,000. These sites have utilized the funds to establish or expand the services of 

supervised visitation and safe exchange services, increase staff and improve technical assistance 

of these centers, as well as develop training programs for the centers’ staff and volunteers. 

Title IX of VAWA 2005 has introduced significant changes in the way OVW makes 

grant award funds available to American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments and 

 77 Program Brief available at http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/rural_grant_desc.htm

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
137

organizations. In addition to previously existing set-asides, which have been increased to 10%, 

two new 10% set-asides were created within the Transitional Housing Assistance Program and 

the Court Training and Improvements Program (OVW, 2007). These set-asides have been 

consolidated78 to create a new initiative - the Tribal Governments Program, which has replaced 

the STOP VAIW program in the fiscal year of 2007. There are a number of differences between 

the two programs, including the fact that the Tribal Government Program offers grantees a 

longer list of options on how funds can be utilized in a way that combines the purpose areas of 

respective grant programs with tribal set-asides (OVW 2007, p 4). In addition, American Indian 

and Alaska Native tribal governments can still apply for other OVW grant programs. As a result, 

there are no longer set-asides assumed within these general solicitations. 

It is important to note that a significant role in the effort to reduce violence against 

American Indian and Alaska Native women is played by tribal coalitions. The Amnesty 

International (2007) report lists 16 coalitions that are working together to advance the goal of 

combating domestic and sexual violence across the country. In 2007 a little over $3 million were 

allocated to eight American Indian and Alaska Native non-profit organizations under the OVW’s 

Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions Grant Program. Typically the resources 

are used to fund staff working for sexual and domestic violence coalitions (OVW, 2006a). The 

second most common activity is the provision of training to a broad spectrum of professionals: 

from law enforcement officials to victim advocates and health professionals (OVW, 2006a).

A recent DOJ project that focuses on violence against American Indian and Alaska 

Native women is the Safety for Indian Women from Sexual Assault Offenders Demonstration 

 78 Seven percent of the Legal Assistance for Victim Program has been consolidated to fund the Tribal Governments 

Program, while the remaining three percent is reserved to be used to support Indian country projects (OW 2007).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
138

Initiative. In 2006 four tribes79 selected under this initiative have received over a million dollars 

to improve the manner in which federal and tribal agencies respond to the problem of sexual 

assault against American Indian and Alaska Native women (DOJ Press Release September 21, 

2005). Among some of the reported objectives of this year-long initiative is the provision of 

sexual assault victims with an increased level of advocacy and services, as well as increase in 

coordination of efforts between the tribal and federal agencies that are involved in responding to 

crimes of sexual assault. 

American Indian and Alaska Native tribes also can receive financial assistance directly 

from the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC). The Victim Assistance in Indian Country (VAIC) 

Discretionary Grant Program was established in 1988, and has focused on supporting remote 

tribal communities in launching victim assistance programs on the reservations where these types 

of services were either scant or non-existent. The VAIC program in 2003 was replaced by the

Tribal Victim Assistance (TVA) discretionary grant program. The latter currently finances a 

number of direct services to the tribes ranging from emergency shelters and crisis intervention to 

court advocacy and bilingual counseling services. Recently, the amount of funding allocated 

through the TVA program has steadily increased – from $1.3 million in 1999 to $2.5 million in 

2003 to $3.5 million in 2006 (Office of the Inspector General, 2006). In addition to federal 

compensation grants, states also have victim’s compensation programs. The types of reparations 

victims can seek include health-related expenses (for medical, dental, and mental healthcare) and 

costs of funerals, lost wages, eyewear, and, in some states (e.g. New Mexico and Arizona), 

traditional Native healing ceremonies. 

 79 Navajo Nation (Window Rock, Arizona); Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Rosebud, South Dakota); Red Lake Band of 

Chippewa Indians (Red Lake, Minnesota); and Hannahville Indian Community (Wilson, Michigan).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
139

CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL THOUGHTS

The Violence Against Women Act and its reauthorizations have made some important 

advances in what we know about violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women 

and how we respond to this violence. Moreover, it has undoubtedly helped to bring awareness to 

the issue and helped to change antiquated ideals that tolerate violence against women in the 

population in general, and in the American Indian and Alaska Native population in particular. 

We have already highlighted the problems associated with measuring violence against American 

Indian and Alaska Native women and the problems associated with interventions designed to 

respond to and ameliorate the consequences of this violence, however, we provide a few 

additional recommendations below. 

Measuring the Magnitude of Victimization

Valid and reliable statistical data on violence against American Indian and Alaska Native 

women are essential in formulating policies and procedures likely to prevent this violence and to 

respond effectively. Not only are valid estimates important for informing policy and allocating 

service resources, but without solid baseline rates of violence both nationally and locally, there is 

no way to assess the overall effectiveness of interventions. Using police data to determine the 

efficacy of new policies is problematic for several reasons. First, in addition to any new policy 

being evaluated, police reporting by female victims can be influenced by a number of factors 

including procedural changes in the department (e.g. taking violence against women more 

seriously in general), any event or news that draws attention to the issue of violence against 

women (e.g. the Amnesty International Report), or another initiative implemented at either the 

local or national level. Similar to the general population, obtaining rates of victimization against 

American Indian and Alaska Native women at the local level is more problematic than tracking 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
140

victimization at the national level. As noted earlier, surveys provide the most accurate estimates 

of victimization compared to estimates based on police reports only. Unfortunately, the very high 

cost of random sample surveys makes them extremely prohibitive for most large jurisdictions 

including states, and even more so for small rural American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. As 

such, official data from police will likely remain the principal means to monitor levels of 

violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women at the local level. As such, it is 

important that efforts be made to improve the official databases that exist at the local tribal 

levels. 

The database system used to record characteristics of victimizations for the National 

Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) is the best method available for police report data. 

Using the NIBRS template allows the collection of detailed information about incidents of 

violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women including the victim/offender 

relationship, the age of the victim and offender, race of the offender, etc. This system would also 

allow comparisons to be made across tribes and other jurisdictions. Of course, there would need 

to be a uniformity of definitions of crime (e.g. rape, sexual assault) across tribal jurisdictions to 

make such comparisons meaningful. It is important to note that the problems of jurisdiction 

when prosecuting offenders that were described earlier in this report should not prevent tribes 

from creating databases from initial victim reports. 

At the national level, the only data available on an annual basis remains the National 

Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Unfortunately, the significant sample size reductions made 

to the NCVS in the past ten years makes it virtually impossible to reliably estimate incidence 

rates of violence against smaller populations including American Indian and Alaska Native 

women. For example, the annual unweighted number of American Indian and Alaska Native 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
141

victims of rape for the past two years has been less than two individuals. Even when a number of 

years are aggregated together, annual sample sizes this small make reliable estimation almost 

impossible. One cost-effective avenue available would be to over-sample American Indian and 

Alaska Native respondents in the NCVS in order to obtain more reliable estimates. At this time, 

this strategy is being used by the Second National Violence Against Women and Men Survey. 

Ultimately, however, the slashing of the NCVS sample that has occurred and its continued 

decrease will completely eviscerate our ability to measure victimization rates for all small 

populations such as racial/ethic minorities and other groups such as the elderly as well as for less 

frequent crimes like rape and robbery. 

Do we need more baseline data at the local tribal level? For tribes interested in assessing 

the effectiveness of new policies or programs, baseline information about victimization prior to 

program implementation is imperative. However, from a purely epidemiological standpoint, it is 

clear that results from all national surveys and the vast majority of local tribal surveys have 

shown that American Indian and Alaska Native women experience extremely high rates of 

violence. In addition, all surveys indicate that American Indian and Alaska Native women are 

more likely to be victimized by people they know and often love compared to strangers. 

Moreover, from a recent study utilizing random sampling from six tribes, we know that there is 

some variation in rates of victimization against American Indian and Alaska Native women 

across tribes, but even the lowest rates obtained were higher than national averages for the 

general population. Different research designs and samples will continue to produce disparate 

findings in the future. But resources directed at counting “how many” American Indian and 

Alaska Natives are victims, we contend, is misguided. Even the most conservative estimates 

indicate that it is an extremely serious problem. The limited funds available for protecting 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
142

American Indian and Alaska Native women from violence would be better invested in 

developing interventions and prevention programs, scientifically evaluating their efficacy for 

protecting American Indian and Alaska Native women, and making sure all female victims of 

violence have safe havens in the meantime. Future research should also combine efforts at 

enumeration with efforts aimed at explaining and understanding the causes of violence against 

American Indian and Alaska Native women. To do this, data collection efforts must be 

theoretically guided so researchers can begin to build a knowledge base for understanding the 

correlates of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women. 

Effectiveness of Interventions

Research examining the efficacy of programs and policies created to protect American 

Indian and Alaska Native women is still very much in its infancy. As the National Research 

Council Panel on Violence Against Women noted more than a decade ago, “significant gaps 

exist in understanding...the impact and effectiveness of preventive and treatment interventions” 

(Crowell & Burgess, 1996, p.2). Unfortunately, the term “impact” is somewhat ambiguous and is 

used in several different ways by practitioners, policy makers, and researchers. For example, law 

enforcement officials may perceive their mandatory arrest policies to be effective simply because 

they are implementing the policies as prescribed by VAWA (e.g. by making arrests). However, 

this evaluation does not begin to answer the extent to which the arrests are actually protecting 

women from future violence. 

Some evaluations may, in fact, be conducted to assess whether programs and policies are 

being implemented as intended. Sometimes referred to as “process evaluations,” questions 

answered under this type of research include whether a program or policy is reaching the target 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
143

individuals, whether it is actually operating as expected, and what resources are being expended 

(Bachman & Schutt, 2007).

In contrast to process evaluations, “impact evaluations” from a research perspective are 

generally interested in whether the program or policy had the intended consequences or impacts. 

Did arrest decrease incidents of future offending? Do American Indian and Alaska Native 

women perceive programs that combine both traditional and mainstream interventions more 

effective compared to programs that use either approach alone? Many of the research studies 

conducted in Indian Country have generally been restricted to describing the process of 

implementation only, even though the term “impact” may be used to describe such studies. For 

example, Luna-Firebaugh et al. (2002) described their evaluation of STOP Grant Programs for 

reducing violence against women among Indian tribes as an “impact” evaluation because it 

examined the success of tribes in implementing promised justice interventions. Although this is a 

system impact and is a very important first step to evaluating the efficacy of such programs, 

research of this nature does not determine if such programs, in fact, had the intended 

consequence of protecting American Indian and Alaska Native women. 

To determine the effectiveness of programs and policies aimed at preventing and 

ameliorating the consequences of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women, 

future research must employ scientifically rigorous standards. The National Research Council 

Committee on the Assessment of Family Violence Interventions similarly identifies “improving 

the standards of evidence used in the evaluation of family violence” as “one of the most critical 

needs in this field” (Chalk & King, 1998, p. 59). After reviewing over 2,000 evaluation studies, 

these authors found only 33 designed and implemented with sufficient rigor “to provide insights 

on the effects of specific interventions” in the area of domestic violence. They described 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
144

“scientific rigor” as evaluations that “employed an experimental or quasi-experimental research 

design” using reliable instrumentation and including a control or comparison group (p. 68). 

Accordingly, future evaluation research of policies and programs directed toward American 

Indian and Alaska Native women should meet fundamental standards of scientific inquiry. 

Measurement tools should be clearly defined, should meet acceptable standards of reliability and 

validity, and be culturally sensitive to the population under study. Every attempt should be made 

to ensure samples are representative of the relevant population, and that sampling procedures are 

explicitly described. 

Clearly, results evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for violence against 

American Indian and Alaska Native women are only as good as the methods on which they are 

based. To accept research findings uncritically is, at best, implementing ineffective policies, and 

at worst, “implementing policies that might do more harm than good in protecting women” (Ford 

et al., 2002). In sum, it is hoped that this report will be used to refine future research and that it 

will be a catalyst for other empirical investigations into ways to prevent violence against 

American Indian and Alaska Native women and policies designed to ameliorate this violence 

when it does occur. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
145

REFERENCES

Alvarez, A. & Bachman, R. (2007). Explaining individual and collective violence. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Amnesty International. (2007) Maze of injustice: The failure to protect indigenous women from 

sexual violence in the USA. Report. Retrieved October 04, 2007 from

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510352007

Bachman, R. (1992). Death & violence on the reservation: Homicide, family violence, and 

suicide in American Indian populations. New York: Auburn House.

Bachman, R. (2000). A comparison of estimates of violence against women from the national 

crime victimization survey and the national violence against women survey. Violence Against 

Women, 6(8), 839-867.

Bachman, R., & Paternoster, R. (1993). A contemporary look at the effects of rape law reform: 

how far have we really come? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 84(3), 554-

574. 

Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. (2007). The practice of research in criminology and criminal justice 

(3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. 

Berger, B. R. (2004). Indian policy and the imagined Indian woman [Electronic version]. Kansas 

Journal of Law & Public Policy, 14, 103-115. Retrieved June 05, 2007. 

BigFoot, D. S. (2000). History of Victimization in Native Communities. University of Oklahoma 

Health Sciences Center, Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, grant number 97-VI-GX-0002 

(NCJ 213165). Retrieved October 04, 2007 from 

http://devbehavpeds.ouhsc.edu/assets/pdf/pmm/History%20of%20Victimization%20Issues.

pdf

Bohn, D.K. (1993). Nursing care of Native American battered women. AWHONNS Clinical 

Issues in Perinatal & Women’s Health Nursing, 4(3), 424-436.

Bubar, R., & Thurman, P.J. (2004). Violence against Native women. Social Justice, 31(4), 70-86. 

Burelson, E. (2007). Tribal, state, and federal cooperation to achieve good governance,

[Electronic version]. Akron Law Review, 40, 207-253. Retrieved June 05, 2007.

Canby, W.R. (1988) American Indian law in a nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co. 

Catalano, S. (2007). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Webpage accessed August 6, 2008 at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/intimate/victims.htm.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
146

Chalk, R., & King, P.A. (1998) Violence in families: assessing prevention and treatment 

programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Chen, M. (2006, November 7). Rising violence against Native women has “colonial roots”. The 

New Standard. 

Christofferson, C. (1001). Tribal courts' failure to protect Native American women: A reevaluation of the Indian Civil Rights Act [Electronic version]. The Yale Law Journal, 101, 

169-185. Retrieved October 04, 2007. 

Clairmont, B. (1999, September). Non-stranger sexual assault in Indian Country. Paper 

presented at the National Non-Stranger Sexual Assault Symposium, Estes Park, CO.

Clark, D.W. (2001). Domestic violence screening, policies, and procedures in Indian Health 

Service facilities. The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 14(4), 252-258. 

Coker, D. (1999). Enhancing autonomy for battered women: Lessons from Navajo Peacemaking.

UCLA Law Review, 47, 1-112. 

Crais, L.E. (2005). Domestic violence and the federal government [Electronic version]. The 

Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 6, 405-430. Retrieved June 05, 2007.

Crowell, N.A. & Burgess, A.W. (1996). Understanding violence against women. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press.

Davis, D.W. (1997). The direction of race of interview effects among African Americans: 

Donning the black mask. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 309-322.

DeBruyn, L.M., Wilkins, B. & Artichoker, K. (1990, November). “It's not cultural”: Violence 

against American Indian women. Paper presented at the 89th American Anthropological 

Association meeting, New Orleans, LA.

Deer, S. (2003/2004). Expanding the network of safety: tribal protection orders for survivors of 

sexual assault [Electronic version]. Tribal Law Journal, 1-28. Retrieved June 23, 2007.

Deer, S. (2004a). Federal Indian law and violent crime: Native women and children at the mercy 

of the state. Social Justice, 31(4), 17-30. 

Deer, S. (2004b). Toward an indigenous jurisprudence of rape [Electronic version]. The Kansas 

Journal of Law & Public Policy, 14, 121-154. Retrieved June 23, 2007.

 Deer, S. (2005). Sovereignty of the Soul: Exploring the Intersection of Rape Law Reform and 

Federal Indian Law. Suffolk University Law Review, 38, 455-466. 

Deer, S., & Tatum, M.L. (2003). Tribal efforts to comply with VAWA's Full Faith and Credit 

requirements: A response to Sandra Schmieder. Tulsa Law Review, 39, 403-418. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
147

DeJong, C., & Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006). A summary of personal protection order statutes in 

the United States. Violence Against Women, 12(1), 68-88. 

Dietz, N.A., and Martin, P.Y. (2007). Women who are stalked: Questioning the fear standard.

Violence Against Women, 13(7), 750-776. 

Dietz, P.E., Matthews, D.B., Duyne, C.V., Martell, D.A., Parry, C.D.H. & Stewart, T.M.

Threatening and otherwise inappropriate letters to Hollywood celebrities. Journal of 

Forensic Sciences, 36(1), 185-209. 

Dupree, C. (2000). First Judicial District Arrest Policies Project: Santa Fe, New Mexico. Final 

Report, grant number 98-WE-VX-0012 (NCJRS 201887). Washington, DC: National 

Institute of Justice. 

Duran, E., Duran, B., Woodis, W. & Woodis, P. (1998). A postcolonial perspective on domestic 

violence in Indian Country. In R. Carrillo & J. Tello (Eds.), Family Violence and Men of 

Color. New York: Springer. 

Duran, B., Duran, E., & Brave Heart, M.Y. (1998). American Indian and/or Alaska Natives and 

the trauma of history. In R. Thornton (Ed.), Studying Native America: Problems and 

prospects. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 

Durst, D. (1991). Conjugal violence: Changing attitudes in two northern Native communities,”

Community Mental Health Journal, 27(5), 359-373. 

Erwin, P.E., & Vidales, G. (2001). Domestic violence, people of color and the criminal justice 

system – A case for prevention [Electronic version]. Washington, DC: Family Violence 

Prevention Fund. Retrieved October 6, 2007 from 

www.endabuse.org/programs/children/files/prevention/DomesticViolenceResearch.pdf

Evans-Campbell, T., Lindhorst, T., Huang, B. & Walters, K.L. (2006). Interpersonal violence in 

the lives of urban American Indian and Alaska Native women: Implications for health, 

mental health, and help seeking [Electronic version]. American Journal of Public Health, 96

(8), 1416-1422. 

Fairchild, D.G., Fairchild, M.W., & Stoner, S. (1998). Prevalence of adult domestic violence 

among women seeking routine care in a Native American health care facility. American 

Journal of Public Health, 88(10), 1515-1517. 

Fifer, S. (1996). Perceptions of caring behaviors in health providers. The Indian Health Service 

Primary Care Provider, 21(7), 89-95. 

Fine, D.M. (1998). The Violence against Women Act of 1994: The proper federal role in 

policing domestic violence [Electronic version]. Cornell Law Review, 84, 252-303. 

Retrieved June 05, 2007. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
148

Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T., & Turner, M.G. (2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a 

national study of college women. Criminology and Public Policy, 1(2), 257-308.

Ford, D. A., Bachman, R., Friend, M., & Meloy, M. (2002). Controlling violence against 

women: A research perspective on the 1994 VAWA’s criminal justice impacts. Final Report, 

grant number 2000-WT-VX-0008 (NCJ 197137). Washington, DC: National Institute of 

Justice.

Goldberg, C., & Singleton, H.V. (2005). Public Law 280 and law enforcement in Indian

Country—research priorities. Research in Brief (NCJ 209839). Washington, DC: U.S. 

National Institute of Justice.

Goldberg-Ambrose, C. (1997). Planting tail feathers: Tribal survival and Public Law 280. Los 

Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles American Indian Studies Center. 

Goode, M. (1995). Stalking: Crime of the '90s? Criminal Law Journal, 19(1), 21-31. 

Gray, B., & Launderdale. P. (2006). The web of justice: Restorative justice has presented only 

part of the story. Wicazo Sa Review: A Journal of Native American Studies, 21(1), 29-41. 

Green, C., & Mohlhenrich, L.M. (2005). Dating violence: Can teens access protection orders?

Washington, DC: National Center for Victims of Crime. 

Groginsky, L., & Freeman, C. (1995). Domestic violence in Native American Indian and Alaska 

Native communities. Protecting Children, 11(3), 13-16. 

Grohowski, L.M. (1995). Cognitive-affective model of reconciliation. Yellow Springs, OH:

Antioch University.

Hagen, J.W., & House, T. (1995). Kanuhkwene: An empowering concept by and for Oneida 

women. Journal of Humanistic Education & Development, 33(3), 123-130. 

Hamby, S.L. (2000). The Importance of community in a feminist analysis of domestic violence 

among Native Americans. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(5), 649-669. 

Hamby, S.L. (2004). Sexual victimization in Indian Country: Barriers and resources for Native

American women seeking help [Electronic version]. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Coalition 

against Domestic Violence. Retrieved June 24, 2007 from 

http://new.vawnet.org/category/index_pages?category_id=695. 

Harwell, T. S., Moore, K.R., & Spence, M.R. (2003). Physical violence, intimate partner 

violence, and emotional abuse among adult American Indian men and women in Montana. 

Preventive Medicine, 37, 297-303. 

Hickman, M. (2003, January). Tribal law enforcement, 2000. Fact sheet (NCJ 197936). 

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
149

Hopkins, C.Q. & Koss, M. (2005). Incorporating feminist theory and insights into a restorative 

justice response to sex offenses. Violence Against Women, 11(5), 693-723.

Horney, J. & Spohn, C. (1991). Rape law reform and instrumental change in six urban 

jurisdictions. Law and Society Review, 117, 119-131.

Hyman, A. (1997). Mandatory reporting of domestic violence by health care providers: A policy 

paper. San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund. Retrieved June 24, 2007 from 

http://www.endabuse.org/health/mandatoryreporting/policypaper.pdf.

Indian Health Service. (2008). Year 2008 profile. Fact sheet accessed February 8, 2998 at 

http://info.ihs.gov/Profile08.asp.

International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2001). Improving Safety in Indian Country: 

Recommendations from the IACP 2001 Summit. Alexandria, VA: International Association 

of Chiefs of Police. Retrieved June 24, 2007 from 

http://www.theiacp.org/documents/pdfs/Publications/ACF1262%2Epdf

Jones, B.J. (2000). Role of Indian tribal courts in the justice system. Washington, DC: US 

Department of Justice. 

Johnson, M.P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of 

violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 283-294. 

Johnson, M.P., & Ferraro, K.J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making 

distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 948-963. 

Katz, R.J. (2004). Addressing the health care needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives.

American Journal of Public Health, 94(1), 13-14. 

Kercher, G., & Johnson, M. (2007). Stalking in Texas. Final Report. Huntsville, TX: Crime 

Victims’ Institute, Sam Houston State University.

Kerstetter, W.A. (1990). Gateway to justice: Police and prosecutorial response to sexual assaults 

against women. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81(2), 267-313. 

Kim, C., & Kwok, Y.S. (1998). Navajo use of native healers. Archives of Internal Medicine, 

158(9) 2245-2249.

King-Reis, A. (2005). Crawford v. Washington: The End of Victimless Prosecution? [Electronic 

version]. Seattle University Law Review, 28, 301-328. Retrieved July 6, 2007. 

Klein, C.F., & Orloff, L.E. (1993). Providing legal protection for battered women: An analysis of 

state statutes and case law [Electronic version]. Hofstra Law Review, 21, 801-1189. 

Retrieved June 10, 2007.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
150

Lininger, T. (2003). Evidentiary issues in federal prosecutions of violence against women. 

[Electronic version]. Indiana Law Review, 36, 687-717. Retrieved June 05, 2007. 

Lowney, K.S., & Best, J. (1995). Stalking strangers and lovers: Changing media typifications of 

a new crime problem. In J. Best (Ed.) Images of issue: Typifying contemporary social 

problems (2nd Ed.). New York: A. De Gruyter. 

Luna, E.M. (1998). The growth and development of tribal police: Challenges and issues for tribal 

sovereignty. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 14(1), 75-86. 

Luna-Firebaugh, E.M. (2002). Women in tribal policing: An examination of their status and 

experiences. Social Science Journal, 39(4), 583-592. 

Luna-Firebaugh, E.M. (2003). Incarcerating ourselves: tribal jails and corrections. Prison 

Journal, 83(1), 51-66. 

Luna-Firebaugh, E.M. (2006). Violence against American Indian women and the ServicesTraining-Officers-Prosecutors Violence against Indian Women (STOP VAIW) Program.

Violence Against Women, 12(2), 125-136. 

Luna-Firebaugh, E.M., Lobo, S., Hailer, J., Barragan, D., Mortenson, M., & Pearson, D. (2002).

Impact Evaluation of STOP Grant Program for Reducing Violence against Women among 

Indian Tribes. Final Report, grant number 98-WT-VX-K010 (NCJ 195174). Washington, 

DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Lynch, J.P. (1996). Clarifying divergent estimates of rape from two national surveys. The Public 

Opinion Quarterly, 60(3), 410-430.

Magen, R.H., & Wood, D.S. (2006). Intimate partner violence against Ahtna (Alaskan Native) 

women in the Copper River Basin. Final Report, grant number 2000-WT-VX-0013 (NCJ 

215350). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Malcoe, L.H., & Duran, B. (2004). Intimate partner violence and injury in the lives of lowincome Native American women. In B. Fisher (Ed.) Violence against women and family 

violence: Developments in research, practice, and policy (NCJ 199703). Washington, DC: 

National Institute of Justice. 

Malcoe, L.H., Duran, B. & Montgomery, J.M. (2004). Socioeconomic disparities in intimate 

partner violence against Native American women: A cross-sectional study [Electronic 

version]. BMC Medicine, 2, 20. Retrieved July 16, 2007. 

Martins, R., Holzapfel, S., & Baker, P. (1992). Wife abuse: Are we detecting it? Journal of 

Women's Health, 1(1), 77-80. 

McEachern, D., Van Winkle, M., & Steiner, S. (1998). Domestic violence among the Navajo: A 

legacy of colonization. Journal of Poverty, 2, 31-46. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
151

McKinley, S.L. (1996). The violence against women act after United States v. Lopez: Will 

domestic violence jurisdiction be returned to the states? [Electronic version]. Cleveland 

State Law Review, 44, 345-380. Retrieved June 05, 2007. 

Minton, T.D. (2005, April). Jails in Indian country, 2004. Research Bulletin (NCJ 214257). 

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Mullen, P.E., & Pathé, M. (2002). Stalking. Crime and Justice, 29, 273-318. 

National Sexual Violence Resource Center (no date). Confronting Sexual Violence: Sexual 

Assault in Indian Country. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services,

National Sexual Violence Resource Center.

Nichols, R.V., Litchfield, A., Holappa, T., & Van Stelle, K. (2002a). Tribal Strategies against 

Violence: Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Case Study. Final Report, 

grant number 99-DD-BX-0031 (NCJ 206035). Washington, DC: National Institute of 

Justice. 

Nichols, R.V., Litchfield, A., Holappa, T., & Van Stelle, K. (2002b). Tribal Strategies against 

Violence: Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians Case Study. Final Report, grant 

number 97-DD-BX-0031 (NCJ 206036). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

 Norton, I.M., & Manson, S.M. (1995). A silent minority: Battered American Indian women.

Journal of Family Violence, 10(3), 307-318. 

Norton, I.M., & Manson, S.M. (1997). Domestic violence intervention in an urban Indian Health 

center. Community Mental Health Journal, 33(4), 331-337. 

O’Brien, S. (1991). Tribes and Indians: With whom does the United States maintain a 

relationship? Notre Dame Law Review, 66, 1461-1494

O'Connor, S. D. (1997). Lessons from the third Sovereign: Indian tribal courts [Electronic 

version]. Tulsa Law Journal, 33, 1-6. Retrieved on July 1, 2007. 

Office of Inspector General. (2006, February). Effectiveness of the Office for Victims of Crime 

Tribal Victim Assistance Program. Audit Report. Washington, DC: US Department of 

Justice, Office of Inspector General. Retrieved June 10, 2008 from

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0608/index.htm

Office for Victims of Crime. (2004). Victim services: Promising practices in Indian country. 

Report (NCJ 207019 ). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/victimsrvsindian_country2004/729404.pdf.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
152

Office on Violence Against Women (2007). A Guide to Understanding the FY Grants to Indian 

Tribal Governments Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved June 

8, 2008 from http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/fy2007_guidebook.pdf.

Office on Violence Against Women. (2006a). 2006 Biennial Report to Congress on the 

Effectiveness of Grant Programs under the Violence Against Women Act. Washington, DC: 

Department of Justice. Retrieved June 10, 2008 from 

http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/vawamei/attachments/pdf/OVWsRptToCongress/2006Biennia

l_ovw-measuring-effectiveness-report.pdf.

Office on Violence Against Women. (2006b). 2006 Report to Congress on the Safe Havens 

Supervised Visitation Program. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, (2006b). Retrieved 

June 10, 2008 from 

http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/vawamei/attachments/pdf/OVWsRptToCongress/2006SafeHa

vensReport_finalv2.pdf

Oetzel, J., & Duran, B. (2004). Intimate partner violence in American Indian and/or Alaska 

Native Communities: A social ecological framework of determinants and interventions.

American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research: The Journal of the National 

Center, 11(3), 49-68. 

Peacock, T., George, L., Wilson, A., Bergstrom, A., & Pence, E. (2002). Community-based 

analysis of the US legal system’s intervention in domestic abuse cases involving indigenous 

women.” Final report, grant number 1999-WT-VX-K007 (NCJ 199358). Washington, DC: 

National Institute of Justice.

Perry, B. (2002). From ethnocide to ethnoviolence: Layers of Native American victimization.

Contemporary Justice Review, 5(3), 231-247. 

Perry, S.W. (2004, December). American Indians and crime. A BJS statistical profile, 1992-

2002. (NCJ 203097). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Perry, S.W. (2005, December). Census of tribal justice agencies in Indian Country, 2002. (NCJ

205332). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Poupart, L.M. (2002). Crime and justice in American Indian communities. Social Justice, 29(1-

2), 144-159. 

Primeaux, M. (1977). Caring for the American Indian patient. The American Journal of Nursing, 

77(1), 91-94. 

Radon, A. (2004). Tribal jurisdiction and domestic violence: The need for non-Indian 

accountability on the reservation. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 37, 1275-

1312. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
153

Raeder, M.S. (2006). Domestic violence in federal court: Abused women as victims, survivors, 

and offenders [Electronic version]. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19, 91-104. Retrieved June 

05, 2007. 

Reese, L.A. & Brown, R.E. (1995). The effects of religious messages on racial identity and 

system blame among African Americans. Journal of Politics, 57, 24-43.

Reina, E. (2000). Violence against women in Indian country. Domestic Violence Report, 5(33), 

47. 

Rennison, C. (2001, March). Violent victimization and race 1993-98. (NCJ 176354).

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Riedel, M. (1999). Sources of homicide data: A review and comparison. In M.D. Smith & M.A. 

Zahn (Eds.) Homicide: a sourcebook of social research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Ritcheske, K.A. (2005). Liability of non-Indian batterers in Indian Country: A jurisdictional 

analysis. Texas Journal of Woman & the Law, 14(2), 201-227. 

Robin, R.W., Chester, B., & Rasmussen, J.K. (1998). Intimate violence in a southwestern 

American Indian tribal community. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 4(4), 335-344. 

Roe, K.J. (2004). The Violence against Women Act and its impact on sexual violence public 

policy: Looking back and looking forward. Enola, PA: National Sexual Violence Research 

Center. Retrieved July 7, 2007, from 

http://www.nrcdv.org/docs/Mailings/2004/NRCDVNovVAWA.pdf.

Saylors, K., & Daliparthy, N. (2006). Violence against Native women in substance abuse 

treatment. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research: : The Journal of 

the National Center, 13(1), 32-51. 

Schmieder, S.J. (2003). The failure of the Violence against Women Act's Full Faith and Credit 

Provision in Indian Country: An argument for amendment. University of Colorado Law 

Review, 74, 765-794. 

Shepherd, J. (2001). Where do you go when its 40 below? Domestic violence among rural 

Alaska Native women. Journal of Women and Social Work, 16(4), 488-510. 

Shinkwin, A. (1983). Homes in disruption: Spouse abuse in Yupik Eskimo society. Fairbanks, 

AK: University of Alaska Press. 

Simoni, J. M., Sehgal, S., & Walters, K.L. (2004). Triangle of risk: Urban American Indian 

women's sexual trauma, injection drug use, and HIV sexual risk behaviors. AIDS and 

Behavior, 8(1), 33-45. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
154

Smith, A. (2003). Not an Indian tradition: The sexual colonization of Native Peoples [Electronic 

version]. Hypatia, 18, 70-85. Retrieved June 16, 2007.

Stevenson, G.B. (1997). Federal antiviolence and abuse legislation: Toward elimination of 

disparate justice for women and children. Willamette Law Review, 33, 848-903. 

Stoddardt, M.L., Jarvis, B., Blake, B., Fabsitz, R.R., Howard, B.V., & Lee, E.T. (2000). 

Recruitment of American Indians in epidemiologic research: The Strong Heart study. 

American Indian & Alaska Native Mental Health Research: The Journal of the National 

Center, 9(3), 20-37. 

Straus, M.A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics scales. 

Journal of Marriage and Family, 41, 75-88.

Straus, M.A., & Gelles, R.J. (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and 

adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications.

Tate, K. (1994). From protest to politics: The new Black voters in American Elections. 

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Tatum, M.L. (2002). A jurisdictional quandary: Challenges facing tribal governments in 

implementing the Full Faith and Credit provisions of the Violence against Women Acts

[Electronic version]. Kentucky Law Journal, 90, 123-227. Retrieved June 05, 2007. 

Tatum, M.L. (2003a). Law enforcement in Indian Country. Tribal Law Journal, 4, 3. 

Tatum, M.L. (2003b). Establishing penalties for violation of protection orders: What tribal 

governments need to know. Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, 13, 125.

Thurman, P.J., Bubar, R., Plested, B., Edwards, R., LeMaster, P. Bystrom, E., Hardy, M., Tahe, 

D., Burnside, M., and Oetting, E.R. (2003). Violence against Indian Women, Final revised 

report. Final report, grant number 99-WT-VX-K007 (NCJ 198828). Washington, DC: 

National Institute of Justice.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998a). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence 

against women: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. Research in 

Brief (NCJ 172837). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998b). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence 

Against Women Survey. Research in Brief (NCJ 169592). Washington, DC: National 

Institute of Justice. 

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences 

of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. 

Research Report, grant number 93–IJ–CX–0012 (NCJ 181867). Washington, DC: National 

Institute of Justice. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
155

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, nature, and consequences of rape victimization: 

Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. Special Report, grant number 

93–IJ–CX–0012 (NCJ 210346). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Trimble, J. E., & Fleming, C.M. (1989). Providing counseling services for Native American 

Indians: Client, counselor, and community characteristics. In P. B. Pederson, J. G. Draguns, 

W. J. Lonner & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures. Honolulu, HI: University 

of Hawaii Press. 

Urban Indian Health Institute. (2004, March). The health status of urban American Indians and 

Alaska Natives. An analysis of select vital records and census data sources. Report. Seattle, 

WA: Seattle Indian Health Board, Urban Indian Health Institute.

UN classifies rape a ‘war tactic’. (2008, June 20). BBC News. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7464462.stm.

 United States Bureau of the Census. (2002). The American Indian and Alaska Native Population 

2000. Census 2000 Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the 

Census.

United States Commission on Civil Rights. (2003). A quiet crisis: Federal funding and unmet 

needs in Indian Country. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 

Retrieved October 6, 2007 from http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/na0703/na0204.pdf

United States Commission on Civil Rights. (2004). Broken promises. Evaluating the Native 

American health care system. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 

Retrieved October 6, 2007 from http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/nahealth/nabroken.pdf

United States Department of the Interior. (2007). Safe Indian Communities Fact Sheet, 2007. 

Webpage available online at: 

http://www.doi.gov/news/07_News_Releases/070205a_FACTSHEET.html.

United States Department the Interior. (2004). Neither safe nor secure: an assessment of Indian 

detention facilities, Report number 2004-I-0056. Washington DC: Inspector General of the 

Department of the Interior.

United States Department of Justice. (2005, September 21). Justice department announces safety 

for Indian Women from sexual assault offenders demonstration initiative sites. Press 

Release. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved June 9, 2008 from 

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/September/05_crt_496.html.

United States Department of Justice. (2007, November 28). $82.7 Million provided to tribal 

communities for law and justice system improvements. Press Release. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved June 9, 2008 from 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2007/TRIB0801.htm.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
156

Valencia-Weber, G., & Zuni, C.P. (1995). Domestic violence and tribal protection of Indigenous 

women in the United States [Electronic version]. St. John's Law Review, 69, 69-135. 

Retrieved June 05, 2007. 

Wahab, S., & Olson, L. (2004). Intimate partner violence and sexual assault in Native American 

communities. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(4), 353-366. 

Waheed, S. (2004). Domestic violence on the reservation: Imperfect laws, imperfect solution

[Electronic version]. Berkeley Women's Law Journal, 19, 287-298. Retrieved June 05, 2007. 

Wakeling, S., Jorgensen, M., Michaelson, S., & Begay, M. (2001). Policing on American Indian 

reservations. Research Report, grant number 95–IJ–CX–0086 (NCJ 188095). Washington, 

DC: National Institute of Justice.

Wood, D. (2001). Police turnover in isolated communities: The Alaska experience. National 

Institute of Justice Journal, 247, 17-23

Yuan, N. P., Koss, M.P., Polacca, M., & Goldman, D. (2006). Risk factors for physical assault 

and rape among six Native American tribes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(12), 

1566-1590. 

Zahnd, E., Holtby, S., Klein, D., & McCain, C. (2002). American Indian women: Preventing 

Violence and Drinking (PVD) Project. Final Report, grant #5 Ro1 AA11821-02. 

Washington, DC: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Office for Research 

on Women’s Health.

Zellerer, E. (2003). Culturally competent programs: The First Family Violence Program for 

Aboriginal men in prison. The Prison Journal, 83(2), 171-190. 

Zion, J.W. (1998). The dynamics of Navajo Peacemaking. Journal of Contemporary 

Criminology, 14(1), 58-74. 

Zuckerman, S., Haley, J.M., Roubideaux, Y. & Lillie-Blanton, M. (2004). Health service access, 

use and insurance coverage among American Indians/Alaska Natives: What role does the 

Indian Health Service play. American Journal of Public Health, 94(1), 53-59.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
157

APPENDIX A: 

METHODOLOGICAL DETAILS OF STUDIES CONDUCTED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

Study Data Collection Methods Sample 

Demographics

Questions/ Definitions Results

National 

Crime 

Victimization 

Survey 

(NCVS)

Relies on a nationally 

representative sample of 

American households. For the 

1992 through 2005 data the 

NCVS annually interviewed 

an average of 80,000 

individuals 12 years of age 

and older, asking them about 

their victimization 

experiences during the 6 

months prior to the interview.

Varies annually - Rape: rates of both completed and 

attempted rape are estimated as well as acts 

of other sexual assault. In addition to being

directly asked if they have experienced 

“Any rape, attempted rape, or other type of 

sexual attack,” respondents are also asked:

Incidents involving forced or unwanted 

sexual acts are often difficult to talk about. 

Have you been forced or coerced to engage 

in unwanted sexual activity by:

a. Someone you didn’t know before

b. A casual acquaintance?

c. Someone you know well?

If respondents reply yes to one of these 

questions, they are then asked, “Do you 

mean forced or coerced sexual intercourse?” 

- Incidents of violence are measured via 

following questions: Other than any 

incidents already mentioned, has anyone 

attacked or threatened you in any of these 

ways: 

a. With any weapon, for instance, a gun 

or knife 

b. With anything like a baseball bat, 

frying pan, scissors, or a stick 

c. By something thrown, such as a rock 

or bottle 

d. Include any grabbing, punching, or 

choking 

- AIAN women are almost 3 times as 

likely to experience a rape or sexual 

assault compared to either White, 

African American or Asian American 

women

- AIAN women were much more likely 

to be hit during the commission of their 

sexual victimization compared to all 

other women

- AIAN women were more likely to be 

injured than either White or African 

American women. Moreover, injured 

AIAN women were more likely to 

require medical care compared to 

injured victims of all other races

- Of the known offenders, a larger 

percent of rape and sexual assaults

against AIAN women are committed by 

intimate partners 

- Compared to other women

Sexual and physical victimizations 

against AIAN women were more likely 

to be inter-racial

- A greater percent of sexual assaults 

against AIAN women were reported to 

police compared to other women, 

however, less than 1 in 5 (17%) of 

victims made the report herself.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
158

National 

Crime 

Victimization 

Survey 

(NCVS)

e. Any rape, attempted rape or other type 

of sexual attack 

f. Any face to face threats 

g. Any attack or threat or use of force by 

anyone at all?

Please mention it even if you are not certain 

it was a crime.

To further cue respondents about incidents 

of victimization not perpetrated by 

strangers, they are then asked: 

1) People often don't think of incidents 

committed by someone they know. Did 

you have something stolen from you OR 

were you attacked or threatened by

a. Someone at work or school 

b. A neighbor or friend 

c. A relative or family member 

d. Any other person you've met or 

known?

2) Did you call the police to report 

something that happened to you which you 

thought was a crime?

3) Did anything happen to you which 

you thought was a crime, but did NOT 

report to the police?

- Stalking: a supplemental survey to 

examine the prevalence of stalking was 

conducted in 2006. “unwanted contacts or 

harassing behavior... that frightened, 

concerned, angered, or annoyed you” The 

behavioral-specific screening questions are 

almost identical to the ones used in 

NVAWS with the addition of “posting 

information or spreading rumors about you 

on the internet, in a public place, or by word 

of mouth.” 

- AIAN women have the highest rate of 

IPV victimization (18.2) compared to 

either African American (8.2), White 

(6.3), or Asian American (1.5) women - A higher proportion of AIANs were 

physically assaulted by other family 

members compared to other women and 

less likely to be assaulted by strangers. - The majority of physical and sexual 

assaults against AIAN women occurred 

in private, at or near a private residence 

(59%) compared to public locations. - Results from the 2006 Stalking 

Supplement are not yet available

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
159

National 

Violence 

Against 

Women 

Survey 

(NVAWS)

Conducted in 1995 through 

1996, the NVAWS relied 

on a nationally 

representative sample of 

8,000 women drawn by 

random-digit dialing from 

households with a 

telephone in the 50 US 

states and DC. 

Respondents age 18 and 

older were interviewed 

using a computer-assisted 

telephone interviewing 

(CATI) system.

Female 

Demographics:

- Age:

18-24 – 9.8%

25-29 – 9.6%

30-39 – 24.6%

40-49 – 22.5%

50-59 – 14.4%

60-69 – 9.9%

70-80+ - 9.3%

- Racial 

Composition:

86.6% White

10.5% AfricanAmerican

1.2% AIAN

1.8%Asian-Pacific 

Islander

- Hispanic Origin

7.9% Hispanic

92.1% Nonhispanic

- Education:

10.7% Less than 

high school

34.6% High school 

and equivalent

45.7% Any college

9.0% Advanced 

degree

- Rape: very behavior-specific questions 

that are intended to measure both completed 

and attempted rapes, but not other forms of 

sexual assault. Respondents were asked 

both about their victimization experiences 

in the “previous 12 months,” and those that 

occurred “during their lifetime.”

1) Has a man or boy ever made you have 

sex by using force or threatening to harm 

you or someone close to you? Just so there 

is no mistake by sex we mean putting a 

penis in your vagina.

2) Has anyone, male or female, ever made 

you have oral sex by using force or threat of 

force? Just so there is no mistake, by oral 

sex we mean that a man or boy put his penis 

in your mouth or someone, male or female, 

penetrated your vagina or anus with their 

mouth.

3) Has anyone ever made you have anal sex 

by using force or threat of harm? Just so 

there is no mistake, by anal sex we mean 

that a man or boy put his penis in your anus. 

4) Has anyone, male or female, ever put 

fingers or objects in your vagina or anus 

against your will or by using force or 

threats? 

5) Has anyone, male or female, ever 

attempted to make you have vaginal, oral, 

or anal sex against your will, but intercourse 

or penetration did not occur? 

- Due to a small number of AIAN 

interviewed, published documents only 

report lifetime prevalence estimates of 

victimization by intimate partners. 

- Lifetime prevalence rates of both 

assaults in general and assaults 

perpetrated by intimate partners are 

both higher for AIAN women compared 

to women of other racial groups. 

Almost two-thirds (61.4%) of AIAN 

women have been assaulted in their 

lifetimes compared to 51.3% of White 

women, 52.1% of African American 

women, and 49.6% of Asian American 

women

- 34% of AIAN women had 

experienced a completed or attempted 

rape in their lifetimes compared to 18% 

of White, 19% of African American, 

and 7% of Asian and Pacific Islander 

women

- AIAN women were more likely to 

have experienced stalking in their 

lifetimes (17%) compared to women of 

other racial groups. White (8.2%), 

African American (6.5%); Asian 

American (4.5%).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
160

National 

Violence 

Against 

Women 

Survey 

(NVAWS)

- Physical Assault: measured by a modified 

version of the Conflict Tactics Scale. 

Respondents were asked about assaults 

which occurred as a child and as adults: 

“Not counting any incidents you have 

already mentioned, after you became an 

adult did any other adult, male or female 

ever...” 

a) Throw something at you that could hurt? 

b) Push, grab or shove you? 

c) Pull your hair? 

d) Slap or hit you?

e) Kick or bite you? 

f) Choke or attempt to drown you? 

g) Hit you with some object? 

h) Beat you up? 

i) Threaten you with a gun? 

j) Threaten you with a knife or other 

weapon? 

k) Use a gun on you? 

l) Use a knife or other weapon on you?

- Stalking: defined as “a course of conduct 

directed at a specific person that involves 

repeated visual or physical proximity, 

nonconsensual communication, or verbal, 

written or implied threats, or a combination 

thereof, that would cause a reasonable 

person fear,” with repeated meaning on two 

or more occasions. The survey asks several 

behaviorally-specific questions: 

 Not including bill collectors, telephone 

solicitors, or other sales people, has anyone, 

male or female, ever...

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
161

National 

Violence 

Against 

Women 

Survey 

(NVAWS)

a. Followed or spied on you?

b. Sent you unsolicited letters or written 

correspondence?

c. Made unsolicited phone calls to you?

d. Stood outside your home, school, or 

workplace?

e. Showed up at places you were even 

though he or she had no business being 

there?

f. Left unwanted items for you to find?

g. Tried to communicate in other ways 

against you?

h. Vandalized your property or destroyed 

something you loved?

Respondents who answered “yes” to one or 

more of these questions were asked whether 

anyone had ever done any of these things to 

them on more than once occasion. Those 

who answered positively were then asked 

how frightened the victimizations made 

them feel and whether they feared the 

offender would seriously harm them or 

someone close to them. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
162

Maxwell and 

Maxwell

(1992)

IHS records, naturalistic 

observation and interviews 

with elders, families, 

community leaders and health 

providers were used to collect 

data about elder abuse on the 

Lone Mountain and Abundant 

Lands reservations.

-Lone Mountain: 

Little workable land 

and no local industry 

led to high 

unemployment rates 

and poverty on the 

reservation. Elders 

are often more 

financially stable than 

younger generations 

because they own 

much of the land and 

receive government 

pensions.

-Abundant Land: 

More industry and 

workable land on 

reservation provided 

jobs to members and 

made the tribe 

economically stable

-Questions were not focused on the rate or 

prevalence of elder abuse, but rather on the 

social significance and consequences of the 

problem

-Physical Elder Abuse: occurs when 

customs involving physical relationships 

between generations are broken such that 

the actions of the younger generation are 

viewed as “inflicting personal harm” on 

members of the older generation

-The Lone Mountain (LM) Reservation 

had several reports of physical elder 

abuse; Abundant Lands (AL) members 

denied the presence of any physical 

abuse

-Lower rates of abuse on AL were 

attributed to greater opportunities and 

financial independence of youth on the 

reservation. The most ambitious youth 

on LM moved off reservations for better 

jobs leaving the less motivated to care 

for elderly. Often youth left on the 

reservation were financially dependent 

on elders because of lack of industry 

surrounding the reservation.

Norton and 

Manson 

(1995)

Interviews were conducted 

with 16 American Indian 

women from nine different 

tribes during an initial intake 

for IPV counseling at an 

urban IHS in the Rocky 

Mountain Region.

-Mean Age: 28.1 

years

-69% were 

unemployed

-50% had a annual 

household income of 

$5,000 or less

-69% had a high 

school degree or less

-Interviews used procedures adapted from 

the Second Family Violence Survey

-The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) was used 

to evaluate violence in intimate 

relationships

-The CTS violence score was 25.2 for 

wives and 49.7 for husbands

-The severe violence score was 12.0 for 

wives and 22.6 for husbands

-38% of women reported marital rape in 

the last year

-12% reported attempted marital rape in 

the previous year

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
163

Robin, Chester 

and 

Rasmussen

(1998)

A semi-structured psychiatric 

interview and a measure of 

IPV were administered to 104 

tribal community members of 

a Southwestern tribe.

-53.9% female (n = 

56)

-Age Range: 21 – 88 

years (mean = 37.5)

-34.6% had an 

income between 

$12,001 and $20,000

-0% had a 4 year 

college degree

-Questions pertaining to IPV were 

developed using a modified version of the 

CTS

-Tribal focus group suggestions led to the 

addition of questions about threats to 

children and other family members, battery 

while pregnant, destruction of property, 

forced sex and use of a weapon in selfdefense 

-The initial CTS question was changed from 

“Are you living with someone now, or have 

you lived with someone in the past year?” to 

“Have you ever lived with someone [in an 

intimate relationship] for a year or longer?”

-78.6% of females participants reported 

physical violence

-28.6% of women experienced forced 

sex by a partner

-Women were 9.53 times more likely 

than men to require medical attention 

for injuries caused by partnerperpetrated violence

-Although 30% of both male and female 

respondents reported perpetrating IPV 

in the past year, 76% of women 

reported that their violence was a 

reaction to abuse by their partners

Fairchild, 

Fairchild and 

Stoner

(1998)

Surveyed 341 women who 

presented for care at the 

general medical clinic or the 

maternal-child clinic at an 

IHS facility located near a 

Navajo Reservation in 

Southwestern U.S.

-Age range: 18-80

years (mean = 39.3)

-97.7% Navajo

-55.4% had less than 

$1,000 monthly 

household income

-73% had 12 years of 

education or less

Physical violence included being:

-Pushed, grabbed or slapped

-Objects thrown at you

-Punched or kicked

-Choked or strangled

-Hit with an object

-Threatened with a knife or gun

-Injured with a knife or gun

-41.9% experienced physical violence 

perpetrated by a male partner during 

their lifetime

-31.7% experienced “severe” physical 

violence80

-12.1% experienced sexual abuse during 

their lifetime

 80 Severe violence, as defined by Straus and Gelles, includes being punched or kicked, choked or strangled, hit with an object, threatened with a knife or gun, or injured by a knife 

or gun

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
164

Zahnd, et a. 

2002

Interviews with 110 

American Indian women who 

were clients or visitors at 5 (2 

urban and 3 rural) American 

Indian service agencies in 

California. 

Age range: 18-44 

years, majority 

receiving TANF 

assistance (70&), 

60% employed, and 

76% had children. 

71% had a 

reservation and 42% 

had lived on a 

reservation in their 

lifetimes. 43% were 

married. 

Questions from the NVAWS were used to 

measure physical assault. Sexual Assaults 

were measured with the question, “have you 

ever been forced to have sex by any adult, 

including anyone who was a member of 

your family, or anyone outside your 

family.”

- 80% of respondents had experienced 

physical assault in their lifetimes

- 26% had experienced forced sex in 

their lifetimes

- 32% of the women had experienced 

either a physical and/or sexual 

victimization within the past 12 months.

Bohn

(2003)

Thirty pregnant American 

Indian women were recruited 

during routine prenatal visits

at an urban, Midwestern 

Indian clinic. Data collection 

included a review of prenatal 

medical record, an interview 

and a postpartum hospital 

record review

-Age range: 14-37 

years (mean = 24.3)

-80% were from the 

Woodland and 

Northern Plains 

nations

-70% were poor and 

single

-70% had not 

completed high 

school

-The Index of Spousal Abuse (ISA)81, The 

Danger Assessment82 and the Abuse 

Assessment Screen (ASA)83 were used to 

garner abuse information during the

interview

-Adult sexual abuse: physically or verbally 

forced or unwanted physical contact of a 

sexual nature (e.g. fondling, penetration)

-Current partner abuse: any acts of physical 

violence included in the ISA or other acts of 

physical aggression (e.g. pushed, choked, 

hit, kicked, beat up) 

-Previous partner abuse: Acts of physical 

aggression

-83% experienced partner perpetrated 

physical abuse during their lifetime

-40% experienced partner perpetrated 

sexual abuse as an adult

-54% experienced both sexual and 

physical abuse during their lifetime

Dugan and 

Apel

(2003)

Aggregated over eight years 

(1992 – 2000) of NCVS data 

resulting in 709,235 cases. 

The sample was restricted to 

only cases involving female 

respondents. The larger 

sample size allowed the 

victimization of smaller racial 

and ethnic groups to be 

compared.

Racial and Ethnic 

Composition:

-75.9% White

-11.3% Black

-9.0% Hispanic

-3.3% Asian

-0.5% Native American

-All interviews were conducted using 

NCVS questions and format

-The prevalence of violence 

victimization was highest among Native 

Americans at 3.88%, a rate that almost 

twice the rate of black women

-Native American females are most 

likely to be victimized by an 

acquaintance and least likely by a 

stranger

 81 Hudson & McIntosh (1981)

82 Campbell (1986)

83 Soeken, Parker, McFarlane & Lominak (1998)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
165

Harwell, 

Moore and 

Spence

(2003)

The Montana Department of 

Health and Human Services 

conducted a random sample 

telephone survey of 1,006 

adult American Indians living 

on or near Montana’s seven 

reservations.

Female 

Demographics:

-n = 588 (58%)

-Mean Age: 46 years

-55% were employed 

at the time of the 

study

-51% had a 

household income of 

$20,000 or greater

-81% had 12 years of 

education or greater

-An adapted Behavioral Risk Factor 

Surveillance System (BRFSS) Survey was 

used

-To assess recent personal violence 

participants were asked, “In the past 12 

months, have you been hit, slapped, kicked, 

forced to have sex, or otherwise physically 

hurt by someone?”

-5% of women reported personal 

violence (PV) in the past year

-3% of women reported IPV in the past 

year

-Men reported more PV than women 

(9%), but there was no difference in 

prevalence of IPV in the past year

-The prevalence of IPV among 

American Indian women was similar to 

the prevalence among Montana women 

overall in 1998 (2%)

Malcoe and 

Duran

(2004)

Cross-sectional interviews 

were conducted with 431 

American Indian women. 

Participants were recruited 

from both a tribally-operated 

WIC clinic in Western 

Oklahoma and by fliers 

describing the study which 

were placed in tribal facilities 

and at the local vocational 

school 

-Age range: 14 – 45

years (mean = 28.8)

-76.5% had at least a 

high school degree, 

but only 6.2% had 

earned an Associates 

of Bachelor’s degree

-53.9% lived below 

the federal poverty 

line

-58.3% were clients 

of WIC; 41.7% were 

part of a non-WIC 

convenience sample

-A modified 16-item revised CTS was used 

to measure lifetime IPV

- Physical and sexual assault items were 

divided into minor or severe as defined by 

Straus

-‘Being dragged or thrown across the room’ 

was added to the physical assault scale 

items

-The sexual coercion scale was reduced to a 

three-item scale that asked if a partner 

EVER ‘Insisted on any type of sex with 

you, when you did not want to, but did not 

use physical force’, ‘Used verbal threats to 

make you have sex with him’ or ‘Used 

force, like hitting you, holding you down, or 

using a weapon, to make you have any type 

of sex with him’

-Used 3 items from the sexual coercion 

scale from the CTS 2

-81.3% experienced physical IPV, with 

66.6% experiencing severe physical 

IPV

-49.1% experienced sexual IPV, with 

25.1% experiencing severe sexual IPV

-A strong association was found 

between lifetime experiences of severe 

physical and severe sexual IPV

-Women who received TANF benefits 

during the year prior to the interview 

had significantly higher rates of lifetime 

severe physical and sexual IPV than 

those who did not receive TANF

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
166

Malcoe, Duran 

and 

Montgomery

(2004)

Surveyed 312 American 

Indian women who visited a 

tribally-operated WIC clinic 

in southwest Oklahoma to 

pick up food vouchers

Age range: 14 – 48 

years (mean = 26.2)

-62% of respondents 

were members of one 

of two local tribes

-73.4% of women 

lived at or below the 

federal poverty line 

and 30.1% lived in 

severe poverty

-A modified 18-item version of the CTS 

was used to measure IPV. The most critical 

change was the addition of a question on 

forced sex

-Aggression items asked whether a partner 

‘insulted or swore at her’, ‘did or said 

something to hurt her’, ‘threatened to hit or 

throw something at her’, or ‘threw, 

smashed, hit, or kicked something’

-Physical assault items were divided into 

minor or severe as defined by Straus

-Sexual assault asked whether a partner had 

‘forced her into sexual activity’

-Lifetime prevalence of severe partnerperpetrated violence was 39.1%

-12.2% of women experienced forced 

sexual activity by a partner during their 

lifetime

-88% of women who reported a spouse 

or boyfriend during the prior year 

reported experiencing physical or 

sexual IPV during the past 12 months

Simoni, 

Sehgal and 

Walters

(2004)

Anonymous surveys were 

mailed to all members of an 

American Indian community 

center in New York. A 

sample of 155 female 

respondents was included in 

the analysis.

-Age range: 18 – 87 

years (median = 44.0)

-41% had at least a 

bachelor’s degree

-53% had a monthly 

income of $1,500 or 

less

-11% lived on a 

reservation or tribal 

lands within the past 

year

To ascertain prevalence of abuse 

respondents were asked to specify whether 

or not they had even in their lifetime been:

-Sexually abused by a spouse or sexual 

partner

-Sexually abused by someone other than a 

spouse or sexual partner

-Physically abused by a spouse or sexual 

partner

-Physically abused by someone other than a 

spouse or sexual partner

-52% of all participants reported they 

had been physically or sexually abused 

by someone during their lifetime

-20% were sexually victimized by a 

sexual partner during their lifetime, 

34% by a non-partner, 15% by both and 

39% by either

-31% were physically abused by a 

sexual partner during their lifetime, 

20% by a non-partner, 14% by both and 

37% by either

Rivers

(2005)

Seven Navajo women from 

the Four Corners area of the 

Navajo Nation in New 

Mexico were interviewed by 

a researcher who spent 7 

months living on the 

reservation. 

-Age range: 20 – 60 

years

-4 of the 7 

participants were 

students at Dine 

College; the other 

three were employees 

of the college

-All were born and 

currently living on 

the reservation

-Interviews centered on childhood, adult 

and Navajo experiences

-All participants were asked the same 

questions, but were allowed leeway in depth 

of answers

-Violence against Native women was never 

directly asked about, yet it came frequently 

in the answers and life stories of 

participants

-6 of the women told stories involving 

physical and sexual violence during 

their lifetime

-Stories involved first and second hand 

abuse

-Perpetrators of violence included 

intimate partners, parents and other 

family members

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
167

Saylors and 

Daliparthy

(2006)

Case managers interviewed 

283 American Indian women 

in residential and outpatient 

substance abuse treatment at 

the Native American Health 

Center (NAHC) in Oakland 

and San Francisco, CA. 

Follow-up data was taken at 6 

and 12 months after intake.

No demographical 

information provided.

-Participants were interviewed using the 

Government Performance Results Act 

(GPRA) data collection instrument 

developed by the Center for Substance 

Abuse Treatment (CSAT), along with a 

supplemental HIV risk assessment and 

Native supplement which examined 

potentially relevant sociocultural factors

-84% experienced physical abuse 

during their lifetime

-75% had been hit or beaten up as 

adults. Of those who experienced 

physical violence, 67% said that it was 

perpetrated by a partner

-67% experienced sexual abuse in their 

lifetime

-A strong relationship between physical 

and sexual abuse was found; 96.7% 

who were sexually abused were also 

physically abused

Magen and 

Wood

(2006)

Face-to-face interviews and 

telephone surveys were 

administered to 91 Ahtna 

women in the Copper River 

basin of Alaska. Subjects 

were identified using a list of 

Ahtna shareholders and 

snowball sampling.

-Age Range: 18 – 90 

years (mean = 38.7)

-7.7% identified as 

Indian only, 30.8% as 

mainly Indian, 36.3% 

as equally Indian and 

“white” and 25.3% as 

mostly white

-66.2% had less than 

a $30,000 household 

income

-78.4% had a least a 

high school degree

-Screening and follow-up questions were 

taken from the NVAW survey

-It was considered physical assault if 

someone: ‘threw something that could hurt 

you, pushed’, ‘grabbed or shoved’, ‘pulled 

hair’, ‘slapped or hit’, ‘kicked or bit’, 

‘choked or tried to drown’, ‘hit with an 

object’, ‘beat up’, ‘threatened with a gun’, 

‘threatened with a knife’, ‘used a gun’ or 

‘used a knife’

-63.7% had been physically assaulted 

during their lifetime

-18% had been physically assaulted 

during the previous year

-Of those physically assaulted in the 

past year 18% were perpetrated by an 

intimate partner

-Of those physically assaulted in their 

lifetime 64% were perpetrated by an 

intimate partner

Yuan, Koss, 

Polacca and 

Goldman

(2006)

Data used was from the Ten 

Tribes Study. A total of 

1,368 male and female 

respondents from six tribes 

were interviewed. 

Participants were randomly 

selected from tribal 

enrollment lists, voter 

registers or health service 

registries.

-58% female

-Female age range: 

20 – 88 years (mean 

= 40)

-42% of respondents 

had a household 

income of less than 

$15,000

-76% of respondents 

graduated high school

-Tribes 1, 5 and 6 

were from the 

Southwest; Tribes 3, 

4 and 7 were from the 

Northwest, Northern 

Plains and Northeast

-Interview questions were modeled after 

NVAW Survey questions

-Physical Assault: behaviors that occurred 

since age 18 years, including being 

threatened and attempted or actually 

inflicted physical harm during adulthood

-Rape: experienced that occurred without 

the victim’s consent since age 18 years, 

involving actual or threatened physical 

force to penetrate the victim’s vagina or 

anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or object, or 

the victim’s mouth by penis, including 

attempts

-45% of women experienced at least 

one incident of physical assault since 

age 18

-80% of adult female physical assault 

victims identified a romantic partner as 

the perpetrator of their abuse

-14% of women reported being raped 

since the age of 18

-55% of females who had been sexually 

assaulted during their life identified a 

male relative as the perpetrator

-There were significant tribal 

differences in rates of physical and 

sexual assault for women 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
168

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.