U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–643 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–341

CHILD PROTECTION AND FAMILY VIOLENCE

PREVENTION ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 1601

TO AMEND THE INDIAN CHILD PROTECTION AND FAMILY VIOLENCE

PREVENTION ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE REPORTING AND REDUCTION

OF CHILD ABUSE AND FAMILY VIOLENCE INCIDENCES ON INDIAN

RESERVATIONS

SEPTEMBER 24, 2003

WASHINGTON, DC

(
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Vice Chairman

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona,

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

HARRY REID, Nevada

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

PAUL MOOREHEAD, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

PATRICIA M. ZELL, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

S. 1601, text of .................................................................................................. 2

Statements:

Brunoe, Garland, chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs

Reservation of Oregon .................................................................................. 27

Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado, chairman,

Committee on Indian Affairs ....................................................................... 1

Cross, Terry, executive director, National Indian Child Welfare Association ................................................................................................................. 29

Grim, Charles W., director, Indian Health Service, Department of Health

and Human Services ..................................................................................... 19

Hopper, Woodrow, acting deputy assistant secretary for management—

Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior ................................................. 18

Lewis, Mark, director, Guidance Center, Hopi Tribes of Indians ................ 25

Perez, Jon, IHS Division of Behavioral Health .............................................. 19

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Brunoe, Garland ............................................................................................... 39

Cross, Terry (with attachment) ....................................................................... 42

Grim, Charles W. (with attachment) .............................................................. 70

Hopper, Woodrow (with attachment) .............................................................. 80

Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, vice chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs ............................................................................... 39

Taylor, Jr., Wayne, chairman, Hopi Tribe (with attachment) ...................... 92

Toulou, Tracy, director, Office of Tribal Justice, Department of Justice

(with attachment) ......................................................................................... 100

(1)

CHILD PROTECTION AND FAMILY VIOLENCE

PREVENTION ACT

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room 485,

Russell Senate Building, Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senator Campbell.

STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

Welcome to the committee’s hearing on a bill to reauthorize the

Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act, S.

1601, which I was happy to introduce along with my friend and colleague, Senator Inouye. Senator Inouye won’t be here this morning.

We are both also on Appropriations and he is still in the appropriations hearing. Senators Johnson and Domenici have also cosponsored this bill.

Prepared Statement of Sen. Inouye appears in appendix.

[Text of S. 1601 follows:]
2

1

II

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1601

To amend the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act

to provide for the reporting and reduction of child abuse and family

violence incidences on Indian reservations, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 9, 2003

Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. INOUYE) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence

Prevention Act to provide for the reporting and reduction

of child abuse and family violence incidences on Indian

reservations, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Indian Child Protec5 tion and Family Violence Prevention Reauthorization Act

6 of 2003’’.
3

2

•S 1601 IS

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

2 Section 402 of the Indian Child Protection and Fam3 ily Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3201) is

4 amended—

5 (1) in subsection (a)—

6 (A) by striking paragraph (1) and insert7 ing the following:

8 ‘‘(1) finds that—

9 ‘‘(A) Indian children are the most precious

10 resource of Indian tribes and need special pro11 tection by the United States;

12 ‘‘(B) the number of reported incidences of

13 child abuse on Indian reservations continues to

14 rise at an alarming rate, but the reduction of

15 such incidences is hindered by the lack of—

16 ‘‘(i) community awareness in identi17 fication and reporting methods;

18 ‘‘(ii) interagency coordination for re19 porting, investigating, and prosecuting;

20 and

21 ‘‘(iii) tribal infrastructure for manag22 ing, preventing, and treating child abuse

23 cases;

24 ‘‘(C) improvements are needed to combat

25 the continuing child abuse on Indian reserva26 tions, including—
4

3

•S 1601 IS

1 ‘‘(i) education to identify symptoms

2 consistent with child abuse;

3 ‘‘(ii) extensive background investiga4 tions of Federal and tribal employees, vol5 unteers, and contractors who care for,

6 teach, or otherwise have regular contact

7 with Indian children;

8 ‘‘(iii) strategies to ensure the safety of

9 child protection workers; and

10 ‘‘(iv) support systems for the victims

11 of child abuse and their families; and

12 ‘‘(D) funds spent by the United States on

13 Indian reservations for the benefit of Indian

14 victims of child abuse or family violence are in15 adequate to combat child abuse and to meet the

16 growing needs for mental health treatment and

17 counseling for those victims and their fami18 lies.’’;

19 (B) in paragraph (2)—

20 (i) by striking ‘‘two’’ and inserting

21 ‘‘the’’;

22 (ii) in subparagraph (B)—

23 (I) by inserting after ‘‘provide

24 funds for’’ the following: ‘‘developing

25 a comprehensive tribal child abuse
5

4

•S 1601 IS

1 and family violence program including

2 training and technical assistance for

3 identifying, addressing, and decreas4 ing such incidents and for’’; and

5 (II) by striking the period at the

6 end and inserting a semicolon; and

7 (iii) by adding at the end the follow8 ing:

9 ‘‘(C) implement strategies to increase the

10 safety of child protection workers;

11 ‘‘(D) assist tribes in developing the nec12 essary infrastructure to combat and reduce

13 child abuse on Indian reservations; and

14 ‘‘(E) identify and remove impediments to

15 the prevention and reduction of child abuse on

16 Indian reservations, including elimination of ex17 isting barriers, such as difficulties in sharing

18 information among agencies and differences be19 tween the values and treatment protocols of the

20 different agencies.’’; and

21 (2) in subsection (b)—

22 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘prevent

23 further abuse’’ and inserting ‘‘prevent and pros24 ecute child abuse’’;
6

5

•S 1601 IS

1 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘author2 ize a study to determine the need for a central

3 registry for reported incidents of abuse’’ and in4 serting ‘‘build tribal infrastructure needed to

5 maintain and coordinate databases’’;

6 (C) by striking paragraph (3);

7 (D) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5),

8 (6), and (7) as paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and

9 (6), respectively;

10 (E) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated by

11 subparagraph (D)), by striking ‘‘sexual’’;

12 (F) in paragraph (5) (as redesignated by

13 subparagraph (D)), by striking ‘‘Area’’ and in14 serting ‘‘Regional’’;

15 (G) in paragraph (6) (as redesignated by

16 subparagraph (D))—

17 (i) by inserting ‘‘child abuse and’’

18 after ‘‘incidents of’’; and

19 (ii) by inserting ‘‘through tribally-op20 erated programs’’ after ‘‘family violence’’;

21 (H) by inserting after paragraph (6) (as

22 redesignated by subparagraph (D)) the follow23 ing:
7

6

•S 1601 IS

1 ‘‘(7) conduct a study to identify the impedi2 ments to effective prevention, investigation, prosecu3 tion, and treatment of child abuse;’’; and

4 (I) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting

5 the following:

6 ‘‘(8) develop strategies to protect the safety of

7 the child protection workers while performing re8 sponsibilities under this title; and’’.

9 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

10 Section 403(3) of the Indian Child Protection and

11 Family Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3202(3)) is

12 amended—

13 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ at

14 the end;

15 (2) in subparagraph (B), by adding ‘‘and’’ at

16 the end; and

17 (3) by adding at the end the following:

18 ‘‘(C) any case in which a child is subjected

19 to family violence;’’.

20 SEC. 4. REPORTING PROCEDURES.

21 Section 404(b) of the Indian Child Protection and

22 Family Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3203(b)) is

23 amended by adding at the end the following:

24 ‘‘(3) COOPERATIVE REPORTING.—If—
8

7

•S 1601 IS

1 ‘‘(A) a report of abuse or family violence

2 involves an alleged abuser who is a non-Indian;

3 and

4 ‘‘(B) a preliminary inquiry indicates a

5 criminal violation has occurred;

6 the local law enforcement agency (if other than the

7 State law enforcement agency) shall immediately re8 port the occurrence to the State law enforcement

9 agency.’’.

10 SEC. 5. CENTRAL REGISTRY.

11 The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence

12 Prevention Act is amended by striking section 405 (25

13 U.S.C. 3204) and inserting the following:

14 ‘‘SEC. 405. BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION.

15 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation

16 with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the

17 Attorney General, shall conduct a study to identify impedi18 ments to the reduction of child abuse on Indian reserva19 tions.

20 ‘‘(b) MATTERS TO BE EVALUATED.—In conducting

21 the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall, at a

22 minimum, evaluate the interagency and intergovernmental

23 cooperation and jurisdictional impediments in investiga24 tions and prosecutions.

25 ‘‘(c) REPORT.—
9

8

•S 1601 IS

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days

2 after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the

3 Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that de4 scribes the results of the study under subsection (a).

5 ‘‘(2) CONTENTS.—The report under paragraph

6 (1) shall include—

7 ‘‘(A) any findings made in the study;

8 ‘‘(B) recommendations on ways to elimi9 nate impediments described in subsection (a);

10 and

11 ‘‘(C) cost estimates for implementing the

12 recommendations.’’.

13 SEC. 6. CHARACTER INVESTIGATIONS.

14 Section 408 of the Indian Child Protection and Fam15 ily Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3207) is

16 amended—

17 (1) in subsection (a)—

18 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘(in19 cluding contracted and volunteer positions),’’

20 after ‘‘authorized positions’’; and

21 (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the pe22 riod at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘,

23 which—

24 ‘‘(A) shall include a background check,

25 based on a set of fingerprints of the employee,
10

9

•S 1601 IS

1 volunteer or contractor that may be conducted

2 through the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

3 and

4 ‘‘(B) may include a review of applicable

5 State criminal history repositories.’’; and

6 (2) in subsection (c)—

7 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting after

8 ‘‘who is’’ the following: ‘‘a volunteer or contrac9 tor or is’’; and

10 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘employ’’

11 and inserting ‘‘contract with, accept, or em12 ploy’’.

13 SEC. 7. INDIAN CHILD ABUSE TREATMENT GRANT PRO14 GRAM.

15 Section 409 of the Indian Child Protection and Fam16 ily Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3208) is

17 amended—

18 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘sexual’’;

19 (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub20 section (f);

21 (3) by inserting after subsection (d) the follow22 ing:

23 ‘‘(e) DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.—

24 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health

25 and Human Services shall establish demonstration
11

10

•S 1601 IS

1 projects to facilitate the development of a culturally2 sensitive traditional healing treatment program for

3 child abuse and family violence to be operated by an

4 Indian tribe, tribal organization, or inter-tribal con5 sortium.

6 ‘‘(2) APPLICATION.—

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—An Indian tribe, tribal

8 organization, or inter-tribal consortium may

9 submit an application to participate in a dem10 onstration project in such form as the Secretary

11 of Health and Human Services may prescribe.

12 ‘‘(B) CONTENTS.—As part of an applica13 tion under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of

14 Health and Human Services shall require—

15 ‘‘(i) the information described in sub16 section (b)(2)(C);

17 ‘‘(ii) a proposal for development of

18 educational materials and resources, to the

19 extent culturally appropriate; and

20 ‘‘(iii) proposed strategies to use and

21 maintain the integrity of traditional heal22 ing methods.

23 ‘‘(3) CONSIDERATIONS.—In selecting the par24 ticipants in demonstration projects established under

25 this subsection, the Secretary of Health and Human
12

11

•S 1601 IS

1 Services shall give special consideration to projects

2 relating to behavioral and emotional effects of child

3 abuse, elimination of abuse by parents, and reunifi4 cation of the family.’’; and

5 (4) in subsection (f) (as redesignated by para6 graph (2))—

7 (A) by striking ‘‘there’’ and inserting

8 ‘‘There’’; and

9 (B) by striking ‘‘$10,000,000 for each of

10 the years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and

11 1997’’ and inserting ‘‘such sums as are nec12 essary to carry out this section for each of fis13 cal years 2005 through 2010, of which a spe14 cific sum shall be specifically set aside each

15 year for the demonstration projects established

16 under subsection (e).’’.

17 SEC. 8. INDIAN CHILD RESOURCE AND FAMILY SERVICES

18 CENTERS.

19 Section 410 of the Indian Child Protection and Fam20 ily Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3209) is

21 amended—

22 (1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘area’’ and in23 serting ‘‘Regional’’;

24 (2) in subsection (b)—
13

12

•S 1601 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘Secretary and’’ and in2 serting ‘‘Secretary,’’; and

3 (B) by striking ‘‘Services’’ and inserting

4 ‘‘Services, and the Attorney General’’;

5 (3) in subsection (d)(5), by striking ‘‘area’’ and

6 inserting ‘‘Region’’;

7 (4) in subsection (f)—

8 (A) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘an

9 area’’ and inserting ‘‘a Regional’’; and

10 (B) in the last sentence, by inserting ‘‘de11 veloping strategies,’’ after ‘‘Center in’’;

12 (5) in the second sentence of subsection (g)—

13 (A) by striking ‘‘an area’’ and inserting ‘‘a

14 Regional’’; and

15 (B) by striking ‘‘Juneau Area’’ and insert16 ing ‘‘Alaska Region’’; and

17 (6) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘$3,000,000

18 for each of the fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995,

19 1996 and 1997’’ and inserting ‘‘such sums as are

20 necessary to carry out this section for each of fiscal

21 years 2005 through 2010’’.
14

13

•S 1601 IS

1 SEC. 9. INDIAN CHILD PROTECTION AND FAMILY VIOLENCE

2 PREVENTION PROGRAM.

3 Section 411 of the Indian Child Protection and Fam4 ily Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3210) is

5 amended—

6 (1) in subsection (c)—

7 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘coordi8 nation, reporting and’’ before ‘‘investigation’’;

9 (B) in paragraph (2) by inserting ‘‘child

10 abuse and’’ after ‘‘incidents of’’;

11 (2) in subsection (d)—

12 (A) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting ‘‘and

13 other related items’’ after ‘‘equipment’’; and

14 (B) in paragraph (3)—

15 (i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘,

16 and’’ at the end and inserting a semicolon;

17 (ii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting

18 after ‘‘responsibilities’’ the following: ‘‘and

19 specify appropriate measures for ensuring

20 child protection worker safety while per21 forming responsibilities under this title’’;

22 and

23 (iii) by adding at the end the follow24 ing:

25 ‘‘(D) provide for training programs or ex26 penses for child protection services personnel,
15

14

•S 1601 IS

1 law enforcement personnel or judicial personnel

2 to meet any certification requirements nec3 essary to fulfill the responsibilities under any

4 intergovernmental or interagency agreement;

5 and

6 ‘‘(E) develop and implement strategies de7 signed to ensure the safety of child protection

8 workers while performing responsibilities under

9 this Act;’’;

10 (3) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

11 end;

12 (4) by redesignating paragraph (7) as para13 graph (8);

14 (5) by inserting after paragraph (6) the follow15 ing:

16 ‘‘(7) infrastructure enhancements to improve

17 tribal data systems to monitor the progress of fami18 lies, evaluate service and treatment outcomes, and

19 determine the most effective approaches and activi20 ties; and’’

21 (6) by redesignating subsections (f), (g), (h),

22 and (i) as paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (h), respec23 tively;
16

15

•S 1601 IS

1 (7) in paragraph (1) of subsection (g) (as re2 designated by paragraph (6)), by striking subpara3 graph (A) and inserting the following:

4 ‘‘(A) evaluate the program for which the

5 award is made, including examination of—

6 ‘‘(i) the range and scope of training

7 opportunities, including numbers and per8 centage of child protection workers en9 gaged in the training programs;

10 ‘‘(ii) the threats to child protection

11 workers, if any, and the strategies used to

12 address the safety of child protection work13 ers; and

14 ‘‘(iii) the community outreach and

15 awareness programs including any strate16 gies to increase the ability of the commu17 nity to contact appropriate reporting offi18 cials regarding occurrences of child

19 abuse.’’; and

20 (8) in subsection (h) (as redesignated by para21 graph (6)), by striking ‘‘$30,000,000 for each of fis22 cal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997’’

23 and inserting ‘‘such sums as are necessary to carry
17

16

•S 1601 IS

1 out this section for each of fiscal years 2005 through

2 2010.’’.

Æ
18

The CHAIRMAN. Today, we will receive testimony on continued

incidences of child abuse, the need for tribal infrastructure for

managing child abuse cases, and whether there is proper interagency cooperation and character investigations for individuals

having regular contact with Indian children.

There is a chart here on the right and as you can see from that

chart, studies indicate violence and abuse in Indian country occurs

at rates that are higher than other populations. At one time, the

rate of violence in Indian country rose by 18 percent while at the

same time, it decreased by 8 percent for the general population.

On chart 2, these percentages translate into very startling figures. The numbers of Indian children victimized were over 3,000

out of every 100,000 children which is far too many. In fact one is

far too many.

Enacted in 1990, the act established extensive reporting requirements, mandated certain character investigations and authorized

funding for prevention and treatment programs. The bill before us

today is designed to improve tribal capacity and to identify the impediments to reducing child abuse.

S. 1601 promotes cultural perspectives by giving consideration to

tribal programs which incorporate traditional healing methods.

Preventing child abuse also requires that individuals having regular contact with children are adequately screened prior to contact.

S. 1601 will expand the scope of character investigations to contractors and volunteers in addition to employees who have regular

contact with Indian children making its scope consistent with other

Federal law.

With that, I look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses and we will go ahead and start with pane one which will

be Woodro Hopper, acting deputy assistant secretary for Management, Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior and Charles Grim,

director, Indian Health Service. We will take you in that order with

Mr. Hopper first. Your complete written testimony will be included.

If you would like to deviate from that written testimony, that will

be fine.

STATEMENT OF WOODROW HOPPER, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT—INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. HOPPER. I am pleased to be here today to provide the Department’s testimony supporting S. 1601, a bill to amend the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act to provide for the reporting and reduction of child abuse and family violence incidents on Indian reservations.

The Department of the Interior supports expansion of the number and breadth of employment positions that will be subject to the

minimum standards of character under the act. The Department of

the Interior recommends a review not only of appropriate State

criminal history repositories but also tribal criminal history repositories.

We also support inclusion of the certification requirements for

education employees who are responsible for child protection at residential and day schools. Certification is critical as almost all Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] funded schools contract to provide im-
19

portant services including mental health and other social services

to Indian students. The Department of the Interior supports conducting a study to help identify and reduce the barriers to implementation of the Act, with particular emphasis on tribal, Federal

and State investigations and prosecution of Indian and non-Indian

abusers.

The study will allow the Office of Law Enforcement Services in

the BIA to identify efforts that better serve Indian communities

and improve the implementation of the President’s citizen centered

government initiative. However, we respectfully request additional

time in which to complete the more comprehensive report to better

identify incidences of child abuse and family violence and steps to

improve intergovernmental and interagency cooperation.

The BIA, in cooperation with Indian tribes, must continue to develop more awareness at the local level to prevent child abuse. We

must work together to ensure that abusers do not have access to

children and that any incidences of abuse are prosecuted.

This concludes my statement. I want to thank you for introducing this legislation and for your support for the protection of our

future generations. I would be happy to answer any questions you

may have.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hopper appears in appendix.]

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. GRIM, DIRECTOR, INDIAN

HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES, ACCOMPANIED BY JON PEREZ, DIRECTOR, IHS

DIVISION OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

Mr. GRIM. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee.

I am Dr. Charles W. Grim, director of the Indian Health Service.

I have accompanying me today, Dr. Jon Perez, director of our IHS

Division of Behavioral Health. I will be making the opening statement for the Department and Dr. Perez is here to help with additional questions, should the committee have them.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify on behalf of Secretary Thompson on S. 1601, the Indian Child Protection Family

Violence Prevention Act of 2003. With your concurrence, I will submit my written testimony for the record and just speak briefly.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be included in the record.

Mr. GRIM. Thirteen years ago, this committee authorized the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act because

of the incidences of abuse of children on Indian reservations was

underreported and because many perpetrators of sexual abuse of

children on Indian reservations were Federal Government employees and because funds were inadequate to meet the increasing

needs for mental health treatment and counseling for victims of

child abuse and family violence. This act was passed to help preserve the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes by protecting American Indian and Alaska Native children and families.

Thirteen years later, these reasons, while somewhat diminished,

are still valid reasons to reauthorize the act. Indian country has

higher rates of child abuse and domestic violence than other population groups in the United States. Child abuse and family violence
20

are crimes and there are tribal, State and Federal laws that address the criminal aspects of these behaviors.

The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act

enables us to undertake treatment and prevention program activities to reduce the risk factors associated with child abuse and family violence. The available statistics you presented briefly in your

opening comments show an alarmingly high level of child abuse

and family violence in Indian country and this Act gives us an opportunity to do something about it. Abuse and neglect have short

and long term consequences and long term means a lifetime of

physical and psychological scars.

Experiencing abuse, neglect or violence or even its threat increases the risk of the victim becoming a perpetrator of violence.

Children who have experienced such abuse are also at increased

risk for experiencing the adverse health effects and behaviors as

adults that include smoking, alcoholism, drug abuse, physical inactivity, obesity, depression, suicide, sexual promiscuity, and certain

chronic diseases and being a perpetrator of abuse as well.

As we all know, these health effects and behaviors also are risk

factors for many other diseases and chronic conditions. The consequences of child abuse and neglect can be seen throughout the

life cycle. Among our youth who are incarcerated, there are a large

number who are victims of child abuse and neglect.

We must protect our children and our families from violence and

must provide treatment if we are to break the cycle. There is no

simple solution. There are many factors commonly associated with

abuse and neglect but the presence of these factors alone does not

guarantee abusive situations will develop. If we can reduce the risk

factors, we can also reduce the incidence of child abuse and family

violence and can break the cycle of abuse and its consequences.

The Indian Health Service has been a partner with five tribes in

funding grants to establish programs for child protective services,

child abuse prevention, family violence prevention and abuse prevention and identification education programs. The programs developed from these grants incorporated culturally relevant aspects

of prevention programs that have shown positive effectiveness in

reducing abuse and violence. Programs of home visiting and family

intervention, parent education and school based programs for the

prevention of child sexual abuse appear to increase the number of

children more likely to use protective strategies.

The IHS also funded the development of a Child Protection Technical and Training Manual for use in Indian country. In addition,

the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child

Abuse and Neglect within the Department of HHS funded the Making Medicine Project that has trained 150 professionals on providing culturally sensitive treatment to Indian victims of child physical and sexual abuse. These professionals are working with American Indian and Alaska Native communities around the country.

The IHS has also established an interagency agreement with the

Department of Justice, Office of Victims of Crime for a four year

training program for IHS physicians and nurse practitioners in the

application of forensic and telemedicine equipment in child sexual

abuse cases.
21

In addition, as required by the current and the proposed act, the

IHS published an interim final rule that established minimum

standards of character for IHS employees, volunteers and contractors who are in positions identified by the IHS as involving regular

contact or control over American Indian and Alaska Native children.

The rate of child abuse and family violence in Indian country is

high and is unacceptable. It happens for many reasons but it

doesn’t happen in isolation from the economic and social problems

that are faced in Indian country resulting in poverty, a lack of resources, limited opportunity and a sense of hopelessness and isolation at times.

The reauthorization of the Indian Child Protection and Family

Violence Prevention Act as I mentioned earlier will continue to

help us protect our children and treat the survivors of family violence and abuse. It will take further investment and a broad range

of Federal and tribal programs to achieve the goal of prevention.

The Department and IHS are committed to working with you to

achieve those goals of prevention.

In conclusion, the Department fully supports enactment of S.

1601. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or any other

members of the committee might have.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Dr. Grim appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you both, Mr. Hopper and Dr. Grim.

It really kind of amazes me when we look at the statistics dealing with child abuse. Historically, Indian people were the most loving families you could ever ask for where they all participated in

raising their children. They are literally known for that kind of loving family and yet we have some of the highest child abuse in the

country. I can only attribute it to some of the factors you mentioned, drugs, alcohol and so on, the things that go with a depressed economy and a depressed society. Sometimes that anger

turns inward.

Mr. Hopper, I am interested in the progress the Department has

made and its experience over the past 8 years in implementing the

act. First of all, let me ask is there a backlog now of security

checks of people?

Mr. HOPPER. My understanding as of last evening is there is no

backlog of security checks.

The CHAIRMAN. There is not. Explain this to me. Is the Security

Division now in two parts with one part being in Albuquerque and

one part being in Washington?

Mr. HOPPER. That is somewhat correct, sir. The Office of Indian

Education has its own separate Personnel Security Office right now

that is located in Albuquerque. The other entities within the BIA

have a separate office.

The CHAIRMAN. What does one do that the other one does not do?

Mr. HOPPER. They both perform similar duties. One office concentrates primarily on the 5,000 or so educators and people who

work in the schools, while the other office concentrates on the employees who work in the trust and tribal services related programs.

The CHAIRMAN. It works better to have one group in Albuquerque?
22

Mr. HOPPER. Under the reorganization we are going through

right now, they will be merged into one unit and will be located,

at the moment, in Albuquerque, NM, within in the Office of Law

Enforcement Services.

The CHAIRMAN. Currently the act requires all authorized positions within the Department to have regular contact with children

to undergo a character investigation. What is the Department of

the Interior’s process for determining whether a position requires

the investigation or not? Is it direct contact with the children?

Mr. HOPPER. Yes; it is. The security personnel in conjunction

with the program side of the house determine which positions require an investigation. However, when you look at our education

programs, virtually every position has the preponderance of contact

with children and virtually every position requires a character

background checks, whether it is a janitor or a school principal. We

have been doing that now for many, many years.

The CHAIRMAN. In addition to Indian students lot of the tribal

schools now have non-Indian children in the schools because their

parents employees of the tribe or something. In the process you describe, what governs the positions outside the BIA Office of Indian

Education? Say it is a non-Indian kid that is enrolled in that

school, an Indian school.

Mr. HOPPER. Would you mind restating the question?

The CHAIRMAN. Many of the schools now on reservations have

mostly Indian children but have some non-Indian children in the

schools because their parents are employees of the tribe or something of that nature. They are isolated from the city, so they have

them in the same schools with Indian children. How do you interact with them? What governs the positions dealing with kids that

may not be Indian but are in Indian schools who may have been

abused?

Mr. HOPPER. It is the employees that have the background check,

not the children. Are you asking if something happens to one of the

children?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HOPPER. The reporting process for any child in the school

would be the same.

The CHAIRMAN. The same?

Mr. HOPPER. Yes; I would have to defer to one of the staff to give

you an idea of the number of non-Indian children that may be attending a BIA school.

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t need the numbers, that is all right.

In 1998, the Office of Inspector General conducted surveys of

character investigations for certain area offices of the Office of Indian Education and there appears to be a significant delay in conducting character investigations. Have you taken any steps to try

to speed up that or to improve the process?

Mr. HOPPER. What happened was, the Office of Indian Education

established within their own ranks, an office to deal with personnel

security and that backlog has been reduced. They are expeditiously

processing the background investigations.

The CHAIRMAN. The act also requires the Department to establish an Indian Child Resource and Family Services Center with a

multidisciplinary team. What is the progress of that?
23

Mr. HOPPER. The BIA does use the Child Protection Team concept if that is what you are referring to in the event that we have

an incident. We have a multidisciplinary team that works in conjunction with Indian Health Service, the Justice Department, law

enforcement, and whoever else is necessary.

The CHAIRMAN. So there is not a physical center where they

work together?

Mr. HOPPER. No, sir; it is not a center.

The CHAIRMAN. The act also required the Department to conduct

a feasibility study for the Central Registry to collect data and reports on child abuse. I understand that was not established but

there are apparently some alternatives and resources for tracking

child abuse in Indian country, are there not?

Mr. HOPPER. I don’t have the answer to that. I can provide it to

you or call on BIA staff who may know.

The CHAIRMAN. Bill, do you know? If somebody does know, otherwise I would have you provide that to me. Identify yourself for the

record, Bill.

Mr. MEHOJAH. I am Bill Mehojah, director, Office of Tribal Services.

Presently, we do not have a central registry in place. Any reports

of child abuse incidents are reported to law enforcement and they

maintain a database or system of counting those cases but we do

not have a central registry.

The CHAIRMAN. Then how do you monitor a perpetrator moving

from one jurisdiction to another when he gets a little worried that

somebody may uncover what he has been doing and he moves to

someplace else? Mr. Hopper, if you know that?

Mr. HOPPER. If we find a perpetrator and we identify the individual as an employee, we will take immediate action to put him on

administrative leave until we can perform the due process. That is

when the Department of Justice steps in if they are going to prosecute. The employee could be fired and incarcerated. They could

never be reemployed with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

If you are asking if there is any possibility they could somehow

be employed with another agency at some later date, there is no

second chance in BIA.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no second chance, in other words.

Mr. HOPPER. There is no second chance in BIA, that is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. They can’t just be transferred as we have read

about and seen in the news with some churches, for instance?

Mr. HOPPER. No; that does not happen. The individual isolated

until such time that we either prosecute or remove them administratively.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand your testimony, you are pretty

supportive of the bill, S. 1601?

Mr. HOPPER. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. We want to mark this bill in October and are

kind of running out of time. As you know, we only have maybe another 6 weeks and we will be out of here for the year. If you have

any suggestions of how we can improve the bill, if you would contact staff, I would certainly appreciate it because I would like to

mark this up in October if we can.

Mr. HOPPER. Yes, sir.
24

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Grim, thank you for appearing today.

What role does the Indian Health Service play in this whole child

abuse investigation realm?

Dr. GRIM. We perform a number of services in the child abuse

arena. We perform both clinical, forensic, supportive and training

roles. Clinical services we provide involve direct assessment and

treatment of those people who have been abused.

The CHAIRMAN. Counseling programs or something of that nature?

Mr. GRIM. Yes; counseling services, as well as substance abuse

and treatment services may be needed as a result of abuse. We also

provide forensic exams when necessary in our facilities like the sexual assault forensic exams. We have protocols and procedures in

place to deal with those and oftentimes our providers who are

doing those exams are sometimes called upon to testify in judicial

proceedings.

We also provide supportive services for both families and victims

in the way of social services, counseling, and other sorts of services

that may be necessary. We also train IHS personnel across the

clinical spectrum in identifying, assessing and treating victims of

child abuse or their families.

The CHAIRMAN. We are always talking about budget crunches

around here as you know. Do you find the resources we provide

adequate for you to do a first class job in this area?

Mr. GRIM. As always, Senator, we try to do the best we can with

the resources that are available. The major issues that usually

arise are often in our smaller facilities whenever a provider is

called upon, has done a forensic exam perhaps and is called upon

to testify in court. It pulls that provider away from a clinic for a

half a day or a day, then we may experience decreased access to

care in that given clinic. So it does place occasional burdens on us

to deal with these issues but we always participate fully with the

judicial system when necessary.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure everyone on this committee appreciates that. With regard to the traditional methods for restoring

health and well being of Indian people, studies researched by our

staff support incorporating cultural awareness into treatment

methods. I understand the Indian Health Service has an agreement

with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Agency to

promote that kind of culturally appropriate action, particularly

with children’s mental health services in Indian country. What type

of research have you been conducting on whether that is a successful program or not?

Mr. GRIM. You are correct. We do have agreements going on with

SAMHSA right now that have demonstrated successes in Indian

country. Right now we have two Indian Health Service personnel

detailed to SAMHSA, one in the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, one in the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention to help

better coordinate the resources of the two agencies going into Indian country.

Specifically to the culturally appropriate care children’s programs

you brought up, we have something called the Circles of Care

Grant Program. It is funded by SAMHSA and both IHS and

SAMHSA are sharing technical assistance roles with tribes and
25

also evaluation for the 16 tribal programs. We have been primarily

providing technical assistance. SAMHSA has been providing evaluations through a contract with the University of Colorado’s Health

Science Center.

We feel the evaluations provided thus far by Colorado have indicated a high success in helping tribal programs build the infrastructure to deal with these problems.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you work with Dr. Jim Shore? Do you know

that name? He is with the Medical Sciences Group at the University of Colorado but I know he has extensive background in Indian

health, having worked on many reservations. I was just wondering

about that.

Mr. PEREZ. I know the name. I worked with Dr. Manson.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Grim, I assume you also support this bill, do

you not?

Mr. GRIM. Yes, sir; we fully support the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. As with Mr. Hopper, if you can give us any suggestions on how to improve it, I would appreciate it because we are

going to try to mark up the bill in October, as I mentioned.

Mr. GRIM. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for appearing.

We will now go to our second panel which will be: Mark Lewis,

director of the Guidance Center, Hopi Tribe; Garland Brunoe,

chairman, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs; and Terry Cross,

executive director, National Indian Child Welfare Association from

Portland.

As with our previous panel, if you would like to submit your complete written testimony, that will be in the record and we will

study that very carefully. If you would like to abbreviate or diverge

from your written testimony, that would be fine.

We will go ahead and start in the order that I mentioned with

Mr. Lewis first.

STATEMENT OF MARK LEWIS, DIRECTOR, GUIDANCE CENTER,

HOPI TRIBE OF INDIANS

Mr. LEWIS. Good morning, Chairman Campbell.

My name is Mark Lewis and I am the administrative director for

the Hopi Guidance Center, Behavioral Health and Social Services

for the Hopi Tribe. I am here as a representative of the Hopi Tribe

and Chairman Wayne Taylor, Jr., who could not be here today.

The tribe wanted to convey to you that we are very pleased and

honored to be invited to testify on S. 1601, the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act of 2003.

Again, my name is Mark Lewis. I am a member of the Hopi

Tribe, a professional social worker by trade and have been with the

Guidance Center for 10 years, beginning as a mental health clinician and in the last 6 years, administering both behavioral health

and social services which is responsible for child protective services

and behavioral health of our tribe.

The tribe wishes to describe to you our very real experience as

a community and government in implementing the original act of

1990 and provide important input in advocacy that we believe will

improve and strengthen this act that we believe is critical in effec-
26

tively addressing child protection, child abuse prevention and treatment.

We also wish to endorse the changes of the Act that Chairman

Campbell has provided and we hope to provide other information

that will also strengthen what you have proposed.

As you may be aware, the Hopi Tribe has experienced directly

the tragedy and immense pain associated with abuse of over 100

of our children, apparently beginning sometime in the last 1970’s

which continued until 1987 when a BIA school teacher was exposed

as a prolific pedophile. As a result of this tragedy and other similar

deplorable circumstances in Indian country, the original act was

passed into law and became one of the primary vehicles for child

protection and child abuse prevention and treatment in Indian

country.

We wish to convey that it also must be understood that tribes in

general lacked services, programs and funding to effectively address child abuse issues prior to the passage of this act. S. 1601

will improve the act in a number of important ways. While we encourage Congress to make the changes outlined in the bill, we also

ask that the Act provide adequate funding to help tribes carryout

the original important functions of the act.

First, the bill expands the current law’s requirements for background checks to include volunteers and employees of other Federal

entities beyond the Bureau and IHS. While the tribe supports this

amendment, it is critical that while adding to the list of who must

have a background check, actual funding must accompany not just

the additions but the current background check requirements of

the act.

By way of background, the Hopi Tribe’s law enforcement departments lack proper funding to adequately meet all of its law enforcement and investigative needs. We are still a Bureau operated law

enforcement, so they lack adequate funding to properly meet all of

its needs, investigative needs and investigation of child sexual

abuse which many know is a specialized service.

Today, the Hopi has just two investigators but that is for all of

its criminal investigations across our on-reservation population of

8,000. The Hopi Guidance Center, the entity for which I am responsible, and also responsible for child protective services and mental

health and substance abuse services on the Hopi Reservation has

had to rely on periodic surplus from its Bureau funding base or

find alternative funding streams for these background checks.

There is no money coming as a result of the act to conduct these.

As a governing board member, elected official of the Hopi Junior/

High School they will attest as well that there is no funding to conduct the background checks on those teachers and we often rely on

the surplus in order to be able to do those background checks.

S. 1601 calls for the establishment of safety measures for child

protection workers. We certainly support that but it is indicative of

the training needs and other costs associated with implementing

stronger systems and protocols and procedures in the provision of

child protection and child abuse prevention as well as treatment.

S. 1601 expands the definition of child abuse, mental health,

emotional and well being and self esteem are important factors in

the health of Indian children and children facing family violence
27

should be able to access child abuse services. The Tribe agrees with

the expanded definition. However, it is indicative of once again the

need to provide adequate financial resources to investigators, to

prosecutors, to courts who will see more of these cases coming

through an already overcrowded door.

S. 1601 replaces the feasibility study from the original act and

Federal study of impediments to reducing child abuse. The feasibility study was conducted but the law doesn’t reflect it. The tribe

supports what you are doing with your proposal. We must study

and understand the impediments to reducing abuse in order to

make effective decisions at our tribal levels.

S. 1601 emphasizes strengthening tribal infrastructure to develop effective tribal programs including databases for accessing

current, national central registries for child abuse. The tribe supports not only this provision but the general building of administrative infrastructure in general. Management information systems

and other related forms of technology must be funded as they are

necessary these days and in the height of greater accountability for

tribal programs to effectively administer our particular programs.

While many of these wonderful mandates have come down, the

BIA of Social Services which has the primary responsibility for social services in Indian country, never receives any increases as we

all know. We need to be able to address those issues with this act

as well as with the current provision of social services through the

Bureau.

In conclusion, the tribe urges the committee to move forward

with the proposed amendments and also to ensure that its provisions, as well as those of the original act, receive full funding in

order to meet all of these mandates.

Once again, on behalf of the Hopi Tribe and Chairman Taylor,

we thank you for this opportunity to present the issues and concerns of the Hopi Tribe.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Taylor, Jr., appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for appearing here.

Chairman Brunoe, we will go to you now.

STATEMENT OF GARLAND BRUNOE, CHAIRMAN, THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF

OREGON

Mr. BRUNOE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good

afternoon.

I am Garland Brunoe, the tribal council chairman of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs of Oregon.

Our tribe thanks you for the opportunity to be here today to testify in support of S. 1601, the Indian Child Protection and Family

Violence Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2003. This is extremely

needed legislation.

The Warm Springs Tribes located in north central Oregon share

many of the modern characteristics of Indian reservation life. Our

communities are rural and many Indian individual dwellings are

isolated. Economic opportunities are limited and unemployment

and poverty rates are persistently high. Unfortunately, so too are

the rates of child abuse and family violence.
28

About 4,100 people live on the Warm Springs Reservation, 3,300

are tribal members and of them, 1,617 are younger than 18 years

of age. Last year, during 2002, 402 Warm Springs children were

placed under the custody of our Child Protective Services by tribal

court order. This year for 2003, we project 460 of our children will

be placed in CPS custody, a 14-percent increase over 2002.

These numbers are very distressing and our tribe is doing all we

can to try to address this problem. Because we are exempt from

Public Law 280 and our reservation is almost all tribal trust land,

we have exclusive jurisdiction over child welfare issues, allowing us

to fashion and run a program without competing State regulations.

We try to work closely with the State of Oregon and are one of

the few tribes in the Nation with a tribal/State Title 4(e), Foster

Care Maintenance Payment Agreement that gives us much the

same footing as a State for developing and maintaining a foster

program.

Even with our fairly comprehensive Child Protection Service Program, key jurisdictional differences do remain. Non-Indians in our

reservation with criminal child abuse charges have to be referred

to the State and Federal child abuse charges require calling in the

FBI. Also, the local public schools that educate our children first

report signs of child abuse to the State and the State then sends

them along to us.

S. 1601 seeks to address these sorts of problems by requiring

that non-Indians with criminal child abuse charges be reported to

the State and by requiring a study of how jurisdictional differences

hinder the reduction of child abuse. We also support the bill’s expansion of coverage by including family violence and child abuse,

allowing Indian Health Service’s treatment grants for all child

abuse victims and making the Justice Department a part of the Regional Resource Centers.

We also applaud the clarification that tribal responsibilities

under 638 contracts include cooperation and reporting on abuse

cases, training child protection worker safety and improved data

collection.

More than anything else, the act itself and its funding must be

reauthorized. Addressing child abuse and family violence is very

labor intensive. Our police, our courts, our prosecutors, our youth

services and our medical services are all involved but Child Protective Services must tie it together and provide a tremendous range

of functions. One on one care and attention often from specialists

is essential. At Warm Springs, our CPS capacity that delivers those

services is severely strained if not becoming broken.

We have a staff of just 15 including four cases workers who must

each handle more than 110 cases a year. We need assistance almost across the board.

I am sure other tribes across Indian country have similar problems. Child abuse and family violence are silent and generally out

of the public eye but they are devastating to our communities. Consequences are long lasting and far reaching. This is an issue that

must be addressed and passage of S. 1601 is essential to that task.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my testimony.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Brunoe appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
29

Mr. Cross.

STATEMENT OF TERRY CROSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ASSOCIATION, PORTLAND,

OR

Mr. CROSS. Mr. Chairman, I am Terry Cross. I am the executive

director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association located in

Portland, OR.

Thank you for inviting me to provide this testimony in support

of reauthorization of the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act. I am submitting full written testimony for inclusion in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Fine.

Mr. CROSS. The National Indian Child Welfare Association is a

national, private, non-profit organization, a membership organization of tribes and tribal child welfare workers and tribal child protection workers that provides support to those workers and tribes

who are providing these services in the field with training, technical assistance, advocacy and research.

You mentioned in your opening remarks what we call the natural

system of child protection that has existed amongst our people for

generations. This historical framework still helps support our families and those sacred teachings about children being gifts of the

Creator are still very central to our way of life and our extended

families. If it weren’t for those, this problem would be even worse

than it is. In a few minutes I will come back to talking about how

those natural systems can be supported.

Those natural systems of child protection have been broken down

in the context of substance abuse, poverty, interrupted parenting,

removal and oppression and we all know that one of the major assaults on Indian people was the removal of the authority and capacity to protect our own children. I think Chief Joseph said in his

remarks, ‘‘Let me gather the children.’’ Our tribal leaders of the

past knew the children were at the top of the list. There is no expression of tribal sovereignty more important than the protection

of your own children.

What has happened historically is that the sacred authority to

protect children has been limited and constricted by Federal policy.

Where tribes should be the agent of statutory authority for the investigation and treatment of child abuse, instead today we have a

patchwork quilt, a tangled web of complex Federal Indian policy

and Federal child welfare policy that overlap to leave our children

out of the configuration of services. To give you an example of some

of that complexity, you heard here today that because of the Dawes

Act, when reservations are checkerboarded, you sometimes need a

guidebook to know who has authority to investigate which cases.

Because of Public Law 280, you have to have intergovernmental

agreements just to know who has jurisdiction in which cases, in

which States. CAPTA, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment

Act that provides funding to States in this area of child abuse

leaves out tribes completely.

My testimony goes into depth in this area but what I want to say

about this tangled web is it has a lot of consequences and serious

consequences. One of those is there is no good data about child
30

abuse in Indian country. The number you have here of 1 in 30 kids

abused is the best information we have but we know that it only

accounts for probably 61 percent of the cases in the country. You

can add another 40 percent probably on top of that 1 in 30.

Part of that untold story is the amount of this issue attributable

to substance abuse. We know that at least 65 percent of child

abuse cases are substance abuse related. We know when you single

out the neglect cases, that goes much higher, as high as 83 percent.

We also know the term child abuse lumps together several different

items; neglect, child abuse and child sexual abuse, and that child

neglect actually accounts for about 83 percent of those overall numbers. When you look at the relationship between child neglect, poverty and substance abuse, you start to see why we have such serious problems.

In addition to that, when we are taking a look at how the numbers play out, the numbers for child sexual abuse are actually

somewhat lower than mainstream society as best we can tell. The

numbers for child abuse and neglect vary by community but a surprising piece of information is that most child deaths in Indian

country are not the result of abuse, but are the result of neglect.

Our kids are three times more likely to die of accidents than any

other children in the country. The Indian Health Service has not

addressed this issue at all.

It is important for us to keep in mind that these statistics have

important social impacts and you have heard several of those

talked about, mental health, juvenile justice, family violence, and

other areas. Basic to that, -is the impact on the very development

of our communities themselves, the development of infrastructure,

the economic development, the impact of life long suffering of children who don’t get enough medical care, children who don’t get

treatment for serious depression or for family violence, being victims of family violence, the costs are very high.

The consequence of this overlapping, tangled web I mentioned is

a very confused set of jurisdictions with unclear roles and reporting

problems. One of the reasons we don’t have good data is because

there is no central place for data to be reported. The national

NCANDS database is a database that records all cases of child

abuse reported to States for the purposes of tracking how many

and where. Indian data does not go in there unless the State has

provided the service. If the tribes have provided those services,

then the data doesn’t go in there. It may get reported to the Bureau of Indian Affairs but the BIA does not report to the NCANDS

database and the numbers you have here on the wall come from

the NCANDS database. That is why I say that 40 percent of the

cases out there are not getting counted.

Another problem is that children end up not getting protected.

We have children in situations where there are no services, where

people point at each other thinking the other one should be doing

it. I want to point out that in child welfare policy, it is well known

that somebody has to be responsible and the entity with statutory

authority is the place for that responsibility to lie. We know from

our work around the country that when tribes exercise and are empowered to exercise that statutory authority, then things happen.

The tribe can negotiate those local agreements to overcome this
31

tangled web. The tribes should be leading the child protection

teams and not the Federal agencies because the Federal agencies

do not have statutory authority. If the tribe doesn’t want to provide

the services, they should be able to delegate that authority to someone else and make that decision themselves.

Again, I reiterate that there is no expression of sovereignty more

important than the protection of children. That goes for both the

criminal and civil side and the only meaningful solutions to the

problems pointed out by Chairman Brunoe pointed out are local solutions, agreements and protocols and cross deputizations driven by

strong tribal authority. That strong tribal authority only can come

through funding. We need programs that are non-discretionary,

that are funded to allow tribes to operate the very basics of child

protection. In this very complex arena, tribes need training and

technical assistance. They need to have access to culturally designed prevention and intervention strategies and those are growing around the country. Those need to be shared with one another.

We also need to have the capacity to do child abuse prevention

activities. Every State in the Nation has a children’s trust fund

that funds child abuse prevention that the Federal Government

matches under CAPTA. Tribes don’t have access to those dollars

unless they go hat in hand to States and apply for a grant like

every non-profit in a State. There needs to be a Tribal Indian Children’s Trust Fund established so that tribes can do child abuse prevention.

We need to clarify and simplify the background checks and support it. Right now, it is an unfunded mandate. We need to reconcile

the minimum definitions in this Act with the minimum definitions

in CAPTA.

We support the provisions as proposed. We think S. 1601 is on

the right track but we also want you to consider making sure the

tribes have the funds to operate the programs. It was disappointing

for me every year when I go to the Appropriations Committee and

to see neither the Bureau of Indian Affairs, nor the Indian Health

Service, budget requests funding for this legislation. We can’t continue to have our children treated this way to have a Federal policy

that says they should be protected but have it be empty and in

name only on paper. Without the appropriations to follow up and

provide the services, it is meaningless.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Cross appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Let me start with you, Mark. I was amazed that you had somebody down there that in a period of 7 or 8 years, sexually abused

over 100 Hopi kids. Where is that person now?

Mr. LEWIS. I understand he is still in Federal prison.

The CHAIRMAN. He is in prison?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I visited Oraibi a long time ago and I noted with

great interest that those cliffs are pretty high. Too bad this man

got as far as prison, he should have been thrown off the edge.

Mr. LEWIS. They are pretty high.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brunoe, I am interested in the issue of intergovernmental cooperation. We certainly need everybody we can to
32

be involved in this. You said you had 402 kids in protective custody

and it was a 14-percent increase just from last year. To what do

you attribute that huge increase in a year?

Mr. BRUNOE. The noted increase is coming from substance abuse.

The CHAIRMAN. Substance abuse. Is it the crude stuff like paint

and ‘‘canned heat,’’ nail polish, things like that? Is that the problem

you have at Warm Springs with substance abuse?

Mr. BRUNOE. I think it is the more readily available meth labs

that are available now in different areas that easily put this stuff

on the street. Since we live on the main highway that goes from

Portland, OR, the major metropolitan and the State of Oregon,

through our reservation on the way to Bend, OR, we get around

8,000 cars a day that go through our reservation. So easily some

of that stuff is flowing through our reservation on the way to Bend.

The CHAIRMAN. You heard Dr. Grim testify about some of the forensic exams that can be done, some of the people they have working in those areas. Are those components with the Indian Health

Service been of value to your tribe when you deal with the components of child abuse?

Mr. BRUNOE. Not responding directly to what Dr. Grim said, we

have five HIS doctors in our wellness center there, the Indian

Health Service clinic and one of the doctors there has been trained

on some of the equipment. She is at the point where she is overtaxed in the number of child abuse cases that need the kind of investigation that goes on. Then we need to send our children to

Bend, OR for more in-depth types of review and the waiting list is

about 3 to 4 months long to get a child in there, to have them see

a professional.

The CHAIRMAN. 3 to 4 months?

Mr. BRUNOE. 3 to 4 months.

The CHAIRMAN. For a youngster, that is a lifetime in remembering some of the things that happened. You said each of your case

workers handles 110 cases a year, about one every three days is

a new case to deal with?

Mr. BRUNOE. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you balance that with ensuring the safety of the child protection workers? That is a high caseload.

Mr. BRUNOE. Talking to our CPS manager that runs that, they

do it with a lot of overtime, work beyond your regular 8 hour days

and they know they are pushed to capacity. Since the Federal

funds we get for the 4(e) moneys come through the State to the

tribes, we are very careful to make sure when we go through our

audit from the Federal Government, that we are doing everything

that is required of the Federal Government along with the State

because if they find a finding, we could end up hurting the State,

so the State of Oregon and the Warm Springs Tribe work closely

to make sure our case reviews are done carefully, that the foster

parents are qualified, that the foster homes are qualified.

It also reaches to the tribal council chambers where not long ago

I had a tribal member come to me who was having their grandchild

removed from them because of the condition of the home and she

wanted me to override that. I explained to her that if she loved her

grandchild, she would go back and take care of the issue of what

the court and the child protective services wanted, and that I
33

wasn’t going to, neither was the tribal council, tell them what to

do and that is difficult to do.

The CHAIRMAN. Did it work?

Mr. BRUNOE. Yes; it worked because she spent the weekend

doing what they asked her to do for 4 months.

The CHAIRMAN. She didn’t initiate a recall, huh?

Mr. BRUNOE. No; not yet.

The CHAIRMAN. A lot of times we think in terms of additional resources. The code word for resources, and I shouldn’t say resources

but the code word for money in many cases around here, as you

know, and I know we are not doing a good enough job of providing

enough money for a lot of the problems we have in Indian country.

Is there anything you could speak to or know about that would

help in this case that does not deal specifically with more Federal

funding?

Mr. BRUNOE. Not at the moment, Mr. Chairman, but if I do, I

will forward it.

The CHAIRMAN. If we do a data collection reporting system,

should that include training of tribal employees or would that be

effective?

Mr. BRUNOE. That would be important because gathering the

data is something that is essential to funding eventually and it stabilizes the findings which I know is lacking across Indian country.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Lewis, I understand the Hopi Children’s Code has been a

model code for many Native American communities to follow. When

you set that up, did your tribe invite Federal or State agencies with

any particular expertise to do that or did you do it with your own

tribal resources?

Mr. LEWIS. The code was being developed when I was still on the

line so I wasn’t able to necessarily be a part of that.

The CHAIRMAN. You were where?

Mr. LEWIS. I was still on the line providing clinical services but

what I do remember is that the local Federal and tribal attorneys

involved with our cases were a part of development of that code.

I think it is very related to the Chairman of the Warm Springs

Tribe, and that was done with tribal resources and there were no

resources that the tribe had to do that. When the code was eventually passed, if you look at the written testimony provided to your

office, you will see the tribe made a decision even I passed its own

code, we didn’t know how to necessarily enact it because we didn’t

have any money. We ended up doing that with our BIA Social Services funding because there was no funding to implement child protective services, part of the code, actually. I can leave the Hopi

Children’s Code here if you want it.

We made that decision but we made that decision at the risk of

impacting other important social services like services to the developmentally disabled, children and adults as well as substance

abuse and chemically addicted populations.

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Brunoe said they have an average of

110 cases a year. What is the Hopi workload?

Mr. LEWIS. We have two CPS investigators carrying caseloads of

about 30 apiece.

The CHAIRMAN. Per year?
34

Mr. LEWIS. No; at any given time. The issue with that is that

child protective services is a rather burdensome process, so our efficiency is not as good as it could be because we simply need more

child protective services workers, in addition to just trying to handle the ICWA cases that come to our agency which we don’t have

a worker which we are working on developing.

The CHAIRMAN. Based on your experience with what is considered a model of this children’s code, has your relationship in working with Federal agencies been good?

Mr. LEWIS. I like to believe that we at the Hopi Guidance Center

have really good relations with our State and a lot of that has to

do with approaching the States with a certain attitude but that

doesn’t mean there aren’t certain barriers within the States. What

I have found in my dealings with the State is they didn’t know how

to work with tribes and when they were willing and ready to work

with tribes, they haven’t done enough of it so we had to really form

a good collaboration.

We are also the only tribe in Arizona to have a 4(e) agreement

with our State. We are assuming the TANF program under the

guidance center with our State. We are also a mental health provider with our State system as well as a Medicaid provider, so we

have pretty good experience working with the State but it hasn’t

come without its barriers because they simply don’t know how to

work well with tribes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is rather surprising considering the number

of tribes in Arizona and the long history of Indian people since

there has been a State of Arizona.

Based on your experience, have there been any particular Federal barriers to what you are trying to do?

Mr. LEWIS. As you mentioned before, one of them is having the

unfunded mandate so that puts us in the position of trying to be

as creative as possible. One of the ways we have done that by obtaining resources like through the State mental health system and

through being very creative and strategic with our funding that

does come down from the Bureau and how we utilize our surplus

but that’s certainly been a challenge.

I think related to what the chairman and particularly what my

colleague, Terry Cross mentioned, you mentioned a good point

about is funding the answer to everything. Well, it is the answer

to a lot of things but not everything. When a lot of this legislation

has come down, we don’t believe as a tribe, and it is in our written

testimony, that enough clarity is provided to the Bureau and the

IHS in helping to work together collaboratively to make these Acts

happen. These are two of the major and primary overseers of services and regulation in Indian country and they are still not in a position where they are collaborating and sharing information as well

as they should be.

It is wonderful to see my colleagues, Dr. Grim and Dr. Perez who

I know very well, Larry Blair and these folks here sitting at the

table but that is not indicative of how it is day in and day out at

our levels, the Bureau and the IHS communicating and collaborating together and encouraging the sharing of Federal resources.

There is simply not enough of that coming from those entities.
35

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Grim is listening very intently back there, I

notice.

This bill, S. 1601, requires a study of the impediments to reducing child abuse in Indian communities. Your testimony certainly

supports this idea. What role do you envision the tribes playing in

the study?

Mr. LEWIS. There are a couple things I see as the role of the

tribes being involved in the study. One of them is to act as a principal, if you will, to be able to help guide what some of the research

issues are and we are providing an ongoing role in the consultation

or any sorts of committees that you usually have when you are

doing studies and evaluations.

I also think some money needs to come now to encourage tribes

and encourage the Bureau and the IHS to allow tribes to be creative in how they can develop better and more expanded programs

to meet the specific needs of its population and the problems we

are seeing associated with child abuse.

The CHAIRMAN. I have many Hopi friends and have visited a few

times down there. They are very, very traditional people, very in

tuned with their religious beliefs. Do you feel that culturally sensitive programs are effective in assisting Indian children and their

families, especially in dealing with sensitive issues like violence

and abuse?

Mr. LEWIS. Certainly I agree and the provision that you are proposing in your legislation is important in all Federal programming

that they take into account the cultural ways and mores and that

they allow that as part of the regulation of those particular programs, not just with these particular programs and providing access to traditional healing but also if you look at the child welfare

laws, the Federal legislation that comes down to our level, the Bureau only more recently has yet to take into consideration the family and kinship system and allowing that as a way for us to provide

effective child welfare, mental health and substance abuse services.

We are sometimes limited in the usage of our funding because they

haven’t fully taken into account our kinship system. By that, I

mean about 95 percent of Hopi children moved from their homes

are placed within relative homes or clan homes, if you will. Sometimes the Bureau won’t allow us to provide funding to help provide

food for that family because that is not ‘‘under the Federal regulations.’’ They have to be licensed as a foster home.

Those are some of the ways where we need to allow the cultural

practices to be allowed to be part of our actual day to day practice

and that the funds follow that.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no appeal or something that can be addressed in dealing with that problem, that they are not licensed as

a home but they are still related and want to take care of those

kids?

Mr. LEWIS. I am sure if Chairman Taylor was here, he would

laugh and say that is why we sent Mark up here to kind of rebel

rouse and I am sure my colleagues from the Bureau and IHS can

attest to that. They are tired of hearing me at the regional levels.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not tired of hearing it, I think it is a very

good point.
36

Mr. LEWIS. So simultaneously I think our strategy is to come

here and continue to advocate that but on behalf of our kids, we

have done our best effort to try and encourage and influence families, the relative caretakers, to go ahead and get the foster care license even though they don’t want it. They just want to take care

of their kin but we have had to work very hard to encourage them

to just get licensed so we can provide you with some funding. We

will continue to advocate these issues here as well.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it difficult to get licensed?

Mr. LEWIS. Sometimes it is and you have to go through a number

of background checks and families just want to take care of their

kids and need money to help pay for food. I those are wonderful

questions I am glad you asked. If you look in our written testimony, to bring home the point of social services, people have forgotten, at least for Arizona, 638 tribes are the primary funder, the primary regulator of child welfare services. They have come out with

these new regulations in 2000. The problem is in theory, they are

okay but they never consulted Indian Health Services and never

consulted Bureau of Education and they are requiring us to have

all those people help fund a portion of a child’s cost if they have

to go into residential treatment but those regulations are not binding on IHS, nor are they binding on Education and both will tell

you they have no money, yet we are still out of compliance with

the Bureau because of those specific social services regulations.

Again, it is an example of a lack of meaningful consultation and

collaboration between those three entities and then imposing it on

tribal programs such as ours. It is very difficult to be in compliance

with those. The money, we can’t use it.

The CHAIRMAN. That means in some cases a youngster would be

taken out of the family and would be put into a home as a first

priority but the family that would want to take care of him often

cannot? I am not a child psychologist but it wouldn’t seem to me

that is in the best interest of the child.

Mr. LEWIS. It is not in the best interest of the child but sometimes it is in the best interest of the child to put somebody in a

professional treatment facility because the extended family are kin

that are willing to take them in are maybe as dysfunctional as the

family they come from. That is where it is key and it is critical.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for that insight.

Terry, thank you for your testimony. In your written testimony,

your concerns related to the data reporting of child abuse and neglect and recommended technical assistance provided in this area.

From your perspective, what infrastructure do tribes need to develop an effective reporting and data collecting system?

Mr. CROSS. First of all, it is access or the capability to have a

management information system to track and record that information and then report it so the development of technology. Also, the

technical assistance with which to develop their own fields for

those management information systems, the words they use for

how they are defining abuse and neglect or how they are defining

family an all those are things that have to be developed locally but

in a framework that can be translated to a central database. We

are working on a project funded by ACF to demonstrate with five

tribes how that can be done.
37

The CHAIRMAN. You say in your testimony that about 61 percent

of the incidents are reported to a national database. Is that correct?

Mr. CROSS. Those are the cases that make it into the NCANDS

database through the State systems.

The CHAIRMAN. So you do support having Indian children reported to the NCANDS database?

Mr. CROSS. I do because that is the central database that measures trends nationally. To create a system parallel to that would

be one more layer. It is an ongoing, funded program in the Federal

Government that Indian tribes should have access to just like

States.

The CHAIRMAN. You are from Portland, correct?

Mr. CROSS. That’s right.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there data available to the extent of Indian

kids living in Portland, urban Indian kids?

Mr. CROSS. There is not good data available for urban Indian

children. There is a tremendous under count in the urban centers

largely because Indian children are often not identified even for

purposes of ICWA in State systems.

The CHAIRMAN. Also, in your testimony you mention that some

tribes have a memoranda of understanding with Federal and State

agencies to ensure that all appropriate agencies respond to incidents of child abuse. Do most in your State have that agreement?

Mr. CROSS. They do. As I mentioned the local protocol agreements, when you have a reservation that is checkerboarded or

where you in a 280-State and there is the sharing of jurisdiction,

there are tribal police, county sheriffs and the FBI, if those agencies don’t come together, put down on paper and sit down at the

table together and discuss who is going to do what when, historically cases of abused children just fall through the cracks and nobody responded. Unfortunately there is not enough of those agreements because they are complex to put together and they end up

being caught up in other kinds of politics like water rights, taxation or just getting people to sit down at the table with one another to work out those things can be very difficult.

The CHAIRMAN. In some cases, we have looked into trying to consolidate Federal programs to decrease duplication to get a better

result for the money we have appropriated. Are there any other

Federal programs that you think could be a model that would be

applicable to abuse, neglect, alcoholism related problems that we

could look at here?

Mr. CROSS. Earlier you mentioned resources in your questions.

One of the major issues is if we just had access to the entitlements

that all children have, title 4(e) being the major one. As you know,

we have a bill pending right now to get tribes direct access to Title

4(e). That would be the biggest thing to happen to tribal child welfare since the Indian Child Welfare Act.

It would provide resources to tribes and those tribes who have

agreements are tapping into those resources somewhat but many

tribes only get the foster care payment and don’t get the caseworker dollars, don’t get the recordkeeping dollars, don’t get the

training dollars associated with 4(e). If that alone was corrected, it

would make a huge dent in this.
38

The formula distribution of funds under CAPTA to States is very

small. I understand recently two States turned back their money

because the mandates were too stringent for them to take for

$200,000. I think HHS ought to give any money turned back by

States to the tribes to do prevention work.

The major concern I would have in consolidating funding across

programs is that when it is child abuse and neglect, you have to

be careful to ensure the provision of that service for children and

somehow protect those dollars from being drained off into other important priorities of the tribe.

One of the ways in general that the Federal Government enforces

policy is through its power of the purse strings and saying you can

have this money if you, meet certain conditions. As a child advocate, I need to say it is important to say to everyone, you can have

these Federal dollars if you protect your children. I want to make

sure in any creative solutions we come to, that those services currently available and any future services might be available for children are protected in some way.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is all the questions I have. Other

members may have questions and they will submit them in writing

to you. Senator Inouye probably does.

I appreciate your being here and as I told the first witnesses, if

you have some suggestions on how we can improve this bill—and

we have been jotting down a few of them that we got from your

testimony today—I certainly would appreciate your supplying

them. We are going to keep open the record for about 2 weeks and

if you could forward any suggestions to us, we are going to try to

mark this bill up in October as I mentioned.

Thank you so much for being here and the committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
(39)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII, VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

I am pleased to join my chairman today in receiving testimony on a bill to reauthorize the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Act. Surely, there can be

no more precious resource than our children.

It is essential that we work together to assure that the children of Indian country

are protected from abuse, and that we continue to improve upon our data collection

efforts as well as our ability to track those who have abused children in the past

and who are looking for havens in Indian country, so that we may 1 day be able

to eliminate this scourge from the lives of those we hold so dear.

I am glad to see that the departments who will present testimony to the committee today support the reauthorization of this important act.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARLAND BRUNOE, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF

THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Garland Brunoe, chairman of the

tribal council of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of S. 1601, the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2003.

In presenting this testimony, I would like to acknowledge Warm Springs Tribal

Judge Lola Sohappy, who is very involved in child welfare on our reservation, an

active member of the National Indian Child Welfare Association, and who has been

communicating with your staff regarding this legislation.

The 650,000 acre Warm Springs Reservation in north Central Oregon is the home

of about 3,287 of our 4,160 tribal members. Additionally we estimate about 950 nonmembers also reside on our reservation. Within our residential population, 1,617 of

our tribal members, or close to 40 percent, are younger than 18 years old.

Like many reservations, our communities are rural, and individual residences are

often isolated. Economic opportunities are limited, and unemployment and poverty

are well above national averages by almost any measure. So, too, are substance

abuse and violence, including family violence. When much of your population is

young, that violence all too often involves children.

Unfortunately, this applies at Warm Springs. In 2002, 402 Warm Springs children

were placed in custody of Warm Springs Child Protection Services [CPS] by tribal

court order. This is 25 percent of all our children. For 2003, we project 460 children

will be in the custody of CPS, a 14-percent increase from 2002.

Our tribe is doing all we can to address this very serious issue. While our basic

capacity in this field is strained, we are trying to make use of our unique circumstances.

Our population is not large, and because Warm Springs is exempt for Public Law

280 and our reservation is almost a solid block of tribal trust land, we exercise ex-
40

clusive jurisdiction over our tribal child welfare cases. We have our own Child Protective Services agency, and do not have to rely on the State for case management,

investigations, and other services. Without the competing demands of State regulation, we 1 are able to craft our policies and actions in a manner that is sensitive

to the needs of our own community.

While we exercise our own jurisdiction, we do try to work closely with the State

of Oregon. Warm Springs is one of the few tribes nationwide that has developed a

tribal-State title IV–e foster care maintenance payment agreement with the State

of Oregon that allows the tribe to receive Federal funds for maintenance payments

for children placed in foster care. The agreement also allows the tribe to receive an

administrative match for services, training, and associated expenses for children

qualifying for IV–e support. This allows the tribe to participate on the same footing

as a State in developing and maintaining a foster care program for tribal children

rather than placing them in the custody of the state for these services.

Warm Springs still has an array of jurisdictional issues with which we must deal.

Criminal child abuse actions by non-Indians must be addressed by the State. When

Federal crimes are specifically identified, be they Indian or non-Indian related, the

Federal Bureau of Investigation must be called in. And because Warm Springs children attend local public schools, any child abuse or neglect issues identified there

are reported first to, the county, and only thereafter to our Child Protective Services

or the Warm Springs Police Department.

Jurisdictional issues are complicated and not easy to resolve, but improved communication and coordination can help. Accordingly, we strongly support section 4 of

S. 1601, which would require tribes to report non-Indians to State law enforcement

agencies in abuse or family violence occurrences where a criminal violation is indicated.

For similar reasons, we also support section 5, directing a study of impediments

to the reduction of child abuse, including intergovernmental and Jurisdictional impediments.

We strongly support the various ways in which the act is expanded. Section 3 extends the ‘‘child abuse’’ definition to children subjected to family violence. Section

6 includes Federal and tribal contract and volunteer personnel in background

checks, and makes those investigations tougher. Section 7 extends applicability of

IHS treatment grants to all child abuse victims, not just sexual abuse victims. And

the addition of the Department of Justice in the staffing and operation of the Regional Resource Centers, as provided in section 8, will advance communication, cooperation, and successful prosecution of child abuse matters.

The clarification and extension of responsibilities are also applied to tribes, which

we agree is essential. Section 9 requires that tribes operating their own Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention program under a contract from the BIA

must clearly designate responsibility for child abuse case coordination and reporting, and for the treatment and prevention of child abuse. The section further helps

tribally operated programs by authorizing tribes to provide training for any required

child protection certifications, to help ensure the safety of child protection workers

while on the job, and to improve data systems for case and program monitoring and

evaluation. Annual tribal program reports to the Interior Secretary would also have

to include information on training, threats to worker safety, and community outreach and awareness efforts.

But more than anything else, the overall reauthorization of the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act, and its funding, is essential.

Child abuse and family violence continue to devastate Indian communities. Because these problems tend to occur in private and the victims are frightened and

silent, they do not attract much public attention. But their consequences are far

reaching and long lasting. At Warm Springs, as I noted earlier, children in custody

of our Child Protection Services this year are projected to increase by 14 percent

from 2002. For last year, 2002, our Police Department reported 338 child abuse and

50 family violence cases opened for investigation for criminal charges, an increase

of 29 percent from 2001 for these two types of violence. I should note that some of

this increase should be attributable to improved data collection started in 2002. But

in any event, whether the real increase might have been 10 percent or 15 percent

or more, the fact remains we experienced a significant jump in the level of child

abuse and family violence. At least at Warm Springs, and most probably nationwide, child protection and family violence prevention absolutely requires increased

attention and assistance.

Because child abuse and family violence are often hidden from view and their consequences can be so personal and profound, child protection and the prevention of

associated family violence is very labor intensive. Abused or neglected children require attentive and careful handling. Their family situations can often be explosive.
41

At Warm Springs, in addition to our Child Protective Services agency, child protective activities significantly involve the tribal police, the tribal court, tribal prosecution, community services, and medical personnel including mental health practitioners and physicians experienced in child abuse forensics.

But the leading agency that ties these diverse function together is Child Protective Services. CPS has a multi-faceted and complicated task. It must investigate

child abuse charges, it must remove children, it must temporarily shelter abused

children, and find short term and long term foster residences, which must be monitored. Currently, Warm Springs CPS maintains 40 foster homes. CPS must provide

for the direct needs of the child, including medical, counseling, and treatment needs,

the child’s clothing and education, and even, if needed, transportation to appointments. And CPS is also responsible for working to reunite the family, including all

family counseling activities. CPS must be engaged with the prosecution of child

abuse-related criminal charges. And throughout all this, they must meet rigorous

reporting requirements. At Warm Springs, where CPS will have a projected 460

children under its custody this year, the regular CPS staff totals about 15 personnel,

including 4 case workers, each of whom must handle more than 110 cases a year.

We also engage seven full time Protective Care Providers to operate our 24 hour

Emergency Shelter.

Clearly, our child protection capacity at Warm Springs desperately needs attention and assistance, almost across the board. But based on our own circumstance,

areas of particular need include an additional Warm Springs police investigator and

tribal prosecutor to develop and try solid child abuse cases against adults. We need

improved access to examinations and forensic interviewing in sexual abuse cases,

and because of the traumatic nature of child abuse, mental health and follow-on

care need to be significantly expanded. Juvenile Services needs support. And we

need training for our CPS staff. We also need a means of capturing and interpreting

data.

Mr. Chairman, this is a long list just from our tribe. But it serves to highlight

the level of attention that Indian child protection and family violence prevention

needs nationwide. S. 1601 is an essential step in meeting that challenge, and the

Warm Springs Tribes support it and urge the committee to approve it.

Thank you. That concludes my testimony. I shall be pleased to respond to any

questions.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110

Æ