Strategies for Creating

Offender Reentry Programs

 in Indian Country
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20531 

Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

Attorney General 

Laurie O. Robinson 

Assistant Attorney General 

Dennis E. Greenhouse 

Director, Community Capacity Development Office 

Department of Justice Response Center: 

1-800-421-6770 

Office of Justice Programs 

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

Community Capacity Development Office 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ccdo 

American Indian Development Associates prepared this document under a subcontract from the Institute for Law 

and Justice (ILJ) with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Community Capacity 

Development Office (CCDO). Opinions or points of view expressed in this document are those of the authors 

Ada Pecos Melton, Roshanna Lucero, and David J. Melton, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 

DOJ, CCDO, or ILJ. 

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), headed by Assistant Attorney General Laurie O. Robinson, provides 

federal leadership in developing the Nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and 

assist victims. OJP has seven components: the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the 

National Institute of Justice; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; the Office for Victims of 

Crime; the Community Capacity Development Office; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 

Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. More information about OJP can be found at http://www.ojp.gov. 
STRATEGIES FOR CREATING

OFFENDER REENTRY PROGRAMS

IN INDIAN COUNTRY

Prepared by 

 

 

American Indian Development Associates 

2401 12th Street, NW, Suite 212 

Albuquerque, NM 87104

August 2010
On the Cover: 1. Navajo Nation Police badge, Paul Natonabah for CCDO, 2010; 2. 

Fingerprint card, Brand X Pictures, 2003; 3. Judge Theresa M. Pouley, Tulalip Tribe, 2006; 4. 

Open door jail cell, Navajo Nations Corrections Department, 2010; 5. Gila River correctional 

control room, Mark Goldman & Associates, Inc., 2005; 6. Navajo reservation scenery, Paul 

Natonabah for CCDO, 2010; 7. Barrow, AK, blanket toss, Mark Goldman & Associates, Inc., 

2003.
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

1 

FOREWORD 

The Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO) is committed to holding annual 

roundtable discussions with tribal representatives to identify issues related to access to 

program participation, program needs and gaps, and other issues unique to Indian tribes. 

Through these discussions, tribal representatives have requested resources to assist tribes in 

their work with comprehensive community planning and implementation and tribal activity 

on programming for ex-offenders reentering tribal communities. 

CCDO’s responses to the tribal request follow: 

Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country was written to 

provide guidance on promising practices and strategies related to offender reentry in 

Indian Country. It provides a historical overview, gives guidance in developing 

reentry programs, provides general reentry policy considerations and 

recommendations, highlights tribal reentry programs, and provides federal and other 

resources. 

Webinars will follow the release of Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry 

Programs in Indian Country. They will showcase tribal programs that are currently 

involved in offender reentry activity. Participants will have the opportunity to learn 

more about the programs and strategies and participate in question and answer 

sessions. 

Future articles for the ―American Indian/Alaska Native‖ section of In-Sites, the 

CCDO electronic magazine, will feature additional offender reentry stories from 

Indian Country.

Additionally, for more information on comprehensive community planning activities, 

please visit the Comprehensive Communities Initiative Toolkit and Grants 101 to assist you 

in developing your initiatives. 

Dennis E. Greenhouse, Director 

Community Capacity Development Office, U.S. Department of Justice 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

2 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

In 2006, the Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO) Director Dennis 

Greenhouse began hosting two Tribal-CCDO roundtables annually. To date, eight 

roundtables have been held. These roundtables helped to educate tribes about Weed and 

Seed, increase tribal participation in Weed and Seed, and identify further obstacles regarding 

access to program funds and participation. As a result of these meetings, issues from past 

roundtables have addressed policy issues such as appropriate population range and more 

practical requests such as this document. 

A special thank you is extended to Chris Gerard, Judy Heath, Carol LaPointe, Kaye 

Hooker, Ronald Lopez, Patrick ―Wyn‖ Hornbuckle, Michael Dillon, and Olin Jones for their 

recommendations on this project. A deep-hearted thanks to Norena Henry, Mark Sakaley, 

Alex Escarcega, Chris Chaney, Debra Gee, Lise Rahdert, Jennifer Collins, Mysba Lonesome, 

Sheila Mackall, and Elaine Deck for their thorough reviews, rewrites, and recommendations 

throughout the entire process. 

A special thank you is extended to Wade Warren, Chief Probation Officer of District of 

North Dakota, the U.S. Probation Working Group on Indian Affairs and the Pahoa Ka’ohe 

Weed and Seed; they wrote articles on offender reentry that will be featured this year in 

CCDO’s electronic magazine, In-Sites.

From October through December 2009, the American Indian Development Associates 

began collecting information from identified programs throughout the country to create this 

document. Ada Pecos Melton and her staff worked tirelessly to create this document. Thank 

you for all your hard work. 

This document would not have been possible without all the tribal communities that 

shared information about the problems they experience and the strategies they are using to 

address these problems. Several programs answered our initial inquiry and five sites 

completed intensive interviews and endured endless phone calls and requests for additional 

information. To all the tribal programs representatives, thank you for all the work you do and 

for your input toward this document. 

Thank you for the photographs used on the cover page. Permission was granted from the 

Tulalip Tribal Court, the Navajo Nation Corrections Department, and Mark Goldman & 

Associates. Tribal reservation scenes were photographed by Paul Natonabah. 

A special thank you is extended to Director Dennis Greenhouse and Deputy Director 

Denise Viera for their support on the roundtables and resources to produce this document. 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

3 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................. 1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. 2

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 5

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 6

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 7

Tribal Challenges ...................................................................................................................... 8

State Challenges ...................................................................................................................... 10

Federal Challenges .................................................................................................................. 12

Juvenile Challenges ................................................................................................................ 13

Psychological and Physiological Concerns .......................................................................13

Educational Concerns ........................................................................................................14

Confidentiality ...................................................................................................................14

DEVELOPING REENTRY PROGRAMS IN INDIAN COUNTRY .......................................... 15

Justice System ......................................................................................................................... 16

Law Enforcement ...............................................................................................................16

Community Policing ..........................................................................................................17

Tribal Justice System .........................................................................................................18

Corrections .........................................................................................................................20

Intervention and Treatment ..................................................................................................... 22

Community Restoration .......................................................................................................... 23

GENERAL REENTRY POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................. 24

Tribal Government Responsibilities ....................................................................................... 24

Funding ................................................................................................................................... 25

Tribal Community Roles......................................................................................................... 25

RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 26

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 28

CASE DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................................................... 29

Leech Lake-Cass Wellness Court: Joint Tribal-State Jurisdiction Initiative .......................... 29

Cultural Services Program to Incarcerated Youth .................................................................. 31

Building Bridges Mentoring Program .................................................................................... 33

Muscogee (Creek) Nation Reintegration Program ................................................................. 36

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Supportive Housing Program ........................................ 39

FEDERAL FUNDING.................................................................................................................. 42

Discretionary Programs .......................................................................................................... 42

Training and Technical Assistance ......................................................................................... 44
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

4 

Research and Statistical Programs .......................................................................................... 45

RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 48

ENDNOTES ................................................................................................................................. 50
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

5 

Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry 

Programs in Indian Country 

INTRODUCTION 

In an effort to understand the needs of Indian Country Weed and Seed communities, the 

Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO) of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ), hosts roundtable discussions with current and potential 

grantees. Eight roundtables have been held since 2006. The roundtables provide a forum for 

Indian tribes and native communities to voice their concerns and issues about the Weed and 

Seed Communities program administered by CCDO. 

Weed and Seed, a community-based strategy sponsored by DOJ, is an innovative, 

comprehensive, multiagency approach to law enforcement, crime prevention, and community 

revitalization. The strategy aims to prevent, control, and reduce violent crime, drug abuse, 

and gang activity in designated high-crime neighborhoods across the country. The strategy 

involves a two-pronged approach: 1) law enforcement agencies and prosecutors cooperate in 

"weeding out" violent criminals and drug abusers; and 2) public agencies and communitybased private organizations collaborate to "seed" much-needed human services, including 

prevention, intervention, treatment, and neighborhood restoration programs. A communityoriented policing component bridges the weeding and seeding elements. 

Tribal participants have consistently requested that CCDO develop tribe-specific 

materials describing promising practices to help tribes in two areas: 

Plan and implement activities on comprehensive community development. 

Provide information on promising practices for offender reentry in tribal 

communities. 

The information presented in this document will assist tribal justice practitioners, 

administrators, and policymakers in designing and developing reentry strategies for adult and 

juvenile offenders returning to their tribal communities. 

 

The Historical Overview section provides background information on coordination 

and collaboration challenges of tribal, state, and federal criminal justice authorities 

working with adult and juvenile offenders and ex-offenders in Indian Country. There 

are various reasons American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) people become 

incarcerated in and transitioned out of tribal, state, and federal facilities. This section 

highlights the need for collaboration between these jurisdictions. 

The Developing Reentry Programs in Indian Country section is organized by 

justice system (law enforcement, community policing, tribal justice system, and 

corrections) followed by intervention and treatment initiatives and community 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

6 

restoration. Where tribal-specific information is not available, mainstream program 

information is provided. 

The General Reentry Policy Considerations section encourages tribes to develop or 

enhance policies and procedures, tribal government responsibilities, funding, and 

community roles. 

The Recommendations section provides information on practical design and 

development elements of tribal reentry programs. 

The Conclusion summarizes previous sections and transitions into case descriptions. 

The Case Descriptions section highlights successful reentry programs in Indian 

Country. Each case description includes tribal information, a program description, 

keys to success, and contact information. Some case descriptions include one or more 

of the following special features: administration and collaborative support, results and 

outcomes, and cultural relevance factors. 

The Federal Funding and Resources sections provide a variety of useful web sites 

and other information to assist tribes in developing or enhancing current reentry 

programs. 

Methodology 

The following research methods and approaches described below were used to gather 

information included in this document: 

Computer-aided searches were conducted for literature and program information. 

Key informant interviews were held to identify tribal-specific reentry programs 

and/or initiatives and to develop a referral list of possible respondents. 

A standard data collection instrument (DCI) was developed and used to gather tribalspecific program information related to reentry programs or initiatives. 

Mail and followup phone interviews were administered using the DCI. 

Several interviews with staff from identified promising programs were conducted to 

prepare case descriptions about the goals and objectives, implementation strategies, 

community collaborations, expected outcomes, and other key elements of programs 

and/or initiatives occurring with AI/AN populations. 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

7 

On July 29, 2010, 

President Barack 

Obama signed into law 

the Tribal Law and Order 

Act (Public Law 111-

211) to strengthen tribal 

law enforcement and the 

ability to prosecute and 

fight crime more 

effectively, to help 

prevent crime, and to 

mandate collaboration 

and coordination 

between tribal and 

federal justice agencies 

for offender reentry 

purposes.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 

Indian tribes have always had mechanisms to maintain peace, law, and order and to 

resolve disputes and conflicts between community members and correct those who violate 

community laws and mores.1 Indian tribes retain the inherent authority and responsibility for 

public safety and protection, determine the legal structure and forums to use in administering 

justice, and determine the relationship of the legal structure with other governing bodies. Due 

to a number of historical factors and policies, tribes do not exclusively handle criminal and 

juvenile justice matters in Indian Country. 

Federal law, such as the Major Crimes Act of 1885 (18 U.S.C. §1153), authorizes 

concurrent jurisdiction between Indian tribes and the federal government over numerous 

crimes. Public Law 83-280 (Public Law 280) (18 U.S.C. §1162) refers to Indian tribes that 

are subject to state criminal jurisdiction under this law. Public Law 280 created state criminal 

jurisdiction for certain Indian tribes located in Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, 

Oregon, and Wisconsin. Other states were given the option to assume jurisdiction. A number 

of tribes have since had criminal jurisdiction ―retroceded‖ back to the federal government. 

Each of the 564 federally recognized Indian tribes exercises varying degrees of personal, 

territorial, and subject matter jurisdiction over criminal, juvenile, family, domestic relations, 

and other civil matters. Of those federally recognized Indian 

tribes, approximately 275 tribes have either a tribal court, 

traditional court, Court of Indian Offenses (CFR Court), or a 

combination thereof.2

 A 2002 Census of Tribal Justice 

Agencies in Indian Country found that of 314 participating 

tribes, 188 reported some form of a tribal justice system, 39 

indicated use of an indigenous justice system, 46 identified a 

CFR court, and 175 identified a tribal court.3

 Some of the 

reporting tribes may have dual justice systems—a tribal court 

and an indigenous justice system. For example, the Navajo 

Nation District Court and the Navajo Peacemaking System 

coexist for the Navajo people. Until recently, the Indian Civil 

Rights Act (ICRA) limited tribal court sentencing authority to 

1 year of imprisonment and/or up to a $5,000 fine. With the 

enactment of the Tribal Law and Order Act (Public Law 111-

211) on July 29, 2010, tribal courts that meet certain 

requirements can now sentence offenders to up to 3 years 

imprisonment and/or up to a $15,000 fine for each offense. 

Most tribes have accompanying law enforcement departments operated either 

completely with tribal funds; with federal funds from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

through contracts, compacts, or direct services and/or U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 

grants; or through arrangements with state or county law enforcement agencies. The Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Federal Bureau of 

Prisons, Federal Public Defenders, and U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services also provide 

investigation, prosecution, defense, supervision, and confinement services for felony crimes 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

8 

There is a growing 

need for various 

solutions to the high 

and disproportionate 

rate of confined Indian 

offenders in secure 

facilities on and off 

Indian lands.

committed on Indian lands.4 Tribes or BIA manage the approximately 82 jails and detention 

facilities operating on Indian lands. Each tribe has differing law enforcement standards and 

priorities as determined by internal tribal needs and external state and federal policies. 

A growing issue for Indian tribes is providing basic services to released American 

Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) offenders returning to tribal communities. The most recent 

DOJ Jails in Indian Country study found that at midyear 2008, tribal, federal, and state 

prison or jail authorities held 921 AI/AN offenders per 100,000 American Indian U.S. 

residents—an incarceration rate based on an estimated 28,400 American Indians confined in

prisons or jails and 3 million in the U.S. resident population.5

 The Jails in Indian Country

study also indicated the incarceration rate for AI/AN offenders was about 21% higher than 

the overall national incarceration rate of 759 per 100,000 persons other than AI/AN 

offenders. 

One response to the growing incarceration rate has been to 

increase the capacity of these facilities to hold more inmates. 

Entities that favor punitive sanctions for criminal offenders have 

increased bed space among Indian Country jail facilities. While 

bed space grows faster than the confined population in Indian 

Country,6

 regional and tribal differences remain, such as the 

continuing need for more bed space, basic offender services, and 

other capabilities to maintain law and order in tribal 

communities and to ensure offender accountability. 

 As federal, state, and tribal resources decrease and more budget restrictions develop, 

tribes and localities will have to contend with—

Growing incarcerated populations (e.g., 5.8% increases in 2008). 

Systemic issues (e.g., coordination of offenders back to the community; 

disproportionate minority confinement of adults and juveniles) for tribal, state, and 

federal government entities. 

Balance of cultural-based programming versus mainstream services in jails and 

prisons. 

Community preparation. 

The breadth and depth of these complexities at the federal, state, and tribal levels also 

affect juveniles who depend on their communities for reconciliation and support. 

Tribal Challenges 

The Jails in Indian Country study included 82 jails, confinement facilities, detention 

centers, and other correctional facilities in Indian Country, an increase from 68 facilities 

participating in 2004. The increased response included 21 new jails or those new to the 

survey.

7

 Approximately 11,135 AI/AN inmates were held in Indian Country jails (2,135) and 

local jails (9,000) that may have been contracted by tribal justice agencies or operated by 

BIA.8

 Although some tribes own and operate their own jails, many tribes do not have 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

9 

resources to provide transitional programs to assist offenders with smooth reentry into their 

communities. 

The study further indicates that from June 2000 to June 2008, violent and drug-related 

offenses were among the offenses for which inmates were held (see below).9

AI/AN Inmates, by Offense Type

Percentage of AI/AN Inmates Held

Offense Type 2000 2002 2004 2007 2008

Domestic violence 15 18 20 15

Assault 13 13 15

Rape or sexual assault 2 2 2

DWI/DUI 17 11 14 8 9

Drug law violations 8 6 7 7 5

These offense types require a higher need for transitional planning, in particular to 

ensure victim safety. Collaborative reentry planning with tribal agencies and facilities is 

essential to continue the rehabilitation process and should include interventions to hold 

offenders accountable for their criminal or delinquent behavior, including strategies for 

relapse prevention and recovery support for offenders incarcerated for alcohol- or drugrelated crimes. 

Indians and non-Indians may have different perceptions of wrongdoing and the most 

effective means to address crime. In the non-Indian community, a person who commits a 

crime is deemed a law breaker who must be punished. Many Indian communities, however, 

traditionally view offenses as misbehavior that calls for corrective action or mentoring or an 

illness that requires healing.10 Indians traditionally put their faith in modalities such as 

mentorship by a tribal elder or participation in traditional cultural ceremonies for treatment 

and healing.11

Despite potential conflicts in worldviews and the costs associated with incarceration, 

tribes and BIA operate correctional facilities on tribal lands. Some correctional facilities 

attempt to provide reservation-based services with cultural components not available in 

mainstream facilities.12 Many tribal communities have expressed concern about the welfare 

of detainees or prisoners and the lack of programs to improve behavior and restore detention 

and corrections to a higher level of responsibility.13

The clash between worldviews and practices becomes evident in correctional facility 

construction, operations, programming, and reentry planning for offenders, which lack 

cultural relevancy. Federal government policies and practices, based on national corrections 

standards, may offer little to no flexibility to accommodate tribal worldviews and practices. 

Current federal operations based on federal outcomes and predominate law enforcement and 

corrections culture may challenge good intentions to provide cultural components and tribalbased services to AI/AN offenders. 

Furthermore, jails in Indian Country frequently operate under substandard conditions. 

Incarcerated AI/AN offenders often do not receive the benefits of being close to home. One 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

10 

partnership between federal and tribal correctional authorities on the Navajo Nation has 

pioneered a different approach whereby tribal practices and traditional values are included 

with national correctional standards in the policies and procedures of a federally funded 

juvenile correctional facility. While a good approach, it is challenging to harness the 

traditional tribal infrastructural and organizational capacities, which are inconsistent with 

confinement, and incorporate traditional tribal values into the ways tribal-based correctional 

facilities are operated. 

A U.S. Office of Inspector General (OIG) study found that Indian jails are understaffed, 

overcrowded, and underfunded.14 High levels of suicides and escapes are common in some 

facilities. Mildly put, the OIG study confirms that BIA- and tribal-operated facilities had 

deplorable conditions putting both staff and inmates at high risk.15

 

The poor conditions, lack of programming, and transitional services of BIA and tribal 

jails require vast improvement to support offender success in addressing the root causes of 

their incarceration. Tribal jails should take advantage of available community assets by 

incorporating their indigenous justice practices and other culture-based strategies in 

construction, operations, programming, and transitional offender services. The success of 

reentry programs may then depend on the people and providers of the community, as well as 

tribal leadership action. The U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior can assist by 

supporting development of tribal-appropriate programming and transitional services. 

The federal government is able to assist correctional authorities by providing more 

culturally oriented tribal correctional policies regarding construction, operations, 

programming, and transitional services and by hiring or contracting subject matter experts 

and technical assistance providers with extensive experience working in Indian Country who 

have worked in the tribal justice system. In the next 3 years, more tribal correctional facilities 

will be added with funds appropriated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009 to support new jail construction and/or renovation. 

State Challenges 

Tribal-state relations vary among tribes and states from progressive to non-existent. Law 

enforcement and criminal justice processes are among the most complex issues that must be 

addressed when developing offender reentry programs. 

For most tribes, state law enforcement is limited for tribal apprehension or prosecution. 

Federal law has determined that a state has jurisdiction over an offender when a non-Indian 

commits a crime against another non-Indian on tribal lands or when a non-Indian commits a 

victimless crime on tribal lands. However, due to Public Law 280, law enforcement agencies 

in a number of states have concurrent jurisdiction in criminal cases and some civil and 

juvenile matters occurring on (some) tribal lands. As a result, AI/AN offenders living in the 

affected Public Law 280 tribes may be processed through the states’ district courts. If a 

conviction results in incarceration, AI/AN offenders serve their time in state facilities. The 

Jails in Indian Country study indicated that more than half (14,264) of AI/AN inmates were 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

11 

held in state prisons or facilities. This high number of inmates highlights the importance of 

tribal-state relations to jointly develop programming and offender reentry plans. 

The lack of formal relations between tribal and state criminal justice authorities 

compromises justice for victims and tribal communities. Offender accountability may 

disappear if tribal-state relations are poor. The lack of tribal-state relationships prevents—

Involvement of tribal criminal and juvenile justice representatives, who could assist in 

all aspects of transitional planning. 

Proper notification by state authorities to tribal authorities that the state is housing an 

Indian offender or will release an offender. 

Service agencies from coordinating and collaborating to develop an offender 

rehabilitation or care plan and to help with eventual reintegration. 

Tribal justice and other service agencies from remaining in contact with tribal 

members serving sentences in off-reservation prisons or facilities. 

Where there is communication, staff in state criminal and juvenile justice systems may 

lack training to establish consultation policies and procedures and develop culturally 

competent programming or reentry plans. With further training and mentoring by tribal 

representatives, staff will be able to incorporate the vital links with an offender’s family and 

tribal service providers to develop the supportive environments an ex-offender needs to 

become a contributing member of his or her family and community. The investment in 

training and action is minimal in comparison to the ex-offender relapsing into a life of crime 

and returning to a correctional setting. 

Additionally, enhanced training and coordination activities by staff in state criminal 

justice systems will assist in their work with AI/AN offenders who reside in urban areas or 

off tribal lands in small towns. State systems trained in culturally competent services may use 

this working knowledge and apply programming and reentry plans to AI/AN offenders in the 

various state systems. 

Jurisdiction complicates tribal-state relations. Many tribes have checkerboard tribal 

lands, meaning that the tribal lands have pockets of private, state, and federal lands 

interspersed among tribal lands. With multiple landowners in these checkerboard areas, there 

may be multiple jurisdictions involved. In these areas, it is less about the victim or offender 

and more about who has jurisdiction—tribal, state, or federal authorities. It is incumbent 

upon these jurisdictions to coordinate supportive services—including housing, transportation, 

employment, and recovery services—and to engage ex-offenders who return and reside in 

this type of environment. 

 As a process, tribal-state collaboration needs to begin at the initial stages of an 

offender’s confinement in a state facility and continue as the offender is released. Public 

policies at the state and tribal level can support and even mandate that such relationships be 

developed. Training of state criminal justice system staff will enhance the smooth transition 

of an offender through—and exiting—the system. Formal and informal intergovernmental 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

12 

American Indians and 

Alaska Natives make 

up less than 1% of the 

total U.S. population; 

however, Indian 

offenses amount to 

nearly 10% of the 

overall federal cases.

relationships are necessary to provide adequate and effective services to ex-offenders, their 

families, the tribal community, and the general public. 

Federal Challenges 

Federal prosecutors, courts, and corrections have unique 

prosecutorial, case processing, and correctional responsibilities 

over AI/AN offenders for offenses covered by the Major Crimes 

Act and the Indian Country Crimes Act. Crimes committed by 

Indians on tribal lands make up a large percentage of federal 

crimes prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys throughout Indian Country, 

excluding those affected by Public Law 280. American Indians 

and Alaska Natives constitute less than 1% of the total U.S. 

population; however, Indian offenses amount to nearly 10% of 

the overall federal cases.16 Nationally, Indian offenses constitute 

more than 20% of murders and assaults prosecuted in federal court and nearly 75% of all 

manslaughter and sexual abuse cases.17 The Jails in Indian Country study reported 1 in 10 

AI/AN inmates (2,135) were held in a federal prison resulting from a federal conviction and 

sentence.18

Federal prisons or contracted correctional facilities often lack—

Formal relationships with tribal criminal justice authorities. 

Tribal involvement in planning the return of Indian offenders. 

Notification policies or procedures to inform tribal authorities that they have custody 

of a tribal citizen or that an ex-offender is returning. 

Culturally relevant care or services. 

Culturally competent staff to assist returning ex-offenders in obtaining supportive 

services relevant to their needs. 

Offenders committed to federal prisons are also often incarcerated far from their tribal 

communities. Federal prisons or contracted correctional facilities are not located in every 

state, resulting in many offenders being sent to out-of-state facilities. These facilities may, or 

may not, receive more resources to support prisoners’ faith-based needs and treatment. The 

AI/AN prisoner population is a minority group within the federal prison system, which 

contributes to the facilities’ ability to meet Indian-specific treatment or religious or reentry 

planning goals. Distance contributes to the difficulties that AI/AN prisoners face in 

maintaining family or community connections and that facilities have in accessing culturally 

competent practitioners to provide culturally relevant treatment, religious or spiritual 

services, reentry planning, and other resources to AI/AN prisoners. 

Small steps have been made to work with tribal governments. More formal relationships 

with Indian tribes, together with policies and procedures on reentry, need to be developed to 

facilitate a smooth transition for the offender, federal and state authorities, and tribal 

communities. 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

13 

Juvenile Challenges 

The problems with ineffective or nonexistent communication between state or federal 

institutions and tribal governments also severely affect juveniles as most juvenile offenders 

will return to their families or tribal communities. The lack of notification inhibits tribal 

involvement in creating culturally relevant plans for AI/AN juvenile offenders during their 

incarceration and in providing culturally relevant services and treatment for their transition 

back home. 

Some states, such as New Mexico, allow some type of programming for continuing 

cultural connections. At the federal level, attempts are also made to maintain reasonable 

provisions for visitation by family and placement of juveniles in facilities near their home 

communities. Still, many Indian families often do not have the resources to travel far 

distances for visitation. Distance and family support are important factors when looking at 

the rates of incarcerated AI/AN youth and the lack of post-incarceration services in federal 

facilities. Seventy-nine percent of youth in federal custody are American Indian, mostly 

males, 17–20 years old, with extensive histories of drug and/or alcohol abuse and violent 

behaviors.19 Further, there is no federal parole system for juvenile offenders upon their 

release from confinement. 

With returning juvenile offenders from short- or long-term confinement or custodial 

placement, a number of issues affect transition, including psychological and physiological 

needs, confidentiality protections, access to education, and other concerns discussed below. 

Psychological and Physiological Concerns 

Youth in the preteen through adolescent years experience profound changes in their 

bodies, emotions, and minds. Attitudes, moods, and demeanor can make a 180-degree turn in 

an instant for some youth. Friends can become foes during a simple change in classes at 

school. The desire to be part of the crowd conflicts with the desire to be an individual. Often 

being a part of the crowd can cause youth to engage in risky behaviors just to belong (e.g., 

joining gangs, selling and/or taking drugs, drinking alcohol). Addictions and negative actions 

that can affect a youth’s life forever are initiated at this age. Time may have little meaning or 

value to some young people, but can mean so much in terms of the changes in their bodies, 

friends, pop culture, and attitudes. Therefore, a return from any separation from the family or 

tribal community should include a reentry and reintegration plan for youth returning from 

short- and long-term confinement or custodial placements. The plan may include, but not be 

limited to, the following: 

Ongoing positive social interactions. 

Continual screening for substance abuse. 

Ongoing counseling. 

Reintegration into the fabric of tribal life (e.g., ceremonial activities and events). 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

14 

Educational Concerns 

Short and prolonged confinement interrupts a youth’s educational experience. It is 

essential to include a plan to continue or resume school for a returning youth. This may 

include strategies for tutoring, afterschool support, and remedial assistance to help the young 

person transition to the community educational system or for arranging alternative education 

services. 

The educational process for youth is particularly important because the lessons learned 

during adolescence often set the tone for the remainder of a young person’s life. The return 

home should not only include a formal education plan, but should also incorporate life and 

cultural-based skills and other learning activities to stimulate physical, emotional, mental, 

cultural, and spiritual growth. 

 

Confidentiality 

Confidentiality standards are much higher for juveniles than for adults. This higher 

standard exists for the protection of the child. A mistake made by a child should not unduly 

influence his or her life as an adult, and thus the protections exist to keep the child free from 

prejudice and labeling. Discrimination in the workplace and in schools has created the need 

to protect criminal and juvenile delinquency records, especially records related to mental 

health or addictions treatment. However, at the family and community levels, such 

confidentiality may not be possible. Thus, a confidentiality policy should seek to address 

directly rumors and innuendos coming from the community, while at the same time protect 

the child from institutional discrimination in the workplace and in schools or by insurance 

carriers or health providers. 

Despite all the reentry challenges faced by federal, state, and tribal jails or correctional 

facilities, there are some efforts being made to rectify lack of communication and 

relationships among these entities. Some tribes and states have made significant investments 

to foster the collaborative efforts necessary to promote successful offender reintegration into 

tribal communities. There are plenty of opportunities to improve plans for care and 

reintegration of AI/AN offenders. Promising reentry practices, initiatives, and strategies are 

not only beneficial to offenders, but also promote safety for tribal communities. On the other 

hand, inadequate transition planning compromises public safety and increases offender 

recidivism, devaluing the purpose of incarceration as a deterrent for further criminal 

behavior.20

 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

15 

DEVELOPING REENTRY PROGRAMS IN INDIAN COUNTRY 

Successful reentry programs provide a way for offenders to come back into the 

community and allow victims to feel safe and secure. Successful reentry programs also allow 

the community to be less concerned about the actions and intentions of the returning 

offender. 

Reentry is a process and not an event. It necessitates that tribes resolve reentry issues 

with culture-based methods and approaches to reintegrate offenders back into their tribal 

communities. Reentry is not limited to the physical process of how offenders will return to 

their families and communities, but also includes how various stakeholders and partners will 

assist with transitional services and discharge planning; arrange for structured services to 

support ex-offenders and their families; and ensure victim and community protection and 

safety. Reentry should begin from the time a person begins his or her confinement to a secure 

facility and should involve not only multidisciplinary entities such as mental health, courts, 

corrections, and housing, but also the same entities from both state and tribal authorities. 

Strategies To Develop Tribal Reentry Programs

Reentry planning is essential to an offender’s transition into the community after 

long-term confinement and is also important for offenders who serve shorter terms. 

For juvenile offenders, reentry planning is necessary because their confinement is 

always terminal, and inevitably most youth return to their home communities to live 

with their parents or other relatives. Strategic planning components for successful 

reentry programs may include the following:

Identifying stakeholders and providing the rationale as to why they should 

participate in reentry.

Defining the roles of participating stakeholders.

Articulating the stakeholder benefits for participation in reentry.

Understanding the challenges for stakeholder participation.

Indentifying the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed by stakeholders to 

participate in reentry programs.

Identifying the resources needed for a reentry program or initiative.
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

16 

Justice System 

Law Enforcement 

Strategies under this component focus on strong working relationships among tribal 

criminal justice administrators and practitioners from tribal law enforcement, courts, and jails 

or corrections. Stakeholders include tribal police, prosecutors, judges, probation and parole 

officers, and jails and correctional staff. 

Tribal law enforcement agencies (LEAs) play one of the most important roles in creating 

reentry programs because—

Law enforcement often serves as the point of contact for information sharing and data 

exchange—in particular, for notification regarding returning offenders held in county, 

state, or federal correctional facilities. For example, law enforcement is often the 

tribal agency that receives sex offender notifications sent by county sheriffs. 

Not all tribes have probation offices or support program services to assist returning 

offenders. Law enforcement may be the only tribal resource available to external 

agencies that can assist in planning services for returning offenders and their families 

and/or to notify communities and victims. 

Law enforcement is not equipped to address the support services that ex-offenders 

need, such as housing, jobs, education, and counseling. Therefore, creation of 

collaborative partnerships between law enforcement and allied service agencies is 

essential. 

Collaboration and coordination with law enforcement is important to carry out some 

of the ongoing supervision and enforcement aspects for returning ex-offenders (e.g., 

parolees, sex offenders). 

It is important for law enforcement to promote internal tribal reentry partnerships that 

will help to coordinate support for returning offenders while addressing community 

or public safety and safety for allied service providers and tribal officers. 

Site visits conducted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) of 15 

non-tribal LEAs showed that many LEAs engage in reentry efforts informally and are 

effective in aiding in the development of reentry strategies. The IACP study identified law 

enforcement involvement in reentry-related components or activities in the following areas.21

Enhanced supervision. 

Information sharing. 

Notification sessions. 

Joint home visits. 

Joint patrols. 

Partnership building. 

Intelligence exchange. 

Community outreach/engagement. 

Joint curfew checks. 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

17 

A tribal reentry plan may include roles for tribal LEA involvement in some or all of the 

above components or activities along with involvement in initiatives for building 

intergovernmental relations and intergovernmental and/or interagency agreements; 

promoting local public policy regarding legislation, codes, and program policies supporting 

reentry; and engaging the community. 

Community Policing 

Community policing emphasizes collaboration between law enforcement and the 

community to identify problems of crime and conflicts and to involve all elements of the 

community in the search for solutions to these problems.22

 

This strategy engages governmental service agencies to seek out community input about 

various crime concerns. For example, tribal citizens from a southwest Pueblo community 

voiced concerns over the sudden return of serious violent offenders and sex offenders to their 

villages.23 Most citizens were concerned about the lack of notification by any governmental 

official about the offenders’ return and expressed these concerns to their village officers at 

the village meetings, which in turn were presented to the tribal government. The offenders 

were those prosecuted federally for felonies enumerated under the Major Crimes Act, but the 

criminal act occurred on tribal land. Other offenders were prosecuted by the state for crimes 

committed off tribal land. Tribal government officials led by the tribal probation office in 

collaboration with tribal law enforcement conducted community meetings to obtain more 

input on the citizen’s concerns. These meetings resulted in involvement of federal agencies, 

such as the U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services, and the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons, to develop solutions. One solution included the design, development, and 

implementation of an intergovernmental agreement between the pueblo and state probation 

office to provide notice of an ex-offender’s return to the pueblo to the tribal probation office. 

This notice allowed the local village officials to provide input on whether or not to allow the 

offender to return to the village. While the pueblo does not have a specific reentry program, 

the tribal probation office is involved with this aspect of reentry and in assisting in 

assembling the services needed to support the returning offender. 

Efforts to involve the tribal community are essential to be able to use the community as a 

resource. Generations of tribal citizens and families stay in the same village, home, or 

location and can make lasting contributions to the community. Long memories exist, as do 

long-term relationships and family, community, clan, or spiritual ties. 

Any reentry effort should identify as many ways as possible to engage the tribal 

community by 1) listening to community needs and concerns about returning ex-offenders; 2) 

engaging the community in developing solutions; 3) identifying cultural-based resources that 

can be used to support reentry plans; and 4) helping communities create the resources they 

need to support ex-offenders while at the same time ensuring community safety. These 

aspects coincide with the five elements of community justice found to be essential 

foundations for community involvement by an evaluation of eight Reentry Partnership 

Initiatives funded by OJJDP:24

 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

18 

Tribal courts have the 

capacity to design and 

implement reentry 

programs. The Leech 

Lake Band of Ojibwe 

has used its drug court 

as a means for an 

offender’s transition 

back into the 

community. 

Operate at the neighborhood level. 

Solve problems. 

Decentralize authority and accountability. 

Give priority to a community’s quality of life. 

Involve citizens in the justice process. 

These elements provide a starting guide for tribes to develop community engagement 

strategies. In the context of reentry, the community is viewed as best suited to influence an

offender’s choices because of the people who, by virtue of their natural relationship with the 

offender, have the greatest potential impact on the offender’s behavior or are most affected 

by that behavior. Therefore, it is essential that reentry program developers engage 

communities to inform establishing workable and achievable reentry strategies and programs. 

Tribal Justice System 

While LEA coordination and involvement are important, partnerships with tribal justice 

systems such as tribal courts are necessary when creating tribal reentry programs. 

Tribal courts—

Often include management of prosecution and probation 

services because of the lack of financial resources to have 

separate offices. 

Are often where different stakeholders converge to 

address the needs of incarcerated offenders and those 

affected by offenders’ actions, such as their families 

and/or victims and their families. 

May serve as the point of contact for information sharing 

and data exchange. This may include notification of 

returning offenders held in county, state, or federal 

correctional facilities, especially with tribes that do not 

have their own LEA or probation services. 

Tribal courts also have the capacity to design and implement reentry programs. After 

seeing a need to aid drug offenders, several tribes have developed healing-to-wellness courts 

(i.e., drug courts) to encompass prosecution and treatment issues. In mainstream society, 

drug or wellness courts have incorporated offender reentry programs as part of an exoffender’s transition. Throughout the country, drug courts have expanded the role of courts 

and judges in sentencing, which had traditionally ended with issuance of the judgment order. 

While no tribal reentry courts were found during this study, at least one tribal drug court 

included released offenders on dockets. The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe25 Drug Court meets 

regularly with local, county, and state officials to support recovery of Leech Lake’s Wellness 

Court participants (see case description on pages 29–30). 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

19 

In addition to expanding the roles of judges at tribal wellness courts, agreements with 

state court judges could be created to aid in the transition of juveniles. The U.S. Department 

of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has 

identified two promising reentry court approaches that could be used for transitioning 

American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) youth: 1) case-defined reentry court; and 2) standalone reentry court. 

Case-Defined Reentry Court 

In a case-defined reentry court, a sentencing judge can retain jurisdiction over a case 

during the entire life of the sentence. This reentry approach presents an opportunity for tribal 

courts that use off-reservation jail or correctional facilities or that make minimal use of longterm confinement. 

Some states allow tribal access to state-operated facilities. For example, the New Mexico 

Children’s Code (NMCC) authorizes tribal court judges to access state resources, including 

state facilities when needed, for short-term confinement to conduct diagnostic evaluations 

and/or for long-term confinement. Furthermore, the NMCC recognizes—

. . . A tribal court order pertaining to an Indian child that accesses state 

resources shall be recognized and enforced pursuant to the provisions of 

intergovernmental agreements entered into by the Indian child’s tribe and the 

department or another state agency. . . . The tribal court, as the court of 

original jurisdiction, shall retain jurisdiction and authority over the Indian 

child. . . .26

 

This statute recognizes tribal court orders to gain access to state correctional facilities 

while the tribe retains exclusive jurisdiction of juvenile cases for the life of the sentence. 

However, an important requirement to implement this provision is the establishment of an 

intergovernmental agreement. To date, only the Mescalero Apache Tribe and the Pueblo of 

Jemez have signed an intergovernmental agreement with the State of New Mexico and lead 

the way for the remaining tribes and pueblos in the state to replicate. 

Additionally, the NMCC requires the State of New Mexico to contact an Indian child’s 

tribe to notify them of the child’s involvement in the state juvenile justice system, including 

correctional facilities, and to consult with the tribe in preparing rehabilitation plans. For all 

incarcerated youth, the NMCC requires development of a reentry plan 3 to 6 months prior to 

the youth’s release from an institution—which also applies to Indian youth incarcerated by a 

tribal court order. 

Stand-Alone Reentry Court 

A stand-alone reentry court maintains an exclusive docket of reentry cases. For tribal 

courts already managing a drug or wellness court, the expansion possibilities are to include 

reentering offenders serving time for drug-related offenses. Most tribal drug or wellness 

courts are limited to drug-related crimes and exclude violent crimes. A stand-alone reentry 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

20 

court could include more than drug-related crimes, such as violent or serious crimes, sex 

offenses, domestic violence, property crimes, and so forth. 

Judges actively engage correctional administrators and oversee the period of 

imprisonment preceding release and post release. The purpose of this specialty court is to 

help reduce recidivism and improve public safety through judicial oversight and to increase 

judicial and corrections partnerships. The OJJDP reentry model guide identifies the 

responsibilities assigned to reentry courts, which are to 1) review offenders' reentry progress 

and problems; 2) order offenders to participate in various treatment and reintegration 

programs; 3) use drug and alcohol testing and other checks to monitor compliance; 4) apply 

graduated sanctions to offenders who do not comply with treatment requirements; and 5) 

provide modest incentives for consistently clean drug tests and other positive behaviors. 

Through these elevated partnerships, the common goal of successful offender 

reintegration requires extensive cooperation and coordination between corrections officers 

and tribal court judges to prepare offenders for release. It also requires extensive 

collaboration with allied community-based service agencies to leverage the resources needed 

in transitioning offenders back into the tribal community. Research of reentry courts in nine 

states revealed that commonly provided services include mental health counseling, physical 

health care, substance abuse treatment, family counseling, employment and vocational 

assistance, educational assistance, and housing assistance.27

 

Similar to healing-to-wellness courts, active judicial authority is applied to the reentry 

court to provide graduated sanctions and positive reinforcement and to gather resources for 

offender support. Reentry courts promote a threefold strategy that 1) seeks to improve the 

supervision of offenders; 2) prepares communities to address public safety concerns; and 3) 

provides services to aid offenders in reentering society.28

In either model, tribal prosecutors and probation officers have prominent roles in how 

cases are presented for court review and participate in designing reentry plans. In particular, 

probation officers usually assemble the needed services and provide case management and 

monitoring, including supervision upon release. 

Corrections 

Similar to local, county, and state governments across the country, tribes need to develop 

reentry and reintegration programs to support returning offenders and tribal communities. 

Tribal governments and corrections staff need to develop reentry plans by following the best 

practices listed below:29 

Begin offender reentry and reintegration processes while the offender is in prison and 

emphasize internal motivation and lifestyle changes. 

Incorporate accountability (external control) methods strengthened by community, 

tribal, or culture-based interventions. 

Utilize needs and risk assessments to determine the types of services needed, 

especially to target high-risk offenders. 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

21 

Identify duration, quantity, and intensity of interventions, supervision, and support. 

(This may include 12 to 24 months of structured processes, if appropriate, based on 

need.) 

Emphasize prison, structured reentry (transition), reintegration, and continuity of care 

at the community level. 

Develop support mechanisms (informal social controls) for the returning person. 

Prepare the receiving community or village so they have an opportunity to become 

allies. 

Communicate offender responsibility and expectations by the tribe and/or local 

community to the releasing agency and offender. 

Ensure quality of services (e.g. staff, program design, partnerships). 

Develop strategies to reduce recidivism.

Provide extensive training for tribal program staff and tribal officials and education 

for families and the community. 

While specific reentry programs from tribal jails or correctional facilities were not 

found, at least three tribes have received 2009 funding from OJJDP to develop and 

implement juvenile reentry programs. OJJDP is also providing tribal-specific training and 

technical assistance to its tribal grantees. In mainstream programs, a promising model is 

being followed to develop reentry programs for short- and long-term confinement. The 

model includes four components: 

Assess: Assess the offender’s clinical and social needs, together with public 

safety risks. 

Plan: Plan for the treatment and services required to address the offender’s needs.

Identify: Identify required community and correctional programs responsible for 

post-release services. 

Coordinate: Coordinate the transition plan to ensure implementation and avoid 

gaps in care with community-based services. 

These core components may be used by tribal program staff to develop a reentry 

framework and to support successful transition. An important element to add to the above 

components is culture- or tribal-based resources. As previously noted, AI/AN offenders in 

short- or long-term confinement are often disconnected from tribal culture, language, food, 

spirituality, counseling, and family. The lack of contact between the offender and the 

community hinders transition and reintegration progress. 

One tribal-specific program in New Mexico helps juvenile offenders in state facilities to 

maintain their cultural ties by providing a tribal-specific curriculum on various topics, 

traditional sweat lodges, drumming lessons, spiritual counseling, talking circles, storytelling, 

and native arts and crafts. This includes special events, such as pueblo feasts, pow-wow 

exhibitions, cultural education, and a newly added mentoring initiative. The primary purpose 

of the Cultural Services Program to Incarcerated Youth is to promote the use of cultural 

resources by the Indian youth and the facility as part of the youth’s treatment plan while 

incarcerated and as part of the reentry plan (see case description on pages 31–32).
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

22 

Intervention and Treatment 

Best practice recommends that prisoner reentry programs begin during incarceration and 

continue throughout an offender's transition and stabilization within a community.30

Furthermore, the DOJ Prisoner Reentry Initiative, a federal collaboration with the U.S. 

Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, 

and Labor, focuses on three phases that comprehensive community initiatives and antidrug 

coalitions can adapt to fit their needs. The phases include the following: 

Phase 1: Protect and Prepare (institution-based preparation): Prepares offenders to 

reenter society. Services include education, mental health and substance abuse treatment, job 

training, mentoring, and full diagnostic and risk assessment. 

Phase 2: Control and Restore (community-based transition): Works with offenders 

before and immediately after their release from correctional institutions. Services include 

assessment, education, monitoring, mentoring, life-skills training, job-skills development, 

and mental health and substance abuse treatment. 

Phase 3: Sustain and Support (community-based, long-term support): Connects those 

who have left justice system supervision with a network of social service and communitybased organizations for ongoing services and mentoring relationships. 

For ex-offenders, it is especially important to understand the risk factors that may still 

exist in the community or home environment to which they are returning to live. Therefore, 

all three phases play a critical role in supporting successful reentry and transition. 

While there are many programs and services enlisted to support returning offenders, 

these are made available primarily through referrals. Another option is a comprehensive 

community reentry support and relapse prevention group for AI/AN ex-offenders recently 

released into the community after incarceration. One example is the Warrior Down program. 

Warrior Down is a part of the Wellbriety for Prisons initiative and the White Bison 

movement. The founders of Warrior Down recognized the frustrations offenders released 

from prisons encounter as they attempt to stabilize their lives yet run into various challenges. 

Warrior Down is a community support program that helps ex-offenders find employment, 

return to school, and connect with emotional, mental, physical, and spiritual resources. It is a 

peer support program that helps ex-offenders obtain the resources they need while gaining 

confidence in the recovery process. 

The Warrior Down program partners with community services, family services, and law 

enforcement agencies that provide support for AI/AN ex-offenders reconnecting with their 

communities after incarceration. Transitional housing and work release centers are also 

included in this program. Ex-offenders are invited to participate in the Warrior Down support 

group. Participants receive individual and ongoing group support, including a personal needs 

assessment to identify areas where support is needed. The program helps participants 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

23 

navigate social service systems that can be overwhelming and frustrating and can become 

barriers to successful community reentry. Warrior Down is located in several different states 

including Washington, California, and Idaho. The program is constantly expanding as the 

initiative works to provide training through the Wellbriety for Prisons program. 

Maintaining parental ties is another critical aspect of preparing offenders for reentry and 

resuming or rebuilding their parental responsibilities to their children. Short- and long-term 

absences of parents due to incarceration have many impacts on children regardless of their 

age. One program aimed specifically at AI/AN children of incarcerated parents matches 

mentors to children ages 4–17 and helps them cope with the parents’ absence. The Building 

Bridges program in New Mexico relies on culture-based resources to help children and youth 

maintain ties to their parents while incarcerated and continues through the parents’ release 

(see case description on pages 33–35).

Community Restoration 

Community restoration is aimed at improving living conditions, enhancing home 

security, allowing for low-cost physical improvements, developing long-term efforts to 

renovate and maintain housing, and providing educational, economic, social, recreational, 

and other opportunities.31 For ex-offenders, this aspect is one of the most critical elements 

needed for successful transition. If offenders have a safe and affordable place to live, a job, 

access to education, and enough money to pay for living expenses, they are more likely to 

maintain a program of recovery. 

Competency development is essential to help the returning offender have a meaningful 

life in the community. This includes the competency to find a job and keep it or to get an 

education. Other aspects include the ability to handle stressful situations and temptations to 

use alcohol or drugs and to cope with mental illnesses. Competencies are necessary to 

provide alternatives for the returning offender. If there are no alternatives for work, school, 

or other activities, the probability of recidivism increases. Any reentry program should 

include many strategies to support the returning offender. 

A compelling example of competency development in Indian Country has been 

developed by tribes in Oklahoma and Michigan. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation Reintegration 

Program works with ex-offenders to meet immediate and long-term needs (see case 

description on pages 36–38). The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community provides safe and 

affordable housing and employment for tribal members and other Indians through a tribal 

housing program (see case description on pages 39–41). Both programs are examples of what 

tribal governments may do to help their tribal citizens regain personal integrity and 

community respect and to live productive lives. 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

24 

GENERAL REENTRY POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 

In order to establish consistency with offender reentry, it is important for tribal 

governments to develop policies and procedures articulating their roles and responsibilities 

with this process. A reentry policy establishes the general intent regarding ex-offenders 

returning to tribal communities and provides a method for tribal communities, especially for 

victims, to provide input into the reentry process. 

Developing a reentry policy requires that a philosophical decision be made early that 

will provide adequate direction to the process. That philosophy hinges on whether the reentry 

process will be centered solely on the offender and the agencies involved or whether the 

process will involve the offender, victims, families, and local community programs, as well 

as the supervising agencies. The latter is more culturally appropriate for tribal communities 

whose citizens have lived in the same community for generations. 

The narrowly focused process requires little beyond statutory notice requirements and 

the released inmate’s willingness to comply with conditions of release. Not involving all the 

possible tribal stakeholders and supervising agencies contributes to—

High offender recidivism. 

Victims not feeling safe. 

Victims and the offenders’ families remaining at odds. 

Communities reacting to the offender and family with suspicion and fear. 

If an approach is taken that includes all the stakeholders, the likelihood of reoffending is 

lowered. This also encourages the victim’s and offender’s families to reconcile enough to 

live peaceably in the same community and helps the community perceive the ex-offender in a 

more positive view rather than as a threat. 

Development and implementation of reentry polices by tribes should address three major 

areas: 1) tribal government responsibilities; 2) funding; and 3) tribal community roles. These 

three integrated areas are the keys to making any reentry policy work, regardless of the 

nature of the policy. 

Tribal Government Responsibilities 

Each tribe has the governmental authority to enter into intergovernmental agreements 

and maintain the tribal police, courts, and other agencies and is the entity that receives 

funding from federal, state, and other sources. The tribe’s governmental role automatically 

creates an expectation that the tribe will be implementing the reentry policy and providing 

necessary services under that policy. However, creating a new level of bureaucracy should 

not be an outcome of the reentry policy, unless there are no other options. If at all possible, 

the policy implementation should occur through the integration of reentry policy activities 

into existing agencies and programs, such as probation and parole, counseling programs, and 

victim assistance programs. 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

25 

Funding 

Funding is an important part of reentry activities. A reentry policy will result in 

additional responsibilities being placed on existing programs. If there are sufficient numbers 

of reentering offenders, there may be a need to establish a special office to coordinate 

services or even provide direct services. Both of these options will require additional 

funding. Reentry is fast becoming the major corrections issue in the country. Due to the large 

increases in the incarceration of American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) people starting 15–

20 years ago, today there are large numbers of offenders being released. This trend will 

continue and may become an even greater issue in the near future. Reentry is a national 

concern and has resulted in a number of federal and state program initiatives that can provide 

resources for reentry, such as those funded by the Second Chance Act (Public Law 110-199). 

By establishing a reentry policy and developing the accompanying intergovernmental 

agreements and programmatic activities, tribal governments can better position themselves to 

approach funding agencies for assistance. 

Tribal Community Roles 

Tribal communities are affected by the actions of ex-offenders. Regardless of when or 

where the offense occurred, the tribal community shares the responsibility of restoring the 

families and affected individuals after the offense. In most instances, AI/AN offenders return 

to their tribal communities upon release. Tribal communities and families will be the first to 

experience any violations of the offender’s release agreement. As a reentry policy is 

implemented at the tribal community level, a number of questions will need to be answered: 

How will local tribal communities and villages and the tribal government share 

authority and responsibility under a reentry policy? 

Can local tribal communities and villages obtain resources that will provide the skills 

and services necessary to support reentry and reintegration of ex-offenders returning 

from long-term placement or treatment? 

How can continuity be maintained from one tribal, state, or federal administration to 

another? 

Some of these issues can be answered through comprehensive policy and others will 

need to be addressed as the need arises, following the principles that guided the development 

of the policy. 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

26 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The following are recommendations that support ongoing development of tribal reentry 

programs: 

1. Conduct needs assessments—A needs assessment may be done through focus 

groups with multidisciplinary groups working in tribal communities to identify 

reentry programs and initiatives. Programs are generally focused on serving the target 

population while initiatives refer to efforts such as development of intergovernmental 

relations, intergovernmental or interagency agreements, supporting legislation, 

policies and procedures, or community education and awareness. While initiatives 

can be included in program goals, they can often be pursued separately. 

2. Research incarceration facilities—Use or build upon the U.S. Department of 

Justice’s Jails in Indian Country studies to research conditions of confinement and 

reintegration practices in each facility. Tribes can share this information with 

planning groups, leadership, and evaluators. 

3. Review data and implement studies—Conduct further studies of tribal reentry 

programs and initiatives through various data collection activities, such as program 

reviews and obtaining community input through a mix of survey strategies or 

community talking circles with different target populations. Study targets could 

include each component of the tribal justice system such as law enforcement, courts, 

prosecution, probation, jails or correctional facilities, allied agency support services, 

and private businesses or organizations. Research areas could include programs and 

services, intergovernmental relations and agreements, public policy development, and 

other related areas. 

4. Request training and technical assistance—Support is needed as a tribe develops a 

comprehensive reentry program, as is training to create intergovernmental relations, 

agreements, and policies and procedures. Requests by tribes to internal, regional, or 

national resources should be focused on requesting experienced technical assistance 

providers who have demonstrated experience in tribal justice systems, offender 

reentry, tribal cultures, tribal government systems, and relations between federal, 

state, and tribal governments. For example, depending on available resources, a tribe 

may request technical assistance from a state or federal agency concerning offender 

reentry and to identify the qualifications of the technical assistance provider, such as 

demonstrated work experience in tribal justice systems. 

5. Develop model reintegration policies—Policies are needed for tribal, state, and 

federal courts to use as references in developing programs and procedures. 

6. Develop culturally competent programming and training curricula—Resources 

that incorporate specific tribal reintegration issues, concerns, and needs are in 

demand. To build internal facility capacity, administrators, practitioners, and 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

27 

policymakers need knowledge of more effective ways to work with Indian nations 

regarding the needs of imprisoned American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) 

offenders. Culturally relevant curricula is needed to help internal facility staff to 

become culturally literate and to gain the knowledge, skills, and abilities they need to 

develop programs and access cultural-based resources to assist AI/AN prisoners while 

in confinement and as they prepare for reentry. 

7. Conduct tribal planning sessions—Sessions involving tribal, state, and, where 

appropriate, federal practitioners are needed to design and implement tribal reentry 

plans. This could include various delivery methods including online training and 

technical assistance. This planning would also enable tribes to build programs that 

collect the type of evidence-based data needed to evaluate program effectiveness, 

document what works, and enable self-evaluations or program evaluations conducted 

by external evaluators. 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

28 

CONCLUSION 

Indian tribes confront serious issues as tribal governments dealing with tribal citizens 

returning home from short- or long-term incarceration. This raises questions about the 

rehabilitation of the offender and the safety of the victim, family, and community as well as 

process questions and intergovernmental issues. Nationally, reentry is a growing concern 

shared by tribal governments. Tribal governments are becoming more proactive as they look 

for options and ways to meet the reentry and reintegration needs and concerns of exoffenders and the tribal communities they may return to upon release. 

Reentry, while raising issues and presenting problems, also provides an opportunity to 

validate and encourage the traditional tribal processes. Any long-term solution to reentry 

requires the development of policies that govern reentry processes, service delivery, and 

community expectations of offenders. Tribal governments have the opportunity to develop 

policies that affirm and include tribal communities in the reentry process. Tribes have the 

opportunity to develop tribal and culture-based processes designed to maintain harmony and 

balance. Policies based on traditional philosophies, ceremonies, and approaches may help to 

reduce negative response to an offender’s return to the community or village. Using tribal- or 

culture-based restorative or reparative principles to address reentry issues will help 

communities and villages become a resource in the reentry and reintegration process. 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

29 

CASE DESCRIPTIONS 

The following are case descriptions of successful reentry programs in Indian Country: 

Leech Lake-Cass Wellness Court: Joint Tribal-State Jurisdiction Initiative32

Founded: 2006 Joint Powers Agreement between the Leech Lake Band 

of Ojibwe and Cass County of Minnesota; and with Itasca 

County, MN, in 2007 

Service Area: Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe 

Target Population: Convicted adult Ojibwe and other Indian and non-Indian 

alcohol or drug offenders 

Budget: Unspecified state and federal funding 

Funding Sources: Minnesota State Court Administrator’s Office and the U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) 

Tribal Courts Assistance Program 

Program Description 

In the spirit of creating formal agreements between tribal nations and other 

governmental bodies, the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Tribal Court took a huge step forward 

and set precedent in the nation with its groundbreaking intergovernmental agreement with a 

Minnesota District Court. In 2006, Leech Lake, Minnesota’s Ninth Judicial District, and Cass 

County District Court entered into a formal agreement to form a unique problem-solving 

court. The Leech Lake-Cass County Wellness Court was made possible by a Joint Powers 

Agreement (JPA) that would allow the courts to achieve their mutual goals of improving 

access to justice more effectively and efficiently, administering justice for effective results, 

and fostering public trust, accountability, and impartiality. In 2008, the Itasca County District 

Court entered into an identical agreement with the Leech Lake Tribal Court. The Wellness 

Court was created with grant resources from the Minnesota State Court Administrator’s 

Office and the BJA Tribal Courts Assistance Program. The court is a post-conviction, postsentencing DWI court founded on the 10 principles of drug courts and handles the cases of 

both tribal members and non-Indians. The mission of the Wellness Court is to enhance public 

safety by providing hope and opportunities for appropriate treatment with accountability, 

thereby improving the quality of life within families and the community. 

The JPA is characterized by involvement of the tribe and state through their respective 

courts. Often a JPA includes joint resource sharing (e.g., judicial and court staff time), tribal 

treatment providers, law enforcement participation, and sharing costs or funding. 

There is a multijurisdictional, multidisciplinary core team made up of representatives 

from tribal, county, state, and other agencies that preside together over hearings. Under the 

JPA, the two court systems work collaboratively and creatively for better results for those 

involved in the adult and juvenile justice systems. Involvement in the Wellness Court has 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

30 

brought unprecedented recognition not only for the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Tribal Court, 

but also for tribal sovereignty in general. 

Special Features 

An interdisciplinary team of prosecuting attorneys and tribal, county, and state agency 

representatives meet weekly for case management that promotes recovery support for the 

Wellness Court’s participants. In January 2008, interactive videoconferencing was installed 

at the Leech Lake Court, which enables Wellness Court sessions to run simultaneously in the 

tribal court and participating district courts. 

Keys to Success 

Written JPA. 

Multijurisdictional resource sharing. 

Use of technology to lower travel costs and enable cross-jurisdictional participation. 

Multidisciplinary approach to offender supervision, treatment, and support. 

For More Information 

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Tribal Court 

115 Sixth Street, NW, Suite E • Cass Lake, MN 56633 • 218–335–3682 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

31 

Cultural Services Program to Incarcerated Youth 

Founded: 2000 

Service Area: New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department’s four 

juvenile justice facilities 

Target Population: American Indian youth in state facilities

Budget: $25,000 annually 

Funding Source: State of New Mexico Children, Youth and Families 

Department 

The lack of access to culturally relevant and appropriate services is among the issues 

affecting American Indian youth in short or long-term confinement in facilities controlled by 

the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD). To remedy this 

situation, the New Mexico Children’s Code adopted provisions that mandate access to 

culturally relevant treatment and services to American Indian clients. Incarcerated American 

Indian youth often come from rural and distant New Mexico tribes or pueblos.33 For a variety 

of reasons, these youth have little contact with their families or tribal service providers while 

in CYFD custody. One common reason for the limited family contact is the distance from 

home to the child’s placement or lack of transportation. The lack of contact with family 

and/or tribal service providers negatively affects the rehabilitation, treatment, and reentry 

plans for incarcerated Indian youth. 

Program Description 

American Indian Development Associates (AIDA) strives to provide culturally 

appropriate services, as well as to offer mentorship to American Indian clients in state 

juvenile correctional facilities. Cultural advisors and mentors help to provide services that 

create a sense of community and cultural familiarity for incarcerated youth. The Cultural 

Services Program works with male and female clients in gender-specific and/or mixed 

groups. The clients range from 14 to 21 years old. The majority of clients served in the 

facilities are Navajo with a smaller proportion being Pueblo, Apache, or members of tribes 

from other states. 

Activities include implementation of the American Lung Association’s Not on Tobacco 

(N-O-T) for American Indian Teens cessation curriculum, traditional sweat lodges, 

drumming lessons, spiritual counseling, talking circles, storytelling, and arts and crafts. 

Special activities and presentations are conducted quarterly and include presentations on 

traditional subsistence, youth leadership, and empowerment. 

A volunteer mentoring initiative was recently added to the program. The mentoring 

component utilizes motivated, responsible American Indian adults who are willing to 

maintain a one-on-one relationship with the incarcerated Indian youth. Mentors meet with a 

youth in the facility about once a week to assist youth in working toward established goals or 

to work on setting further goals for the future. 

 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

32 

Administration and Collaborative Support 

Through the project, AIDA collaborates with the CYFD tribal liaison, CYFD program 

managers, and CYFD youth care specialists to see that the programming is carried out in 

accordance with the safety and security policies of the facilities. AIDA consultants are the 

pivotal agents ensuring that incarcerated youth are engaged in culturally enriching activities 

that promote positive Indian identity. The mentors also provide an invaluable role through 

their volunteer services and the one-on-one contact that youth yearn for and need. 

Results and Outcomes 

Program youth stay connected to Indian culture and maintain their Indian identity 

through the services provided by this program. 

Indian youth have access to culture-based methods, approaches, values, and 

philosophies to address their behavioral issues. At each facility, CYFD staff report 

that youth who participated in the cultural program were less likely to have 

behavioral problems when they returned to their regular programming schedule. 

Involvement of adult Indian males and females helps youth know that the Indian 

community cares and is invested in helping them learn and/or maintain cultural 

connections. 

Through the Cultural Services Program, AIDA has also been able to implement 

cultural training for the CYFD facility administration and staff. This training is 

beneficial to the staff and to the youth who participate in programming. The cultural 

training gives staff a context to relate to some of the issues Indian youth experience. 

The training increases cultural understanding and education about the significant uses 

of culture as a resource for Indian youth in their plans of care. 

Keys to Success 

Recruitment of adult Indian male and female mentors. 

Ongoing orientation and training for cultural advisors and mentors. 

Building a pool of cultural advisors who help develop cultural talent and teach skills 

to the youth through hands-on activities or cultural teachings. 

Building partnerships with local community-based programs that offer similar 

culturally based activities, which add more support and community outreach to the 

youth in the facilities. 

Building partnerships with local college students who can share their experiences as 

successful young Indian people, which motivates clients to see that they too have 

potential to make better choices for their lives. 

For More Information 

American Indian Development Associates

2401 12th Street, NW, Suite 213 • Albuquerque, NM 87104 • 505–842–1122 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

33 

Building Bridges Mentoring Program 

Founded: 2003 

Service Area: Urban and rural American Indian youth in Bernalillo and 

Sandoval Counties in New Mexico 

Population: Families, children, and youth of incarcerated parents 

Budget: $100,000 annually 

Funding Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families 

In the United States, more than 2 million children have a parent in jail or prison. In New 

Mexico, more than 10,000 children have a parent who is in a state, federal, or local 

correctional facility. Children of prisoners, like other children, have basic needs. They need a 

safe place to live and people to care for them in their parents’ absence. First Nations 

Community Health, an Albuquerque-based nonprofit, recognized the need for these children 

to maintain positive relationships with people who care for them and created the Building 

Bridges Mentoring Program. 

Program Description 

Building Bridges Mentoring Program (BBMP) is a nonprofit organization that aims to 

promote positive, healthy outcomes for American Indian youth by facilitating a culturally 

sensitive mentoring relationship between a caring adult volunteer and a youth ages 4–17. The 

program goals are to have a positive impact on a mentee’s school attendance, academic 

performance, self-esteem, and confidence and to promote healthier community relationships. 

The program uses a collaborative approach involving staff and volunteers and, of further 

interest, it includes the schools along with participating children, their families, their 

respective communities, and other organizations. Their joint goal is to improve the quality of 

life for children and youth of incarcerated parents. BBMP collaborates with other entities to 

complement the services provided by other agencies and to avoid duplication of efforts. 

Integral collaborative partners are programs that foster or maintain the vital connection 

between children and youth and the incarcerated parent. Children and youth with a parent in 

a correctional institution are able to have access to unique services that provide opportunities 

and treat this population with respect rather than stigmatize them. 

Participating children and youth are matched with an appropriate adult based on factors 

determined during intake. The matches—a child or youth (mentee) and an adult (mentor)—

then can opt to participate in group activities provided by BBMP or to maintain their 

relationship on an individual basis. Although participation in group activities is optional, 

there is a high participation rate among the mentees and their volunteer mentors. All 

activities are sponsored by BBMP and are free of charge to the matches. Building Bridges 

goes above and beyond its focus of facilitating mentoring relationships to provide support 

systems to the families of participating children and youth. 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

34 

Examples of the services and activities provided include the following: 

Sweat lodges. 

Traditional arts and crafts. 

Talking circles. 

Participation in pow-wows or other traditional events. 

Youth conferences aimed at prevention of risky behaviors common among children 

and youth. 

Holiday-themed events open to families of participating youth. 

Children and youth are referred to BBMP by many different agencies that have a vested 

interest in the well-being of a child or youth. Clients participate on a voluntary basis and may 

be referred through a self-referral, their school, social services agencies, the correctional 

facility where their parent(s) are located, or law enforcement agencies. Children and youth 

are eligible to participate in BBMP if they—

Have one or both parents incarcerated. 

Live in Bernalillo or Sandoval Counties. 

Are 4–17 years old. 

Can make a 1-year commitment to the program. 

Cultural Relevance 

Matching mentees to mentors based on cultural criteria is a strategy that is used to 

ensure that the program maintains cultural relevance. BBMP strives to provide cultural-based 

activities facilitated by knowledgeable cultural advisors that take place at least twice per 

month. Implementing these activities is a way to guarantee that clients’ relationships to their

communities and tribes are maintained and/or strengthened. 

Administration and Support 

BBMP is maintained by a small staff and is highly dependent on volunteer mentors. The 

full-time staff consists of one program manager and one case manager. Currently BBMP has 

more than 22 volunteer mentors without whom the program would not be possible. Building 

Bridges is guided by an 18-member advisory board that assists in planning activities and 

making certain that the program is meeting its identified goals. Furthermore, formal 

interagency agreements with external agencies provide additional services and strengthen the 

program’s functioning and sufficiency. 

Results and Outcomes 

The program utilizes standardized pre- and post-evaluations to measure different factors 

of a client’s self-esteem and confidence. BBMP also tracks student progress in schools to 

measure whether their mentoring relationships are effective in meeting the identified goals of 

having a positive impact on academic attendance and performance. BBMP staffers are also 

able to witness the positive changes in the mentees’ attitudes, behavior, and demeanor by 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

35 

visual observations during activities and events hosted by the program. Staff members 

recognize that clients are able to establish a healthy relationship with their mentors and are 

able to witness relationships established between clients and their incarcerated parents. 

Keys to Success 

Ongoing recruitment of volunteer mentors from tribal communities. 

Recruitment of volunteer elders to assist in cultural awareness for programming and 

activities provided to clients/mentees. 

Continued collaboration with other service providers with goals to enhance the wellbeing of American Indian youth. 

Partnerships with local service providers who can continue to identify youth in need 

of services and make formal referrals. 

For More Information 

Building Bridges Mentoring Program

5608 Zuni Road, SE • Albuquerque, NM 87108 • 505–262–6539/6559 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

36 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation Reintegration Program 

Founded: Passed by tribal law August 2004; office established March 

2005 

Service Area: Muscogee (Creek) Nation, East-Central Oklahoma 

Target Population: Adult reentering offenders (MCN citizens) 

Budget: $782,959 annually 

Funding Sources: Muscogee (Creek) tribal gaming revenues, Harvard 

University’s Honoring Nations Award

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation (MCN) recognized the unique needs of individuals who 

have been involved in the criminal justice system and developed one of the first-ever tribal 

reintegration programs. There is evidence that each year more than 600,000 inmates are 

released from federal and state prisons and return to their families and communities. Of the 

2.1 million prison inmates now in prison, 95% will be released without intervention, and 

more than two-thirds will be rearrested. MCN believes that in order to have a successful 

transition back into the community, it is vital to provide ex-offenders with resources that can 

assist in a successful reintegration and transition. Therefore, MCN expends costs toward 

rehabilitating its citizens rather than toward prosecution and/or incarceration. 

Program Description 

MCN has established a means to create safer communities for tribal citizens by offering 

services to an un-served population in need of support systems. The national award-winning 

MCN Reintegration Program serves ex-offenders who are transitioning from a correctional 

facility back into the tribal community. MCN strives to decrease recidivism and enhance 

public safety through rehabilitation. The program aims to break the chains of addiction and 

criminal behavior. MCN’s philosophy is to build stronger families and communities by 

reconnecting offenders with a culture where they can thrive and succeed. 

The MCN Reintegration Program encompasses many components that work with exoffenders to meet immediate and long-term needs. Essential and short-term necessities are 

met through parole and court advocacy; specialized reentry classes; clothing, food, and 

employment referrals; and job advocacy. Some long-term goals are met through mental 

health and substance abuse referrals, resources to attain educational opportunities, and 

assistance with temporary and long-term affordable housing. 

The MCN program serves approximately 350 clients annually. In addition to client selfreferrals, it receives referrals from tribal court, law enforcement, probation, corrections and 

detention, social services, family members, and workforce agencies. 

To be eligible for services, certain criteria must be met: 

Must be a Muscogee (Creek) Nation citizen released from an in-state correctional 

facility. 

Must have the willingness to work. 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

37 

Must have the desire to change and be willing to adapt to a post-release reintegration 

plan. 

Must not have any outstanding criminal charges. 

Must reside in a Muscogee (Creek) Nation jurisdiction. 

Cultural Relevance 

The program incorporates components of the tribal system throughout all aspects of case 

management. The MCN program believes in enhancing and involving the community to 

promote the lives of citizens through a modern yet traditional wraparound process. 

Traditional ceremonial activities including Native American Church, sweat lodge 

ceremonies, and a native-adapted, 12-step program are offered to maintain the foundational 

connection to tribal-based healing. 

Further, the program encourages and requires participants to give back to the tribal 

community as a way to demonstrate their gratitude for the support the tribe provides, for 

example by performing volunteer work at a nonprofit or for tribal elders. Elder services 

include mowing lawns, painting, light home maintenance, and tree trimming. Through this 

return of service, the community is able to alter the damaging stigma that is placed on the 

people who have been to prison. MCN believes that every citizen is important and that 

addressing the needs of all its citizens strengthens and contributes to tribal sovereignty. 

Administration and Support 

The MCN Reintegration Program staff, although not a large group, is a powerful group. 

Program staff members have been acknowledged by their peers as experts in the reentry 

field. The staff consists of one manager, three caseworkers, a juvenile specialist, a secretary, 

and a volunteer. One staff member has been awarded a Lifetime of Achievement Award and 

staff have been guest speakers at national conferences. The program works closely with 

probation, courts, law enforcement, and corrections to create sufficient wraparound services 

needed by clients. 

Results and Outcomes 

Since the MCN Reintegration Program was established, there has been a consistent rise 

in the number of clients served. The numbers validate the notion that the program is highly 

effective in assisting ex-offenders in accomplishing a successful transition. An internal 

program assessment indicates that there is a 97% success rate after a participant is involved 

for 1 year, measured by the attainment of pro-social behavior along with an absence of 

criminal behavior. The success rate also demonstrates that a positive impact is being made in 

the community and that citizens are not returning to jail or prison. 

Other positive indicators include the following: 

Program participants have graduated from college, trade school, or vocationaltechnical schools. 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

38 

Participants obtain gainful employment and become self-sustaining, positive, 

productive citizens. 

Participants have taken progressive steps to deter criminal behavior with area youth 

by sharing life stories and examples of how mistakes can change a person’s life 

forever. 

Keys to Success 

Provide information affecting reentry and transition to tribal, state, federal, and 

community stakeholders. Cultivate awareness for the need of reentry services. 

Use graduated sanctions when working with ex-offenders. Give participants a second 

chance. Use mistakes to help them learn how their treatment goals can be modified to 

make them more attainable and incur fewer failures. 

Target youth early on with prevention efforts. Make use of participants who have 

negative experiences to share and use the stories of offenders/ex-offenders to deter 

young people from making similar mistakes. 

Promote positive reentry conditions that support the practice of individual 

responsibility with and within the tribal community. 

Incorporate tribal and community traditions. All aspects of this program can be 

replicated with the incorporation of traditions and cultural beliefs to make it unique to 

each tribe or community. 

Foster a celebration of success of citizens and their contribution toward a renewal of 

family and spiritual growth, thereby celebrating their accomplishments. 

For More Information 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation Reintegration Program 

615 East Corporation Street • Henryetta, OK 74437 • 918–652–2676 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

39 

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Supportive Housing Program 

Founded: Passed by tribal law August 2004; office established March 

2005 

Service Area: Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Ojibwa Lake Superior 

Band of Chippewa Indians 

Budget: Unspecified percentage of funding from the U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development 

Source: Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act 

(NAHASDA) 

The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) created a tribe-specific program that fits 

its own cultural practices. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

has a one-strike policy resulting from HUD v. Rucker, No. 00-1770. This policy compels 

tribes to be very strict with their tenants or guests caught using illegal drugs or are involved 

in drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises, even if the resident was unaware of 

the activity. KBIC modified the one-strike policy to address its underserved constituents. 

KBIC Supportive Housing Program opened its doors in 2006 to give those transitioning out 

of incarceration or treatment facilities a home. KBIC believes that with their basic need for 

shelter met, ex-offenders are not as likely to commit crimes as when they are wandering the 

streets. The KBIC Supportive Housing Program provides a way to keep the community-atlarge safe by transitioning offenders who are tribal citizens and are looking to perform 

restitution. 

Program Description 

The KBIC Supportive Housing Program goal is to provide safe and affordable housing 

and employment for tribal members and other Indians. The program began as a general 

community-housing program, but has been expanded to include a supportive/transitional 

housing program. The supportive/transitional housing program recognized the unique needs 

of individuals who are transitioning out of criminal justice facilities and treatment centers or 

who are coping with homelessness. KBIC took an interest in community members who were 

challenged with the difficult transitional period upon release from a facility and 

acknowledged that both groups encounter some of the same challenges and need some of the 

same support services. 

The program has been in existence since March 2006 and is quickly expanding. A high 

need for supportive housing has been demonstrated and the KBIC Supportive Housing 

Program is attempting to grow with the demand. The program has been successful as the 

community takes ownership of helping fellow community members who need a different 

approach to moving on and addressing their life issues. KBIC has been supportive in 

advocating for others to have a safe place to live. KBIC has recognized that if offenders are 

off the streets following their transition into the community, they are less likely to commit 

further criminal offenses. 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

40 

Cultural Relevance 

The program prides itself on being culturally relevant because it is the tribal community 

serving its own tribal members. The community’s inclusiveness is a way to provide a safer 

environment for all tribal citizens. This includes those who have engaged in wrongful, 

criminal, or delinquent behavior and who need help setting a new and healthier path for 

themselves. The community is made up of families that whole-heartedly embrace the 

responsibility of helping one another. KBIC views its program as the traditional Indian way 

of including offenders in services and demonstrating to those people in need that they have 

the community’s support. 

Administration and Support 

The KBIC Supportive Housing Program is made up of administration, staff, and 

caseworkers with regular input from a community steering committee and subcommittees. As 

a Weed and Seed Community grantee, KBIC has made significant improvement in its

collaborative efforts and believes that it is stronger than it has ever been. 

The program also works with representatives from other tribal departments including 

mental health programs, alcohol and drug treatment programs, tribal or local courts, police, 

and other external agencies as deemed necessary. Each of the subcommittees meets on a 

monthly basis to provide input, share concerns, and support program efforts. 

Work with internal tribal departments is constantly developing as issues arise. 

Departments provide program input as well as direct services to clients. For example, if an 

offender is transitioning out of a facility or treatment center, the respective responsible 

departments will work with the ex-offender to pay security deposits and other necessary costs 

for the client to become initially stable. Further, if someone is at risk for eviction from a 

home, a caseworker can make a referral to a residential treatment center to assist with 

subsequent housing placements. 

Results and Outcomes 

With so many tribal members using the service, there is now a waiting list. Program 

staff view the number of individuals utilizing the services as an indicator of the program’s

success. Each client who is involved in the transitional component of the program is 

monitored with the use of an individual service plan (ISP). Each client’s progress in relation 

to job searches, money management, and transition to self-sufficiency is evaluated on a 

regular basis. At the end of each specified timeframe, clients are re-evaluated and the ISP 

goals may be modified based on the client’s progress. To date, data analysis indicates people 

are successfully moving on to own their homes, are successfully paying their bills, and are 

being more self-sufficient. 

 

With any great program comes the increase in potential service recipients. The housing 

program, which was initially intended to provide supportive housing to all tribal members in 

need, is overwhelmed by having to pick between those law-abiding citizens who have jobs 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

41 

and need a place to stay and those who are coming out of facilities needing a second chance 

to do well. There is a definite need for more housing units. 

Special Features 

In addition to the collaboration with many agencies throughout the community, KBIC is 

working on developing a special relationship with a proposed drug court program through the 

KBIC court. It was estimated that eight of nine people who will be processed through drug 

court will not have a permanent place to live. With the support of the Supportive Housing 

Program, offenders will have a place to live and to create stability with much more oversight 

through the drug court program. It is envisioned that the drug court will be the forum where 

all things will come together and accountability will be achieved. Police, judges, courts, 

probation, and the Supportive Housing Program will be linked together and report to one 

another to support mutual clients. The drug court will theoretically be the agency where all 

the entities can come together to discuss the successes and failures of offenders, and 

offenders will have the responsibility of reporting progress measures to all service providers 

involved. 

 

Keys to Success 

KBIC takes control in developing culturally relevant and appropriate policies. 

KBIC uses HUD funding in a way that provides the most beneficial housing program 

to meet community needs. 

Supportive services promote collaboration and engage different departments within 

the tribal communities, thereby utilizing the strengths offered by each program. 

Uses cultural strengths, knowledge, and resources in the community to make the 

program culturally relevant, appropriate, and meaningful. 

Makes use of the tribal authority and tribal members to decide what works best for 

community people.

Tracks individual progress in programs intended to better the lives of community 

members and utilizes the data to understand ways to improve programming or to 

continue as is.

For More Information 

KBIC Supportive/Transitional Housing Program

220 Main Street, Suite 26 • Baraga, MI 49908 • 906–353–7117, ext. 114 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

42 

FEDERAL FUNDING 

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), through a number of its bureaus, is working to 

reduce recidivism and its attendant fiscal and social costs and to increase the safety of our 

communities. This is a high priority of the Obama Administration and Attorney General 

Holder and one of the largest efforts is the Second Chance Act of 2007. 

Through the provisions of this statute, OJP is able to increase its support of reentry 

demonstration projects that use validated assessment tools to determine the risks and needs of 

offenders. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is overseeing projects designed to provide 

offenders in prisons or jails with necessary services, including educational, literacy, 

vocational, and job placement services to facilitate reentry into the community; substance 

abuse treatment and services that represent a full continuum of treatment services during 

incarceration and in community-based settings upon release; and coordinated supervision and 

comprehensive services for offenders upon release from prison or jail, including housing and 

mental and physical health care to include veteran-specific services. 

OJP addresses the challenges that returning sex offenders bring to their communities 

through the Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program. This program assists states, the 

District of Columbia, territories, and tribal jurisdictions with developing and/or enhancing 

programs designed to implement the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act (SORNA) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. 

Discretionary Programs 

Program Name: Second Chance Act Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry Demonstration 

Projects

Grantee: Competitive 

FY 2010 Funding: $37,000,000

OJP Sponsor: BJA

Web Link: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/SecondChance.html

Program Contact: Thurston Bryant, 202–514–8082, Thurston.Bryant@usdoj.gov

Program Description

The Second Chance Act authorizes grants to state and local governments and federally 

recognized Indian tribes for demonstration projects to promote the safe and successful 

reintegration of incarcerated individuals into the community. Allowable funding uses include 

employment services, substance abuse treatment, housing, family programming, mentoring, 

victim services, and methods to improve release and revocation decisions using risk 

assessment tools. 

Program Name: Second Chance Mentoring Program

Grantee: Competitive

FY 2010 Funding: $15,000,000

OJP Sponsor: BJA

Web Link: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/SecondChance.html

Program Contact: Thurston Bryant, 202–514–8082, Thurston.Bryant@usdoj.gov
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

43 

Program Description

The Second Chance Act authorizes mentoring grants for nonprofit organizations and 

federally recognized Indian tribes. Project initiatives include mentoring adult offenders and 

offering transitional or other services to promote the safe and successful reintegration of 

formerly incarcerated individuals back into the community.

Program Name: Adam Walsh Act (AWA) Implementation Grant Program

Grantee: Competitive

FY 2010 Funding: $9,250,000

OJP Sponsor: Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, 

and Tracking (SMART Office)

Web Link: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/indiancountry.htm

Program Contact: Victoria Jolicoeur, 202–514–4696, Victoria.Jolicoeur@usdoj.gov

Program Description

Grant projects must further jurisdiction compliance and clearly demonstrate specific 

requirements of SORNA that will be implemented as a result of funding support. Activities 

supported by this program may include the following: 

Developing or enhancing jurisdiction-wide SORNA sex offender registration 

programs or functions. 

Enhancing infrastructure to assist implementation of SORNA, such as for the 

collection, storage, submission, or analysis of sex offender biometric data (finger and 

palm prints) and DNA. 

Developing or enhancing law enforcement and other criminal justice agency 

information sharing at the jurisdiction level, as well as between jurisdiction-level 

agencies and local-level agencies, as it relates to SORNA sex offender registration 

and notification compliance and accountability. 

Implementing records management and conversion projects. 

Providing support for coordinated interagency efforts to comply with SORNA. 

Developing and implementing training for law enforcement and other criminal justice 

agency personnel responsible for sex offender registration and compliance related to 

SORNA implementation. 

See Also:

Second Chance Act Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects 

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan/section3.htm#secondchancereentry) 

National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) System National 

Center (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan/section9.htm#nlectc) 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

44 

Training and Technical Assistance

Program Name: Comprehensive Approaches to Sex Offender Management (CASOM) 

Training and Technical Assistance Program

Grantee: Competitive

FY 2010 Funding: $3,300,000

OJP Sponsor: SMART Office

Web Link: www.ojp.gov/smart

Program Contact: Jackie O’Reilly, 202–514–5024, jacqueline.o’reilly@usdoj.gov

Program Description

The CASOM program assists state, local, and tribal jurisdictions in improving their adult 

and/or juvenile sex offender management policies and practices by critically examining 

existing approaches to monitoring and managing the population; identifying significant gaps 

and needs in the monitoring and management of sex offenders programs; and developing 

programs to address the needs identified in existing programs. 

Program Name: Second Chance Act: National Reentry Resource Center

Grantee: Council of State Governments Justice Center (Justice Center) (Continuation)

OJP Sponsor: BJA

Web Link: www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org

Program Contact: Thurston Bryant, 202–514–8082, Thurston.Bryant@usdoj.gov

Program Description

The Justice Center recently established a National Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry 

Resource Center (Reentry Resource Center) on behalf of BJA to provide education, training, 

and technical assistance for states, tribes, territories, local governments, service providers, 

nonprofit organizations, and corrections institutions on issues related to adult and juvenile 

offender reentry. The Justice Center will collect data regarding offender reentry from 

demonstration grantees and other agencies and organizations and will disseminate 

information to states and other relevant entities about best practices, policy standards, and 

research findings. The Reentry Resource Center will provide a "one-stop" location where the 

reentry field can easily obtain appropriate tools and materials; connect with peers across the 

country; identify and promote evidence-based practices; translate reentry research into userfriendly materials; deliver individualized, targeted technical assistance to BJA grantees to 

maximize the likelihood that they achieve proposed results; and advance the adult and 

juvenile reentry field generally. 

See Also:

Training and Technical Assistance for Weed and Seed Communities 

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan/section1.htm#weedseedcommunities) 

National Training and Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC) 

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan/section1.htm#nttac) 

National Training and Technical Assistance Center for Youth in Custody 

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan/section3.htm#youthincustody) 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

45 

Alternatives to Conducted Energy Less-Lethal Devices 

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan/section9.htm#lesslethaltechnologies) 

Research and Statistical Programs 

Program Name: Recidivism of Federal Offenders

Grantee: Competitive

FY 2010 Funding: $300,000

OJP Sponsor: Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

Web Link: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

Point of Contact: Howard Snyder, 202–616–8305, Howard.Snyder@usdoj.gov

Program Description

This project will track a sample of persons released from federal prison to determine their 

recidivism patterns. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and state criminal history records 

will be converted for comparison to a prior study of persons released from state prisons. 

Program Name: Census of Probation Agencies/Offices

Grantee: Competitive

FY 2010 Funding: $450,000

OJP Sponsor: BJS

Web Link: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

Point of Contact: William Sabol, 202–514–1062, William.Sabol@usdoj.gov 

Program Description

This project will involve a study of serious mental illness among correctional populations. A 

census of probation agencies nationwide will be conducted to develop a roster of probation 

offices for two major purposes: 1) to examine such characteristics as staffing, caseload, and 

functions at the office and agency level; and 2) to use this information as a framework to 

develop a sample for a survey of probationers to meet congressional requirements of the 

Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act 

of 2008. This act requires prevalence estimates of serious mental illness among correctional 

populations. 

Program Name: Evaluation of the BJA Second Chance Act Adult Demonstration Projects

Grantee: Competitive

FY 2010 Funding: TBD

OJP Sponsor: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)

Web Link: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/sl000937.pdf

Point of Contact: Marie Garcia, 202–514–7128, marie.garcia@usdoj.gov; Nancy Merritt, 

202–305–8748, nancy.merritt@usdoj.gov 

Program Description

NIJ seeks applications for a comprehensive outcome and impact evaluation of the selected 

adult demonstration projects funded under the Second Chance Act of 2007. The Second 

Chance Act of 2007 was signed into law on April 9, 2008, with the goal of increasing reentry 

programming for offenders returning to their families and respective communities. This 

solicitation seeks to award a cooperative agreement in order to measure the processes, 

outcomes, costs, and impacts of the programs that received funding under the Second Chance 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

46 

Act and to assess the effectiveness of the Second Chance Act in reducing recidivism among 

released prisoners. 

Program Name: Recidivism of Offenders on Federal Community Supervision

Grantee: Competitive

FY 2010 Funding: $300,000

OJP Sponsor: BJS

Web Link: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

Point of Contact: Howard Snyder, 202–616–8305, Howard.Snyder@usdoj.gov

Program Description

This program seeks assistance to work with BJS and the Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts through a cooperative agreement to conduct a recidivism study of offenders on federal 

community supervision. The successful applicant will be provided data from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts' Probation/Pretrial Services Automated Case 

Tracking System. This system maintains detailed information on each offender placed on 

federal supervision, including a summary of the offender's criminal history and the details of 

the case and of the supervision experience. The successful applicant will develop the overall 

design of the recidivism study, select the study cohort, and merge the databases provided into 

a researchable database capable of addressing the research questions. From these data, the 

successful applicant will assess the recidivism rates for various subpopulations and will 

identify factors that influence these rates, including attributes of the offender, the probation 

officer, and the probation office. In addition, the successful applicant will study the 

consistency of the criminal history information found in PACTS with the information found 

in FBI's III. 

Program Name: Recidivism in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

Grantee: Competitive

FY 2010 Funding: $350,000

OJP Sponsor: BJS

Web Link: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

Point of Contact: Howard Snyder, 202–616–8305, Howard.Snyder@usdoj.gov

Program Description

This program seeks proposals to conduct a research program that investigates the 

developmental patterns and correlates of recidivism using the data collected by the National 

Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97). The goal of this program is to develop a 

better understanding of the legal, social, economic, and educational factors that influence 

juvenile and criminal recidivism and successful reentry. The project will be conducted over 

an 18-month period beginning in October 2010 and will result in 1) a public access database 

that can service a range of recidivism studies; and 2) publications that delve into the various 

correlates of recidivism. Specifically, this project will determine which relevant recidivism 

research questions can be addressed by the NLSY97 data, create a research database from the 

NLSY97 data that can be used to answer these questions, and prepare reports that answer 

many relevant questions to aid BJS in its subsequent recidivism data collection activities. 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

47 

See Also:

Crime and Justice Research and Evaluation: Investigator-Initiated 

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan/section1.htm#crimejusticeresearcher) 

NIJ Visiting Fellowship Program

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan/section1.htm#nijvisitingfellowship) 

NIJ Ph.D. Graduate Research Fellowship Program 

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan/section1.htm#graduateresearchfellowship) 

Building and Enhancing Criminal Justice Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships 

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan/section1.htm#researcherpractitioner) 

W.E.B. DuBois Fellowship 2010 

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan/section1.htm#WEBDuBois) 

BJS Visiting Fellows (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan/section1.htm#bjsvisitingfellows) 

American Statistical Association (ASA) Investigator Initiated Projects 

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan/section1.htm#asainvestigator) 

Research on Sentencing and Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration 

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan/section7.htm#researchonsentencing) 

Criminal Justice Training Through The Use of Virtual Environments 

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan/section9.htm#modelingandsimulation) 

Developing and Evaluating Location-based Information Systems for Offender Supervision 

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan/section9.htm#innovationincorrections) 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

48 

RESOURCES 

Blueprint for Change: A Comprehensive Model for the Identification and Treatment of Youth 

with Mental Health Needs in Contact with the Juvenile Justice System, National Center for 

Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, www.ncmhjj.com/Blueprint/intervention/reentry.shtml

Intensive Aftercare Program, Center for Delinquency and Crime Policy Studies, California State 

University, www.csus.edu/ssis/cdcps/iap.htm

Juvenile Re-entry, 180 Degrees, www.180degrees.org/juvenile-services.php#juvenilereentry

Juvenile Re-Entry Services, Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 

www.criminaljusticecoalition.org/tools_for_re_entry/juvenile_services

Juvenile Reentry: Recommendations for Policymakers, Policy for Results.org, 

policyforresults.blogspot.com/2010/01/juvenile-reentry-recommendations-for.html

Juvenile Reentry in Concept and Practice Webinar, National Institute of Corrections, 

http://nicic.gov/Library/024245

Juvenile Re-Entry Program, Saving Our Youth, 

www.savingouryouthva.com/juvenile_re-entry.html

A Model for Juvenile Justice Reentry Planning, Family Justice, 

www.familyjustice.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=388:a-model-injuvenile-justice-reentry-planning&catid=98:2009&Itemid=82

Prisoner Reentry, Almanac of Policy Issues, 

www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/prisoner_reentry.shtml

Prisoner Reentry Institute, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 

www.jjay.cuny.edu/centers/prisoner_reentry_institute/2710.htm

Re-Entry Policy Recommendations, Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 

www.criminaljusticecoalition.org/tools_for_re_entry/recommendations

Reentry, Community Capacity Development Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. 

Department of Justice, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ccdo/programs/reentry.html

Reentry, National Media Outreach Campaign, www.reentrymediaoutreach.org/links.htm

Reentry Initiative, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department 

of Justice, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/reentry.html

Reentry Policy Council, A Project of the Justice Center, Council of State Governments, 

www.reentrypolicy.org
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

49 

Reentry Web Site, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, www.reentry.gov

Transition from Jail to Community Initiative, Urban Institute, 

www.urbaninstitute.org/projects/tjc/index.cfm

Tribal Justice and Safety, U.S. Department of Justice, www.tribaljusticeandsafety.gov

Tribal Juvenile Detention & Reentry Resource Center, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 

www.tribalreentry.org
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

50 

ENDNOTES 

 

1

 Melton, AP. (1995). Indigenous Justice Systems and Tribal Society. Judicature. 79(3):126–133; BondMaupin, L, C. Chicago Lujan, and M. Bortner. (1995). Jailing of American Indian Adolescents. Crime, Law & 

Social Change. 23:1–16; Zuni, C. (1997). Strengthening What Remains. Kan. J. of Law and Pub. Pol’y. 7(18); 

Zion, J. (1998). The Dynamics of Navajo Peacemaking. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 14(1):58–

74; Jones, B.J. (2000). Role of Indian Tribal Courts in the Justice System. Native American Topic-Specific 

Monograph Series, March 2000. 

2

 Deloria, S. (2000). American Indian Law Center Study of Tribal Courts. 

3

 Perry, S. (2005). Census of Tribal Justice Agencies in Indian Country, 2002. NCJ 205332. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

4

 Indian lands and tribal lands are used interchangeably throughout the document. 

5

 Minton, T. (2009). Jails in Indian Country 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau 

of Justice Statistics. Retrieved December 17, 2009 from: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/jic08.pdf. 

6

 Ibid. 

7

 Ibid. 

8

 Ibid. 

9

 Ibid. 

10 Melton, AP. (1995). Indigenous Justice Systems and Tribal Society. Judicature. 79(3):126–133; 

Donelan, B. (1999). The Unique Circumstances of Native American Juveniles Under Federal Supervision.

United States Probation Officer, District of South Dakota. 

11 Donelan, B. (1999). The Unique Circumstances of Native American Juveniles Under Federal 

Supervision. United States Probation Officer, District of South Dakota. 

12 Luna-Firebaugh, E.M. (2003). Incarcerating Ourselves: Tribal Jails And Corrections. The Prison 

Journal. 83(1). 

13 Office of Inspector General. (2004). Neither Safe nor Secure; An Assessment of Indian Detention 

Facilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior; Severson, M. and C.W. Duclos. (2003). Assessing 

Suicide and Risk Behaviors in an Incarcerated American Indian Population: Investigating Culturally Sensitive 

Risk Assessment Instruments and Border Jail, Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Justice; Luna-Firebaugh, E.M. (2003). Incarcerating Ourselves: Tribal Jails And 

Corrections. The Prison Journal. 83(1). 

14 Office of Inspector General. (2004). Neither Safe nor Secure; An Assessment of Indian Detention 

Facilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. 

15 Ibid. 

16 Donelan, B. (1999). The Unique Circumstances of Native American Juveniles Under Federal 

Supervision. United States Probation Officer, District of South Dakota; Sands, J.M. (1998). Indian Crimes in 

Federal Courts. Federal Sentencing Reporter. 2(November/December):153–158. 

17 Ibid. 

18 Minton, T. (2009). Jails in Indian Country 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau 

of Justice Statistics. 

19 Federal Bureau of Prisons. (n.d.). Juveniles in the Bureau. Retrieved December 1, 2009 from 

http://www.bop.gov/inmate_programs/juveniles.jsp. 

20 Osher, F.C. (2007). Short-term Strategies to Improve Reentry of Jail Populations: Expanding and 

Implementing the AIPC Model. American Jails. (January/February):9–18.

21 International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). (2006). Building An Offender Reentry Program: A 

Guide For Law Enforcement. Alexandria, VA: IACP. 

22 Community Capacity Development Office. (2004). The Weed and Seed Strategy. NCJ 207498. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Community Capacity Development Office. 

23 Pacheco-Kie, C. (November 2009). Personal communications with Pueblo of Laguna Supervisory 

Probation Officer. 

24 Young, D., F.S. Taxman, and J.B. Byrne. (2002). Engaging the Community in Offender Reentry. NCJ 

196492. College Park, MD: University of Maryland. 

25 Depending on the Indian tribe, Ojibwe and Ojibwa are used throughout the document. 
Strategies for Creating Offender Reentry Programs in Indian Country 

51 

 

26 New Mexico Children’s Code. (2009). NMSA §32A-1-8 (E) Jurisdiction of the Court, Tribal Court 

Jurisdiction, Santa Fe, NM. 

27 Lindquist, C., J. Hardison and P. Lattimore. (2003). Reentry Courts Process Evaluation (Phase 1), Final 

Report. NCJ 202472. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

28 Wilkinson, R.A. and G.A. Bucholtz. (2003). Prison Reform Through Offender Reentry: A Partnership 

Between Courts and Corrections. Unpublished paper. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction. 

29 Zimmermann, C.R., et al., Editors. (2004). Desktop Guide to Reentry For Juvenile Confinement 

Facilities. East Lansing, MI: Center for Research & Professional Development; Osher, F.C. (2007). Short-term 

Strategies to Improve Reentry of Jail Populations: Expanding and Implementing the AIPC Model. American 

Jails. (January/February):9–18; International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). (2007). Offender Reentry: 

Exploring the Leadership Opportunity for Law Enforcement Executives and Their Agencies, Final Report of the 

IACP/COPS 2006 Summit. Alexandria, VA: IACP; Carmody, J. (2008). Reentry for Safer Communities: 

Effective County Practices in Jail to Community Transition Planning for Offenders with Mental Health and 

Substance Abuse Disorders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance; 

Mellow, J., et al. (2008). The Jail Administrator’s Toolkit for Reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. 

30 International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). (2007). Offender Reentry: Exploring the 

Leadership Opportunity for Law Enforcement Executives and Their Agencies, Final Report of the IACP/COPS 

2006 Summit. Alexandria, VA: IACP. 

31 Community Capacity Development Office. (2004). The Weed and Seed Strategy. NCJ 207498. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Community Capacity Development Office. 

32 Wahwassuck, K. (2008). The New Face of Jurisdiction: Joint Tribal-State Jurisdiction. Juvenile and 

Family Justice Today. (Spring):24–25. 

33 New Mexico Children’s Code. (2009). §32A-1-4 NMSA et. seq., Santa Fe, NM.