IMPROVING SAFETY IN

INDIAN COUNTRY:

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM

THE IACP 2001 SUMMIT

OCTOBER, 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................i

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1

II. SUMMIT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE .............................................................................3

SUMMIT PLANNING AND DESIGN ..................................................................................................3

SUMMIT OBJECTIVE ....................................................................................................................4

SUMMIT PROCEEDINGS ...............................................................................................................4

III. THE INDIAN COUNTRY JUSTICE SYSTEM..........................................................................5

GENERAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................5

TRIBAL COMMUNITIES’ LAW ENFORCEMENT AND JUSTICE SYSTEMS.............................................5

IV. SUMMIT RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................7

JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES IN INDIAN COUNTRY ...............................................................................7

RESOURCES FOR INDIAN COUNTRY LAW ENFORCEMENT, JUSTICE AND PROGRAM AGENCIES .....11

TRAINING AND EDUCATION FOR INDIAN COUNTRY LAW ENFORCEMENT, JUSTICE AND PROGRAM

AGENCIES ................................................................................................................................18

COORDINATION AND COOPERATION AMONG INDIAN COUNTRY LAW ENFORCEMENT, JUSTICE AND

PROGRAM AGENCIES................................................................................................................21

RESPONSE TO VICTIMS OF CRIME IN INDIAN COUNTRY...............................................................25

PREVENTION STRATEGIES TO REDUCE CRIME ...........................................................................28

V. NEXT STEPS AND ACTION AGENDA .................................................................................31

ENDNOTES ................................................................................................................................32

APPENDIX 1...............................................................................................................................35

APPENDIX 2...............................................................................................................................43

APPENDIX 3...............................................................................................................................47
Acknowledgments

The Improving Safety in Indian Country Summit and this report was a result of the

leadership and initial interest expressed by the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary

Lou Leary and Acting Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Richard Ward.

Subsequent funding and support for the International Association of Chiefs of Police

(IACP) summit came from the following offices and agencies within the U.S. Department

of Justice (DOJ):

• Office of Justice Programs

• Violence Against Women Office, Office of Justice Programs

• Office of Tribal Justice

• Office of Juvenile Justice and Prevention Programs, Office of Justice Programs

• Office of State and Local Domestic Preparedness Services, Office of Justice

Programs

• Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs

• National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs

• Community Oriented Policing Services Office

• Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs

• American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Desk, Office of Justice Programs

We are particularly grateful for the support and direction provided by the Bureau of

Justice Assistance, (OJP) which coordinated the participating DOJ agencies’ funds and

served as grant agency for this project, and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP)

American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Desk, (OJP) whose Director, Norena Henry,

served as project liaison to the IACP.

Throughout the project, but particularly during the conceptualization and planning

stages, the summit benefited from the collaboration and contributions of the Advisory

Board, whose members are recognized individually in Appendix 2.

We are indebted most to the summit participants who worked so diligently and

productively to fashion the recommendations that appear in this report. We hope that

we have synthesized and conveyed their contributions faithfully and accurately. Each

participant is also acknowledged in Appendix 1.

Several individuals deserve special thanks for their substantial contributions to the

summit and to the final report: Ed Reina, Chief, Yavapai-Prescott Tribal Law

Enforcement Department and Chair of the IACP’s Indian Country Law Enforcement

Section; Norena Henry, Director, Office of Justice Programs (OJP) American Indian and

Alaska Native Affairs Desk, and Project Liaison between OJP and the IACP; Jacqueline

Agtuca, Deputy Director, Office of Tribal Justice; John Harte, Deputy Director, Office of

Tribal Justice; Todd Araujo, Deputy Director, Office of Tribal Justice; and Debra Gee,

Tribal Legal Counsel, Violence Against Women Office, (OJP). These individuals gave

generously of their time and skills to plan, facilitate and follow-up on the summit.
Improving Safety in Indian Country, Executive Summary IACP Summit 2001

i

Executive Summary

Concerns about safety and justice are a defining characteristic of life in Indian country,

and recent studies highlight the extent of the problem. Findings show, for example, that

American Indians experience violent victimization at a rate that is twice the national

average.

These problems stand in stark contrast to two important trends, one outside Indian

country and one within. Outside Indian country, the 1990s were characterized by

decreasing crime and victimization rates. Problems that have been effectively

addressed across the rest of the US are not being addressed successfully in tribal

communities. Inside Indian country, increased powers of self-governance gained over

the last 30 years have brought many Indian tribes substantial economic success,

spurred population growth and return migration, and resulted in innovative solutions to a

variety of social concerns. At the outset of the 21st century, Indian tribes are, in many

respects, stronger than they have been since contact and colonization. Crime and

safety issues are a noteworthy exception to these positive trends.

It is both critical and timely for policymakers at all levels of government (tribal, federal,

state and local) to respond to Indian country’s crime and safety concerns. In

responding, however, it is important to remember that the problems are multi-faceted,

and that the responses must be multi-faceted as well. Improving safety in the day-to-day

lives of the residents of Indian country is the responsibility of a broad range of justice

institutions both within and outside of Indian country – not just law enforcement officials.

Improving safety necessitates the involvement of social service and public health

providers, tribal and non-Indian politicians, federal and state officials, youth workers and

the residents of tribal communities, among others.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) joined with tribal communities

and their justice systems in addressing this challenge through the summit Improving

Safety in Indian Country. Summit organizers embraced the complexity of the problem

and its solutions by including the broadest possible range of participants. Using a welltested format, participants were able, over two days, to produce a comprehensive

agenda for improving safety in Indian country. The IACP’s facilitation will help ensure

that action follows.

The summit recommendations – drafted in breakout groups and then affirmed by all

participants – address six issue areas in which change is necessary in order to improve

safety in Indian country:

• Jurisdictional Issues in Indian Country

• Resources for Indian Country Law Enforcement, Justice and Program

Agencies

• Training and Education for Indian Country Law Enforcement, Justice and

Program Agencies
Improving Safety in Indian Country, Executive Summary IACP Summit 2001

ii

• Coordination and Cooperation among Indian Country Law Enforcement,

Justice and Program Agencies

• Response to Victims of Crime in Indian Country

• Prevention Strategies to Reduce Crime

The recommendations are summarized below, and are discussed in more detail in

Section IV.

Recommendations on Jurisdictional Issues in Indian Country

Law enforcement officers working in Indian country operate in a complex jurisdictional

environment. All too often, limits on, or overlaps in jurisdictional authority prevent Indian

country’s justice system from protecting the safety of Indian country residents. Thus,

summit participants focused on this objective:

To identify jurisdictional authority issues that impede the ability of tribal law

enforcement, justice and program agencies to provide safety in Indian

country, and to recommend short and long term strategies to eliminate

these problems, thereby increasing safety in Indian country.

Summit recommendations are:

1. Policymakers should address the problems generated by Oliphant v. Suquamish

Indian Tribe, preferably through legislative action that revisits case law.

2. Policymakers should address the problems generated by other limitations on tribal

jurisdiction (for example, those contained in Public Law 280, the Indian Civil Rights

Act, the Major Crimes Act and various Indian land claims settlement acts).

3. Tribal, federal, state and local law enforcement agencies should pursue crossjurisdictional cooperation whenever and however it is possible.

Recommendations 4-6 are subsidiary and even more specific:

4. Tribal, federal, state and local agencies should convene regularly

scheduled meetings to discuss problems, share information and focus on

collaborative cross-jurisdictional solutions.

5. Tribes and states should recognize each other’s properly trained officers

wherever there is concurrent jurisdiction between a tribe and a state.

6. The federal government and the IACP should encourage tribal and local

governments and agencies to develop plans for mutual cooperation.

7. All law enforcement officers working in Indian country should receive specialized

training about Indian country.
Improving Safety in Indian Country, Executive Summary IACP Summit 2001

iii

8. Tribal, federal, state and local governments, as well as professional law enforcement

organizations should work to inform the public about the expertise and authority of

tribal law enforcement officers.

9. The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of the Interior should improve

their cooperation and coordination between their respective Departments.

Recommendations on Resources for Indian Country Law Enforcement, Justice

and Program Agencies

Recent studies suggest that tribal law enforcement, tribal detention facilities, tribal

justice systems, tribal prosecutors, members of the defense bar and important justicerelated health and social service providers all operate with limited resources compared

to their non-Indian counterparts. Increased monetary resources – and the translation of

these resources into manpower, training, facilities, equipment, program development,

research and evaluation, and community outreach – are critical to improved safety in

Indian country. Summit participants focused on this objective:

To identify sources and shortfalls in resources to tribal justice systems and to

develop resource acquisition strategies for these agencies that will improve

safety in Indian country.

Summit recommendations are:

10. The federal government should immediately and permanently increase the funding it

provides for tribal justice systems and the federal agencies that complement their

work.

Recommendations 11-16 extend the point:

11. The federal government should strengthen tribal justice systems by

providing permanent formula funding to tribal governments for their justice

agencies.

12. Congress should maintain and improve the Community Oriented Policing

Services (COPS) Tribal Resources Grant Program.

13. Congress should legislate changes in programs so that more programs

provide direct funding to tribal governments, (which honors the

government-to-government relationship and limits the problems with pass

through funding from states).

14. The federal government should increase the flow of existing resources to

Indian country by improving information dissemination, consolidating

funding and simplifying funding application processes.

15. Congress should require federal agencies to provide maximum flexibility to

tribal governments in program administration.
Improving Safety in Indian Country, Executive Summary IACP Summit 2001

iv

16. The federal government should revisit the proposal to move the funding

and oversight of Indian country law enforcement from the U.S. Department

of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs to the U.S. Department of Justice.

17. Tribal governments should position themselves to receive greater financial and

institutional support from other governments.

Recommendations 18-23 provide further detail:

18. Tribal governments should develop strategic plans for their tribal law

enforcement organizations (including mission statements and quantifiable

goals and objectives), so that tribal law enforcement is better able to

define critical issues and craft appropriate solutions.

19. Tribal governments should develop and utilize evaluation procedures to

identify and fix poor programs and to justify support for good programs

(those that meet community needs and work).

20. Tribal governments should establish and improve data collection systems,

and use them to manage tribal justice resources.

21. Tribal governments should become more entrepreneurial in seeking

funding for tribal justice systems.

22. Tribal governments should seek out and take advantage of technical

assistance programs that facilitate and enhance grant writing.

23. Tribal governments should request that Congress and the U.S.

Department of Justice maintain the Office of Tribal Justice.

24. To improve safety in Indian country, tribal governments and the other

governments with which they work must collaborate to share resources and

information.

Recommendations 25 and 26 extend this point:

25. To avoid overlapping and contradictory policymaking, the federal government

should invest in and improve information sharing between federal agencies,

and those agencies should document and disseminate information about their

programs to tribal law enforcement and justice agencies.

26. To save time and money, all governments should share information about

promising approaches to improving safety in Indian country.
Improving Safety in Indian Country, Executive Summary IACP Summit 2001

v

Recommendations on Training and Education for Indian Country Law

Enforcement, Justice and Program Agencies

A majority of Indian country’s public safety officers have received high quality baseline

training. However, law enforcement personnel and the employees of collaborating

agencies have continuing in-service training needs. As long as these training gaps

exist, Indian country’s justice personnel are less equipped to respond to their

communities’ most pressing crime and safety concerns. Summit participants addressed

this objective:

To develop a strategy to respond to the deficiencies in the quality and quantity of

education and training available to tribal and non-tribal law enforcement, justice

and program agencies, and to develop a set of education and training strategies

that will improve safety in Indian country.

Summit recommendations are:

27. A means must be found to provide easy access to information about the many

training programs available to Indian country law enforcement and justice agency

personnel.

28. All agencies and organizations involved in training Indian country law enforcement

and criminal justice practitioners must help ensure that those who need the training

have access to it.

29. Tribes, in partnership with other governments that hire Indian country law

enforcement personnel, must adopt policies that help them recruit and train to retain.

30. Tribal law enforcement departments and related justice and program agencies

should develop budget policies and procedures that both acknowledge the

importance of training and make it easier to secure adequate funding for training.

31. Tribal law enforcement departments and related justice and program agencies

should communicate the importance of training to tribal leaders, and tribal leaders

should both support and participate in training efforts.

32. The federal government should increase its support for Indian country law

enforcement training.

Recommendations on Coordination and Cooperation Among Indian Country Law

Enforcement, Justice and Program Agencies

By making the application of justice more consistent, coordination and cooperation

improve the response of the justice system to a wide variety of safety concerns. For this

reason, the summit participants focused on this objective:

To identify areas where coordination and cooperation among tribal justice

agencies among state, county, local and federal agencies which serve Indian
Improving Safety in Indian Country, Executive Summary IACP Summit 2001

vi

Country are lacking and to design collaborative strategies to increase safety in

Indian country.

Summit recommendations are:

33. The federal government and tribal governments should form additional multijurisdictional investigative units to work across tribal/state/federal jurisdictional

boundaries.

34. Tribal governments, with the support of the IACP, should collaborate with the

National Sheriffs Association (NSA) as a means of improving relations between

county sheriffs and tribal chiefs of police.

35. The federal government and other non-Indian governments should recognize and

support the work of traditional tribal service providers, such as traditional tribal

sheriffs.

36. DOJ should host a tribal law enforcement and promising practices summit that

focuses on collaboration and cooperation between governments and agencies

serving Indian country.

37. Tribal governments and the federal government should support the development of

comprehensive tribal justice systems.

38. Tribes, with the assistance of the IACP, should pursue tribe-to-tribe information

sharing and department-to-department mentoring.

Recommendations 39 and 40 provide more detail on this point:

39. Tribal governments should seek to improve the technological capacity of their

justice systems; ultimately working toward integrated systems for information

sharing between tribes; the federal government and other sources of funding

should support such efforts.

40. Tribal law enforcement departments should work to standardize their crime

reporting systems; compatibility with federal crime reporting systems may be

the preferred standard.

Recommendations on the Response to Victims of Crime in Indian Country

Providing services to victims of crime is a critical means of improving safety in Indian

country, since many services help remove victims from harm’s way and prevent revictimization. The high rates of violent crime that typify tribal communities further justify

investments in victim services. When individuals are victimized, there is a much higher

probability that they will subsequently suffer a harsher form of victimization and, hence,

require more extensive support in the wake of the crime. Based on these

considerations, the summit participants focused on this objective:
Improving Safety in Indian Country, Executive Summary IACP Summit 2001

vii

To identify the nature and extent of crime victimization in Indian country and the

specific needs of those victimized, and to recommend strategies to help tribal law

enforcement, justice and program agencies meet these needs effectively.

Summit recommendations are:

41. The US Attorney’s Office should enhance its relationships with tribes, work to better

understand tribes’ needs and be proactive in providing resources to help victims of

crime.

42. Federal agencies (including the US Attorney’s Office, BIA, FBI, etc.) should support

data collection regarding gaps and delays in criminal justice proceedings, in an effort

to better understand and remedy the effect of such gaps on victims of crime.

43. Congress should review federal sentencing guidelines to ensure that they reflect

contemporary values and sentencing trends in Indian country.

44. The federal government should establish and strengthen follow-up victim assistance

programs at all levels of government.

45. The federal government should provide funding for tribes to hire, equip and train first

responders.

46. Law enforcement, justice and related program agencies at all levels of government

(tribal, state, county, local and federal) should provide their employees with training

on victim issues.

47. Tribal leaders should support the work of tribal victim service providers and afford

them respect as part of the tribal justice system.

48. Tribes should be encouraged to meet together on a regular basis to coordinate their

responses to victims and to share information.

Recommendations on Prevention Strategies to Reduce Crime

While much of the most visible work of law enforcement and justice providers in Indian

country occurs in response to crime, less visible crime prevention efforts may be even

more effective at combating and reducing crime in Indian country. This has been the

finding in many non-Indian urban areas that once suffered from entrenched crime and

violence. Given the great potential of strategic prevention efforts, summit participants

addressed this objective:

To identify types of crimes that are frequent in occurrence and to develop

strategies for tribal law enforcement, justice and program agencies to

prevent those crimes, and to educate and inform potential victims and to

decrease the overall level of victimization in Indian country.
Improving Safety in Indian Country, Executive Summary IACP Summit 2001

viii

Summit recommendations are:

49. The federal government and tribal governments should increase their support of

prevention programs and create abundant opportunities for intervention in the cycle

of crime and violence.

50. To combat racial intolerance and violence, state governments should develop

curricula to educate policymakers, non-Indian law enforcement officials and citizens

at large about accurate US history, Indian tribes’ unique political and legal

relationship with the US government and the basics of tribal government, including

the Indian country justice system.

51. Tribal governments should determine which crime prevention programs have the

greatest potential in their communities and commit to the development and

expansion of these programs.

52. Indian families must re-engage in the process of crime prevention.

Next Steps

Beyond the development of policy recommendations, a set of long-term implementation

goals was part of summit planning. IACP intends to work with its Indian Country Law

Enforcement Section, the Office of Tribal Justice, the Office of Justice Programs and all

other relevant U.S. Department of Justice agencies, as well as the Bureau of Indian

Affairs, to implement summit recommendations. Work on this second phase of the

summit will begin immediately upon the publication and dissemination of this report.
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

1

I. Introduction

Two recent national studies (“American Indians and Crime,” February 1999 and “Violent

Victimization and Race, 1993-98,” March 2001, both from the Bureau of Justice

Statistics) reveal a disturbing picture of American Indian1 involvement in crime as both

victims and offenders. For example, estimates from the National Crime Victimization

Survey indicate that between 1993 and 1998, American Indians sustained a rate of

violent victimization about 2 times that experienced by blacks, 21⁄2 times that sustained

by whites and 41⁄2 times that experienced by Asians.2 Other statistics are equally

startling:

• American Indians ages 16-24 suffer the highest violent victimization rate

(207.5 victimizations per 1,000 American Indians in the age range).3

• Approximately 70 percent of the violent victimization experienced by

American Indians is committed by persons not of the same race.4

• The 1997 arrest rate among American Indians for alcohol-related offenses

was more than double that found among all races.5

• On a per capita basis, American Indians have had a rate of prison

incarceration about 38 percent higher than the national rate6; the rate is

double the rate for the white population in the US.7

• American Indians are more likely than members of any other population

subgroup to sustain a serious injury during a violent incident.8

While these statistics encompass the problems experienced by all American Indians

living in the United States, they also reflect similar levels of crime felt by individuals

living in tribal communities. Concerns about safety are often a defining characteristic of

their lives.

Indeed, the comparisons between Indian country and the rest of the US population at

large direct our focus to another important fact: The data describing the high rates of

crime and victimization typical of many tribal communities emerged when, in much of

the rest of the US, crime and victimization rates were falling. Problems that are being

effectively addressed outside Indian country – even very complex problems with crime

and victimization – are not being effectively addressed in Indian country. In other words,

the residents of tribal communities not only experience lower levels of safety than nonresidents, but by comparison, they are growing even less safe.9

The rising crime and victimization rates stand in contrast to another trend in Indian

country. During the last 30 years, which has been termed the “era of Indian selfdetermination,” Indian tribes have gained greater control over their institutions of

governance, and in so doing, crafted more workable solutions to many of their economic

and social problems.10 Increased powers of self-governance have brought some Indian

tribes economic success with natural resource-based industries, tourism, gaming, small

enterprise development and even Wall Street-style “big business.”11 Based on early

returns from the 2000 US Census, American Indians will have marked a third decade of
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

2

substantial population growth.12 At the outset of the 21st century, Indian tribes are, in

many respects, stronger than they have been since contact and colonization. Crime and

safety issues in Indian country are a noteworthy exception to these other positive

trends.

It is both critical and timely for policymakers to focus on law enforcement, crime and

safety in Indian country, to assess current responses and craft more effective solutions.

In conducting this assessment, however, it is important for policymakers to remember

that the problems are multi-faceted, and that appropriate responses may also be multifaceted. Improving safety in the day-to-day lives of the residents of Indian country is the

responsibility of a broad range of justice institutions both within and outside of Indian

country – not just law enforcement officials. Improving safety necessitates the

involvement of social service and public health providers, tribal and non-Indian

politicians, federal and state officials, youth workers and Indian country residents,

among others. Yet the goals of this broad range of parties can be reduced to just two

things: 1) increasing the capacity of Indian country public safety providers to protect

residents and, 2) increasing the ability of Indian country law enforcement officers and

residents to prevent crime and violence.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) joined with tribal communities

and their justice systems in addressing these issues through the summit Improving

Safety in Indian Country. Summit organizers embraced the complexity of the problem

and its solutions by including the broadest possible range of participants. And, through

the commitment and knowledge of summit planners, advisors and participants, the

recommendations that emerged from the summit were squarely focused on the dual

challenges of protection and prevention. After briefly reviewing the IACP summit

process and providing some background on Indian country justice systems, this

document moves immediately to a detailed discussion of these recommendations. They

are the core product of the summit and are intended as a challenge and a guide for all

future policymaking concerning safety in Indian country.
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

3

II. Summit Background and Purpose

Since 1994, the IACP has held annual summits on critical issues facing law

enforcement agencies and the communities they serve. Each has brought together law

enforcement and community leaders, justice system decision-makers, scholars and

others with diverse expertise to share information, deliberate on issues, and craft

recommendations and action plans. Summit themes over the years have included:

“Violence in the United States,” “Murder in America,” “Youth Violence in America,”

“Family Violence in America: Breaking the Cycle for Children Who Witness,” “Hate

Crime In America,” “What Do Victims Want?” “Juvenile Crime and Victimization,” and

“Child Protection.”

At the urging of the IACP Indian Country Law Enforcement Section, and with a

recognition that the complex issues surrounding crime and safety in Indian country have

a profound effect not only on American Indians but also on the many non-Indian

communities that are geographically, economically and politically intertwined with Indian

country, the IACP-sponsored summit steering committee chose “Improving Safety in

Indian Country” as a summit topic for 2001.

Summit Planning and Design

In collaboration with the Office of Justice Programs, in particular, the Director the

American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Office (Indian Desk), Norena Henry; the

Office of Tribal Justice and the Chair of the IACP Indian Country Law Enforcement

Section; IACP staff identified 35 experts to serve as advisors for summit planning. The

summit framework emerged from advisors’ debate, deliberation and consensus. Among

their many statements and conclusions, two defined the nature of the summit:

• Indian country has markedly different cultural characteristics than

mainstream America, and these differences must be respected in the

conduct of the summit, in the breakout group objectives, and the

communication of summit results.

In adherence with this advice, summit organizers departed from their

usual opening sequence and invited an elder from Taos Pueblo to conduct

the opening ceremony. Similarly, summit organizers relied on Native

people to moderate and facilitate sessions, to help keep the style and

content of the discussions as culturally appropriate as possible.

• The issues that surround crime and safety in Indian country are complex

and reach beyond traditional law enforcement, and thus, the summit

design should include a broad range of representatives.

To support this decision, the summit advisors worked with summit

organizers to identify the appropriate types of participants. They also

advocated that a diverse panel of experts make a presentation early on in
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

4

the summit, to help set the scene. Finally, their vision contributed to the

wording of the summit objective, which appears immediately below.

Summit Objective

This objective was recommended by the summit advisors and agreed upon by IACP’s

leadership:

To create strategies and recommendations to address critical Indian

country law enforcement and justice issues, with a guiding focus on

improving safety in Indian country.

Summit Proceedings

The summit approach – designed, tested and applied to all IACP summits since 1995 –

created a forum for candid information exchange among participants and provided an

opportunity to synthesize differing viewpoints about the ways to improve safety in Indian

country. After the opening, introductory remarks and a panel presentation on the

breadth of issues, participants separated into six breakout groups, consistent with the

necessary action and policymaking areas identified by the summit’s advisors. The

groups reconvened the next morning to summarize their discussions and present

recommendations to the assembly. Following each presentation, summit participants

were offered the opportunity to comment on, critique and refine the recommended

actions. This participatory approach generated a set of consensus recommendations

from leading Indian and non-Indian practitioners, policymakers, researchers and

scholars on how best to improve safety in Indian country.
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

5

III. The Indian Country Justice System

General Background

The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian tribes.13 By virtue of their

status as sovereigns that pre-exist the federal Union,14 Indian tribes continue to possess

“attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory”15 that have never

been ceded by treaty or extinguished by statute. Tribes exercise their powers of selfgovernment by operating governmental programs, including law enforcement agencies,

judicial systems, health and educational programs, and other services. For its part, the

United States owes trust responsibilities to Indian tribes, a “relationship [that] has been

described as ‘one of the primary cornerstones of Indian law.’”16 To carry out its treaty

and trust responsibilities, the federal government operates a host of programs to benefit

Indian tribes and their members. While most of those programs are operated by the

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), within the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the Indian

Health Service, within the Department of Health and Human Services, many others are

dispersed among other federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice.

Since the Nixon Administration, the federal government has engaged in a “policy of

encouraging self-government,”17 which includes an increasing practice of devolving to

the tribes’ control over federal programs operated for their benefit.18 The relationship

between tribes and the federal government is a direct government-to-government one,

under which “tribal sovereignty is dependent on, and subordinate to, only the federal

government, not the states.”19

Tribal Communities’ Law Enforcement and Justice Systems

In most of Indian country, federal law provides for shared federal-tribal-state authority to

combat crime and promote public safety. Indian country consists of “all land within the

limits of any Indian reservation;”20 “all dependent Indian communities;”21 and “all Indian

allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished.”22 The federal

government has exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute crimes by non-Indians against

Indians in Indian country.23 The federal government also has jurisdiction to prosecute

the offenses listed in the Major Crimes Act when Indians commit them.24 Tribes retain

concurrent jurisdiction to punish these offenses,25 but tribal authority to sentence

offenders is limited to 1 year or less of imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine, regardless of

the seriousness of the offense.26 Tribes have exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute crimes

by Indians against other Indians that are not listed in the Major Crimes Act.27 The

federal government and tribes also share jurisdiction to prosecute crimes by Indians

against non-Indians, although the federal government may not punish any offender

whom the tribe has punished.28 States, meanwhile, have exclusive jurisdiction to

prosecute most offenses by non-Indians against other non-Indians that occur in Indian

country and non-Indian “victimless” crimes.29

The BIA Office of Law Enforcement Services provides primary law enforcement

services and support in much of Indian country. It funds and staffs patrol, dispatch,

detention and criminal investigation functions on most reservations, either directly or

through contracts under Public Law 93-638. However, because federal laws vest the
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

6

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) with jurisdiction over most felonies that occur in

Indian country, DOJ also has a strong presence in Indian country law enforcement –

particularly through the involvement of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and

United States Attorney’s Offices.30 These agencies are responsible for investigating and

prosecuting the crimes over which the federal government has jurisdiction, although

they increasingly share the responsibilities with BIA and tribal criminal investigators.

Tribal law enforcement agencies are also responsible for investigating and prosecuting

most misdemeanors that occur in Indian country. Tribal law enforcement agencies are

often first responders to crimes on tribal land and provide necessary assistance to

federal investigators for crimes committed within Indian country.

A host of federal agencies (including agencies of the U.S. Departments of the Interior,

Justice, Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services), tribal

agencies and nonprofit organizations provide other justice and related program services

to support Indian country law enforcement. They include such services as alcohol and

drug treatment and detoxification, batterer reeducation programs, women’s shelters,

children’s protective services and neighborhood watch groups, and are part of the broad

focus of this report, as noted in references to “law enforcement, justice and program

agencies.”
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

7

IV. Summit Recommendations

During the two-day summit, participants produced a comprehensive agenda for

improving safety in Indian country. Following the structure of the breakout groups, the

agenda addressed the multi-faceted and complex problems of safety in Indian country

by developing recommendations to affect policy and change practice on many fronts.

The policy breakout group topics were:

• Jurisdictional issues in Indian country

• Resources for Indian country law enforcement, justice and program

agencies

• Training and education for Indian country law enforcement, justice and

program agencies

• Coordination and cooperation among Indian country law enforcement,

justice and program agencies

• Response to victims of crime in Indian country

• Prevention strategies to reduce crime

The recommendations that emerged from the breakout groups and which were

subsequently affirmed by summit participants are detailed in the remainder of this

section.

Jurisdictional Issues in Indian Country

Law enforcement officers working in Indian country operate in a complex jurisdictional

environment. Jurisdiction depends on a number of factors including:

• Where the crime was committed (inside or outside Indian country31);

• Who committed the crime (Indian or non-Indian);

• Who the victim is (Indian or non-Indian); and,

• What crime was committed (felony, misdemeanor, and victimless crime).

Whenever tribal law enforcement officers are forced to make on-the-spot determinations

as to whether a suspect is Indian or non-Indian and whether the victim is Indian or nonIndian, public safety in Indian country is severely compromised. For example, if a nonIndian offender commits a simple assault on an Indian, a tribal law enforcement officer

has limited authority to make an arrest. In such a scenario, neither the tribe, nor the

state, but rather the federal government has jurisdiction over the crime. Generally;

however, the federal government will handle only major crimes, not misdemeanors.

Consequently, there is a jurisdictional void, one that leaves victims of crime unprotected

and perpetrators undeterred. Given the jurisdictional morass that currently describes

Indian country, it is not uncommon for non-Indian offenders to commit crimes in Indian

country knowing that there will be little, if any, retribution for their crimes.
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

8

Jurisdictional considerations also prevent other components of the criminal justice

system from protecting the safety of Indian country residents. They can limit the

remedies that are available under tribal law, create situations in which individuals who

have violated state or federal law are allowed to remain in the community without being

prosecuted, and undermine the authority of tribal criminal justice systems by allowing

defendants to seek rulings in state and federal systems. Such limits on tribal jurisdiction

can prevent Indian country authorities from protecting citizens (both Indian and nonIndian alike) and significantly diminish any deterrent effect the criminal justice system

might have on potential lawbreakers.

Due to the importance of jurisdictional authority to safety in Indian country, summit

participants focused on this objective:

To identify jurisdictional authority issues that impede the ability of tribal law

enforcement, justice and program agencies to provide safety in Indian

country, and to recommend short and long term strategies to eliminate

these problems, thereby increasing safety in Indian country.

Summit recommendations are:

1. Policymakers should address the problems generated by Oliphant v.

Suquamish Indian Tribe, preferably through legislative action that revisits the

case law.

In this 1978 decision,32 the United States Supreme Court held that American Indian

tribes, and thus tribal justice systems, do not have criminal jurisdiction to prosecute nonIndians for crimes occurring in Indian country. When the victim is an Indian, states

generally also lack jurisdiction. Thus, the ruling limits the effectiveness of Indian country

law enforcement and reduces safety in Indian country by essentially creating law

enforcement-free zones for non-Indian offenders. Past history has demonstrated that

non-Indian offenders have often committed misdemeanor crimes without apprehension

by the appropriate law enforcement officers. The result is cultivated scorn for tribal

authority and continued abuse of victims.

More recently in Nevada v. Hicks, the United States Supreme Court decided that tribal

courts did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a state official’s tortious conduct in

executing a search warrant on tribal land for an off-reservation crime.33

The summit participants’ core recommendation is that, because of the case’s sweeping

effects, Congress must revisit Oliphant as soon as possible. As noted in the introduction

to this report, American Indians suffer rates of violent victimization and victimization with

injury at rates at least twice as high as the rate for any other ethnic subgroup of the US

population.34 Any less than an expedited legislative solution to the problems caused by

Oliphant allows for further victim trauma, including physical and mental injury and loss

of life.

Recognizing that legislative action requires additional quantitative data to demonstrate

the decision’s negative effects, summit participants recommend that researchers and
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

9

Indian country law enforcement officials compile specific information about the policy’s

impact. This course of action could strengthen the case for congressional action, and

publication of findings may create the opportunity for a legislative solution.

Notably, the time may be ripe for action. Recommendations emerging from tribal

Violence Against Women Office programs specify the need for tribal authority over nonIndian offenders – based on the observation that women should not have to leave their

home communities in order to secure safety for themselves and for their children. While

ultimately unsuccessful, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community took a request

for exactly such tribal authority directly to Congress.

Participants in the IACP Summit Improving Safety in Indian Country add their recommendation for immediate action to these efforts. Indeed, Oliphant’s sweeping impact is

the reason the summit report leads with a recommendation to change the case law, and

the remainder should be read with Oliphant in mind. For example, if the Oliphant

decision were to be overturned, it is expected that respect for tribal authority would rise;

demands on multi-governmental victim services providers would shrink; Indian country

law enforcement and justice resources could be more directly targeted at safety

improvements and crime prevention; officers’ in-service training would be greatly

simplified; and memoranda of agreement and understanding between tribal, local and

state law enforcement agencies would be less necessary and more targeted. If the

Oliphant decision were reversed, Indian sovereignty over tribal lands would be affirmed

and tribes’ ability to protect the safety of their citizens (both Indian and non-Indian alike)

would greatly improve.

2. Policymakers should address the problems generated by other limitations on

tribal jurisdiction.

A variety of other case and statutory laws (including the Major Crimes Act, Public Law

280, the Indian Civil Rights Act, and various Indian land claims settlement acts) limit the

jurisdiction of tribal law enforcement and tribal justice systems. These limits may not be

as troubling for Indian tribes that currently lack the capacity (for example, court and

prosecution resources, jail space) to exercise full jurisdictional authority over all people

on tribal lands. But other tribes have, or could readily develop such capacity. Summit

participants recommend that legislation be developed that allows Indian tribes to make

a sovereign choice about the extent of their jurisdictional authority on tribal lands. In

particular, tribes should be allowed to “opt in” or “opt out” of providing jurisdiction over

all people on tribal land. The requirement that non-Indians prosecuted in tribal court

must first exercise all tribal appeals before taking advantage of a writ of habeas corpus

should be a part of the legislation as well.

3. Tribal, federal, state and local law enforcement agencies should pursue crossjurisdictional cooperation whenever and however it is possible.

Not only tribal law enforcement officers, but also federal, state and local officers are

impeded by jurisdictional limitations on their enforcement powers (over civil versus

criminal law, misdemeanor versus felony violations, Indian versus non-Indian offenders,

and on Indian versus non-Indian land). Recognizing these difficulties, summit
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

10

participants recommend that tribal, federal, state and local law enforcement agencies

pursue increased cooperation. Specifically:

4. Tribal, federal, state and local agencies should convene regularly

scheduled meetings to discuss problems, share information and

focus on collaborative cross-jurisdictional solutions.

In addition to law enforcement, these meetings should include tribal

prosecutors, US Attorneys, states attorneys, representatives of state

Attorney General’s Offices, and other appropriate tribal and state

authorities.

5. Tribes and states should recognize each other’s properly trained

officers wherever there is concurrent jurisdiction between a tribe and

a state.

Joint recognition is most commonly practiced through cross-deputization

under state laws and tribal laws. The goal is to make law enforcement

more seamless, but in a way that is mutually agreed upon by all parties.

The summit participants acknowledge that joint recognition will be easiest

when each recognizing party (the state, the tribe) is comfortable with the

training the other’s officers have received. Thus, they also recommend

that law enforcement officers working in Indian country pursue and receive

certified training. States and tribes should recognize both state-certified

training and training received at the BIA Law Enforcement Training

Academy (Artesia, New Mexico) as meeting the appropriate standards.

6. The federal government and the IACP should encourage tribal and

local governments and agencies to develop plans for mutual

cooperation.

The Santee Sioux Tribe’s arrangement with the Flandreau, South Dakota

police department is an instructive example of local mutual cooperation. In

this instance, the tribe and the adjacent non-Indian jurisdiction practice a

version of metropolitan policing, with the tribal chief of police supervising

the combined department.35 Counties and tribes in Wisconsin also have

developed formal means of cooperation for law enforcement and child

protection in response to PL 280.36 More generally, the IACP’s model

Memorandum of Understanding could serve as a template for engaging in

mutual aid and limiting the liability of doing so. The organization could

amend this document with language specific to Indian country.

7. All law enforcement officers working in Indian country should receive

specialized training about Indian country.

In order to function the best in the midst of great jurisdictional complexity, not only tribal

officers but all law enforcement officers working in Indian country (city police, county

sheriffs, state police, FBI agents, US marshals, DEA officers, Border Patrol agents, etc.)

must learn about the federal, state and tribal laws and ordinances that govern Indian
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

11

country law enforcement. To whatever extent possible, non-tribal officials must also

understand the standards and expectations of the particular Indian tribes that they will

jointly police with tribal officers. The summit participants recommend that the IACP

develop model curricula on law enforcement in Indian country (which would emphasize

tribal authority and sovereignty as well as cultural differences), make the curricula

available to all training academies upon request and urge its adoption.

8. Tribal, federal, state and local governments, as well as professional law

enforcement organizations should work to inform the public about the expertise,

training and authority of tribal law enforcement officers.

The participants recognize that educating the public about the jurisdictional framework

in Indian country poses a difficult challenge. Those U.S. citizens who are not also tribal

citizens often lack information about the expertise and authority of tribal police officers

and, as a result, may disobey or disregard them. The participants point out the

responsibility that all governments and agencies have in filling this educational gap, and

recommend that the IACP and tribal departments themselves bring their public

information machinery to bear. For example, the IACP, working closely with the

leadership of its Indian Country Law Enforcement Section, could issue press releases

about the expertise, training and authority of tribal law enforcement officers and publish

articles in Police Chief magazine about law enforcement in Indian country.

9. The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of the Interior should

improve their cooperation and coordination between their respective

organizations.

The jurisdictional issues discussed thus far are not the only jurisdictional problems that

affect law enforcement and safety in Indian country. The two federal agencies involved

in Indian country law enforcement, the U.S. Department of the Interior (and its Bureau of

Indian Affairs) and the U.S. Department of Justice, have long struggled to coordinate

their respective responsibilities. To the extent that inter-governmental cooperation is a

solution to the on-the-ground jurisdictional problems faced by Indian country law

enforcement officers, the summit participants recommend that, as long as both DOI and

DOJ remain involved in Indian country law enforcement, improved cooperation and

coordination also be seen as a solution to the jurisdictional challenges experienced by

the two departments.

Resources for Indian Country Law Enforcement, Justice and Program Agencies

Recent studies suggest that Indian country law enforcement officers operate with only

55-80 percent of the resources available to their counterparts who work outside of

Indian country.37 These estimates are based on comparisons of the number of officers

per capita, law enforcement dollars per capita and law enforcement dollars per officer in

communities with a similar population size and geography. Comparisons to

communities with similar crime rates might be more appropriate – and cast the

resources available to law enforcement in Indian country in an even less favorable light.

Jails and other detention facilities on tribal lands, tribal justice systems, tribal

prosecutors, members of the defense bar, and important justice-related health and
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

12

social service providers (such as the providers of drug and alcohol detoxification

services) also operate with limited resources by comparison to their non-Indian

counterparts. Indeed, the improvement of tribal justice systems was one of the most

prominent and detrimental “unfunded mandates” of the 1990s.38

Certainly law enforcement, justice and related program agencies in Indian country have

provided remarkable services despite these shortages, but it is also clear that limited

resources prevent these agencies from providing similar levels of protection and a

similar degree of participation in community life as is typical outside of Indian country. In

other words, resource limitations place direct constraints on the ability of law

enforcement and justice agencies to protect the safety of Indian country residents and

to prevent crime and victimization. Increased monetary resources – and the translation

of these resources into manpower, training, facilities, equipment, program development,

research and evaluation, and community outreach – are critical to improved safety in

Indian country.

Given these considerations about the importance of appropriate resources for law

enforcement, justice and related programs to safety in Indian country, summit

participants focused on this objective:

To identify sources and shortfalls in resources to tribal justice systems and

to develop resource acquisition strategies for these agencies that will

improve safety in Indian country.

Summit recommendations are:

10. The federal government should immediately and permanently increase the

funding it provides for tribal justice systems and the federal agencies that

complement their work.

The participants’ core concern is that more resources are needed to improve and

expand the services offered by law enforcement and related justice and program

agencies in Indian country. They suggest that funding increases be targeted at tribal

and federal justice system staffing levels (law enforcement, judges, prosecutors,

detention officers, public defenders, drug treatment counselors, etc.) in particular.

Money is needed to improve these workers’ pay and training, provide technical

assistance, and create effective recruitment and retention programs.

Participants advocate that a variety of means be used to accomplish these goals,

including the development of new programs, expansion of existing programs, and more

effective channeling of current funds to Indian country agencies and programs. They

specifically recommend that:

11. The federal government should strengthen tribal justice systems

by providing permanent formula funding to tribal governments for

their justice agencies.

Historically, the federal government did not support the development of

Indian tribes’ justice systems, since tribal governments were essentially
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

13

viewed as mechanisms for reservation economic development and social

service provisions. Later, this underdevelopment severely limited the

funding options available for tribal justice systems. The American Indian

Self Determination and Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93-638)

allows tribal governments to contract functions and services once

administered by the federal government, and contracting provides these

programs with relatively permanent funding streams. If, however, the

federal government ran few or no programs in a particular issue area (as

in the case of tribal justice programs), few or no funds are available for

tribes to develop programs of their own. To remedy this situation, it is

necessary for the federal government to recognize the necessity of

effective tribal law enforcement and justice agencies and to provide

permanent funding for these functions.

12. Congress should maintain and improve the Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services Tribal Resources Grant Program.

Grants provided by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

(COPS) in the U.S. Department of Justice have had a dramatic and

positive effect on many law enforcement departments in Indian country.39

The grants have allowed tribal governments to increase the size of their

departments and allowed departmental administrators to use officers more

strategically. Yet, the grant program has significant problems. Since grants

cannot be made directly to the BIA, tribal agencies whose law

enforcement services are provided exclusively by the BIA must apply

through their tribal governments – an administrative complication that can

lead to more serious difficulties in line authority. More debilitating,

however, is the statute’s retention (sunset) clause and lack of specific

phase-out provisions. While perhaps reasonable for localities with firmer

funding bases for government services and a longer history of selfpolicing, the clause severely tests the already limited resources of Indian

law enforcement departments. Most tribal governments lack the funds to

take over COPS officers’ salaries, as stipulated in the retention clause.

This leaves the impression that federal dollars are exiting just as Indian

country is beginning to address its crime concerns. Instead of eliminating

a program that has been a success in Indian country, the summit

participants recommend that the COPS Tribal Resources Grants Program

be maintained and improved significantly and coordinate with OJP tribal

programs.

13. Congress should legislate changes in programs so that more

programs provide direct funding to tribal governments.

Because tribal governments have a government-to-government

relationship with the United States, (which should be recognized in

program administration) and because state pass through programs are not

working optimally (too often, tribes receive an inequitable share of these

funds), summit participants recommend that more federal programs
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

14

provide direct funding to tribal governments. While no tribes currently

participate in the program, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant does

allow direct support of tribes and is a good model for other grant making

program areas.

14. The federal government should increase the flow of existing

resources to Indian country by improving information dissemination,

consolidating funding and simplifying funding application

processes.

Tribes are already eligible to receive direct funding for a number of federal

programs (offered by DOJ and other departments) that would improve

safety in Indian country. Unfortunately, limited information dissemination

means that few tribal governments understand the full range of options

available to them. When they do, the lack of coordination between sources

of funding and limited consolidation of funding programs is a further

impediment to the acquisition of funds. While the federal government

sometimes creates “packages” of grant opportunities, it has still been

necessary to apply separately for each program. This keeps the

paperwork burden high and, worse, deters tribal governments from

developing law enforcement strategies that are directly tailored for their

communities’ needs. Without the latter, tribal justice programs tend to be

mere patchworks of program opportunities. To address these problems,

the federal government should pursue truly coordinated and consolidated

funding for law enforcement and safety improvements in Indian country,

actively disseminate information about available funds, encourage tribes

to develop law enforcement strategies, help train tribal grant writers to

think in a strategic framework (stressing tribal needs rather than

opportunistic grant writing) and simplify the grant application process.

15. Congress should require federal agencies to provide maximum

flexibility to tribal governments in program administration.

Tribal governments will be best able to meet their communities’ needs if

program development and administration is not overly constrained by

federal guidelines. Thus, funding agencies (such as the COPS Office and

the Office of Justice Programs) should allow tribal governments to have a

high degree of flexibility in administering programs. This is not a

recommendation to abandon accountability procedures, but to address the

unique needs of Indian country residents and tribal governments.

16. The federal government should revisit the proposal to move the

funding and oversight of Indian country law enforcement from the

U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs to the U.S.

Department of Justice.

Increasingly, the various branches of the federal government recognize

that they, and not only the Bureau of Indian Affairs, are responsible to

provide services to Indian country. As part of this movement,
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

15

consideration was made in the late 1990s to move the entire responsibility

for Indian country law enforcement funding and oversight from DOI/BIA to

DOJ. At that time, the proposal was rejected, although adjustments were

made in the oversight of law enforcement within BIA. Today, ongoing

carve outs of BIA funding, decreasing political support of Indian-only

initiatives and the increasing involvement of DOJ in Indian country law

enforcement and justice program development may indicate that the time

has come to revisit this proposal.

17. Tribal governments should position themselves to receive greater financial

and institutional support from other governments.

Proactive tribal governments do everything they can to promote the development of

appropriate and effective justice systems. Their leaders understand that there are

specific actions they can take to garner greater financial and institutional support from

other governments for Indian country law enforcement and safety improvements.

Recommendations 18-20 provide more detailed strategies to accomplish this.

18. Tribal governments should develop strategic plans for their tribal

law enforcement organizations (including mission statements and

quantifiable goals and objectives), so that tribal law enforcement is

better able to define critical issues and craft appropriate solutions.

19. Tribal governments should develop and utilize evaluation

procedures to identify and fix poor programs and to justify support

for good programs (those that meet community needs and work).

20. Tribal governments should establish and improve data collection

systems and use them to manage tribal justice resources.

Recommendations 18-20 acknowledge that it is difficult to raise ongoing

financial support for programs that lack direction, have limited prospects

for success or are entirely unproven. Strategic planning and evaluation

based on those plans help tribes and tribal agencies target areas for

fundraising in a deliberate (as opposed to crisis-driven) manner. They

promote decision-making based on a program’s real prospects and, later,

track record. These actions are not only attractive to sources of funding

(and hence improve the resources available for improving safety in Indian

country), but they also place tribes in a leadership role when it comes to

program development. Given the importance of evaluation and

quantification, better data collection capacities – for everything from crime

trends and officer response times to placements in substance abuse

treatment facilities and collaborations between tribal law enforcement and

social service providers – are critical.
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

16

21. Tribal governments should become more entrepreneurial in

seeking funding for tribal justice systems.

22. Tribal governments should seek out and take advantage of

technical assistance programs that facilitate and enhance grant

writing.

Recommendations 21 and 22 are essentially counterparts to

recommendation 14, which calls upon the federal government to improve

information dissemination and the grant application process. Tribes also

have a responsibility to find out about programs from which their justice

systems could benefit, and they must take steps to ensure that their

applications are not dismissed on account of avoidable errors. Notably,

both the federal government and a number of non-governmental

organizations offer technical assistance in grant writing. It is essential that

tribes seek out and take advantage of these opportunities. For example,

the IACP’s “Services and Support to Smaller Law Enforcement Agencies”

program offers training, best practices and informational bulletins on grant

writing.

23. Tribal governments should request that Congress and the U.S.

Department of Justice maintain the Office of Tribal Justice.

The Office of Tribal Justice (OTJ) serves a variety of functions that are

beneficial to tribal justice programs. It facilitates coordination between

DOJ components working on Indian country issues and helps DOJ fulfill its

broad and complex responsibilities to Indian tribes. It provides an

important point of contact and channel of communication between tribal

governments and DOJ. And, because Indian country issues cut across so

many entities within the Executive branch, OTJ serves to increase

awareness of tribal needs and concerns, and unify the federal response.

Unfortunately, OTJ is vulnerable to budget cuts and national politics. In

order to keep Indian country justice and safety issues as federal priorities,

tribal governments should urge that OTJ be kept in place.

24. To improve safety in Indian country, tribal governments and other

governments with which they work must collaborate to share resources and

information.

Through sharing, it is possible for all tribal governments and other governments to

maximize their effectiveness. While it is sometimes difficult to imagine sharing

resources directly (even among the agencies of a single government, let alone between

governments), there are a number of untried possibilities with great potential, and many

ways in which resource sharing already occurs that deserve to be practiced more

broadly. For example, community prosecution emphasizes resource and information

sharing between law enforcement and probation officers and has met with great

success in urban America, but is relatively untried in Indian country. Where there is

cross-deputization, tribal, municipal, county and state officers share the responsibility of
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

17

responding to tribal, municipal, county and state dispatchers. Because of this

coordination, which is essentially a means of sharing staff and equipment, response

times often decrease and officers waste less time arranging for the appropriate

disposition of offenders over whom they lack jurisdictional authority. These timesaving

strategies allow the same number of officers to answer more calls and focus on more

problems – thus freeing up more resources for improving the safety of Indian country

residents.

While there are opportunities for sharing financial resources, equipment, technology and

training, summit participants recommend that special attention be focused on

information sharing as a means of resource enhancement. Specifically:

25. The federal government should invest in and improve information

sharing between federal agencies, and those agencies should

document and disseminate information about their programs to tribal

law enforcement and justice agencies.

With good information sharing, federal funding agencies avoid overlap or,

worse, contradictory policymaking that can waste federal agencies’ and

tribes’ time and money. Good information exchange can also lead to

better cooperation between programs. A myriad of federal agencies

address and support Indian country justice issues (for example, the Office

of Tribal Justice, the Office of Justice Programs, the Bureau of Indian

Affairs Office of Law Enforcement Services, the National Institute of

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

Office for Victims of Crime, the Violence Against Women Office, the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the

Community Oriented Policing Services Office, the Indian Health Service

and programs within the Department of Housing and Urban Development).

Coordinated information sharing and dissemination among and by these

agencies is paramount.

The approach taken by OJP is exemplary. By creating an American

Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Desk (Indian Desk), all OJP agencies are

able to seek and/or receive program advice from an Indian country expert.

The desk advises the Assistant Attorney General on tribal affairs and

coordinates programming, training, and technical assistance across OJP

bureaus and program offices impacting Indian tribes. As the department

acts on the congressionally-mandated reorganization of OJP, the OJP

American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs (Indian Desk) should be

maintained. To insure that their respective and collaborative efforts are

targeted and avoid redundancy, this office’s coordination of all funding for

the IACP summit (8 DOJ agencies) is an example of the effectiveness of

this coordinated approach.
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

18

26. All governments (tribal, local, county, state, federal, etc.) should

share information about promising approaches to improving safety

in Indian country.

This type of information sharing prevents tribes from wasting time and

money trying to reinvent the wheel. Information about best practices and

promising approaches allows tribal law enforcement departments and

justice agencies to move more quickly and more cost effectively toward

solutions to particular law enforcement, justice and safety concerns.

Training and Education for Indian Country Law Enforcement, Justice and

Program Agencies

In general, the sworn officers in Indian law enforcement departments are graduates of

certified law enforcement training academies.40 In the late 1990s, for example, a survey

of large tribes indicated that approximately 85 percent of tribal law enforcement officers

held such credentials; most of the shortfall (the 15 percent without certified training)

could be explained by recent increases in force size (largely through COPS grants) and

the necessity of waiting until slots for these new recruits opened at the relevant training

academies.

Despite high-quality baseline training, Indian country’s public safety officers suffer from

significant gaps in in-service training and continuing education needs, as do the

employees of related and collaborating justice and program agencies. Offenses such as

domestic violence, child sexual abuse and domestic terrorism require technically

proficient responses not only by law enforcement but also by a variety of service

providers. All responders need training in order to learn this information and to

coordinate their actions. Additionally, there are clear needs for training that is specific to

Indian country and to the tribe that law enforcement officers and agency employees

serve. Training that develops officers’ cultural competence is one example.

As long as these training gaps exist, the personnel of Indian country’s justice agencies

are not as well equipped to respond to their tribes’ most pressing crime and safety

concerns as they might be. Seen in this light, improved training for the personnel of law

enforcement, justice and related program agencies results in improved safety in Indian

country. Thus, summit participants focused on this objective:

To develop a strategy to respond to the deficiencies in the quality and

quantity of education and training available to tribal and non-tribal law

enforcement, justice and program agencies, and to develop a set of

education and training strategies that will improve safety in Indian country.

Summit recommendations are:
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

19

27. A means must be found to provide easy access to information about the many

training programs available to Indian country law enforcement and justice agency

personnel.

Tribal, state, federal and private programs offer training in a wide variety of topics that

would be useful to personnel working on law enforcement, justice and safety issues in

Indian country. Unfortunately, practitioners are often unaware of the many kinds of

training that are available to help them perform their jobs better. Efforts have been

made by several organizations, including the National Tribal Justice Resource Center

and the National Native American Law Enforcement Association, to fill this information

gap (each lists a number of programs on its website), but the efforts are not yet

sufficient. Many in Indian country are unaware of the sites. The listings, while diverse,

are not complete. There are no generalized evaluation systems in place on the websites

that allow participants to rate and provide feedback on the programs. There is no easy

way to tell if a program equips participants with the knowledge and skills necessary to

meet established professional standards. There is no regular means of removing

defunct programs from the lists. And, there is no way to easily move back and forth

between the different training programs’ websites (where they exist) to allow

comparison.

Together, these concerns raise the question, “How can Indian country law enforcement

training programs more effectively disseminate information about training

opportunities?” These agencies must also take account of cost, as some of the

criticisms of the current system would be quite expensive to correct. Databases would

have to be maintained and updated, training programs would have to be screened by a

knowledgeable party (such as the IACP, COPS Office, or BIA), and a neutral agency

would have to be recruited to undertake the evaluation process and be appropriately

remunerated so that ongoing neutrality could be assured.

In sum, there is a vital need for easy access to good and useful training information.

The summit participants’ recommendation is that one leadership organization or agency

must address the question of how to best disseminate information about training.

28. All agencies and organizations involved in training Indian country law

enforcement and criminal justice practitioners must help ensure that those who

need the training have access to it.

Both the geography of Indian country (distance from training sites) and the typically

small size of law enforcement departments and justice agencies in Indian country

(having even a few people away at a training session can significantly limit a

department’s performance) make accessible training a necessity. Summit participants

emphasize that training can be made more accessible if training organizations publicize

the presence of local trainers, engage in partnerships with community and tribal

colleges, and pursue technological options such as video satellite links and distance

learning through internet courses. They also stress the advantages of multi-jurisdictional

training agreements (in which personnel from adjacent or overlapping jurisdictions

receive identical training) as a means of bringing training to the locality. Manpower

exchanges are one simple and cost-effective means of multi-jurisdictional training, and
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

20

the summit participants recommend that the IACP develop a sample agreement for

such exchanges.

29. Tribes, in partnership with other governments that hire Indian country law

enforcement personnel, must adopt policies that help them “recruit and train to

retain.”

Appropriate training is an important adjunct to the recruitment and retention of Indian

country’s law enforcement personnel. For example, the training available to tribal law

enforcement officers affects the types of individuals the department attracts and, once

they are hired, affects their decision to stay. Conversely, the types of individuals

recruited affect the type of training the department will need to offer. For example,

individuals well versed in community culture will need little extra training in cultural

competency.

Given these connections, summit participants address both general and training-specific

elements of personnel recruitment and retention. Participants recommend that tribes

provide law enforcement personnel with career development plans, enhance staff

salaries and benefits (especially retirement and health packages), implement mentoring

programs for new and even prospective recruits, and publicize the successes, unique

features, and ceremonies related to the job. They stress the importance of recruiting

(tribal) community leaders to law enforcement and other justice-related careers. They

suggest that officers be encouraged to join county, state and regional and/or national

professional organizations, in order to broaden their colleague groups. Finally, they

note that if officers’ formal field training stressed cultural competency, they would be

more tightly bound both to the community and to the department. This final

recommendation also requires development of curricula (see recommendation 7).

Overall, summit participants recommend that the training offered to tribal law

enforcement personnel should enhance a department’s ability to attract and retain the

most community active, professional and useful employees.

30. Tribal law enforcement departments and related justice and program agencies

should develop budget policies and procedures that both acknowledge the

importance of training and make it easier to secure adequate funding for training.

Tribal departments and agencies should create training plans to clarify their budget

needs and work to secure these funds in an equitable manner from all of their funding

sources. Department and agency guidelines requiring that a set percentage of each

grant budget be dedicated to training is one option. Setting a training target or goal

within the overall law enforcement (or other agency) budget is another. For example, a

department could have the goal of dedicating 5 percent of its budget to training.

31. Tribal law enforcement departments and related justice and program agencies

should communicate the importance of training to tribal leaders, and tribal

leaders should both support and participate in training efforts.

Tribal leaders should be actively involved in the work of creating safer tribal

communities. With respect to training, this means that tribal leaders should both support
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

21

and participate in training efforts. They should partner with justice agencies in the

development of training and crime prevention initiatives, support policy efforts to secure

funding for training, attend training sessions along with officers, train community

members through participation in crime prevention forums and train themselves through

participation in justice activities (for example, they could make a point of observing law

enforcement activities). Critically, they should lay the groundwork for strategic training

aimed at the tribe’s most pressing safety concerns by supporting the development,

maintenance and dissemination of accurate tribal and local criminal justice statistics.

Given the many demands on tribal leaders’ time, they may have difficulty taking on

these responsibilities. Agencies working to improve safety in Indian country should

reinforce tribal leaders’ central role (particularly with regard to training) and encourage

them to get involved. Selection of training times and locations that facilitate tribal leader

attendance will help.

32. The federal government should increase its support for Indian country law

enforcement training.

While tribes should develop strategies to improve training and garner increased support

(including funding) for training activities, the federal government has a special

responsibility to respond to and complement these initiatives. It should expand its efforts

to provide information about training programs (see recommendation 27). It should

support training by helping disseminate current research findings and data on promising

practices (see recommendations 26 and 36). It should provide funds for the

development of local training facilities (at tribal or other local colleges, for example, or

for distance learning technologies) and commit to sustaining these facilities. It should

support training programs for non-Indian law enforcement officers working in Indian

country (FBI agents, non-tribal criminal investigators, county sheriffs and states

attorneys, etc.) that focus both on Indian country generally and on the specific tribes

located in the region, including relevant aspects of their cultures (see recommendations

7 and 50). And, the federal government should support tribal governments’ efforts to

develop customized training.

Coordination and Cooperation Among Indian Country Law Enforcement, Justice

and Program Agencies

As the recommendations relating to jurisdictional issues make clear, the safety of

residents of Indian country is threatened by inconsistencies in the enforcement of laws

across territorial, race and crime classification boundaries. Coordination and

cooperation improve the response of the justice system not only to jurisdictional

problems but also to a wide variety of other safety concerns. Safety is improved

whenever coordination and cooperation make law enforcement more consistent.

Collaboration is useful at the intergovernmental level (between tribal and non-tribal

entities) and at the local level among tribal agencies. Summit participants focused on

this objective:

To identify areas where coordination and cooperation among tribal justice

agencies and among Indian country, state and federal agencies are
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

22

lacking and to design collaborative strategies to increase safety in Indian

country.

Summit recommendations are:

33. The federal government and tribal governments should form additional multijurisdictional investigative units to work across tribal/state/federal jurisdictional

boundaries.

Multi-jurisdictional investigative units and task forces (such as the Navajo Safe Trails

Task Force) have been an effective means of addressing issues that span jurisdictional

boundaries. Given the promise of multi-jurisdiction input and cooperation to move crime

prevention and safety initiatives forward, it might be useful to employ this model even

more often – with appropriate adjustments to its administration. Tribes, not the FBI or

other federal agencies, should drive the agenda whenever a task force’s primary focus

is on Indian country. They should be provided with task force-specific resources so that

their “seat at the table” is acknowledged. Critically, memoranda of agreement governing

the task forces should not intrude upon tribal sovereignty or unduly hamper independent

tribal police investigations. With these administrative changes and improved incentives

for tribal participation, multi-jurisdictional teams might have great impact. Notably, task

forces can be established to pay sustained attention to deeply rooted problems (such as

gang violence) or formed around the more short-term needs of a particular case.

34. Tribal governments, with the support of the IACP, should collaborate with the

National Sheriffs Association (NSA) as a means of improving relations between

county sheriffs and tribal chiefs of police.

Given the substantial overlap of county and tribal jurisdiction, positive relationships

between county sheriffs and tribal law enforcement are essential. Any lack of

cooperation between these agencies is detrimental to safety in both Indian country and

the adjacent county jurisdictions. The National Sheriffs Association and the IACP should

work together to promote dialogue and strengthen relationships wherever possible.

35. The federal government and other non-Indian governments should recognize

and support the work of traditional tribal service providers, such as traditional

tribal sheriffs.

In many tribal communities, there are two somewhat separate justice systems in

operation – a traditional system and a Western system. Tribal communities need to

make contextual decisions about how these systems will work together. As they do, the

federal government (and other partners in the provision of justice) should acknowledge

and support these decisions. For example, if a community decides that its traditional

tribal sheriff(s) should continue to play a central role in the provision of public safety,

these individuals should be eligible to receive training and other resources from external

governments. Likewise, tribes’ peacemaker courts deserve the same respect and

support as their Anglo counterparts. As sovereign nations, it is the tribes’ right to pursue

these traditional approaches, and it is appropriate for other organizations or

governmental entities to support such efforts.
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

23

Unfortunately, it can be easy to disregard tribes’ rights to such respect. If non-tribal

officials are completely oriented toward Western systems of law enforcement and

justice, they may automatically ignore the fact that tribes can have very different ways of

conducting the same business. That said, it must also be noted that certain traditional

forms of tribal justice may be inappropriate as solutions to modern problems. For

example, questions have been raised about the appropriateness of “peacekeeping”

approaches to domestic violence.41 The key is for tribes to be clear about the fit and

overlap between the Western and traditional systems and, if and when necessary, to

help outsiders understand their relationship.

36. The U.S. Department of Justice should host a tribal law enforcement and

promising practices summit that focuses on collaboration and cooperation

between governments and agencies serving Indian country.

This recommendation coincides with the recommendations in the resources section

(recommendations 25 and 26) about the federal government’s role in information

sharing. A DOJ summit focused on successful collaboration would improve tribes’

resources by helping them avoid costly mistakes and by suggesting appropriate

partners for their work. Topics ripe for discussion include collaborative technology

projects, court management projects and integrated tribal/state/local law enforcement

practices.

37. Tribal governments and the federal government should support the

development of comprehensive tribal justice systems.

“Comprehensive” tribal justice systems better integrate law enforcement with other

justice agencies and social services, so that offenders and others who come into

contact with the law enforcement system are given the most appropriate penalties for

their offenses and the most appropriate services for their needs. For example,

comprehensive programs provide better continuity across law enforcement, corrections

and prison aftercare/community re-entry services.

As sensible as this approach sounds, it is relatively revolutionary in Indian country.

Federal funding processes have inadvertently focused tribal governments on the

creation of stand-alone programs, which frequently result in piecemeal responses.

Comprehensive strategies may combat these tendencies, but changes are difficult for

both the federal and tribal governments. The difficulties should not argue against

comprehensive programs, however. Instead, more and better attempts should be made

to develop them – especially since experience outside Indian country suggests that

comprehensive justice programs have a better chance of rehabilitating offenders,

thereby preventing the slide from delinquency into more serious criminal activity.

Summit participants singled out corrections as an area in which comprehensive

approaches were especially necessary. They recommend that tribal governments

create programs that provide a “continuum of care” between juvenile and adult

corrections and between tribal and state/federal correctional resources. They also

emphasized the importance of a public health view of criminal involvement. As an

individual passes through the corrections system, this orientation shifts the focus from
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

24

punishment to healing. For youthful offenders, for example, the approach prioritizes

alternatives to youth incarceration and encourages policy innovations (such as youth

law enforcement explorer programs). Of course, ensuring a comprehensive continuum

of care that focuses on healing rather than punishment is hard enough at the tribal level,

where juvenile and adult corrections programs are at least part of the same justice

system. The approach is much harder to implement across the tribal and state/federal

systems, and can only occur when leaders of institutions collaborating across the

systems are committed to the principles of comprehensive care and are convinced of

the benefits of inter-governmental cooperation. The New Mexico Children’s Code is one

instructive model.42

38. Tribes, with the assistance of the IACP, should pursue tribe-to-tribe

information sharing and department-to-department mentoring.

Intertribal cooperation and collaboration is as necessary as cooperation between Indian

and non-Indian governments and agencies, yet it receives much less attention.

Recognizing this, the summit participants emphasized the opportunities for and

importance of intertribal collaboration. They specifically recommend that tribes pursue

information sharing, consider department-to-department mentoring whenever they face

similar crime and safety problems, and implement similar justice programs or share

related cultures.

Participants also made two specific recommendations to facilitate information sharing:

39. Tribal governments should seek to improve the technological

capacity of their justice systems; ultimately working toward

integrated information-sharing systems between tribes; the federal

government and other sources of funding should support such

efforts.

For example in Indian Country, Full Court, an automated case

management system used by the Pueblo of Zuni. The system links the

tribal court, probation, detention and jail facility, child welfare, substance

abuse treatment center and domestic violence service provider to one

another. Automatic linkage permits joint (coordinated) case management

of offenders as they move through the justice system. Just as importantly,

it permits coordinated service delivery for children, battered spouses,

youthful offenders, and families in need of services and crime victims as

they move through relevant institutions. The U.S. Department of Justice is

also supporting the Inter tribal Integrated Justice Pilot Project between the

Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, and Pueblo of Zuni to increase the electronic

sharing of information on protection orders on domestic violence, 24-hour

emergency services, and driving under the influence. To reach the goal,

each tribe will participate in three phases of the project. Phase I is to

integrate tribal justice systems (law enforcement, courts, prosecutor, etc.).

Phase II is to share information between the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe,
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

25

and Pueblo of Zuni. Phase III is to share information with other

jurisdictions (state, county, etc.). Given the three tribes’ strong

connections (which arise from geographic proximity, economic

connections and family linkages), the expanded Full Court system should

make each community’s law enforcement and justice programs even more

effective.

40. Tribal law enforcement departments should work to standardize

their crime reporting systems; compatibility with federal crime

reporting systems may be the preferred standard.

Standards are necessary for effective information sharing and for useful

data analysis. Summit participants suggested that it may make sense for

Indian country law enforcement and justice agencies to adopt an already

well defined set of standards, such as the National Crime Information

Center (NCIC) and the National Incident Based Reporting System

(NIBRS). To ensure that the standards are appropriate to Indian country,

participants further recommend that an IACP Indian Country Law

Enforcement Section representative (and perhaps also a tribal judge, tribal

prosecutor and a community leader) be appointed to serve on the

NCIC/NIBRS Criminal Justice Information System Policy Advisory Board

and Work Group.

Response to Victims of Crime in Indian Country

Providing services to victims of crime is a critical component of crime prevention and

improved safety in Indian country, since many services help remove victims from harm’s

way and prevent re-victimization. Even when responses to victims of crime do not have

direct protection and prevention benefits, they improve safety in Indian country by

increasing an individual’s sense that Indian country is a safe place.

The high rates of violent crime and crime with injury that typify Indian country further

justify investments in the establishment and enhancement of victim services. When

individuals are victimized, there is a much higher probability that they will suffer a

harsher form of victimization and require more extensive support in the wake of the

crime. Federal and tribal victimization services will assist in reducing further

victimization and helping ensure that victims receive appropriate support, treatment and

care.

Based on these considerations, summit participants focused on this objective:

To identify the nature and extent of crime victimization in Indian country

and the specific needs of those victimized, and to recommend strategies

to help tribal law enforcement, justice and program agencies meet these

needs effectively.

Summit recommendations are:
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

26

41. The U.S. Attorney’s Office should enhance its relationships with tribes, work

to better understand tribes’ needs and be proactive in providing resources to

help victims of crime.

The federal government has jurisdiction over major crimes committed in Indian country,

and because of this, tribal law enforcement agencies must rely on the U.S. Attorney’s

Office to bring the perpetrators of such crimes to justice. Unfortunately, the relationships

between tribes and local U.S. Attorneys may not always be marked by a sufficient level

of cooperation and a sense of mutual purpose. In part, this is due to the fact that Indian

country crime generally comprises a mere fraction of any U.S. Attorney’s caseload. U.S.

Attorneys therefore have competing priorities, and tribes may (correctly or incorrectly)

conclude that the U.S. Attorney’s Office considers Indian country crime unimportant.

Another reason for slow prosecution is that Indian country cases may simply be harder

to prosecute (child abuse cases likely fall into this category). Nevertheless, when U.S.

Attorneys decline cases or delay prosecutions, victims of crime in Indian country are

hurt.

To its credit, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has already implemented a tribal liaison

program. Yet it should also undertake to better understand tribes’ needs – especially the

reasons why tribal authorities feel that more crimes must be prosecuted – and use this

information and the powers of the U.S. Attorney’s Office to prevent victims of crime from

suffering further harm.

42. Federal agencies should support data collection regarding gaps and delays in

criminal justice proceedings, in an effort to better understand and remedy the

effect of such gaps on victims of crime.

Offices and agencies such as the US Attorney’s Office, the Bureau of Indian Affairs

Office of Law Enforcement Services, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and US

Federal Probation and Parole should participate in the proposed data collection effort.

Data collection might focus on the number of case declinations by tribal, federal and

state prosecutors, the length of time between arrest and prosecution, the types of

services provided to victims, and the severity and nature of offenders’ sentences. With

information of these types in hand, advocates can work strategically both to improve

victim services and to address systemic problems that worsen victims’ situations.

Coordination with the Office of Justice Programs and Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Tribal

Justice Agencies survey instrument and data collection activity this year would be an

essential starting point for Federal coordination. BJS has developed, in cooperation

with Federal agencies and the public, a survey instrument to collect criminal justice data

of law enforcement and tribal justice systems. The annual activity will provide essential,

initially a base line of, information on how many offices, tribal justice systems, caseload,

etc. BJS authored the “American Indians and Crime” document that provides national

information on victimization and offenders of American Indian national (both in urban

and rural areas).

43. Congress should review federal sentencing guidelines to ensure that they

reflect contemporary values and sentencing trends in Indian country.
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

27

The broad sweep of federal jurisdiction in Indian country means that federal guidelines

affect many Indian offenders’ sentences. Yet because Native cultures may place less

value on retributive punishment and greater value on restorative justice and

peacemaking, federal sentencing guidelines can be markedly out of step with

contemporary values and sentencing options. These differences mandate a

reexamination of the applicability of federal sentencing guidelines to Indian country

offenses and/or the adjustment of guidelines to permit flexibility to respond to Indian

country sentencing values.

44. The federal government should establish and strengthen follow-up victim

assistance programs at all levels of government.

Funding for victim assistance programs is already available through the Office for

Victims of Crime (OVC), but summit participants feel strongly that even more is needed

(the amount has been less than $4 million annually). For instance, the federal

government should provide funding for each tribe to have a victim rights advocate. It

should assist tribal prosecutors’ offices in designating resources that support

prosecutors’ work with victims, victims services providers and law enforcement. And, it

should support tribal efforts to create women’s shelters, youth group homes, and

treatment and re-education facilities for offenders.

Participants pay particular attention to the needs of victims of sexual assault. They call

on the federal government (and other funding agencies) to cover the costs of

confidential services such as forensic exams, medical treatment, counseling, and followup medical and mental health care. They also stress that the Indian Health Service

should not be the exclusive provider of such confidential services, but that victims be

offered a choice of providers to meet these sensitive needs.

Participants focus especially on the disproportionate level of victimization in Indian

country. In summit discussions, there is clear support for a review and potential

adjustment of VOCA/Crime Victim Funds to be considered to provide additional support

to Indian country victims.

45. The federal government should provide funding for tribes to hire, equip and

train first responders.

Statistics show that the majority of crimes reported and responded to by law

enforcement, do not move to subsequent arrest and prosecution phases when the

offender cannot be found. Thus, in many cases, first responders are the only justice

system representatives with whom the victims will have contact. In order to best meet

victims’ needs, tribes may need more law enforcement officers, more dispatchers, more

emergency medical technicians and more specialized program staff (for responses to

suicide, domestic violence, child sexual abuse, etc.) to serve as first responders. These

staff need basic equipment such as vehicles, medical supplies, and telephones or

radios. They may need specialized programs, such as critical incident stress

management training, to help them deal with their own victimization (which occurs as

they repeatedly deal with the shock generated by an immediate and direct knowledge of
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

28

crime). And, they need training to deal with the incidents that only they face, such as

domestic preparedness (anti-terrorism) training.

Based on the incidents of September 11, 2001, issues of domestic preparedness,

interoperability of information systems become paramount. First responders in Indian

country can and have previously played a critical role. For example, during the

Oklahoma City bombing, tribes responded to initial calls for police/EMS/fire support.

Ironically, Indian tribes are not included in the national strategy for domestic

preparedness. Under current legislation, Indian tribes are not eligible for planning,

equipment, or coordination resources.

46. Law enforcement, justice and related program agencies at all levels of

government (tribal, local, county, state and federal) should provide their

employees with training on victim issues.

First responders and victim service providers are already well trained in victim services

issues. Their skills should be kept sharp through training updates. Training needs are

more acute among the staff of other justice and program agencies. For example, court

personnel and even community leaders must learn to be sensitive to victim needs,

aware of the resources and services available to victims, and knowledgeable about

victim rights. Such training requires investments in curricula and trainers, so summit

participants also recommend that law enforcement, justice and related program

agencies at all levels of government commit resources to victim issues training.

47. Tribal leaders should support the work of tribal victim service providers and

afford them respect as part of the tribal justice system.

As relatively new members of the tribal justice system, victim services agencies must

sometimes struggle to gain support, legitimacy and access within the system itself and

the tribal government overall. Tribal leaders can help combat these difficulties and, thus

improve the services offered to victims of crime by actively promoting the agencies and

respecting the confidentiality of their work.

48. Tribes should be encouraged to meet together on a regular basis to

coordinate their responses to victims and to share information.

As noted in the recommendations on justice agency cooperation and collaboration,

tribe-to-tribe information sharing is an extremely useful tool. It can have particular

advantages for the delivery of victim services. Through tribe-to-tribe information sharing,

providers can learn about promising responses to victims of crime from each other. And,

it may be possible for services offered in one tribe to be used by victims in another.

Prevention Strategies to Reduce Crime

While much of the most visible work of law enforcement and justice providers in Indian

country occurs in response to crime, less visible crime prevention efforts may be even

more effective at combating crime in Indian country. Indeed, this is the finding in many

non-Indian urban areas that once suffered from entrenched crime and violence. As

strategic, problem-solving, community-oriented policing and prevention approaches
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

29

were applied to communities’ safety concerns, crime and violence diminished

significantly. Similar promises exist in Indian country, especially as cultural methods are

applied to crime prevention.43

Given the great potential of strategic prevention efforts, summit participants focused on

this final objective:

To identify types of crimes that are frequent in occurrence and to develop

strategies for tribal law enforcement, justice and program agencies to

prevent those crimes, and to educate and inform potential victims and to

decrease the overall level of victimization in Indian country.

Summit recommendations are:

49. The federal government and tribal governments should increase their support

of prevention programs and, thus, create abundant opportunities for early

intervention in the cycle of crime and violence.

The prominence of violent crime in Indian country should not divert attention from

promising prevention approaches. Summit participants recommend a shift in emphasis,

as evidenced by their call for ample funding for prevention programs and the creation of

abundant opportunities for early intervention.

Participants pay particular attention to the prevention and treatment of substance

abuse. Anecdotes and empirical studies consistently cite alcohol and drug abuse as

factors in crime in Indian country. Given this connection, the federal government should

provide additional funding to assist tribes with substance abuse law enforcement and

with substance abuse treatment, and consider these efforts a means of crime

prevention.

50. To combat racial intolerance and violence, state governments should develop

curricula to educate policymakers, non-Indian law enforcement officials and

citizens at large about accurate U.S. history, Indian tribes’ unique relationship

with the U.S. government and the basics of tribal government, including the

Indian country justice system.

Nationwide, diversity training is being used to combat racial intolerance and violence,

and this recommendation is part and parcel of those efforts. For example, teaching the

public about Indian tribes’ special relationship with the U.S. government and their

sophisticated modern governments would improve the public’s understanding of

American Indians and may decrease their vulnerability to racially motivated violence.

With regard to tribal justice and the safety of Indian individuals, it is likely that such

education will have even broader prevention benefits. For example, teaching

policymakers and law enforcement officials about Indian history and Indian country

today should improve the prospects for collaboration and cooperation between

jurisdictions around crime prevention issues.
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

30

51. Tribal governments should determine which crime prevention programs have

the greatest potential in their communities and commit to the development and

expansion of these programs.

When a tribal government – in conjunction with its law enforcement, justice and related

program agencies – has determined which crime prevention programs will work best in

its community (a determination that includes tests of cultural appropriateness), it should

work to secure long-term funding for those programs. The federal government, state

governments and foundations are possible funding sources, but tribes should also be

willing to commit their own scarce resources to such programs.

Furthermore, program development does not depend on dollars alone. For example,

staff training is often necessary for program effectiveness. Summit participants

expressed dissatisfaction with available crime prevention training programs. They felt

that many training contractors lack the cultural competence to work effectively in Indian

country and sometimes fail to train community people in a patient, respectful manner.

Participants recommend that tribes build capacity to conduct their own training and/or to

qualify/certify non-tribal trainers as culturally competent.

If tribes are to develop effective programs, they must also commit to challenging certain

“standard operating procedures.” For example, if it is more effective from a preventative

standpoint to serve entire families and not just children, they must challenge the

programmatic piecemeal approach and work to integrate programs that serve children

with those that serve adults. Similarly, if a system of victim restoration and reparations is

seen by the community as having preventative benefits, tribes should institute such

systems even though they are historically non-Western and “non-standard.”

52. Indian families must re-engage in the process of crime prevention.

At its very root, crime prevention in Indian country depends on changing behavior within

families and at home. American Indian parents must accept the challenges of being role

models for their children. And, entire families must engage in intergenerational learning

and sharing, a process that emphasizes listening to and addressing the concerns of all

family members. Of course, these efforts will be most successful if families have support

from tribal social workers, clergy, elders, educators and school officials, law

enforcement officials and, especially, community and tribal leaders.
Improving Safety in Indian Country IACP Summit 2001

31

V. Next Steps and Action Agenda

Beyond the development of policy recommendations, a set of long-term implementation

goals was part of summit planning. The IACP intends to work with its Indian Country

Law Enforcement Section, the Office of Tribal Justice, the Office of Justice Programs

and all other relevant U.S. Department of Justice agencies, as well as the Bureau of

Indian Affairs, to implement summit recommendations. Work on this second phase of

the summit will begin immediately upon the publication and dissemination of this report.

For example, the IACP will take advantage of opportunities to share summit

recommendations with Indian country professional organizations including the National

Native American Law Enforcement Association (NNALEA) and the National Congress of

American Indians (NCAI). If a National Commission on Criminal Justice issues as

proposed by the IACP is implemented, the IACP will advocate that Indian country issues

be addressed as part of the commission’s work and that IACP Indian Country Law

Enforcement Section members be included on the Commission.

The 52 recommendations emerging from the summit can be viewed also as directly

applicable to various DOJ/OJP agencies. Looking at these recommendations in

another way, they call for action in program areas genuine to various DOJ/OJP

programs. For example:

• Law Enforcement (COPS)

• Training and Education (OJP)

• Youth Violence (OJJDP)

• Tribal Justice Systems (BJA)

• Victim Services (OVC)

• Violence Against Indian Women (VAWO)

• Research and Evaluation (NIJ) (BJS)

Now that the summit has concluded and this report has been made available to a broad

audience of policy-makers, IACP will move toward implementation of selected

recommendations. Specifically, we will begin dialogue with leaders of all DOJ/OJP

agencies to 1) identify recommendations that may appropriately fit their agencies’

missions, and 2) develop follow-up programs of action to pilot summit recommendations

throughout Indian country.
Improving Safety in Indian Country, Endnotes IACP Summit 2001

32

Endnotes

1

 For the purposes of this report, the term “American Indian” is used to refer jointly to both American Indians and

Alaska Natives.

2

 Callie Rennison, “Violent Victimization and Race, 1993-1998,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of

Justice, Washington, DC, March 2001, p. 1.

3

 Rennison, p.3. The rate is both higher than the rate suffered by their peers in other ethnic groups and higher than

the rate suffered by American Indians in other age groups.

4

 This finding emerges both in Rennison (p. 10) and in Lawrence A. Greenfeld and Steven K. Smith, “American

Indians and Crime,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, February 1999 (p.

vi).

5

 Greenfeld and Smith, p. vii.

6

 Greenfeld and Smith, p. viii.

7

 Rennison, p. 3.

8

 Rennison, p. 7.

9 See Rennison.

10 See for example, “Honoring Nations 2000: Tribal Governance Success Stories,” Honoring Contributions in the

Governance of American Indian Nations, Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, Harvard

University, Cambridge, MA, April 2001.

11 One useful discussion of this phenomenon is found in Stephen Cornell and Joseph P. Kalt, “Reloading the Dice:

Improving the Chances for Economic Development on Indian Reservations,” in Stephen E. Cornell and Joseph P.

Kalt, eds., What Can Tribes Do? Strategies and Institutions in American Indian Economic Development (Berkeley:

University of California, 1992), pp. 2-59.

12 According to the 2000 Census, approximately 2.5 million people reported American Indian or Alaska Native as

their race. This compares to 2 million in 1990, 1.4 million in 1980 and 827,000 in 1970. (Edna L. Paisano, “The

American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut Population,” Bureau of the Census, US Department of Commerce, Washington,

DC, www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/amerind.html (accessed August 9, 2001), and Elizabeth M.

Grieco and Rachel C. Cassidy, “Overview of Race and Origin: Census 2000 Brief,” document C2KBR/01-1, Bureau

of the Census, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, 2001.)

13 The term “Indian tribe” means “any Indian tribe, band, nation or other organized group or community, including

any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska

Native Claims Settlement Act..., which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by

the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.” 25 USC § 450b(e).

14 Talton v. Mayes, 163 US 376, 384 (1896).

15 Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley, 121 S. Ct. 1825 (May 29, 2001) (quoting United States v. Mazurie, 419 US 544,

557 (1975)).

16 U.S. Department of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Association, 121 S. Ct. 1060, 1067 (2001)

(quoting Felix M. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law (1982 ed.) at 221). In Indian law, the term “trust

responsibility” is used in two senses. In its narrow sense, it refers to specific, legally enforceable obligations to

manage tribal land, water, and other resources. In its more general sense, it refers to “the distinctive obligation of

trust incumbent upon the Government in its dealings with these dependent and sometimes exploited peoples.”

United States v. Mitchell, 463 US 206, 225 (1983) (quoting Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 US 286, 296

(1942)).
Improving Safety in Indian Country, Endnotes IACP Summit 2001

33

17 Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaPlante, 480 US 9, 14 (1987); see also 6 (Part 2) Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 894

(July 8, 1970) (President Nixon).

18 See, e.g., The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, 25 USC § 450 et seq.; Tribal SelfGovernance Program, 25 USC § 458aa et seq.; Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act,

25 USC § 4101 et seq.; Tribally Controlled Schools Grants Act, 25 USC § 2501 et seq.

19 Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 447 US 134, 154 (1980).

20 18 USC § 1151(a).

21 18 USC § 1151(b).

22 18 USC § 1151(c).

23 18 USC § 1152.

24 18 USC § 1153. The specific offenses are murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, felony child sex abuse,

assault with intent to commit murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury,

assault against a person under 16, arson, burglary, robbery and felony theft.

25 See Wetsit v. Stafne, 44 F.3d 823 (9th Cir. 1995).

26 25 USC § 1302(7). Tribal police and prosecutors sometimes charge alleged criminals with misdemeanors (over

which Indian tribes have jurisdiction) in addition to (or instead of) felonies (over which federal authorities typically

have jurisdiction). This allows tribal governments to prosecute the alleged criminal when the federal authorities, for

whatever reason, do not pursue prosecution.

27 Ibid.

28 18 USC § 1152.

29 See Solem v. Bartlett, 465 US 463, 464 n. 2 (1984). In short, jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians in

Indian country lies with the tribal and/or the federal government and not with states, absent congressional

authorization. In 1953, Congress expressly granted such authorization to certain states when it enacted Public Law

83-280 (PL 280). PL 280 conferred jurisdiction on certain states over most or all of Indian country, within their

borders and suspended enforcement of the Major Crimes Act, 18 USC § 1153, and the General Crimes Act, 18 USC

§ 1152, in those areas. The statute also authorized other states to assume such jurisdiction.

30 Other agencies, besides the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, investigate

federal crimes in Indian lands; including the Fish and Wildlife Service and the EPA Criminal Investigation Division.

31 The “whose land?” question poses a problem whenever there is non-Indian fee land within a reservation’s

boundaries, but is especially complex when a reservation is checker boarded – that is, when non-Indian fee parcels

are common but are distributed like checkerboard squares across the breadth of the reservation. In that case, a law

enforcement officer with jurisdiction in Indian country, but not outside, must be very careful about exactly where

citations and arrests occur.

32 Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435 US 191 (1978).

33 121 S. Ct. 2304 (2001).

34 See Rennison.

35 See Cara Hetland, “Tribe and City Combine Efforts on Law Enforcement,” Minnesota Public Radio, May 14,

2001, news.mpr.org/features/200105/14_hetlandc_jointforce-m/index.shtml (accessed August 9, 2001).

36 A brief discussion is provided by John Niemesto, “Minutes: State-Tribal Relations Team Meeting,” May 17,

2000, 222.gov.state.ak.us/STRT/May17.htm (accessed August 12, 2000).

37 Stewart Wakeling, Miriam Jorgensen, Susan Michaelson and Manley Begay, “Policing on American Indian

Reservations,” National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, July 2001. The study polled BIA, 638, self-
Improving Safety in Indian Country, Endnotes IACP Summit 2001

34

government and combined BIA-tribal departments on their line staff. Most respondents included patrol, detention

and dispatch staff in their counts and, in some cases, criminal investigators as well.

38 In general, the term “unfunded mandate” refers to legislation that directs a branch or level of government to do

something but does not provide the money to do so. The term is used loosely here, as the legislation supporting the

improvement of tribal justice systems included specific dollar figures simply never appropriated (provided with

dollar support in the budget process) by Congress. Thus, it was possible for the federal government to appear to

support the development and improvement of tribal justice systems without actually doing so.

39 The COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program focuses on tribal communities, many of which are affected by high

rates of crime and violence and have limited law enforcement resources. The program was designed to meet the

most serious needs of law enforcement in these communities and to enhance their law enforcement infrastructures

and community policing efforts by offering a comprehensive and flexible hiring program. Funding options under the

program include officer salary and benefits, background investigations, basic law enforcement training and

equipment, law enforcement technology and vehicles.

40 Wakeling et al.

41 Personal communication with Eileen Luna, national evaluator of Violence Against Women/Violence Against

Indian Women programs.

42 A brief discussion is provided by Joseph F. Baca, “Testimony Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United

States Senate,” June 3, 1998, www.senate.gov/~scia/1998hrgs/0603_jfb.htm (accessed August 12, 2001).

43 See Wakeling et al, especially chapter 6, “Conclusions and Recommendations.”