This project was supported by Grant No. 2016-IC-BX-K001 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a 

component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of 

Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 

Registering and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Crossing the Bridge:

Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

William Thorne and Suzanne Garcia

Tribal Law and Policy Institute

February 2019

I. Introduction

How do we begin? When meeting with people who are 

looking to establish a collaborative project with a tribal 

government or a Native group, this question often comes

up: “How do we begin?” In some jurisdictions, the 

question may be more properly “How do we pick it up 

again?” because previous attempts at collaboration had 

died on the vine or ended badly.

Why should we collaborate? This is another common 

question. Is it based in altruism, wanting to help those in 

need of assistance? Is it because there are mandates that 

we cannot ignore? Is it because we have experienced 

some guilt at the exclusion of tribes from collaborative 

partnerships? Is it because we have been approached or 

invited and are tempted to join? Collaboration may be 

part of a larger requirement to consult with tribes on 

issues that affect them. Most federal agencies have 

consultation policies, and many require state and local 

agencies that accept federal funds to consult with tribes

on how those funds are used. Many states also have 

consultation policies. Consulting and then collaborating 

to implement the innovations and solutions that are 

suggested is an indication of meaningful consultation. 

In some cases, the motivation to collaborate is the 

necessity of finding a solution to a persistent problem. 

For example, in northern California, a tribal judge wrote a 

letter to the chief justice of the California Supreme Court 

about a public safety issue he was facing. That one letter 

began a process that has created an ongoing relationship 

between the state and tribal judges in California, which in 

turn has led to collaboration in a growing number of 

How can the collaboration 

overcome a history of inaction, 

animosity, and distrust?

Court Appointed Special Advocates 

(CASA) is a volunteer organization 

that seeks to provide a voice to 

children involved in the child 

welfare system of this country—one 

child at a time. Resources are rarely 

enough to meet all the needs and a 

network of programs have been 

developed that readily assist and 

share with other programs. More 

than a decade ago an effort was 

made to extend the program reach 

into Indian country. However, it 

was not that easy. After several 

years of attempting to partner with 

a county-based program, the 

neighboring tribal program gave 

up, observing that “they seem to let 

the bridge, connecting a handful of 

miles of roadway, prevent many of 

the non-Indians from coming onto 

the reservation. Almost like they 

were afraid.” These people grew up 

in the same schools and lived close 

to each other, but the communities 

had almost nothing to do with each 

other.
2 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

areas throughout the state. In other situations, jurisdictions have come together to meet a legal 

requirement that they collaborate. The Adam Walsh Act, for example, gave rise to several

jurisdictions working together to implement sex offender registries.

Regardless of the reason, the benefits of collaboration—better services, increased amount or 

range of resources, increased insight, and regional solutions to problems that do not recognize 

jurisdictional boundaries—are many. This guide is intended to give those searching for answers 

on “where to begin” a place to start and to suggest strategies that might be helpful. 

The approach discussed in this article requires thoughtful planning. Be mindful of resource 

issues—you don’t want to exhaust the champions who would be part of the collaboration. The 

luxury of enough time to undertake a thoughtful effort is of special value if the issue is not 

currently an emergency or if there have been problematic previous attempts at building a 

working relationship. This approach might be too time consuming when you’ve got a deadline 

to meet or when you have a pressing concern that requires a quick solution. This approach may 

also feel like overkill if you already have an established relationship with the other jurisdiction. 

In those situations, this approach can still be helpful as a checklist of sorts—a list of 

considerations and recommendations that may be helpful when you are thinking about how to 

improve your project. It can be difficult to find the time to plan projects, but thoughtful 

planning may result in smoother, less traumatic, and more successful efforts to build a 

collaboration.

In this guide, we lay out a plan that starts with preparing to collaborate by planning internally, 

continues with planning together as collaborators, and then offers tips for the ongoing 

collaboration. We look at roadblocks along the way and suggest some alternate routes to reach 

your common destination. 

II. How to Prepare to “Cross the Bridge”—Planning Internally

The following section walks through steps that might serve as a guide for your internal planning 

conversations and decisions. Before you “cross the bridge” to work with your partner in 

another jurisdiction, do the necessary internal planning.

Note: These steps are listed sequentially, but that does not necessarily mean they must be 

accomplished sequentially. You may, for example, decide to include additional team members

after you assess your readiness to collaborate. Sometimes being open to revisiting prior steps 

as the collaboration proceeds is not a waste of valuable time but may be necessary to avoid 

newly discovered problems or to otherwise improve your collaboration as you move forward. 

1. Set Initial Goals—In Michigan, when tribal and state courts came together after years 

of inactivity following a period of previous regular meetings, the goal of the renewed 

effort was to understand the parallel judicial systems (strengths, limitations, resources,
3 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

and financial issues) and to build personal relationships. If you have the luxury of time, 

consider replicating this model and making relationship building your first goal. After 

trust has been established, and you understand each other, working with your partners 

can begin to develop targets for future collaboration. Even if you are facing a deadline 

because of a legal compliance issue or other crisis, a goal of building relationships and 

establishing trust can result in unexpected benefits, including avoiding a future crisis 

and developing innovative solutions to otherwise vexing problems.

2. Create Your Team—The initial makeup of your team is ultimately going to depend on 

the goal of your collaboration, and membership of your teams may change as your 

relationship builds and new goals are identified. When new problems are tackled, new 

skill sets may be required. But don’t allow the desire to put together the perfect team 

get in the way of starting the project. Identify people who have a reputation of solving 

problems or who appreciate new perspectives and invite them to attend, either as a 

participant or an observer. As you proceed, make sure to periodically ask “who else 

should be invited to the table?”

Remember to invite people who will set a good tone for the group—people with a 

demonstrated ability to listen, who disagree without becoming disagreeable, and who 

are willing, when warranted, to take an intermediate step in the right direction. It is also 

helpful to include people who have a good insight into the history of the relationship 

and are willing to work to improve it. It is also important to successful problem solving 

to have people who are conversant with opposing or differing views.

The makeup of the team should also depend on the skills you need to accomplish your 

goal. Think about not only who is at the table, but who 

should also be in the room for the discussions and which 

perspectives need to be considered before trying to 

implement any solution. 

Often overlooked are the people who work behind the 

scenes. Some of the most promising collaborations 

floundered because they did not have support staff to send 

out meeting announcements, take notes, track assigned roles 

and responsibilities and basically keep the “trains running.”

Without someone to attend to the details, it will prove difficult to keep momentum 

going. If you and your partners do not have sufficient resources to dedicate to this task, 

then the collaboration must talk about who is willing to carve out time in their schedule 

to meet this need. Be pragmatic. If you have a partner that is notorious for overbooking 

Collaboration Tip

Support staff can be

key in keeping the 

collaboration on track, 

organized, and ready to 

work together.
4 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

themselves, recognize that up front and take steps to mitigate their well-meaning but 

potentially damaging tendency to overcommit. 

One size doesn’t fit all. Depending on the size of the project you have in mind, you might 

want to consider having a planning core team that meets more frequently to plan, 

follow up, set agendas, and invite guests for their specific expertise. In other settings, a 

larger work group may meet less frequently to oversee and assess the ongoing nature of 

the work while smaller workgroups focus on more specific areas of concern. However 

you set up the structure, try to be respectful of people’s schedules. Balancing busy 

schedules and setting aside enough time to develop relationships can be a difficult task 

but developing these relationships has proven to be rewarding and can lead to

additional collaborations that weren’t part of the initial vision.

In especially problematic situations in which even basic commitment to shared goals is 

in question, it might be necessary to hire a facilitator. Such a facilitator needs to be 

especially skilled at diffusing anger and redirecting mistrust. While it is not out of the 

realm of possibility that this can happen when you are planning internally, this issue 

more often arises when teams from different jurisdictions meet, and so this point is 

discussed more at length in section III, part 2, below. 

3. Set Realistic Timelines—Make sure to consider what other events and activities are 

impacting the work in your jurisdictions—is domestic violence prevention month coming 

up and will several of your staff be preoccupied with events? Is it the tail end of an 

election cycle and will taking a position be risky? Will much staff be gone for training or 

holidays? Be practical about how long it will take to accomplish your goal. Importantly, 

build in plenty of time to process ideas and differing points of view. Building consensus 

takes time and difficult conversations need time to work through and resolve. Don’t 

rush it. Finally, it may be necessary to build in time to develop political support that 

might be needed to approve and support any agreements.

As your initiative moves forward, periodically track 

yourselves against your expected timetable. Are 

there delays that might repeat themselves?

Are there workarounds or will you need to adjust 

future timelines? Are there milestones that might 

be celebrated? Did you experience “project creep”

(a slow movement away from the original purpose 

of the project that can happen when the project is 

not well defined) that is now making it difficult to

Collaboration Tip

Define collaboration as it 

pertains to your own 

organization internally so that 

everyone on your team has 

similar goals or expectations.
5 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

reach your initial goal within your initial timeline? Check back as needed to reassess 

whether the previously established deadlines are still feasible.

4. Define Collaboration—Collaboration sounds simple, but anyone who has worked in a 

group knows that this is usually not the case. Sometimes, the difficulty stems not from 

working with your new partners in the other jurisdiction but working with the partners 

within your own jurisdiction. A helpful step in any partnering, therefore, might be to 

define collaboration as it pertains to your own organization internally so that everyone 

on your team has similar goals or expectations. It might be helpful to clarify the kind of 

relationship you currently have with your own organizational partners, think about the 

kind of relationship you would like to have, and come up with a plan to move everyone 

in that direction. In Building a Legacy of Hope: Perspectives on Joint Tribal-State 

Jurisdiction, the authors suggest that there are five levels of interaction. 

Five Levels of Interaction

1. No cooperation—Efforts to help the other operate are absent.

2. Minimal levels of cooperation—There are some efforts to provide help to the other 

jurisdiction so that both operate more efficiently.

3. Full cooperation—The organizations work together so that they each operate at

maximum efficiency, but their operations are completely independent.

4. Collaboration—At this level there is interaction whereby the jurisdictions not only 

operate at maximum efficiency themselves but actively seek to help the other operate

better through some interactive efforts.

5. Cocreation—At this level the jurisdictions are working together to create systems

and tools so that they can maximize the results for each through joint efforts at all 

possible levels.

Think about how, internally in your own jurisdiction, the partners work together. Then 

think about how you would prefer to work together. Will your team come to an 

agreement on policy, then expect each department to draft its own procedures, or will 

you create procedures as a group? Make sure everyone has the same understanding.

5. Assess Readiness to Collaborate—At one point or another, most of us have been 

involved in unsuccessful collaborations. In hindsight, we can probably identify why it 

was that the collaboration failed. It might have been that the people sitting at the table 

did not have the authority to make decisions needed to resolve the situation. Perhaps it 

was because the parties to the collaboration had different overarching concerns that 

were not clearly identified and expressed—one partner was most concerned in ensuring 

a certain law was complied with, while the other partner is most concerned with
6 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

ensuring that the services they provide were easily accessible to their clients—and as a 

result, people talked past each other and were unable to reach a resolution. Prior to 

reaching out to your state, local, or tribal partner, gather your own team, take a close, 

clear-eyed look at your circumstances, and make a frank assessment of whether your 

organization is ready to collaborate. A tool to facilitate this assessment is attached in 

Appendix B.

o As discussed briefly in the tool, you can use the results of the assessment in 

many ways. It might be that you decide to address some of your challenges 

internally before you reach out to the other jurisdiction. You might choose to 

approach the other jurisdiction with the assessment in hand to begin the work 

with an honest conversation about where your challenges lie. That kind of frank 

discussion can go a long way toward developing a trusting relationship and can 

also pave the way toward making sure everyone’s expectations are aligned. And 

naturally, you may want to do a combination of the two and work internally 

while you reach out to your partner jurisdiction. And still another option might 

be to informally plan with your cross-jurisdictional partner as you both assess 

the readiness of each organization.

6. Set Internal Ground Rules—Internal ground rules are 

especially important if you have team members from 

different departments or various lines of responsibility

and there is no one person on the team who has clear 

authority to make binding decisions applicable to 

everyone who needs to be on the team. Commonly 

established ground rules can include the following 

subjects:

➢ Communication—How will the internal team 

communicate? If you have a key team member who 

prefers phone calls to e-mails, it’s important to 

recognize that up front. It might not be that your new 

partner is ignoring you, it might be that she only 

responds to e-mails at the end of the day. 

➢ What Is the Internal Decision-Making Process?—You may want to consider 

using a decision-making framework that helps clarify where sticking points may be. 

When deciding what to do, instead of voting yes or no, team members are invited to 

show their level of support for a proposed resolution in a more detailed manner: 

Collaboration Tip

Using a more nuanced 

decision-making framework 

can unpack the problem, lead 

to discussion and 

understanding about the 

reasoning and values 

underlying your team 

member’s evaluation of the 

situation.
Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

Hon. Timothy

7

1. I can easily support the decision or action. 

2. I can support the decision or action, but it may not be my preference. 

3. I can support the decision or action with minor changes. 

4. I support the will of the group, but I don't necessarily agree with the decision 

or action. 

5. I cannot support the decision or action.

Using a more detailed decision-making framework can unpack the problem and lead to 

discussion and understanding about the reasoning and values underlying your team 

member’s evaluation of the situation. A thoughtful discussion might lead to a more 

detailed understanding of different perspectives and possibly a new consensus.

7. Know the History and the Context—Especially if you are coming from the state, 

county, or local jurisdiction, 

it is important to 

acknowledge the history 

shared with your tribal 

partner and how that 

history has resulted in 

present-day dynamics. In 

one situation, a tribe and a 

county were attempting to 

come to an agreement 

about how county service 

providers would deliver services to tribal members that lived in their concurrent

jurisdiction—how referrals would be made, what information would flow back and 

forth, and whether attendance at tribal court hearings would be possible. The history 

between the county and the tribe, both recent and long past, had been adversarial at 

best. The main barrier preventing the flow of services was a widely known story that a 

20-year-old court order stated that county workers could not provide services if the 

tribal court had jurisdiction over the issue. Yet, no one could find the court order. 

County staff researched the issue, only to discover that there in fact was no court order. 

Tucked away in a file somewhere, was a memo, written by a judge who had been part of 

that adversarial history, giving his opinion and leaving no room for discussion. County 

staff, recognizing this dated memo for what it was, immediately contacted their tribal 

partners to admit that the “story” of the court order was wrong. This admission not only 

removed a barrier to the parties’ main goal, it began the process of building trust 

between the parties that led to additional collaboration.

“Why would we not collaborate with those who 

were here before us . . . and have an indigenous 

understanding of this place we now share, to help 

us make wise decisions for our common future?” 

– Hon. Timothy Connors
8 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

It is also important to know the context of the situation. Have the parties tried to 

collaborate in the past and failed? Why did that happen? Was the timing simply wrong?

Was there a lack of connectivity and/or staff support? Were the right people not at the 

table? Is there an individual who could be considered a disruptor—someone who is 

more interested in causing issues than in resolving issues? Familiarize yourself with the 

context of the situation and be proactive about minimizing the negative effects it may 

have on your current efforts.

8. Determine Who from Your Prospective Collaborative Partner You Should 

Contact—If you already have a positive relationship with an individual who works for 

your partner jurisdiction, figuring out who to contact to begin the larger collaboration 

will be simple. If you have no relationship with anyone at your tribal or state partner, 

think outside the box. Ask someone who does have this relationship to not only provide 

you with contact information but also to perform a warm hand off: Ask them to attend 

the first few meetings with you and help establish the trust that is so key to developing 

relationships and reaching agreements. These first few meetings might best take place 

as an informal breakfast or coffee meeting with the initial goals of developing the 

relationship. It goes without saying that it is important to always show respect. 

Remember you are interacting with your peers from another jurisdiction—they are your 

equal and begin with the assumption that, like you, they are concerned with solving a 

common problem.

Ask if there are protocols or touchstones that must be dealt with before conversations 

reach an “official” level. Must higher-ups be consulted or advised about the initial 

conversations or will informal discussions be sufficient before presenting drafts or ideas 

for approval? When must “official” approval be sought to authorize government-togovernment discussions? Understand that the way things are done in your jurisdiction is 

not necessarily the way things are done in another.

III. Initial “Crossing the Bridge”—Planning Together as Collaborators

Now that you’ve completed your internal planning process, it’s time to “cross the 

bridge” and begin working with your partner. Most of the steps listed in the following 

text are going to sound repetitive, but there are different considerations now that we 

are applying the collaborative process to an interjurisdiction relationship.

1. Define Collaboration—In approaching this step, be open to new ideas. Indigenous 

ideas of collaboration might have much to offer your partnership and help you meet
9 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

your goals. Listen to your partners. In some Indigenous communities, the initial goal of 

collaboration is to share and understand each other’s perspective. If a solution is 

suggested by an Indigenous partner, but not everyone agrees with it, the point of the 

collaboration might be to help the group understand what specific problem is being 

addressed and why the proposal may be a necessary element of a larger solution. Try to

create an atmosphere where you start from what is agreed upon and then discuss 

where opinions differ, as opposed to starting from points of disagreement. We call this 

an atmosphere of “yes, and” instead of “no, but.” In approaching it this way, you create 

a situation in which you can add pieces to the solution and may end up finding solutions 

for many problems—not just the problem currently under discussion. In one situation, 

parents were not receiving information about service providers. Rather than focusing on 

just developing a seemingly simple fix (hand the parent a notice of the next hearing date 

and time before they leave the court room) the collaborative went further with their 

discussions and, based on someone’s initial suggestion, created a dually targeted 

solution where, not only would the parent be given written notice but also the notice 

would include information about how to contact and where to access the required 

services. Problems may be susceptible to alternative routes to solutions—keep an open 

mind.

When building a collaborative effort, review the five levels of interaction:

1. No cooperation—Efforts to help the other operate are absent.

2. Minimal levels of cooperation—There are some efforts to provide help to 

the other jurisdiction so that both operate more efficiently.

3. Full cooperation—The organizations work together so that they each operate at 

maximum efficiency, but their operations are completely independent. 

4. Collaboration—At this level there is interaction whereby the jurisdictions not only

operate at maximum efficiency themselves but actively seek to help the other 

operate better through some interactive efforts.

5. Cocreation—At this level the jurisdictions are working together to create systems 

and tools so that they can maximize the results for each through joint efforts at

all possible levels.

If these five levels do not reflect your values or your way of collaborating, talk to your 

partners and teach them about the values and understandings that inform your ways of 

collaborating. Make sure everyone has the same understanding of the kind of working 
10 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

relationship you are trying to develop. As your 

project proceeds, check during the discussions to 

determine whether true collaboration is 

occurring. If repeatedly it is just one side’s 

problems that are being addressed, the 

collaboration is not likely to last. If, however,

joint problems are addressed or at least separate 

problems for both communities, people are more 

likely to keep attending the meetings. If everyone 

at the table plays a part in crafting the solutions, 

and the solutions benefit the communities that 

both seek to serve, those actions are more likely 

to result in a sustainable collaboration. And if 

everyone owns a part of the solution, each 

member is more likely to work to implement the 

solution—because it’s our solution not “his/her 

idea of a solution.” It is important to create a safe 

space where people can suggest ideas and 

approaches and think out loud, even if their idea 

is not fully formed—utilizing the “yes and” not 

“no, but” approach. Each new idea sparks a new 

perspective. Each idea need not be a selfcontained solution. Ideas can be discarded after 

consideration and new or improved approaches 

developed. It is not about which ideas wins. One 

size rarely fits all and different solutions might fit 

best in different circumstances. According to at 

least one prominent business advisor, different 

perspectives are essential to finding solutions, 

noting that if “we” could have solved the 

problem alone—we already would have done so.

Instead, working with diverse perspectives makes 

complex problem solving more likely.

Out-of-the-Box Thinking...

In one chiefly rural community 

with a truancy problem, a 

collaboration solution was 

developed to utilize the police an 

education/child welfare 

problem—not as enforcers of the 

law, but rather as problem 

discovered that truancy was 

worst on Mondays when parents 

might have had a “hard” 

weekend. The community had no 

money to throw at the problem. 

Instead they considered ways of 

utilizing current resources in “outof-the-box” thinking. The solution 

was for the kids to call the police 

department if they needed a ride 

to school. The officers would pull 

up outside and call the youth on 

the phone, all while having no 

contact with the parent. The 

solution ended up eventually 

embarrassing the parents into 

getting the kids to school, and the 

police and the youth ended up 

having a much better working 

relationship based on 

conversations while driving to 

school in the mornings. 

A win-win for the community.
11 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

2. Create Your Team—In putting together your larger 

cross-jurisdictional team, keep in mind the 

recommendations that were stated previously: 

include people not only because of the role they play 

or the skill set that they bring, but also include people 

who are eager to learn about how other people do 

things. Include people who are intellectually curious 

and share a joy at learning new ideas and new ways of 

doing things. This will help spark the development of 

trust between parties as they share and move the 

collaboration forward. Don’t forget to include people 

who may disagree but who are willing to listen and 

share perspectives. “Preaching to the choir” rarely 

solves complex disputes.

Longevity is important in your team because many of 

the issues tackled will take prolonged effort to solve 

and even longer to institutionalize the changes. If you 

need to include someone who will be leaving their 

position soon, ensure they bring in someone they 

want to mentor so the transition is much smoother. 

Plan for vacancies as well as leadership transitions. On 

more than one occasion, the turnover of key staff has 

ended a successful collaboration. In planning your 

partnership, decide between the parties who will step 

into key positions should someone get sick, have a 

change in job titles, or move on and begin the process 

of preparing them for succession. 

As mentioned in an earlier section, it might be helpful 

to create more than one team: a core group that 

meets regularly to plan, implement efforts, and 

monitor success, as well as a larger team whose 

members, while important to creating the political 

support and official sanction, only need to be involved 

on a more sporadic basis. Think this through carefully.

One Size Does NOT Fit All...

In one jurisdiction, the issue that 

needed resolution concerned 

services of process. Outside law 

enforcement was coming on to the 

reservation without notice to serve 

legal papers on people for civil and 

criminal matters. This approach 

solved a short-term problem for the 

non-Indian jurisdiction and created 

a more fundamental problem for 

the Indian community. Now, 

instead of a dispute involving 

individuals, there was a brewing 

battle between sovereigns. The 

solution identified was to create a 

process in which outside law 

enforcement and civil process 

servers would first go to the tribal 

court where an initial review of the 

legal papers was conducted and 

then a decision made on whether 

tribal officers would complete the 

service. The parties cooperated—

and it was successful. [The papers 

were properly served, and tribal 

sovereignty was honored.] It is not 

always necessary to have a fullfledged collaborative group to solve 

problems, but it can build for future 

successes. In this case, the partners 

didn’t need to utilize a process of 

full cocreation of tools and 

materials to come to a resolution. 

Again, one size doesn’t fit all. In this 

instance it worked, and it set the 

table for future broader 

collaborations.
12 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

❖ Who needs to be at the table? 

❖ Which table, or both? 

❖ Who has the time and the commitment to follow through?

❖ Who understands the practical obstacles to be overcome?

❖ Who has the authority to try various solutions and approaches?

❖ Who has the contacts to reach out to people and organizations that might be

helpful in achieving success?

❖ Who will help behind the scenes?

❖ Who is able and willing to keep all the members connected?

❖ Who is organized enough to keep the threads from tangling?

❖ Who can chart and report the progress or identify unforeseen obstacles that 

may appear?

The most essential person to long-term success of your venture might well be the 

person on the team who collates and sends out notes and drafts the written agreement.

Which of the partner jurisdictions has staff that can devote their time to that? Who can 

be tasked, and trusted, with doing that behind-the-scenes work? Ensure that you have 

the right people at the table and the right support staff to perform administrative duties 

such as arranging meeting space and developing and delivering agendas and meeting 

notes. If you are extremely fortunate, you might find someone who can serve in both 

roles. If not, you may have to figure out how to 

assign or rotate some or all those duties.

If there has been a long or bitter history of 

interaction, such a profound lack of trust that 

there is literally no positive relationship between 

the potential collaborators, or when the parties 

have reached an impasse, it may be necessary to 

bring in a mediator/facilitator in an attempt to 

bridge the chasm between the parties. On 

troublesome issues or problems, an objective or 

independent third party might also be helpful. A

facilitator who can help each side understand 

the other side’s perspective in a way that is fair may be more useful in the long term 

than someone who is more focused on simply brokering an agreement. Where there has 

been a history of animosity, as is often the case between tribes, states, and local 

entities, taking the step to bring in a trusted and knowledgeable third party will 

demonstrate your commitment to the process, respect for your partner jurisdiction, and 

commitment to finding an appropriate, fair, and joint solution.

Collaboration Tip

Where there has been a history of 

animosity, taking the step to bring in 

a trusted and knowledgeable third 

party will demonstrate your 

commitment to the process, respect 

for your partner jurisdiction, and 

commitment to finding an 

appropriate, fair, and joint solution.
13 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

In one instance, a county and tribe had a long history of adversarial and acrimonious 

relationships. As time passed, things had progressed from all-out animosity to some 

cooperation, but disagreements and misunderstandings were commonplace. Attempts 

were made to come together over an important issue, but negotiations dragged on for 

more than a year with no results. New leadership came in on the county side, and they 

suggested hiring a facilitator that was widely known and trusted in the Native 

community. When the county approached the tribe and suggested bringing in this 

individual, it emphasized its desire to reach a fair solution. In less than a year, the

agreement was finalized and adopted by elected leadership on both sides. Since that 

time, and without the continued assistance of the facilitator, the county and the tribe 

have continued to build their relationship. They have even expanded into new areas of 

collaboration.

Last, but not least, make sure that both the membership and the leadership of the 

collaborative team is approximately equally divided between the tribal and nontribal 

parties, unless there is both a good reason and an agreement to do something different.

It is particularly important that both real and nominal leadership authority be shared

between the tribal and nontribal jurisdictions. In all too many situations, an imbalance 

of power between state, locals, and tribes has led to the failure of collaborative efforts. 

The wider acceptance in the affected communities may hinge on whether the 

collaborative is proactive about ensuring that there is a clear and transparent balance of 

responsibility for decisions and proposed solutions. 

In the failure of one of the early efforts toward collaboration of state and tribal courts, 

one of the root causes can be traced to exclusive leadership by the state and an 

inadequate number of tribal members participating as members of the collaborative. Of 

the three original forum efforts, the two efforts that succeeded all had equal and shared 

leadership and approximately equal membership on the collaborative.

3. Establish Goals, Timelines, and Expectations—As you begin meeting with a new 

partner, attempt to come to agreement about the problem you are attempting to solve.

Pushing a particular solution early in the process may prove counterproductive.

Remember that success, even with small issues or “low-hanging fruit,” can lead to 

greater trust. Unless there is a need for urgency, tackling the simpler and easier to solve 

problems, while postponing the more troublesome issues, may create a sense of 

accomplishment. Those successes can then be leveraged into more difficult 

conversations and more troublesome issues.
14 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

In other situations, in which there may already be some established trust to build upon, 

it may be helpful to identify all the vexing issues, putting everything on the table in a 

nonvolatile manner. This list can be added to as the collaborative continues. The list will 

also serve as a yardstick to gauge progress. Once the list is created, it may be helpful to 

divide the challenges into categories depending upon either the time or the amount of 

effort that will be required to solve each of them. Categories such as “short term,”

“medium term,” and “long term” may work but are not the only approaches. Then,

within each category, the list can be sorted into priorities. How you establish priorities

may depend upon importance (political, community, or practical interest or need), ease 

of accomplishing, readily available resources, and so forth. Each collaborative should 

attempt to reach this prioritization by consensus when possible. Shared goals, even in 

the absence of shared solutions, can sustain a collaborative while trust is being built and 

small victories are achieved.

As you enter the planning stage be sure to have honest conversations about workloads, 

other initiatives that are going to take the time and energy of the partners, and events 

that might interfere with forward momentum of the project. Then set realistic timelines

for assessing effort, progress, and 

success. Community context for these 

efforts is an important consideration. In 

many Native communities, summertime 

is the most active social time of year,

when many are busy with additional 

family and community obligations. In 

other communities, projects and 

initiatives often stall during preparation 

for Feast Days and ceremonies, or at the 

end of the year because of holidays and 

community events. Be ready to plan 

around those. Upcoming elections, both 

tribal and local, can also cause a delay. Will a new county commission or executive come 

in and want to be involved in decisions? Will positions of authority or decision-making 

change? It is possible to work around that by addressing issues that will not require the 

input of elected officials? Or, will there always be distractions and “now is as good a 

time as any”? Make these kinds of assessments jointly, not unilaterally. Take the time 

to learn about your partner, their family, and the community they represent. This simple 

step can build trust into your relationship. Finally, especially if negotiating complicated, 

difficult issues, your timelines should be flexible. You will hit unexpected snags and may 

Collaboration Tip

Take the time to learn about your 

partner, their family and the community 

they represent. Always keep in mind that 

learning the processes involved in solving 

problems can be more important than 

timeliness and reaching a solution. Most 

times, “The process is the message and 

the relationship is the key.”
15 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

need to take a breath at some point. Always keep in mind that learning the processes 

involved in solving problems can be more important than timeliness and reaching a 

solution. Most times, “The process is the message and the relationship is the key.”

4. Establish Ground Rules and Common Values—Establishing ground rules and 

common values when working with new partners can be especially important. It is also 

important that these rules be created out of respect. Building relationships in Native 

communities is often about learning a person’s interests, who their family is, and how 

each is doing, as well as sharing meals and joking. This often involves conversations 

before meetings start, during breaks, during meals, and any other time when it is just 

“people,” not roles, that are sharing and learning about each other. Approaching 

meetings in this way can really improve the character and the tone in the room and can 

make disagreements seem less of a chasm or a challenge. That is, differing opinions 

become various perspectives and not a threat or an 

insurmountable impasse. Consider adopting rules 

and value statements similar to these:

➢ Respect each other as equals. Nothing will doom 

the discussion faster than an attitude that 

reflects a perspective of big brother–little 

brother, more experienced–less experienced, 

professional–untrained.

➢ Listen to understand, not to prepare, an 

argument to overcome or counter another 

idea—it is too easy to derail a search for solutions when people aren’t listening but

are biding their time waiting and rehearsing their own pearls of wisdom. Or worse, 

interrupting—not for clarification but to argue. It is so much more important to 

listen and learn about other perspectives than it is to persuade someone that you 

were right all along. Some communities teach that the Creator gave you two eyes 

and two ears and only one mouth for a reason. It is more important to listen and 

observe than it is to talk—you should watch and listen twice as much as you speak.

➢ Majority vote is a difficult way to operate a collaborative that requires the voluntary 

assent of the partners where there is always present an option to simply leave the 

collaborative. A better approach may be to operate by consensus. Consensus may 

help build respect; where everyone’s opinion and perspective matters. Consensus 

says that when we agree it is all of us who endorse this action. It may not always be 

possible, but consensus shouldn’t be abandoned lightly. You may have many people 

on the team from multiple sectors. In one collaborative, the members of the team 

could not agree on why the problem was happening, but they could agree that it

Collaboration Tip

Some communities teach that the

Creator gave you two eyes and 

two ears and only one mouth for 

a reason. It is more important to 

listen and observe than it is to 

talk.
16 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

was happening. (Sometimes the “why” isn’t as important as the “what are we going 

to do about it?”) At one point, the team was so divided about the root cause of the 

problem (was racism responsible for the conduct?) they thought they would have to 

issue minority reports because people couldn’t agree. Because they operated by 

consensus, however, they took the time and worked to find something they could 

agree upon. While they disagreed about why the problem existed, they were 

convinced that the problematic conduct was indeed happening. The collaborative

ended up being able to craft a remedial measure and a statement of principle 

announcing a joint determination that the conduct was unacceptable. Instead of 

focusing on the why, they chose to focus on what might be done to correct the 

problem. An oft-repeated piece of advice is that we shouldn’t make the perfect the 

enemy of the good. In this situation, few thought it was optimal from their own 

point of view, but all agreed that it 

was a joint step in the right direction.

When driving toward consensus

there are a few strategies that might 

be helpful. Identify the elements of 

the problem that the team can agree 

upon and focus on those. Don’t 

discount ideas. There is a noted 

business consultant that teaches the 

use of diversity, but not as a step 

toward political correctness. Rather, he is convinced that the more perspectives that 

are shared, the more likely solutions will reveal themselves. You might have ten 

different people with ten different perspectives. All of them are valuable—use all of 

them to identify the scope and nuances of the problem. The goal is not to seek 

uniformity and agreement, but instead to identify all the aspects of the problem and 

then to weigh possible approaches. When there is one person on the team who 

can’t agree, it is usually not a good strategy to overrule them with a majority vote

simply to move on. Instead, have a conversation about their sticking point and 

unpack that with the rest of the team listening—not trying to convince the person 

they are wrong, but instead trying to understand why this is so important to that 

person. Value the dissenting perspective and try to build that into the solution 

proposed by the collaboration. In doing so, you will create a stronger relationship. 

Diverse viewpoints are valuable tools because they help identify troublesome 

aspects of problems. To effectively problem solve we need perspectives different 

from our own. Be mindful of the fact that, if you were able to solve the problem

“With open minds, we can learn much from each 

other. The wisdom of collaboration becomes

apparent as the common ground is uncovered and 

explored.”

- Hon. Michael Petoskey
17 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

based on just your own perspective, you would have. You will need different 

perspectives to help create a solution to problems you can’t solve alone.

It is sometimes helpful to let people discuss the issue at length rather than forcing a 

vote on a single approach or solution. Asking questions can sometimes spark new 

ideas. What might part of a solution look 

like if indeed “A” is correct that some 

aspect of the problem is affecting their 

community? Does this piece of an 

approach cause difficulties somewhere 

else? Must there be a single uniform 

solution? Could different approaches in 

various locations or situations be 

acceptable? Has this problem been 

confronted somewhere else? What did 

they do, learn, or try?

If ultimately you can’t agree on any solution, don’t let it become an impasse.

Instead, use that experience and learn from it. Ask:

➢ What did you agree on?

➢ How can we make progress, even if we can’t completely solve the problem 

today?

➢ How can we apply what we’ve learned to another problem?

➢ Is there a different sort of problem that might be addressed? 

Some groups have disbanded because they couldn’t resolve “the ultimate issue.”

Other groups persisted, tackled smaller problems, and built upon their successes.

They agreed that it might be opportune to confront the nagging issue at a later time.

Much like the U.S. approach in the Pacific during World War II, an island-hopping

strategy allowed skipping problems that were too tough to solve initially, laying the 

groundwork to come back at a later time when the indicators of success were more 

favorable. They didn’t let an insoluble problem of the moment halt an otherwise 

successful effort. If you have a problem that defies solution, don’t let it derail the 

effort. Simply agree to disagree about “this one” and begin work on “that other 

one.” There is usually not a shortage of problems that need solutions. Finding and 

building upon small successes builds relationships of trust that allow for ongoing 

work, as well as permitting an opportunity to circle back at some future time to take 

another look at a vexing problem.

Collaboration Tip

Finding and building upon small 

successes builds relationships of trust 

that allow for ongoing work, as well 

as permitting an opportunity to circle 

back at some future time to take 

another look at a vexing problem.
18 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

5. Gather Information and, as a Group, Explore the Problem in Depth—Having put 

together a collaborative team, set a goal, and explored how the group would go about 

developing solutions, now is a good time to put more thought into the particular issue 

you are attempting to resolve. As a group, you may want to consider the following 

questions:

➢ Can we, as a collaborative, agree on what is at the root of the problem we are trying 

to resolve? What is the context of the problem? When did the problem appear?

How long have things been this way? What has been the fallout from this problem 

not being solved? The issue might be persistent truancy in community, but what is at 

the source of that issue? Gather many perspectives and learn about each of them.

Consider them all, but as recommended previously, do not let disagreements about 

why something is occurring prevent you from developing solutions to remedy the 

problem.

➢ Where are the landmines buried in the issue? Coming to a clearer understanding of 

the challenges the group will face may help avoid an impasse. Have people 

attempted to resolve this issue in the past and failed—and did hard feelings result 

on either side? Try to gain an understanding of the obstacles you may have to 

overcome.

➢ Think about what you are hoping to accomplish—in a best-case scenario, what 

would things look like if you resolved this issue? This is an opportunity for the group 

to dream big. Take time to think in detail about how things would be if the group 

were able to develop a solution and the solution was successful. For example, if the 

partners were able find a way to share information about domestic violence 

convictions so that the partner criminal justice systems could take them into 

consideration when charging and sentencing, or coordinate protective activities, 

what would that look like? Would information be shared automatically? Would 

those conversations be part of a standing meeting about the dynamics of domestic 

violence in the community generally? What is that bigger picture?

➢ What resources does each partner bring to the table that can help resolve this issue? 

What resources are needed? Can they be obtained or, in the short term, will the 

parties have to make do without them? Consider resource mapping to identify 

previously unknown sources of help. Who else has faced similar issues? What have 

they tried? What is there to learn from their activities?

➢ Who is going to be impacted by this work and how? Consider both positive and 

negative impacts. If information on domestic violence convictions is shared between 

courts, how will victims be impacted? Their families? Service providers? And, when 

you have created that list, review it from the perspectives of your entire 

collaborative team. Should anyone else be at the table for these discussions?
19 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

➢ What needs to change for the vision to be realized? After the team has taken the 

time to come to a fuller understanding of the context and history of the current 

situation and has developed a vision of what things might look like after a successful 

resolution has been implemented—connect the dots. What needs to be done to get 

from there to here? Prioritize your efforts, be pragmatic, and acknowledge the 

circumstances and limitations. The team needs to be thoughtful about what change 

is realistic. But don’t be afraid to think and dream big. Temper your pragmatism with 

long-range thinking—what may not be possible today, might be possible in the 

future. Think in both the short term and the long term.

➢ Don’t reinvent the wheel: Have other groups found a solution or an approach to the 

problem that you might be able to adapt (not copy) to fit your situation? There have

been an increasing number of success stories around the country, and there is 

considerable effort being made to disseminate that information. There are 

numerous models, promising practices, and studies of common problems faced by 

tribes, states, counties, and local jurisdictions. Explore these successes with the 

team. Once the team can firmly grasp that success is possible, it is easier to continue 

the collaborative journey. One of those solutions might even fit your circumstances.

IV. Continuing to “Cross the Bridge”—Working Together As a Group

1. Agree on Specific Changes—When deciding what changes should be implemented,

consider both short-term and long-term implications of the change.

➢ What are the steps that must be accomplished to implement the desired

change?

➢ Who must approve the changes?

➢ Who must be informed of the changes?

➢ How long should they have to get ready for the change?

➢ What might be the unexpected consequences of the change?

“Build on success by focusing on quickly achievable solutions. And 

find opportunities to celebrate and sustain the changes you make

together so that they don’t rely on the individuals who championed 

the changes.”

– Jennifer Walter
20 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

Be realistic about the changes you suggest. Although the partners may agree that more 

funding should be dispensed to resolve the problem—for example, more prevention 

activities should be funded—that might not be a realistic solution because of budget 

cuts. Acknowledge the difficulties, but don’t be afraid to call them out. If roadblocks are 

highlighted, others may be willing to help solve a piece of the problem.

Focus on what the group needs to do to support the changes as well. Discuss the roles 

and responsibilities of individual members of the collaborative in facilitating that 

change. Some changes require a specific sequence of actions. If a specific sequence is 

required, how will you ensure necessary prerequisites are accomplished before 

launching the next step? Deadlines are not always essential, but if they are make sure to 

spell out who is responsible for leading the effort and who might be called upon to 

support the effort. Make sure the entire group participates in that conversation.

Importantly, when the group is developing resolutions to common problems, don’t just 

think about the changes that need to occur but also consider the kinds of training that 

are needed to implement the agreement and to sustain the change. In one case, a 

county and a tribe were able to successfully negotiate an agreement between their law 

enforcement agencies that included topics such as hot pursuit, notice, and resource 

sharing. Unfortunately, they did not consider the fact that, as time went on, new 

officers and supervisors would need to be trained on the agreement to implement the 

agreement effectively over time. Despite the fact that a good solution had been put in 

place, after some time the problem began to reappear. The agencies began to face the 

same problem when responding to calls because the people on the ground were unware 

of the agreement or how to implement it. Build in ongoing training between 

jurisdictions if needed.

2. Incorporate Continuous Quality Improvement—Working together as a group to 

bring about change is not enough. The very ideas and perceptions that helped create 

the change will be necessary to ensure that the change is accomplishing the desired 

goal. How will you know that the change is working the way you want it to? Look back to 

how the group envisioned the details of successful change and consider whether those 

details are coming to fruition. Are the effects on people, communities, and entities that 

you envisioned being realized? If not, why not? Are there unanticipated consequences 

resulting from the change? Can the unwelcome impacts be mitigated? From the 

perspectives of the various collaborative members, is the targeted change 

accomplishing the desired results? If not, what needs to be adjusted or recalibrated?

Are we moving toward a better result? 
21 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

It is important to allow enough time to gauge results. Some results may be catastrophic 

and require immediate action. Others may be much more subtle and nuanced, and you 

need to allow the dust to settle to make an informed observation about whether you 

have been successful. If we declare victory for the targeted problem, what comes next?

Come back and reassess after the passage of some time to ensure the solution has 

“stuck” or whether more training is needed to reinforce the change in how things are 

done?

3. Move on to Other Goals/Revisit Unresolved Issues—Often when a successful 

partnership has been created across jurisdictions, this step happens naturally. 

Unfortunately, it is the nature of the work to always have another issue that can be 

resolved. On a positive note, having built a successful collaboration, the trusting 

relationship is now stronger and may be better situated to tackle previously insoluble 

problems. As new issues are undertaken it may be necessary to reconstitute some of the 

membership. Interest in a particular issue may have kept some at the table who no 

longer have the time or interest in the next task. Or people with different backgrounds 

and experience may be necessary to better understand the context for the next round.

In either case, try to ensure that the sense of accomplishment, as well as the strategies 

for overcoming disputes, is transitioned to the new leadership and membership. Of

course, it wouldn’t hurt to have some of the previous members “hold over” to the new 

set of tasks.

4. Celebrate Successes, Share Credit and

Accept Blame—Always, Always, 

ALWAYS—Share credit for things that have 

gone well and acknowledge your agencies’ 

part in things that have not gone well. This 

is a necessary element of building and 

maintaining a trusting, effective 

collaboration. Respect is hard earned and 

even more valuable. Remember to 

celebrate your successes. The work that you 

are doing is difficult and can be trying to the sunniest of dispositions. Taking the time to 

look at the progress you have made and acknowledging your accomplishments as a 

group is an important part of maintaining the partnership and moving forward. 

Collaboration Tip

Look back to how the group 

envisioned the details of 

successful change and consider

whether those details are coming 

to fruition. Are the effects on 

people, communities, and entities 

that you envisioned being 

realized? If not, why not?
22 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

V. Conclusion

Developing and maintaining a collaborative relationship across jurisdictions can result in 

creative solutions and better results for the entire community. The path toward that solution 

might be a challenge. Be prepared to answer hard questions such as: “Why now?” Good faith 

and trust are not automatic, even with the best of intentions. It may be that the first step in 

building an effective collaborative is an honest answer to a hard question. In a national effort 

to create a collaboration among state and tribal judges one of the most profound moments of 

the first meeting was when a tribal judge asked, “Why now?” The question strongly implied 

that there must be some newly discovered benefit to the organization motivating it for the first 

time to invite tribal judges to collaborate or even to participate. The honest and heartfelt 

response from a leader of the state judges that the invitation was too long overdue, and it was 

past time to take the first step went a long way to easing the mistrust in the room. It didn’t 

solve everything, but it was a beginning. A beginning that has resulted in a multiyear strong 

and ongoing collaboration. The goal of thoughtful planning is to ensure that you are 

approaching the collaboration with clear-eyed view of where the challenges and strengths lie.
23 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

Appendix A

Suggested Further Reading/Additional Resources on

Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

Capacity Building Center for Tribes, Building an Effective Tribal-State Child Welfare Partnership.

Available at: http://collaboration.tribalinformationexchange.org/.

Kimberly Cobb and Tracy Mullins, Improving the Administration of Justice In Tribal Communities 

through Information and Resource Sharing, American Probation and Parole Association (2010). 

Available at: 

http://tloa.ncai.org/documentlibrary/2011/01/Information%20and%20Resource%20Sharing_FI

NAL_12-2010.pdf

Jennifer Fahey, Korey Wahwassuck, Alison Leof, John Smith, Center for Evidence-Based Policy, 

Oregon Health and Science University, Joint Jurisdiction Courts: A Manual for Developing Tribal, 

Local, State and Federal Justice Collaborations (2016). Available at: 

https://www.walkingoncommonground.org/resources-tools.cfm.

Jerry Gardner, Improving the Relationship between Indian Nations, the Federal Government, 

and State Governments (2001). Available at: http://www.tribal-institute.org/articles/mou.htm.

Tassie Hanna, Sam Deloria, and Charles E. Trimble, The Commission on State-Tribal Relations: 

Enduring Lessons in the Modern State-Tribal Relationship (2012). Available at: 

https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/cstr-article-final.pdf.

Susan Johnson, Jeanne Kauffman, John Dossett and Sarah Hicks, Government to Government

Models of Cooperation Between States and Tribes, National Conference of State Legislatures, 

(2009). Available at: http://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/tribal-governance/state-tribalrelations/Govt_to_Govt_Models_of_Cooperation_Between_States_and_Tribes_2002.pdf

Michigan's Judiciary Success Stories: How Tribal, State and Federal Courts Are Collaborating to 

Benefit Michigan Families (2017). Available at: 

https://www.walkingoncommonground.org/files/MI%20Tribal-StateFed%20Success%20Stories%2011-3_FINAL%20(1)%20(002).pdf.

National Center for State Courts, Building on Common Ground: A National Agenda to Reduce 

Jurisdictional Disputes Between Tribal, State, and Federal Courts (1993). Available at: 

http://www.tribal-institute.org/articles/common.htm. 
24 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

National Sheriff’s Association, Cross-Deputization in Indian Country (2018). Available at: 

https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p363-pub.pdf.

H. Ted Rubin, Tribal Courts and State Courts: Disputed Civil Jurisdiction Concerns and Steps 

Toward Resolution, 14 State Court Journal 2 (1990), pages 9-15. Available at: 

http://www.walkingoncommonground.org/files/Background%201%20TCSC_Disputed%20Civil%

20Jurisidction%20Concerns%20and%20Resolution_SCJ%20Vol14No2_1990(2).pdf

H. Ted Rubin, Tribal Courts and State Courts: Working Together to Resolve Jurisdictional 

Conflicts, 15 State Court Journal 2 (1991), pages 36-40. Available at: 

http://www.walkingoncommonground.org/files/Background%202%20TCSC_Working%20Toget

her%20to%20Prevent%20Jurisdictional%20Conflicts_Vol15No2_1991.pdf

H. Ted Rubin, Tribal Courts and State Courts: From Conflicts to Common Ground, State Court 

Journal, (Winter 1992) pages 17-20. Available at: 

http://www.walkingoncommonground.org/files/Background%203%20TCSC_From%20Conflicts

%20to%20Common%20Ground_SCJ%20Vol16No1_1992%20(3).pdf

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Culture Card: A Guide to Build 

Cultural Awareness: American Indian and Alaska Native (2010). Available at: 

https://store.samhsa.gov/product/American-Indian-and-Alaska-Native-Culture-Card/SMA08-

4354.

Hon. William Thorne, Partnership: Bringing Together Tribal and State Court Jurisdictions, 9

Tribal Court Record 1, (Spring/Summer 1996) pages 21-24. Available at: 

http://www.walkingoncommonground.org/files/Background%20Thorne%20article.pdf

Tribal Law and Policy Institute. National Convening of Tribal State Court Forums Report (2017). 

Available at: http://media.wix.com/ugd/8305c9_ecd3c527b9074d8ea6e7948ead01616c.pdf.

Tribal Law and Policy Institute. Tribal-State Court Forums Policy Brief (2016). Available at: 

http://media.wix.com/ugd/8305c9_cd05fe6424a04b7c9985a30c72ff76cb.pdf

Tribal Law and Policy Institute, Tribal-State Court Forums: An Annotated Directory (2016). 

Available at: https://www.walkingoncommonground.org/files/TribalState%20Court%20Forum%20BJA%20Approved%20Final%201-2016.pdf.

Tribal Law and Policy Institute, Promising Strategies: Tribal State Court Relations (2013). 

Available at: 

https://www.walkingoncommonground.org/files/TLPI%20Promising%20Strategies%20TribalState%20Court%20Relations_FINAL_Updated%208-15-13.pdf.
25 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

Tribal Law and Policy Institute, Promising Strategies: Public Law 280 (2013). Available at: 

https://www.walkingoncommonground.org/files/TLPI%20Promising%20Strategies%20280_FIN

AL_Updated%20%208-16-13.pdf.

Korey Wahwassuck, John P. Smith, and John R. Hawkinson, Building a Legacy of Hope: 

Perspectives on Joint Tribal-State Jurisdiction, 36 William Mitchell Law Review 2 (2010), Article 

3. Available at: 

http://www.wellnesscourts.org/files/Leech%20Lake%20William%20Mitchell%20law%20review

%20article%20Wahwassuck.pdf

Websites

National Child Welfare Association: https://www.nicwa.org/

National Congress of American Indians, Tribal-State Relations: http://www.ncai.org/policyissues/tribal-governance/state-tribal-relations

National Criminal Justice Association: http://www.ncjp.org/tribal-sovereignty/joint-jurisdictioncourts

Walking on Common Ground: www.WalkingOnCommonGround.org
26 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

Appendix B

Assessing Readiness to Collaborate Worksheet

“Readiness” describes the degree to which an individual, group, organization, or community is 

both prepared and motivated to commit resources toward entering a collaborative relationship. 

The checklist included in this attachment is intended to help you determine your level of 

readiness. It’s easy to overlook this step given the long list of tasks on our to-do lists but 

assessing readiness can be an important step toward creating a more successful collaboration. 

A failed collaboration can be difficult to restart. It is frustrating for everyone involved to begin a 

collaboration only to see it flounder because of an unanticipated challenge. Frustration can lead 

to a loss of momentum, which may lead to the ultimate collapse of the initiative. Getting 

people and partners reengaged can feel impossible because “we tried that before and it didn’t 

work.” For these reasons, it is better to begin the initiative with a clear understanding of where 

the challenges are up front and to minimize their impact on the overall goal of the project.

Having worked to gain a clear-eyed understanding of where you and your organization stand, 

you have a couple of choices. One option is to work internally to strengthen key areas before 

engaging with your partner. Another option is to approach your partner with the results of the 

assessment and begin your conversation in the spirit of working together to shore up 

weaknesses and gather the resources necessary to make your collaboration successful.

This assessment tool can also be used as a check-in for ongoing collaborative relationships. As 

mentioned previously, it can be difficult to resurrect a failed or failing collaboration but having 

a clear understanding of the challenges it faced gives you something to work with to build 

momentum. For successful collaborations, doing the assessment can help you celebrate your 

successes as well as identify areas that can be improved.

(See next page for assessment tool.)
Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

______

27

Directions: Have members of the team complete this checklist individually, then review the list 

collectively and check the statements that apply to the group.

 We are supportive of collaboration and think it’s a good idea.

 We understand what is involved in collaboration (e.g., recognize that collaboration will 

mean a change in the status quo).

 We understand the added value of collaboration (e.g., additional knowledge and 

expertise, additional resources, and comprehensive solutions).

 Our leadership supports our desire to collaborate (e.g., is willing to provide necessary 

resources, such as staff time and meeting space).

 We have the right people on board to foster and maintain collaboration (e.g., individuals 

with facilitation and consensus-building skills).

 We are motivated for partners to join, and we can articulate our motivation in a clear 

and positive way.

 We have a clear purpose to present to partners.

 We are willing to listen and learn about our partner’s systems, values, strengths, and 

challenges, and understand how that might limit their ability to do what we want them 

to do.

 We are willing to share control and work for the mutual benefits of all.

 We are prepared to engage in genuine, respectful dialogue; use active listening skills; 

and participate in open and transparent sharing of information.

 We are willing to have hard conversations and try to work through them.

 We are willing to bring in people that our partners trust to facilitate the conversations.

 We have the organizational capacity to enable partnering (e.g., administrative support

and technology tools).

 We have a good record to share with partners (e.g., are fiscally sound and have a good 

reputation in the community).

 We are committed to continuous quality improvement and are ready for the long haul. 

Total number of attributes checked

If you check at least half of the statements, there is a good chance your team is ready to move 

forward. If you check fewer than half, don’t give up. Instead, choose one or two items to work 

on—either alone or with your partner—and then reassess your readiness after doing so.
28 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

Appendix C

Tribal-State-Local Collaboration Dos and Don’ts

Membership

✓ DO select team members from diverse perspectives who have demonstrated interest, expertise, 

or experience in addressing Indian law issues.

✓ DON’T select forum members based only on their position within a particular department or 

elsewhere.

Mutual Respect

✓ DO acknowledge differences between tribal and state systems and seek ways of cooperating 

consistent with those differences.

✓ DON’T characterize either system as better or worse or more or less sophisticated than the 

other.

Scope

✓ DO proceed in phases with predetermined time frames, including a study phase in which issues 

are identified, before implementing recommendations.

✓ DON’T devote resources to implementation until a consensus is reached concerning priority 

issues and recommendations.

Persistence

✓ DO design a process that invites broad‐based participation in identifying issues and making 

recommendations.

✓ DON’T be discouraged by lack of participation or lack of progress.

Performance

✓ DO assign manageable tasks to team members or subcommittees to be accomplished within 

established time frames.

✓ DON’T delay too long before dividing the work of the team into tasks that can be accomplished 

within the time frames established.

Solutions

✓ DO emphasize creative solutions to issues that are consistent with the rights of the parties, 

sovereignty, and judicial independence.

✓ DON’T emphasize jurisdictional limitations.

Communications

✓ DO emphasize person‐to‐person communication and education to address issues.

✓ DON’T seek to address issues solely through large‐scale change in the law or legal systems.
29 Tribal-State-Local Collaboration

Appendix D

Author Biographies

William A. Thorne, Jr. is a Pomo/Coast Miwok Indian from northern California 

and is enrolled at the Confederated Tribes of the Graton Rancheria. He 

received his Bachelor of Arts from the University of Santa Clara in 1974. He 

received his juris doctorate from Stanford Law School in 1977. Judge Thorne 

has served as a tribal judge in Utah, Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, 

Nevada, Montana, Wisconsin, Washington, Michigan, and California for 

numerous tribes on a part-time basis for more than thirty years. In 1986 

Thorne was appointed by the governor as a trial judge for the state of Utah. After fourteen years as 

a state trial judge he was appointed in 2000 as a judge of the Utah Court of Appeals. He is now 

retired. Judge Thorne has served on a number of national and local boards/committees including 

serving as faculty and using his judicial leadership for child welfare system improvement as he 

participates in many projects and committees. He continues to speak and teach around the country, 

chiefly on issues related to children including child welfare reform efforts, disproportionality 

affecting minority children, and the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Suzanne Garcia works with the Capacity Building Center for Tribes as the 

Child Welfare Specialist. She provides training and technical assistance for 

tribal child welfare agencies, with special expertise on Tribal Title IV-E access. 

Most recently, she served as the Assistant General Counsel for the Washoe 

Tribe of Nevada and California for over seven years. In that role, she worked 

extensively with child welfare issues, including negotiating tribal-county 

agreements, developing policies and procedures, and extensive work with 

the Tribal Title IV-E development grant, Tribal Court Improvement grant, and 

Children’s Justice Act grant. Suzanne represented the Tribe in ICWA child welfare proceedings in 

state courts and child dependency cases in Washoe tribal court. She also developed and delivered 

both written and oral testimony in response to requests for consultation from ACF, IHS, BIA, and the 

DOJ. As a representative of the Washoe Tribe, Suzanne provided excellent peer-to-peer information 

sharing with tribes throughout the country about ‘lessons learned,’ and offering insight to the 

Washoe tribal experience in developing Tribal IV-E plans. Suzanne has worked numerous times over 

the past four years with the National Resource Center for Tribes in coordinating several tribal 

gatherings focused on tribal access to Title IV-E direct funding. Suzanne holds a Jurisprudence 

Doctor degree from the University of Arizona College of Law and an Applied Baccalaureate degree in 

Philosophy from the University of California, Davis.

NCJ 252527