Correctional Systems and Correctional Alternatives 

on Tribal Lands

April 2012–March 2013

This report was prepared by Melvin Dunn with assistance from Jimmy Steyee, CSR, Incorporated, under contract 

number GS-10F-0114L from the Bureau of Justice Assistance

Program Performance Report
CSCATL Program Performance Report—April 2012–March 2013

2

Program Performance Report

The following Program Performance Report (PPR) examines key findings of the Correctional Systems and 

Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands1(CSCATL) program. To date, 57 Federal awards are classified as “open” 

and 61 Federal awards as “closed” in the Grants Management System (GMS). All data analyzed in this PPR are selfreported by individual grantee organizations.2

The key objective of the CSCATL program is to assist in the planning, renovation, and construction of correctional 

facilities, including encouraging facilities that serve as an alternative to incarceration on tribal land. The program 

provides funding to assist tribes in cost-effective construction and renovation of correctional facilities associated with 

the incarceration and rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders subject to tribal jurisdiction. In addition, this 

funding allows tribes to explore community-based alternatives to help prevent and control jail overcrowding due to 

crime related to alcohol abuse and other substance abuse. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) administers the 

CSCATL program in coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).3 The following report is based on self-report grantee data in the Performance 

Measurement Tool (PMT) from April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2013.

The intent of the report is to increase the transparency and accountability of the CSCATL program by highlighting 

grantee progress toward achieving strategic plans, renovation, or construction projects.4 

Table 1. CSCATL Active Awards and PMT Completion Percentage

All Active 

Awards

Active Awards that 

Completed PMT Percent

April–June 2012 54 43 80%

July–September 2012 50 42 84

October–December 2012 45 36 80

January–March 2013 44 36 82

Table 1 shows the number of active grantees that reported in the PMT by reporting period. The number of awards 

ranged from 54 in April–June 2012 to 44 in January–March 2013. The decrease is attributable to older BJA awards 

ending. However, not all awards were operational and submitted quarterly reports into the PMT. The percentage of 

operational and active awards, which were examined in this PPR, ranged from 80 percent (October–December 2012) 

to 84 percent (July–September 2012). Some grantees completed their reporting requirements, but were not operational 

for various reasons including award closeout, withheld funds, or project delays due to weather or other extraneous 

circumstances. Table 2 shows the percentage of active CSCATL awards in each funding year that completed reporting 

into the PMT.

 

1 At the time of data collection, the program was referred to as CSCATL. At the time of publication, BJA refers to the program as Tribal Justice 

Systems and Infrastructure Program.

2 This report does not include grants that were funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

3

Information is provided by the Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation program.

4 A previous version of this report detailing grant activities from October 2011–March 2012 can be found at: 

www.bja.gov/Publications/CSCATL_PPR_03-12.pdf.

Correctional Systems and Correctional Alternatives 

on Tribal Lands: April 2012–March 2013
CSCATL Program Performance Report—April 2012–March 2013

3

Table 2. CSCATL Awards by Funding Year as of March 31, 2013

Funding Year All Awards

Active Awards that 

Completed PMT Percentage

FY 2010 17 15 88%

FY 2011 20 16 80

FY 2012 7 3 43

Key Findings and/or Observations 

 The percentage of grantees that had operational and active awards during the year remained consistent 

(between 80 percent and 85 percent).

 During the January–March 2013 reporting period, construction grantees significantly increased their activity 

from 33 percent to 50 percent in previous reporting periods to 83 percent.

 During the quarters examined, 6 out of 27 planning grantees concluded their planning projects by submitting a 

master plan to BJA. The remaining grantees are expected to submit the master plan in subsequent quarters.

 During the quarters examined, 1 out of 13 grantees completed their renovation project during the 1-year 

period. Again, the remaining grantees are expected to complete their renovation projects in subsequent 

quarters.

 During the quarters examined, 6 out of 6 construction grantees have selected and retained architecture and 

engineering firms; however, none completed their construction projects during the time period examined.

 From October 2012 to March 2013, grantees implemented or enhanced new rehabilitation-based programs, 

including treatment programs (18 percent), as well as pretrial and probation programs (both 16 percent).

Accomplishments

5

 During the April-June 2012 reporting period the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of 

Oregon prepared an RFP and solicited for architectural services in the Daily Journal of Commerce. The Tribe 

received and scored 8 proposals (the Tribal Engineer and the Behavioral Health Director were on the panel). 

A schematic design was prepared and the architect presented that design to Tribal Council. A final budget was 

completed in June.

 The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation hired a research support coordinator that surveyed

elders. The survey results suggested the highest priorities to be included in the facility is a truant officer as 

well as education services, counseling, mental health evaluations, and drug and alcohol services. The majority 

of elders also said that they would support collaboration with outside groups for the use of detention beds or 

other facility space.

 During the October-December 2012 reporting period, the Intertribal Court of Southern California completed 

the community resource review and detention/correction bed needs forecast. It also identified justice system 

goals and objective and defined which the Justice facilities to be developed.

 During the October-December 2012 reporting period, the Hualapai Indian Tribe completed design reports for 

the Alternative to Corrections and Adult Detention Center. The grantee hired an architect have completed 95

percent of the working drawings which are currently under review by the Justice Board and Planning 

Department. Justice Solutions has also reviewed the plans.

 As a part of their final report during the Jan-March 2013 reporting period, the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska 

completed the Master Plan for a Regional Intertribal Juvenile Detention Center.

 

5 The following narrative accomplishments were submitted by grantees and lightly edited for content and clarity.
CSCATL Program Performance Report—April 2012–March 2013

4

Graphs of Key Measures

 

6 This question is asked every 6 months during the April–June and October–December 2012 reporting periods.

7 All grantees are prompted to answer this question, regardless of whether or not they had grant activity during the reporting period.

8 This question is asked every 6 months during the April–June and October–December 2012 reporting periods.

9 All grantees are prompted to answer this question, regardless of whether or not they had grant activity during the reporting period.

Rehabilitation-Based Programs 

Implemented or Enhanced 

(October–December 2012)

6

(N=45)

7

This graph shows the percentage of 

grantees that implemented or enhanced 

a rehabilitation-based program resulting 

from new or enhanced facilities. 

Treatment services were the most 

common type of rehabilitation programs 

implemented or enhanced by grantees (8 

out of 45 grantees). Pretrial and 

probation services were also commonly 

implemented or enhanced by grantees (7 

out of 45 grantees).

Number of Community-Based

Program Options Created 

(October–December 2012)

8

(N=45)

9

This graph presents the percentage 

of grantees that created new 

community-based program options. 

Treatment programs (18 percent) 

were created as a result of new or 

enhanced facilities. Pretrial service, 

probation/parole, and “other types” 

of programs (13 percent) were also 

created as a result of new facilities. 

The “other types” of programs 

included educational programs, 

vocational programs, diversion or 

alternatives to incarceration 

programs, and physical health 

programs, as well as a peace-giving 

court and a wellness court.

18%

11%

9%

13%

16% 16%

9%

13%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

9%

7%

2%

9%

13% 13%

18%

13%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%
CSCATL Program Performance Report—April 2012–March 2013

5

Throughout the following sections, a series of milestones with the percentage of grantees completing those is 

presented. For their projects, grantees are asked to complete a series of milestones that are important indicators of how 

well they are progressing with their strategic planning, renovation, or construction projects. Generally, the milestones 

are completed in sequential order, and most grantees will complete most milestones over the life of their strategic 

planning process. A few milestones will be “not applicable” to some grantees; therefore, not all grantees will complete 

all milestones. Finally, grantees will reported that the milestone was completed during the quarter they accomplished it 

and during every subsequent quarter until the status changes or they close out their grant. 

Planning Milestones

Planning Milestones:

1–6 Months

This graph shows the percentage of 

operational grantees that have 

completed important milestones

during the first 6 months of their

strategic planning process. 

The decrease in percentage from 

July–September 2012 to October–

December 2012 is because the 

number of grantees answering these 

questions decreased. There was an 

increase in milestones completed for 

grantees that attended the training 

workshop, hired a consultant, and 

completed a community profile review 

from October–December 2012 to 

January–March 2013, with the 

number of grantees answering the 

question staying the same.

96 96 90 90

67 74 65

75 67 74 6575

63

78

50

80

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

April

–June 2012 (N=27)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=27)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=20)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=20)

April

–June 2012 (N=27)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=27)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=20)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=20)

April

–June 2012 (N=27)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=27)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=20)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=20)

April

–June 2012 (N=27)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=27)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=20)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=20)

Appoint Project

Manager

Attend Training

Workshop

Hire Consultant Community Profile

Review

Percentage

Planning Milestones Completed (%)
CSCATL Program Performance Report—April 2012–March 2013

6

Renovation Milestones

Some grantees had already completed the renovation milestones during the first reporting period, April–June 2012. In

July–September 2012, the grantees who had previously completed the milestone were no longer reporting and new 

grantees had not completed the milestones. This explains any decrease in percentage for the April–June 2012 and July–

September 2012 reporting periods seen in the following graphs.

Planning Milestones:

6–12 Months 

This graph shows the percentage of 

operational grantees that have completed 

important milestones during the last 6 

months of the strategic planning process. 

There was a decrease in the number of 

grantees completing a case processing 

review in April–June 2012 and July–

September 2012 due to a change in 4 

grantees. Four grantees no longer report 

and 4 new grantees started answering 

these questions, although the total number 

of grantees (27) stayed the same. Two of 

these new grantees had not conducted the 

case review, and it was not applicable to 

one. The significant drop from the July–

September 2012 and October–December

2012 reporting periods is attributed to the 

decrease in the number of grantees who 

previously completed these goals.

Renovation Milestones: 1–2 Months

This graph shows the percentage of 

operational grantees that have completed 

important milestones during the first 2 

months of renovation.

There was a decrease in the amount of 

grantees answering renovation questions in

October–December 2012 (13 grantees) and 

January–March 2013 (11 grantees). This 

explains why there would be a slight 

increase in the percentage of grantees who 

completed establishing a total project 

budget and selecting an Architecture and 

Engineering firm. 

There was an increase in the number of 

grantees who responded “Not Applicable”

to conducting a National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) review and appointing a 

Project Manager in October–December

2012 and January–March 2013, explaining 

the drop in percentage.

56 52

40

50 48

56

30

55 59 6355

70

30

37

25 30

22 22

5

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

April

–June 2012 (N=27)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=27)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=20)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=20)

April

–June 2012 (N=27)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=27)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=20)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=20)

April

–June 2012 (N=27)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=27)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=20)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=20)

April

–June 2012 (N=27)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=27)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=20)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=20)

April

–June 2012 (N=27)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=27)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=20)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=20)

Conduct Case

Processing

Review

Conduct Data

Review

Identify Goals

and Objectives

Create

Preliminary

Project Budget

Submit Master

Plan to BJA

Planning Milestones Completed (%)

76

69

77 82

62

54

77

55

69 69 69 72 77 77

92

82

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

April

–June 2012 (N=13)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=13)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=13)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=11)

April

–June 2012 (N=13)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=13)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=13)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=11)

April

–June 2012 (N=13)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=13)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=13)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=11)

April

–June 2012 (N=13)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=13)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=13)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=11)

Establish Total

Project Budget

Conduct NEPA

Review

Select and Retain

A&E Firm

Appointed a

Project Manager

Percentage

Renovation Milestones Complete (%)
CSCATL Program Performance Report—April 2012–March 2013

7

 

10 Grantees are not required to submit 99 percent design documents to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Office of Facilities Management and 

Construction (OFMC) and Division of Safety and Risk Management (DSRM) for review when the tribal entity does not receive BIA funds for 

facility operations. This occurs when tribal agencies operate the facility independent of the BIA.

Renovation Milestones: 2–8 

Months10

This graph shows the percentage of 

operational grantees that have 

completed important milestones in the 

first 8 months of renovation.

There was an increase in grantees that

completed design documents during 

October–December 2012 and January–

March 2013 due to a decrease in 

grantees answering the question.

Between October–December 2012 and 

January–March 2013, there was a 

significant increase in grantees 

completing renovation documents. This 

is due to both a decrease in grantees 

answering the question (from 13 to 11)

and an increase in grantees completing 

the renovation documents (from 3to 7). 

Renovation Milestones: 8–32 Months

This graph shows the percentage of 

operational grantees that have completed 

important milestones during the last 24 

months of renovation.

In October–December 2012 and January–

March 2013, the percentage of grantees 

contracting with a renovation company, 

commencing renovation, and completing 

the final building decreased, because some 

new grantees were added while others 

closed out their projects.

There was a percentage increase in 

grantees completing half of their renovation 

between October–December 2012 and 

January–March 2013 because of a 

decrease in the number of grantees 

answering the question and a subsequent 

increase in the number of grantees 

completing this milestone (i.e., the 

denominator decreased to 11 from 13 and 

the numerator remained as 4. 

39

31

46 46

15 15

23 27 31 3123

64

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

April

–June 2012 (N=13)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=13)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=13)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=11)

April

–June 2012 (N=13)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=13)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=13)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=11)

April

–June 2012 (N=13)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=13)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=13)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=11)

Submit Staffing and

Operations Budget

Submit 99% Design

Documents to BIA OFMC

& DSRM for Review

Complete Renovation

Documents

Percentage

Renovation Milestones Complete (%)

39 39 39 36 39

31 31

27

15 15

31

36

8

0 0 0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

April

–June 2012 (N=13)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=13)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=13)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=11)

April

–June 2012 (N=13)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=13)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=13)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=11)

April

–June 2012 (N=13)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=13)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=13)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=11)

April

–June 2012 (N=13)

July

–Sept. 2012 (N=13)

Oct.

–Dec. 2012 (N=13)

Jan.

–March 2013 (N=11)

Award Contract

to Selected

Renovation

Company

Commence

Renovation

Complete 50%

of Renovation

Complete Final

Building

Percentage

Renovation Milestones Complete (%)
CSCATL Program Performance Report—April 2012–March 2013

8

Construction Milestones

Six grantees that received funds for construction projects were operational during the reporting periods examined. The 

Ute Indian Tribe last reported during the April–June 2012 reporting period. The five other grantees were operational 

during the January–March 2013 reporting period.

Table 3 presents information based on the most recent complete report for each grantee and illustrates the various 

construction milestones the grantees have accomplished during the reporting period. All grantees developed and 

distributed a request for proposal. However, no grantees commenced occupancy and initial operations. The Ute Indian 

Tribe has been asked to complete a more extensive environmental assessment and had not yet completed it. The Yurok 

Tribe collected bids for their environmental assessment.

Table 3. Construction Key Measures

Grantee

Bay Mills 

Indian 

Community

Native Village 

of Kwinhagak

Northern 

Arapaho 

Tribe

Ramah 

Navajo 

Chapter

Ute Indian 

Tribe Yurok Tribe

8a. Confirm Site and 

Obtain Clearances

Complete     — —

Not yet complete — — — —  

8b. Establish Total 

Project Budget

Complete  —    

Not yet complete —  — — — —

8c. Appoint Project 

Manager

Complete      

Not yet complete — — — — — —

8d. Conduct NEPA 

Review

Complete     — —

Not yet complete — — — —  —

8e. Submit 

Environmental 

Assessment to BJA 

and BIA

Complete     — —

Not yet complete — — — —  

8f. Form Transition 

Team

Complete  —    

Not yet complete —  — — — —

8g. Develop and 

Distribute Request 

for Proposals (RFP) 

for Architecture and 

Engineering Services

Complete      

Not yet complete — — — — — —

8h. Select and 

Retain Architecture 

and Engineering 

Firm

Complete      

Not yet complete — — — — — —

8i. Commence Complete — — — — — —
CSCATL Program Performance Report—April 2012–March 2013

9

Grantee

Bay Mills 

Indian 

Community

Native Village 

of Kwinhagak

Northern 

Arapaho 

Tribe

Ramah 

Navajo 

Chapter

Ute Indian 

Tribe Yurok Tribe

Occupancy and 

Initial Operations Not applicable — — — — 11 —

Not yet complete     — 

Total Key Measure Completed 8 (89%) 5 (56%) 8 (89%) 8 (89%) 5 (56%) 5 (56%)

Key Performance Measures

Measure

Data Elements Used to 

Calculate Measure Definition Interpretation

1. Number of 

Rehabilitation-based 

Programs Implemented 

or Enhanced Based on 

Facility Renovation or 

Construction

A. Treatment programs (substance 

abuse, mental health)

B. Vocational assistance programs

C. Alternative education programs

D. Family reunification programs

E. Pretrial services

F. Probation services

G. Physical health services

H. Other types of rehabilitationbased programs

Treatment program—Program or 

strategy designed to provide individuals 

with the support and skills needed to 

abstain from using alcohol and drugs or 

address mental health needs to help 

manage offenders and facilitate 

reintegration into the community.

Vocational assistance program—

Program or strategy designed to provide 

individuals with job skills or training that 

will prepare and assist offenders with 

sustaining employment.

Alternative educational program—

Alternative education programming 

designed to provide inmates with 

opportunities to obtain or work toward a 

GED, a high school diploma, and/or 

higher education degree.

This measure examines the number 

of rehabilitation-based programs 

implemented. In using CSCATL 

funding, grantees may choose to 

implement and/or enhance various 

types of rehabilitation-based 

programs.

 

11 The option “Not applicable” was added in the last measure to show that it is not applicable to the Ute Indian Tribe. 
CSCATL Program Performance Report—April 2012–March 2013

10

Measure

Data Elements Used to 

Calculate Measure Definition Interpretation

2. Types of Communitybased Options Created

A. Transitional housing for offenders 

returning to the community from 

correctional facilities

B. Halfway housing (residential) for 

offenders who are finishing 

sentences for violating terms of 

their release

C. Residential facilities for 

nonviolent juveniles adjudicated 

guilty by a court

D. Day reporting centers

E. Pretrial services/programs

F. Probation/parole programs

G. Treatment programs (substance 

abuse, mental health)

H. Other community-based options

Community-based options—Services 

or programs in the community designed 

to assist individuals with rehabilitation 

efforts that do not involve incarceration 

in a correctional facility.

Day reporting center—A place where 

select offenders must report while on 

probation or parole and where the 

offenders receive more intensive 

services. Day reporting centers may 

include educational services, vocational 

training, treatment, and other service 

deliveries.

Pretrial diversion program—A 

program in which defendants essentially 

are put on probation for a set period of 

time, and their cases do not go to trial 

during this time. If the defendants meet 

conditions set by the court, the charges 

will be dismissed.

This measure examines the number 

of community-based options created. 

In using CSCATL funding, grantees 

may choose to create various types 

of community-based options.

3. Planning Milestones 

(1–6 Months)*

A. Appoint Project Manager

B. Attend PACIFIC Training 

Workshop

C. Hire Consultant

D. Complete Community Profile 

Review

Determines whether or not grantees 

have met a milestone goal under the 

planning stage of their programs.

This measure examines the progress 

that grantees are making in meeting 

key milestones during the early 

planning stages of their respective 

programs.

4. Planning Milestones 

(6–12 Months)*

A. Complete Case Processing 

Review

B. Complete Data Review

C. Identify Goals and Objectives

D. Complete Preliminary Project 

Budget

E. Submit Master Plan to BJA 

Project Manager

Determines whether or not grantees 

have met a milestone goal under the 

planning stage of their programs.

This measure examines the progress 

that grantees are making in meeting 

key milestones during the latter 

planning stages of their respective 

programs.

5. Renovation 

Milestones 

(1–2 Months)*

A. Establish Total Project Budget

B. Conduct NEPA Review

C. Select and Retain Architecture 

and Engineering Firm

D. Appoint Project Manager

Examines key milestones for grantees 

beginning the early renovation stages of 

their programs.

This measure examines milestones 

for grantees engaged in the early 

stages of renovation, focusing on 

three key milestones that allow them 

to progress and pave the way for 

middle-stage procedures.

6. Renovation 

Milestones

(2–8 Months)*

A. Submit Staffing and Operations 

Budget

B. Submit 99 percent Design 

Document to BIA Office of 

Facilities Management and 

Construction (OFMC) and 

Division of Safety and Risk 

Management (DSRM) for Review

C. Complete Renovation Documents

Examines key milestones for grantees 

beginning the middle stages of 

renovation.

This measure examines milestones 

for grantees engaged in the middle 

stages of renovation, focusing on 

three key milestones that allow them 

to progress and pave the way for 

latter-stage procedures.
CSCATL Program Performance Report—April 2012–March 2013

11

Measure

Data Elements Used to 

Calculate Measure Definition Interpretation

7. Renovation 

Milestones

(8–32 Months)*

A. Award Contract to Selected 

Construction/Renovation 

Company

B. Commence Renovation

C. Complete 50 percent of 

Renovation

D. Complete Building Construction

Examines key milestones for grantees 

nearing the completion of renovation 

activities.

This measure examines milestones 

for grantees engaged in the latter 

stages of construction, focusing on 

three key milestones that allow them 

to progress and pave the way for 

post-construction procedures and 

program completion.

8. Construction 

Milestones*

A. Confirm Site and Obtain 

Clearances

B. Establish Total Project Budget

C. Appoint Project Manager

D. Conduct NEPA Review

E. Submit Environmental 

Assessment to BJA and BIA

F. Form Transition Team

G. Develop and Distribute Request 

for Proposal for Architecture and 

Engineering Services

H. Select and Retain Architecture 

and Engineering Firm

I. Commence Occupancy and Initial 

Operations

Determines whether or not grantees 

have met a milestone goal under the 

construction stage of their programs.

This measure examines the progress 

that grantees are making in meeting 

key milestones during the 

construction stages of their 

respective programs. 

The recommendation for meeting 

these milestones is 1–32 months.

* Milestone measures were selected based on a variety of criteria, including the amount of data available for each measure, as well 

as whether most grantees had data to report for a particular measure. Measures were chosen that accurately reflect the status of 

most grantees. For instance, since grantees are in various stages of renovation projects, just the measures that reflect each stage 

of renovation were selected. The same is true for planning milestones, since grantees are currently at various stages of 

implementing their planning programs.
CSCATL Program Performance Report—April 2012–March 2013

12

Appendix A. Key Measures

This index examines each grantee’s response to the seven key measures for planning and renovation projects for the 

July–September 2012 and April–June 2012 reporting periods. The key measures are defined as follows:

Number of Rehabilitation-based Programs 

Implemented or Enhanced Based on Facility 

Renovation or Construction

Key Measure 1a—Treatment programs (substance 

abuse, mental health)

Key Measure 1b—Vocational assistance programs

Key Measure 1c—Alternative education programs

Key Measure 1d—Family reunification programs

Key Measure 1e—Pretrial services

Key Measure 1f—Probation services

Key Measure 1g—Physical health services

Key Measure 1h—Other types of rehabilitation-based 

programs

Types of Community-based Options Created

Key Measure 2a—Transitional housing for offenders 

returning to community from correctional facilities

Key Measure 2b—Halfway housing (residential) for 

offenders violating terms of their release

Key Measure 2c—Residential facilities for nonviolent 

juveniles adjudicated guilty by a court

Key Measure 2d—Day reporting centers

Key Measure 2e—Pretrial service/programs (example: 

pretrial diversion programs)

Key Measure 2f—Probation/parole programs

Key Measure 2g—Treatment programs (substance 

abuse, mental health)

Key Measure 2h—Other

Planning Milestones: 1–6 Months

Key Measure 3a—Appoint project manager

Key Measure 3b—Attend PACIFIC training workshop

Key Measure 3c—Hire consultant

Key Measure 3d—Complete community profile review

Planning Milestones: 6–12 Months

Key Measure 4a—Perform justice system case 

processing review

Key Measure 4b—Complete justice system data 

review

Key Measure 4c—Identify goals and objectives

Key Measure 4d—Develop preliminary budget

Key Measure 4e—Submit master plan to BJA grant 

manager

Renovation Milestones: 1–2 Months

Key Measure 5a—Establish total project budget

Key Measure 5b—Conduct NEPA review

Key Measure 5c—Select and retain architecture and 

engineering firm

Key Measure 5d—Appoint project manager

Renovation Milestones: 2–8 Months

Key Measure 6a—Submit staffing and operations 

budget

Key Measure 6b—Submit 99 percent of design 

documents to BIA OFMC and DSRM for review

Key Measure 6c—Complete renovation documents

Renovation Milestones: 8–32 Months

Key Measure 7a—Award contract to selected 

construction/renovation company

Key Measure 7b—Commence renovation

Key Measure 7c—Complete 50 percent of renovation

Key Measure 7d—Building final completion
CSCATL Program Performance Report—April 2012–March 2013

13

Appendix B. Data by Grantee

Note: Data for key measures 1 and 2 are for October–December 2012. These questions were asked every 6 months

during the April–June and October–December 2012 reporting periods. The key measures for planning (3 and 4) and for 

renovation (5, 6, and 7) are included in this appendix. These data for the construction key measures (8) are presented in 

Table 1 on page 1 of this report.

October–December 2012: Key Measures 1 and 2

Key Measure 1 Key Measure 2

Grantee State Award Number 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 1g 1h 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f 2g 2h

Bois Forte Band Of 

Chippewa Indians MN 2010-IP-BX-0061 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Burns Paiute Tribe OR 2010-IP-BX-0070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Citizen Potawatomi 

Nation OK 2011-IP-BX-0022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Coeur d’Alene Tribe ID 2011-IP-BX-0007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Colville Tribe WA 2010-IP-BX-0079 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Confederated Tribes 

of the Grand Ronde 

Community of Oregon

OR 2011-IP-BX-0002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Confederated Tribes 

of the Warm Springs 

Reservation

OR 2011-IP-BX-0018 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Coquille Indian Tribe OR 2011-IP-BX-0004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Fallon PaiuteShoshone Tribe NV 2012-IP-BX-0007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Flandreau Santee 

Sioux Tribe SD 2011-IP-BX-0009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fort Belknap Indian 

Community MT 2010-IP-BX-0080 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ft. Peck Assiniboine & 

Sioux Tribes MT 2010-IP-BX-0068 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hualapai Indian Tribe AZ 2011-IP-BX-0008 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0

Intertribal Court of 

Southern California CA 2011-IP-BX-0021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lac du Flambeau 

Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians

WI 2010-IP-BX-0067 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Lower Brule Sioux 

Tribe12 SD 2011-MU-BX-0016 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Lummi Nation WA 2012-IP-BX-0005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Makah Tribe WA 2011-IP-BX-0005 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Menominee Indian 

Tribe of Wisconsin WI 2011-IP-BX-0012 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Mescalero Apache 

Tribe NM 2010-IP-BX-0058 6 4 6 4 3 2 4 4 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

 

12 Values were omitted from the report because the grantee had entered high values representing the number of participants instead of the number 

of programs implemented or enhanced.
CSCATL Program Performance Report—April 2012–March 2013

14

Key Measure 1 Key Measure 2

Grantee State Award Number 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 1g 1h 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f 2g 2h

Mille Lacs Band of 

Ojibwe MN 2010-IP-BX-0063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Muscogee (Creek) 

Nation OK 2011-IP-BX-0013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Native Village of 

Kwinhagak AK 2012-IP-BX-0004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern Arapaho 

Tribe WY 2010-IP-BX-0082 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ponca Tribe of 

Oklahoma OK 2011-IP-BX-0010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Public Safety AZ 2009-IP-BX-0074 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Public Safety AZ 2009-IP-BX-0085 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pueblo of Laguna NM 2010-IP-BX-0057 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

Ramah Navajo 

Chapter NM 2011-IP-BX-0016 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reno Sparks Indian 

Colony NV 2010-IP-BX-0059 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe 

of Chippewa Indians MI 2009-IP-BX-0092 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shoshone-Paiute 

Tribes of Duck Valley NV 2010-IP-BX-0064 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Shoshone-Paiute 

Tribes of Duck Valley NV 2011-IP-BX-0015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Skokomish Indian 

Tribe WA 2011-IP-BX-0011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Squaxin Island Tribe WA 2010-IP-BX-0076 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

St. Regis Mohawk 

Tribe NY 2011-IP-BX-0019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Three Affiliated Tribes ND 2010-IP-BX-0069 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tohono O’odham 

Nation AZ 2011-IP-BX-0001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ute Indian Tribe UT 2010-IP-BX-0081 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ute Indian Tribe UT 2011-IP-BX-0003 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Washoe Tribe of 

Nevada and California NV 2011-IP-BX-0017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Winnebago Tribe of 

Nebraska NE 2011-IP-BX-0014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Yavapai-Apache 

Nation AZ 2010-IP-BX-0065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Yurok Tribe CA 2012-IP-BX-0002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zuni Tribe NM 2011-IP-BX-0020 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
CSCATL Program Performance Report—April 2012–March 2013

15

January–March 2013: Planning 1–6 Months

Planning 1–6 Months

Grantee State Award Number 3a 3b 3c 3d

Burns Paiute Tribe OR 2010-IP-BX-0070   — 

Citizen Potawatomi Nation OK 2011-IP-BX-0022  —  

Confederated Tribes of the 

Warm Springs Reservation OR 2011-IP-BX-0018    

Flandreau Santee Sioux 

Tribe SD 2011-IP-BX-0009    

Intertribal Court of 

Southern California CA 2011-IP-BX-0021    

Lac du Flambeau Band of 

Lake Superior Chippewa 

Indians

WI 2010-IP-BX-0067   — —

Mescalero Apache Tribe NM 2010-IP-BX-0058    

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe MN 2010-IP-BX-0063    

Muscogee (Creek) Nation OK 2011-IP-BX-0013   NA 

Public Safety AZ 2009-IP-BX-0074    

Reno Sparks Indian 

Colony NV 2010-IP-BX-0059    —

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of 

Chippewa Indians MI 2009-IP-BX-0092    

Skokomish Indian Tribe WA 2011-IP-BX-0011  —  

Squaxin Island Tribe WA 2010-IP-BX-0076    —

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe NY 2011-IP-BX-0019 — NA — 

Ute Indian Tribe UT 2010-IP-BX-0081    

Washoe Tribe of Nevada 

and California NV 2011-IP-BX-0017   — NA

Winnebago Tribe of 

Nebraska NE 2011-IP-BX-0014    

Yavapai-Apache Nation AZ 2010-IP-BX-0065 — —  

Zuni Tribe NM 2011-IP-BX-0020  NA  

Note: “NA” shows that the question is Not Applicable to the grantee.
CSCATL Program Performance Report—April 2012–March 2013

16

January–March 2013: Planning 6–12 Months

Planning 6–12 Months

Grantee State Award Number 4a 4b 4c 4d 4e

Burns Paiute Tribe OR 2010-IP-BX-0070  —  — —

Citizen Potawatomi 

Nation OK 2011-IP-BX-0022 —   — —

Confederated Tribes of 

the Warm Springs 

Reservation

OR 2011-IP-BX-0018 — — — — —

Flandreau Santee Sioux 

Tribe SD 2011-IP-BX-0009     —

Intertribal Court of 

Southern California CA 2011-IP-BX-0021 — NA — — NA

Lac du Flambeau Band of 

Lake Superior Chippewa 

Indians

WI 2010-IP-BX-0067 — — — — —

Mescalero Apache Tribe NM 2010-IP-BX-0058    — —

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe MN 2010-IP-BX-0063 — —  — —

Muscogee (Creek) Nation OK 2011-IP-BX-0013     

Public Safety AZ 2009-IP-BX-0074     —

Reno Sparks Indian 

Colony NV 2010-IP-BX-0059 — — — — —

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of 

Chippewa Indians MI 2009-IP-BX-0092     —

Skokomish Indian Tribe WA 2011-IP-BX-0011     —

Squaxin Island Tribe WA 2010-IP-BX-0076 — — — — —

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe NY 2011-IP-BX-0019 —   NA NA

Ute Indian Tribe UT 2010-IP-BX-0081    NA NA

Washoe Tribe of Nevada 

and California NV 2011-IP-BX-0017 NA NA NA NA NA

Winnebago Tribe of 

Nebraska NE 2011-IP-BX-0014     

Yavapai-Apache Nation AZ 2010-IP-BX-0065    NA —

Zuni Tribe NM 2011-IP-BX-0020 — —  — —

Note: “NA” shows that the question is Not Applicable to the grantee.
CSCATL Program Performance Report—April 2012–March 2013

17

January–March 2013: Renovation 1–2 Months, 2–8 Months, and 8–32 Months

Renovation 

1–2 Months

Renovation 

2–8 Months

Renovation 

8–32 Months

Grantee State Award Number 5a 5b 5c 5d 6a 6b 6c 7a 7b 7c 7d

Colville Tribe WA 2010-IP-BX-0079   NA   NA  —   NA

Confederated Tribes of 

the Grand Ronde 

Community of Oregon

OR 2011-IP-BX-0002  —    NA  — — — —

Fort Belknap Indian 

Community MT 2010-IP-BX-0080           —

Ft. Peck Assiniboine &

Sioux Tribes MT 2010-IP-BX-0068     NA NA   — — —

Hualapai Indian Tribe AZ 2011-IP-BX-0008        — — — —

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe SD 2011-MU-BX-0016 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Pueblo of Laguna NM 2010-IP-BX-0057     NA NA — — — — —

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 

of Duck Valley NV 2010-IP-BX-0064  NA   NA — — — — NA NA

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 

of Duck Valley NV 2011-IP-BX-0015 — NA   NA NA   NA  —

Three Affiliated Tribes ND 2010-IP-BX-0069           —

Tohono O’odham Nation AZ 2011-IP-BX-0001  NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Note: “NA” shows that the question is Not Applicable to the grantee.