-

-

-

This project was supported, in whole or in part, by grant number 2011-CK-WX-0115 awarded by the U.S. Depart 

ment of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. The opinions contained herein are those of the 

author(s) or contributor(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department 

of Justice. References to specific individuals, agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered 

an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supple 

ment discussion of the issues. 

The internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of publication. Given that URLs and web 

sites are in constant flux, neither the author(s) nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity. 

Recommended citation: 

Proctor, Amy L., and Candice McCollum. 2018. Perceptions of Methamphetamine in Indian Country: Interviews 

with Service Providers in Ten Western Tribes. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

Published 2018 


Table of Contents 

Letter from the Director....................................................... 

..........................................................

............................................................... 

........................................................... 

......................................... 

.......................................... 

v
 

Executive Summary vii
 

Introduction 1
 

Literature Review 3
 

Defining Native Americans and Indian country 3
 

Nature and extent of crime in Indian country 4
 

Indian country jurisdiction ....................................................... 

........................................................ 

................................... 

................................. 

..................................................................

...................................................................

................................................................

................................................................. 

................................................................ 

................................................................

........................................................

5
 

Policing in Indian country 6
 

Methamphetamine and other drugs in Indian country 7
 

Effects of drug abuse on Native children in Indian country 8
 

Methods 11
 

Results 13
 

Conclusion 21
 

Limitations 22
 

Implications 23
 

References 25
 

About the COPS Office 27
 

 

Letter from the Director
 

Colleagues:
 

As the opioid drug crisis ravages communities across the nation and grips the media’s attention, a less well-known 


but equally pernicious drug epidemic is devastating Native American communities: addiction to methamphetamines.
 

Though methamphetamines are the drugs most commonly abused in tribal lands, use of opioids is a growing 


problem too. So too is alcohol abuse. And the results—lost lives, increased crime, broken homes, and child 


neglect—are horrific. 


As you will see in the following pages, the drug cartels which are fueling the drug abuse epidemic in communities 


across our country are also hard at work in tribal lands. The trafficking and distribution of methamphetamines 


and other dangerous drugs continues unabated. However, there are policies and practices that can be employed to 


fight them, and they are detailed in this report on the Tribal Methamphetamine Initiative. 


Based on interviews with 29 law enforcement professionals and social service providers who live or work in tribal 


lands, the report offers important insights and practical recommendations for prevention, treatment, and 


response to this crisis. In doing so, it also describes the challenges faced by criminal justice, social services, Indian 


Child Welfare, and mental/behavioral health professionals.
 

This report offers an eye opening look at the devastating spread of drug abuse in tribal lands, but it also offers 


hope for change. On behalf of the COPS Office, I thank Dr. Proctor and Ms. McCollum for their efforts in not 


only bringing the extent of this problem to our attention but also describing strategies for combatting it. Our 


thanks also go to the providers from ten western tribes who participated in the interviews contained in this report 


and whose insights inform many of its recommendations.
 

Sincerely, 


Phil Keith, Director 


Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
 

v 

Executive Summary 

The purpose of this report is to examine the impacts of the trafficking, distribution, and use of methamphetamines and other dangerous drugs in Indian country and across the nation. It also provides an accounting of 

the needs and challenges of providers in the areas of criminal justice, social services, Indian child welfare, and 

mental and behavioral health. Key findings include the following: 

Methamphetamine continues to be a significant problem in Indian country. 

Abuse of controlled prescription drugs is on the rise, and they could soon surpass methamphetamine as 

the drugs of choice in Indian country. 

Law enforcement officials reported that drugs are being trafficked to their areas by large non-Native drug 

trafficking organizations with international ties. 

Seventy percent of respondents stated that casinos located in their jurisdictions are being used to facilitate 

drug sales and sex trafficking by organized criminal gangs. 

High rates of larceny/theft, burglary, sexual assault, sex trafficking, and child and elder abuse and neglect 

were identified by law enforcement to be directly associated with the distribution and use of methamphetamine by Native Americans in Indian country. 

Law enforcement respondents reported that their greatest challenge was a lack of community support and 

resources, namely manpower, necessary to fulfill their duties. 

An overall theme from agencies that provide substance abuse treatment was a lack of detoxification centers 

needed for clients to be admitted to drug treatment centers. 

Social service providers reported that they lack funds to fulfill the needs of the clients they serve, such as 

housing, clothing, food, baby supplies, and health and hygiene products. 

vii 

The distribution and 

trafficking of meth in 

Indian country has 

been a major concern 

of tribal law enforcement 

since at least 2006, when 

seventy-four percent of 

the respondents to a 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

survey indicated that of 

all drugs, meth posed 

the greatest threat to 

their community. 

Introduction
 

Many Native Americans in tribes across the nation are experiencing adverse 

effects from the distribution, trafficking, and use of methamphetamine 

(meth). These effects may be primarily individual, such as addiction or the 

displacement of children from homes where meth is being used, sold, or 

manufactured; or may afflict the tribe at large, such as higher crime rates 

associated with drug sales or the presence of international drug trafficking 

organizations (DTOs, also known as drug cartels) and the criminal gangs they 

work with (National Drug Intelligence Center 2011). These problems are not 

new, but they are straining an already burdened tribal law enforcement and 

damaging the people who reside in Indian country (National Congress of 

American Indians 2006). 

The distribution and trafficking of meth in Indian country has been a major 

concern of tribal law enforcement since at least 2006 (Evans 2006), when 

seventy-four percent of the respondents to a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

survey indicated that of all drugs, meth posed the greatest threat to their 

community. They further indicated that meth in both crystal and powder form 

was moderately available in the communities they served. The majority of the 

responding agencies also responded that meth distribution was moderate to high 

in their communities and that criminal gangs were responsible for at least some 

distribution in their service areas. A smaller sample noted the role of Mexican 

DTOs in meth distribution in their areas (Evans 2006). However, in its most 

recent assessment of the drug threat in the United States, the Department of 

Justice National Drug Intelligence Center (2011) has stated that Mexican DTOs 

are responsible for the majority of the methamphetamine smuggled into and 

distributed in the United States. Even when criminal street gangs are involved in 

the distribution, the Mexican DTOs continue to be the main supplier (National 

Drug Intelligence Center 2011). 

1 
In 2009, the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs heard 

testimony from several different tribes concerning the problem 

of drug smuggling and gang activity in Indian country. The 

committee heard from tribal leaders, tribal and federal law 

enforcement, treatment providers, U.S. Attorneys General, 

and even former gang members concerning their experiences 

with the use, trafficking, distribution, and treatment of meth, 

as well as gang activity in Indian country (Examining Drug 

Smuggling 2009). Testimonies of law enforcement officials 

revealed the presence of DTOs in Indian country, specifically 

Mexican DTOs. At that time the committee asked if there was 

any evidence, other than anecdotal, that could be offered to 

substantiate such claims. Arnold Moorin, director of the High 

Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program at the White House 

Office of National Drug Control Policy, stated that research 

would have to be conducted to produce the empirical evidence 

needed to inform the committee of the nature and extent of the 

problem. Committee chair Senator Byron Dorgan asked Director Moorin to work with the committee to get “a base of information about what is happening with the drug cartels targeting 

Indian reservations” (Examining Drug Smuggling 2009). He 

went on to say that he was reluctant to increase funding to 

tribes to combat violence and other issues with meth and drug 

cartels until the committee had empirical evidence of the problem. 

This research is one step toward providing such empirical 

evidence. Law enforcement and social service representatives 

from 10 tribes across the western United States participated in 

face-to-face interviews to provide data regarding their perceptions of the trafficking, distribution, and use of meth and its 

effects on their respective communities. 

2 PERCEPTIONS OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN INDIAN COUNTRY 
Collecting crime data 

regarding Native 

Americans is hampered by 

the difficulty of determining who qualifies as Native 

American for reporting 

purposes and what 

constitutes Indian country. 

Literature Review
 

Defining Native Americans and indian country 

There is no singular criterion for determining who is considered Native 

American. “As a general rule, it is defined as someone who has blood degree 

from and is recognized as such by a federally recognized tribe or village (as an 

enrolled member) and/or the United States” (Bureau of Indian Affairs 2018). 

Each tribe retains the power to determine membership requirements. These 

requirements may be based on blood quantum, knowledge of the tribe’s 

history, language, culture, or any other factors defined by the Tribal government. Because race is a social construct and often determined by an individual’s self-reporting status, determining an exact number of Native Americans 

living in the United States is impossible. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 

however, in 2014 the population of American Indian/Alaska Natives reporting 

one race was approximately 2.5 million. An additional 2.1 million American 

Indian/Alaska Natives self-reported as biracial (U.S. Census Bureau 2014). 

Indian country is defined by the Federal government as “(a) all land within the 

limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way 

running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within 

the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently 

acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, 

and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same” (18 U.S.C. §1151). 

This definition includes all federal reservations, villages, missions, rancherias, 

and allotted and restricted lands. This jurisdictional fragmentation makes the 

collection of crime data in Indian country extremely difficult, particularly if the 

tribe under consideration does not have a tribal law enforcement agency or tribal 

court system to keep track of crimes committed or adjudicated on its lands. 

3 
Nature and extent of crime in indian country 

Collecting crime data regarding Native Americans is hampered 

by the difficulty of determining who qualifies as Native American for reporting purposes and what constitutes Indian country. 

Historically, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has 

overseen the collection of crime statistics nationwide. The FBI 

relies on the voluntary submission of crime data from law 

enforcement agencies; however, tribal agencies are not required 

to report and many are not equipped to do so. It was not until 

the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) of 2010 that any meaningful efforts were made to improve measures of crime in 

Indian country. The TLOA allocated funds and training for 

tribal agencies to aid in the collection and reporting of crime 

data in Indian country. 

In 2010, there were 566 tribal entities in the United States 

eligible for funding and services from the BIA and 334 federally 

and state recognized reservations (Perry 2015). “Prior to 2008, 

the FBI’s Crime in the United States report combined most 

reports from tribal law enforcement agencies into a general 

grouping under the BIA” (Perry 2015, 1). In 2008, only 12 tribal 

law enforcement agencies reported 12 months of complete data 

to the Uniform Crime Report. Under the TLOA, reporting by 

tribal law enforcement has grown, and by 2013 a total of 158 

tribal law enforcement agencies reported 12 months of complete crime data. 

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Tribal Law and 

Order Data Collection Activities (2012), there were a total 17,000 

violent crimes and 54,000 property crimes reported by 158 

tribal law enforcement between 2008 and 2010. Of the 17,000 

violent crimes, aggravated assault constituted 77 percent of total 

incidents, followed by forcible rape (15 percent), robbery (5 

percent), and criminal homicide (3 percent). Out of the 54,000 

property crimes the majority were larceny/theft (55 percent), 

followed by burglary (26 percent), motor vehicle theft (14 

percent), and arson (5 percent). These statistics provide some 

much-needed information about crime in Indian country, 

however, the information is incomplete, as it only includes 

information from the 158 tribes who participated and only 

includes crimes known to police. Victimization surveys may 

provide more information about the nature and extent of 

crime in Indian country. 

Victimization surveys regarding the Native American population overall have found that, in every age group below 35 years 

old, Native Americans suffer higher rates of violent victimization than any other racial or ethnic group (Perry 2004). Across 

all age groups, according to the National Crime Victimization 

Survey (NCVS), Native Americans experience a per capita rate 

of violence twice the rate of the U.S. population. Among Native 

Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 years old, the rate of 

violent victimization was more than two and a half times the 

rate for all persons the same age. Among Native Americans, 

men were more likely to be victims of crime than were women. 

The rate of violent victimization among Native American 

women, however, was more than double that among all women. 

Moreover, Native American women suffer the second-highest 

rates of homicide (after African-American women) and higher 

rates of rape, sexual assault, and physical assault than AfricanAmerican and Caucasian women (Bachman et al. 2008; Perry 

2004). Furthermore, Native Americans of both genders were 

more likely than other groups to be physically or sexually 

assaulted by a stranger or acquaintance (as opposed to an 

intimate partner or family member) (Perry 2004, 8). 

Yuan, Koss, Polacca, and Goldman (2006) in their study across 

six Native American tribes also found that rates of physical 

assault and rape were significantly higher than those for the 

general population. Forty-five percent of their sample of Native 

American women reported being physically abused as an adult; 

14 percent reported they had been victims of rape. Thirty-eight 

percent of Native men reported being physically assaulted and 

2 percent were reportedly raped since age 18 (Yuan et al. 2006, 

1566). The strongest predictors of violent victimization among 

4 PERCEPTIONS OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN INDIAN COUNTRY 
their sample included marital status,1

 lifetime alcohol dependence, and childhood maltreatment including physical, sexual, 

emotional, abuse and physical neglect. 

Another source of data regarding crime in Indian country is 

the number of cases filed in the Federal court system for prosecution by U.S. Attorneys General. According to the most recent 

data available, the number of concluded cases (those successfully adjudicated) in Indian country increased over the past 

several years, reaching approximately 13 to 18 percent for the 

period 2009 to 2011 (Adams, Samuels, and Kelly 2015). Sixtytwo percent of all Indian country matters that were concluded 

were violent crimes. Murder and sexual assault together comprised two-thirds of those violent crimes with assault comprising 

the remaining one-third. Property crimes made up approximately 

12 percent of all cases, followed by drug crimes at 10 percent, 

public order offenses at 8 percent, immigration offenses at 

8 percent, and the remaining 4 percent a miscellany of minor 

offenses. Additionally, the number of prosecutorial declinations 

of crimes originating from Indian country declined from 38 percent in 2009 to 34 percent in 2011 (Adams, Samuels, and Kelly 

2015). The implications of the number of prosecutorial declinations are discussed in further detail in the following section. 

1. “Women who were in cohabitating relationships, separated, or divorced were reported to be at greater risk of being assaulted into adulthood” 

(Yuen et al. 2006, 1581). 

LITERATURE REVIEW 5 

indian country jurisdiction 

Congress has acted on several occasions to limit tribal sovereignty in the context of criminal jurisdiction. These include the 

Major Crimes Act of 1885 (MCA), the Indian Country Crimes 

Act (ICCA), 18 U.S.C. §1153, and the Indian Civil Rights Act 

of 1968 (ICRA) (Kronk 2006). Additionally, the United State 

Supreme Court’s 1978 decision in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian 

Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, removed tribal jurisdiction over non–Native 

Americans, placing jurisdiction over non–Native American 

offenders who offend against Native Americans, in Indian 

country, into the hands of the Federal government (Kronk 

2006). These measures have tied the hands of Tribal governments in effectively managing crime in Indian country. 

This expansion of Federal jurisdiction over crimes in Indian 

country is complicated by the number of prosecutorial declinations. Hundreds of cases in Indian country—the numbers 

reported range from 34 percent of cases (Adams, Samuels, and 

Kelly 2015) to 65 percent (Owens 2012)—are dismissed from 

prosecution by the Federal government. Federal prosecutors’ 

most commonly cited reason for declining to prosecute was 

reported to be “insufficient evidence,” followed by “lack of 

criminal intent” and, finally, “witness problems” (Adams, Samuels, and Kelly 2015, 21). In contrast, only 15 percent of all 

Federal cases were declined for prosecution (Motivans 2015). 

“Substantive criminal offenses and punishments in Indian 

country cases are determined according to two Federal statutes, 

the Major Crimes Act [MCA] and Indian Country Crimes Act 

[ICCA]. Both only apply to Indian country and solely in cases 

where Native Americans are involved” (Eid and Doyle 2010, 

1097). The MCA applies to only certain major crimes, all felonies under 18 U.S.C. §1661: murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, 

maiming, sexual abuse, incest, assault with intent to commit 

murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in 

serious bodily injury, assault against an individual under 16, 

arson, burglary, robbery, embezzlement, and theft (18 U.S.C. 

§1153). The ICCA grants the Federal government authority to 

prosecute all general federal crimes in Indian country. It applies 

to interracial crimes in which either the defendant or the victim 

is Native American, and allows for concurrent jurisdiction by 

the tribal court in a criminal prosecution when the offender is 

Native American. 

The ICRA, written to apply the protections of the Bill of Rights 

to Indian country, had a substantial impact on the scope of 

tribal enforcement authority in criminal matters by limiting the 

sentences that could be applied by tribal courts. When federal 

prosecutors decline to prosecute a major crime and the tribe 

subsequently decides to exercise concurrent jurisdiction, the 

ICRA restricts the tribal court’s authority to adequately punish 

the offender (Owens 2012). Originally, tribes were limited to 
sentences of only one year in prison and minimal fines. The 

provisions concerning punishment, however, were changed 

with the passing of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 

(TLOA). This act was designed to strengthen tribal law enforcement and allow tribes to prosecute and prevent crime more 

effectively (Perry 2015). The measure deputized Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys to prosecute crimes committed in Indian 

country in Federal courts. It also gave greater authority to tribes 

to hold perpetrators accountable, increasing the maximum 

sentence tribal courts can enact to three years of incarceration, 

a fine up to $15,000.00, or both. These provisions are designed 

to increase communication between tribal law enforcement, 

Federal authorities, and the court system (Rosenthal 2010). Rod 

Robinson, the Director of the Office of Indian Alcohol and 

Substance Abuse (OIASA), praised the legislation as “the most 

critical opportunity created in the last two decades to improve 

services and acquire critical resources to improve tribal communities” (Conway 2013, 3). TLOA will delineate services 

offered and needs that tribes have identified into a unified 

collaborative effort—a move that has been very slow in coming 

and will hopefully allow tribes some freedom to incorporate 

traditions and customs back into their judicial system. 

Title IX of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 

2013 (VAWA) allows tribes to assert jurisdiction “to investigate, 

prosecute, convict, and sentence” both Native Americans and 

non-Natives who assault Native “spouses or dating partners or 

violate a protection order in Indian country.” Moreover, under 

Section 906 of Title IX of VAWA, offenders convicted in tribal 

courts are subject to the same penalties allowed under Federal 

law. This means offenders, both Native and non-Native, may 

face up to 20 years for crimes of violence (i.e., physical assault 

and sexual assault) perpetrated against Native Americans. This 

is a significant step toward restoring tribal self-governance and 

returning the ability to effectively combat crime against Native 

peoples to their proper tribal authorities. 

Policing in indian country 

Tribal law enforcement is a necessity borne out of the U.S. Federal 

government’s removal of many Native Americans to reservations (Perry 2009; Wells and Falcone 2008). According to Wells 

and Falcone, “[T]he creation of the Federal reservation system 

made implementation of local Native based police forces an 

invaluable, cost effective, non-military method for maintaining 

social order within Indian reservations” (p. 649). In short, the 

Federal government did not want the responsibility or the expense 

of providing law enforcement on Indian reservations. As such, 

it allowed many tribes to establish law enforcement agencies, 

tribal courts, and correctional facilities with jurisdiction solely 

over crimes involving Native Americans in Indian country. 

Traditionally, elders and the community joined together in 

administering tribal justice using social and religious pressure 

to ensure compliance by Tribal members. Until the middle of 

this century, few Indian tribes maintained a formal court system; emphasis was on restitution and restoration, rather than on 

punishment. This system of tribal self-governance was nearly 

eliminated during the Assimilation and Allotment Era (1887– 

1943), when large portions of Indian country were destroyed 

and lands relegated to non-Native land owners. The Allotment 

Era created a patchwork of jurisdictions in Indian country and 

further complicated jurisdictional issues between federal, tribal, 

and state agencies. Tribal justice systems were further damaged 

by the passage of PL 83-280, which abolished Federal jurisdiction of Indian country in certain states and relegated matters of 

law and justice to already overburdened state and local governments2

 (Wells and Falcone 2008, 649-650). 

2. PL 83-208 conferred complete jurisdiction to six state governments: California, Minnesota (except Red Lake Reservation), Nebraska, 

Oregon (except Warm Springs Reservation), Wisconsin, and Alaska. It allowed nine other states to acquire optional jurisdiction in whole 

or in part over Indian country within their boundaries: Nevada, Idaho, Iowa, Washington, South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota, Arizona, 

and Utah (Perry 2015, 1). 

As a result of this history, the system of jurisdiction in Indian 

country is “almost impossibly complex” (Wells and Falcone 

2008, 650). In general, policing in Indian country falls under 

one of three categories: tribal (sovereign), federal (BIA), or 

non-Native (local). Funding of tribal agencies is also a complex 

6 PERCEPTIONS OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN INDIAN COUNTRY 
matter. Sovereign tribal agencies are primarily funded by the 

tribe and sometimes through Federal grant monies through the 

Department of Justice. BIA agencies are administered by the BIA’s 

Office of Justice Services (OJS) and are funded by the Federal 

government under the Department of the Interior. Non-Native 

local agencies are funded by state, county, or municipal agencies. Some agencies are funded partially by the tribe and partially by the BIA under the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act of 1975 (PL93-683), which provides 

federal funding of, but local tribal control over, the implementation of police forces in Native communities (Wells and Falcone 2008). 

In addition to these jurisdictional issues, tribal law enforcement 

is also hindered by a lack of officers. On tribal lands, there are 

approximately 1.3 police officers per 1,000 tribal citizens, compared to 2.9 per 1,000 in non-tribal areas with comparable populations (under 10,000). It has been estimated that there is 

a 42 percent unmet staffing need among tribal law enforcement 

agencies. For example, the Oglala Sioux Tribe’s Department 

of Public Safety consists of fewer than 100 sworn officers 

serving 40,000 residents over almost 2 million acres of land, 

while Navajo Nation has approximately 200 full-time officers to 

patrol a reservation the size of West Virginia. “It is extremely 

difficult for 2-3 officers to cover an area the size of a small state” 

(National Congress of American Indians 2006). 

When law enforcement agencies are understaffed, it is impossible for them to engage in proactive policing efforts. Proactive 

policing is defined as strategies intended to prevent crime. When 

there is a lack of law enforcement, police can only be reactive; 

meaning they are responding to calls for service. Proactive 

policing allows law enforcement to address the potential for 

crime before it happens. It includes things like problemoriented policing, police-initiated neighborhood watch programs, school resource officers, etc. 

One way tribes compensate for the lack of adequate law enforcement is through cross-deputization agreements with non-tribal 

law enforcement agencies at the state and local levels. Crossdeputization agreements allow non-tribal law enforcement to 

cross jurisdiction, when the need arises, until appropriate law 

enforcement arrives. For example, the Cherokee Nation is 

composed of 14 contiguous counties encompassing approximately 9,000 square miles. With only 33 Cherokee Nation 

Marshals to cover the area, they rely on cooperative partnerships with 56 criminal jurisdictions at the local and state levels 

to help meet the needs of the Cherokee people. 

Not all tribal law enforcement agencies have these agreements, 

however. Many tribes consider not only cross-deputization but 

all such cooperative agreements to encroach on tribal sovereignty, arguing that outside agencies will take advantage of any 

access to tribal land. Proponents, on the other hand, argue that 

the absence of such agreements puts the safety of tribal citizens 

at risk and invites criminals onto reservations where they are 

beyond the reach of state and local laws and officials. For 

example, bilateral extradition agreements, which provide for 

the surrender of persons accused of crimes under the laws of 

the requesting state or tribe, require broader cooperative agreements for their execution. Without some level of shared access 

and jurisdiction, criminals are able to commit crime in one jurisdiction and flee to the other without fear of being apprehended 

or pursued. This means that the reservation may become a 

safe haven for non-Native drug traffickers and other criminals, 

over whom tribal law enforcement has no jurisdiction, fleeing 

state law enforcement agencies. It can be argued that these gaps 

in law enforcement and jurisdiction draw organized crime and 

criminals to Indian country for the express purposes of committing crime under protection of law. 

Methamphetamine and other drugs 

in indian country 

Amphetamine was developed early in the 20th century by 

Japanese scientists. During World War II, it was used to treat 

fatigue in soldiers. It was used for medicinal purposes to treat 

hyperactivity, obesity, and other medical ailments. The drug, 

also known as “speed” or “uppers,” was popular among athletes, 

college students, motorcycle gangs, and truck drivers. In the 

1980s, the United States declared the key ingredient used to 

make amphetamine a controlled substance and put it under 

federal control. Cooks making the drug for Outlaw Motorcycle 

LITERATURE REVIEW 7 
Gangs (OMGs) discovered ephedrine, an ingredient in cold 

medicine, could be used to produce a related drug, twice as 

potent as amphetamine: methamphetamine, or crystal meth 

(Brownstein, Mulcahy, and Huessy 2014; Gilbreath 2015). The 

Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) soon cracked down on 

ephedrine, and in response methamphetamine cooks learned 

to make meth from its replacement in over-the-counter cold 

medicine, pseudoephedrine. Pseudoephedrine can be broken 

down into ephedrine, though the process requires highly 

flammable chemicals (Gilbreath 2015). Ephedrine was also 

supplied to OMG cooks by Mexican DTOs. 

By the 1990s, meth had begun to spread into rural communities 

in the west and Midwest, where most users could not afford the 

more expensive cocaine. In 2004, Mexico legally imported 224 

tons of pseudoephedrine, twice as much as needed to make cold 

medicine; the extra 100 tons was cooked into meth and smuggled into the United States. This was the purest meth to hit 

American streets; it brought about an increase in demand for 

the drug and a resurgence of the methamphetamine epidemic 

(Gilbreath 2014). 

Meth use is often accompanied by the use of other drugs. 

Research has found that meth users commonly use heroin or 

opioids to help bring them down from a high, while opioid and 

heroin users often use methamphetamine to enhance and 

prolong the effects of their euphoric highs (Lamonica and Boeri 

2012). (Opioids are synthetic drugs that possess narcotic properties similar to opiates, which are heroin and its derivatives.) 

According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 

people with abuse or dependence on other drugs (i.e., marijuana, meth, cocaine, or alcohol) are more likely to have heroin 

abuse or dependence. The survey also found that most people 

who reported using heroin were using at least three other drugs. 

Thus, the increase in opioid use has bolstered the use of meth. 

In 1995, the FDA approved the analgesic opioid OxyContin for 

pain related to cancer; however, it was quickly adopted, and 

aggressively marketed, for treating chronic non-cancer pain. 

Opioid prescriptions for pain in the United States nearly quadrupled from 1999 to 2013. By 2010, the misuse and abuse of 

prescription opioids, had become a national epidemic. 

The issue of substance abuse among Native Americans is not 

novel; however, the face of the issue is changing. Native Americans now experience the highest meth usage rates of any ethnic 

group in the nation (National Congress of American Indians 

2006). Meth is quickly replacing alcohol as the drug of choice 

on many reservations. An even more dangerous practice has 

emerged of mixing alcohol consumption with illegal substances. A 2009 report by the Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) stated that 11.7 

percent of Native Americans and Alaska Natives had used 

illicit drugs while consuming alcohol in the last 30 days. There 

are many reasons for the high rate of substance abuse, but the 

poverty and remoteness of many tribal communities play 

a large part. “Compared with the national average...American 

Indian or Alaska Native adolescents were twice as likely to 

be living in poverty (37.2 percent vs. 18.1 percent), and were 

more likely to live in non-metropolitan areas (50.1 percent vs. 

16.5 percent)” (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration 2011). 

Effects of drug abuse on Native 

children in indian country 

The greatest risk factor for a child being abused is living in a 

home with alcoholism or addiction: parents who have substance 

abuse problems are three times more likely to be reported for 

abuse and four times more likely to neglect their children than 

parents who do not have substance abuse issues (Bubar, 

Winokur, and Bartlemay 2007). Substance abuse by parents 

or other caretakers also endangers children in other ways, by 

exposing them to driving under the influence of drugs, interpersonal violence, parental neglect, and the environmental 

hazards of toxic methamphetamine labs (National Drug Intelligence Center 2011). All told, the Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal 

Court and Prosecutor’s Office reports that 98 percent of all 

8 PERCEPTIONS OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN INDIAN COUNTRY 
criminal, juvenile, minor-in-need-of-care, and involuntary 

commitment for mental health treatment cases are in some 

way substance abuse–related (Examining Drug Smuggling 

2009). Intervening to remove children from homes where 

they are drug-endangered causes its own harms and introduces new dangers. The fastest-growing and most vulnerable 

population in foster care is children under the age of three 

years who are removed due to parental maltreatment related 

to substance abuse. This age group accounts for 58.7 percent 

of the victims of parental maltreatment and 80 percent of its 

fatalities (Moriarty, 2012). 

Additionally, children whose parents have substance abuse 

issues have a higher likelihood of developing substance use 

problems themselves. In 2006, Chairwoman Wesley-Kitcheyan 

of the San Carlos Apache tribe in Arizona, testified before 

Congress that that approximately 60 percent of all babies born 

in 2004 to San Carlos tribal members were born addicted to 

methamphetamines; approximately 25 percent of pregnant 

women on the reservation tested positive for methamphetamine (The Problem of Methamphetamine 2006, 16). 

The cognitive, emotional, and behavioral problems exhibited by 

children growing up in drug environments leave them vulnerable for years to come. 

LITERATURE REVIEW 9 

History is fraught with 

examples of non-Native 

researchers ignoring 

fundamental rights of 

tribes and their members. 

Methods
 

A qualitative research design was used to gather information from tribal service providers concerning their perceptions of the problem of methamphetamine and other dangerous drugs in each of their jurisdictions. Qualitative 

research designs are best used to gain an in-depth look at the phenomena 

under investigation; they are often used when the population of interest is 

difficult to access, such as Native Americans living or working in Indian 

country. They are also used when the purpose of the research is to discover 

the perceptions and experiences of people from their own points of view. 

Qualitative research has often been more successful with Native Americans 

than quantitative research, which has been viewed as impersonal and 

intrusive (Harding et al. 2012; Sobeck, Chapleski, and Fisher 2003). 

For example, it has been argued that some of the most egregious harms committed against Native Americans have been at the hands of researchers who have 

exploited Native people for their own gain. History is fraught with examples of 

non-Native researchers ignoring fundamental rights of tribes and their members. Often the Native communities under study were not fully informed of the 

purposes of the study, deceived by researchers with ulterior motives, and never 

advised as to the final outcomes of the research. These abuses made many tribes 

distrust participating in research conducted by both Natives and non-Natives. In 

response, many tribes created research review boards to protect their members 

from being harmed by participation in research (Harding et al. 2012). 

Native Americans should be consulted and included as partners in research on 

their communities (Harding et al. 2012; Sobeck, Chapleski, and Fisher 2003). 

Those practices were followed in this study. Both the principal investigator and 

the research assistant are members of a federally recognized American Indian 

tribe with backgrounds in working with Native Americans. Furthermore, Native 

American professionals in the areas of law enforcement, social services, and 

11 
 

mental and behavioral health were consulted to aid in creating 

surveys and to provide input on how to best relate to professionals in their respective fields. 

Three semi-structured interview schedules were created: one 

for law enforcement, one for social services / Indian Child 

Welfare, and one for mental and behavioral health respondents. 

The use of semi-structured surveys allows for the use of 

prompts and probes, the reordering of questions, and the 

inclusion or exclusion of questions based upon information 

obtained in each individual interview and on the nature and 

tone of the interview itself. 

Twenty-three tribes were selected for possible inclusion in the 

study based on their geographic locations near known drug 

corridors or on being identified in national news coverage of 

meth in Indian country. All tribes were located in the Western 

United States. Each tribe was first sent an introduction letter 

describing the purpose of the research. If the tribe indicated, by 

returning the letter with the appropriate tribal official’s signature, that they were willing to participate, the research review 

process was then initiated: approval or permission was sought 

from the tribe’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) or other 

proper tribal authorities.3, 4

 Upon IRB approval, those stakeholders identified by the tribe as the proper contact persons 

were sent a copy of the initial recruitment letter and a consent 

letter. They were also informed that, should they choose to 

participate, the research team would contact them via telephone 

to set up a time and place for the interview. 

Once dates and times were scheduled, the research team met 

with the respondent and, upon respondents’ consent, commenced interviews following a semi-structured schedule. Ten 

out of the 23 tribes contacted chose to participate, a response 

rate of 43 percent. The final sample consisted of interviews with 

16 professionals from tribal law enforcement and 13 from social 

services, Indian Child Welfare (ICW), and mental and behavioral health. 

Upon arrival at the scheduled interview each participant was 

given another copy of the informed consent form to sign and 

given an opportunity to ask any questions or ultimately decline 

to participate. Participants were not compensated and all 

participants were promised confidentiality. Initially, the plan 

was to meet one-on-one with each respondent in a private area; 

however, several respondents asked to have a colleague participate or sit in. We obliged all such requests and asked that all 

respondents sign a consent form. On several occasions, an 

interview started with only one respondent and ended up with 

three or more. The principal investigator and research assistant 

took handwritten notes only—no recording devices were used. 

A total of 29 participants were interviewed. The shortest interview lasted just under an hour; the longest over four hours. The 

research team was diligent in its efforts to allow respondents to 

share as much or as little information as they wished. In general, 

respondents were very forthcoming in their answers. All tribal 

identifiers were removed and replaced with non-identifying 

codes. All personal references and any identifying information 

(e.g., names of cities, counties, agencies, participants, etc.) were 

also removed or replaced with alphanumeric codes. Upon 

completion of data collection, the interviews were transcribed 

and content analysis was conducted. 

3. The researchers were advised by the Cherokee Nation IRB that potential tribes needed to first be contacted to gain permission to invite 

them to participate in the study, and that only with this permission should they proceed with procuring the prospective tribe’s IRB or other granting 

authority’s approval. 

4. The researchers were advised by Northeastern State University (NSU) that because Cherokee Nation (CN) was the grantee and the research was 

being conducted with Native Americans that IRB approval should first be obtained from the CN IRB and only then submitted for approval to the 

NSU IRB. Both CN and NSU IRBs required approval before applications to the prospective participating tribal IRBs could be submitted. 

12 PERCEPTIONS OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN INDIAN COUNTRY 
Acccording to the DEA, 

law enforcement agencies 

reported that marijuana 

was the most widely used 

and highly available illicit 

drug in Indian country, but 

that methamphetamine 

posed the greatest threat 

to Native communities. 

Results
 

The following results are from the interviews conducted with 29 tribal 

representatives (16 law enforcement officers and 13 social service providers). 

Male participants, almost exclusively from law enforcement, comprised 58 

percent of the sample, and females the other 42 percent. Results and selected 

quotes from the interviews are presented below. 

To the question, What drug poses the greatest threat to your tribe?, the most common answers, in order, were as follows: (1) alcohol and marijuana; (2) methamphetamine; (3) controlled prescription drugs; (4) synthetic cannabinoids (i.e. K-2 

or Spice); (5) synthetic cathinones (i.e., bath salts); (6) cocaine; and (7) heroin. 

Alcohol and marijuana were equally common responses. When asked to explain 

their answers, respondents who answered alcohol or marijuana cited these 

substances’ wide availability, while respondents who named meth or prescription 

drugs cited their potential to damage the user and the tribe. These perceptions 

are consistent with national reports; acccording to the DEA, law enforcement 

agencies reported that marijuana was the most widely used and highly available 

illicit drug in Indian country, but that methamphetamine posed the greatest 

threat to Native communities (National Drug Intelligence Center 2014). 

Here are some examples of what the respondents had to say about drugs and 

their effects on Native Americans in Indian country: 

Meth poses the greatest threat, once in a while we have a marijuana bust, 

but there is not as big of an impact with marijuana. Meth is the biggest 

threat, because it impacts everyone involved beyond just the user and the 

ease of getting a hold of it. Marijuana is the next biggest threat. It is so 

easily available. 

Prescription abuse is a big problem as well as the selling of prescription pills. 

13 
Meth right now, but pain pills are quickly becoming an issue. 

Pain pills are what we are getting the most new calls on. 

We have seen a big increase in prescription abuse. 

Several tribes reported that synthetic marijuana, known by 

the street name K-2 or Spice, was becoming a problem for the 

tribal community. 

Prescription drugs and fake-ass marijuana. Legislation isn’t 

keeping up. We see violence and homicide more with meth. 

Death related to pills is normally a suicide. 

K-2 is also big problem among young adults. 

We have had big problems with K-2. 

Overwhelmingly, service providers reported that majority of 

drug use is polydrug use. Methamphetamine users will often 

use alcohol, marijuana, or controlled prescription drugs when 

they are coming off a high (National Drug Intelligence Center 2011). 

Nobody is straight up alcohol. They use alcohol and marijuana 

together or prescription meds plus meth. Tramadol, hydrocodone. 

Meth poses the biggest threat, because it is more addictive. 

We are starting to see more, along with marijuana and coke. 

Marijuana is very easy to get; there are large shipments that 

go through the rez [reservation]. There is a lot of abuse of 

hydrocodone, OxyContin, Lortabs, opioids, and Xanax. We 

are starting to see bath salts trickle in now. We are seeing 

a lot of Spice. Most of the kids are more hooked on meth. 

Spice is popular among 30- to 40-year-olds. 

One of the main purposes for the current research was to gather 

law enforcement’s perceptions of the presence of DTOs in 

Indian country and their role in trafficking methamphetamine 

and other dangerous drugs in tribal communities. These criminal organizations “control much of the production, transportation[,] and wholesale distribution of illicit drugs destined for 

and in the United States” (National Drug Intelligence Center 

2011, 7). There have been national reports in large newspapers 

as well as Congressional reports about organized international 

DTOs, also known as cartels, targeting Native American populations in Indian country. To explore this issue, law enforcement 

respondents were asked “Where do you think people are getting 

drugs?” According to the respondents, methamphetamine, 

marijuana, and cocaine are trafficked into their communities, or 

to areas adjacent, by non-Natives who are part of larger DTOs. 

They indicated that non-Natives are selling to Natives who then 

deal drugs on the reservation. Seventy percent of the responding tribal agencies reported that casinos played a major role in 

the trafficking and distribution of drugs in their respective 

jurisdictions. When it came to controlled prescription drugs, 

law enforcement reported that most abusers were “doctor 

shopping” or were stealing prescription drugs from family 

members who had obtained the drugs legally. 

Native selling to Native on reservation. Off reservation, 

non-Native selling to Native who then bring it back. They 

can really get it in any of the surrounding areas. 

We are hearing a lot about cartels supplying the drugs. Some 

of them are trying to use the area casinos to move the drugs 

through. A lot of the time they are using casino parking lots 

for drug deals. I think it is being trafficked in as well. What 

we are seeing is being brought in by non-Natives; coming in 

from [bordering states]. We’ve heard that the Gulf and 

Juarez cartel are the suspected DTOs that are trafficking 

through this area; when I was doing more undercover work 

those were the connections that I was seeing. 

Non-Natives are bringing it in to Natives. The casino is a 

point of entry. We also have some houses that have lots of 

traffic that we are watching. They are buying it [K-2] at 

head shops. The trafficking is organized and stuff running 

through the casino is definitely organized. 

I think non-Natives are the ones trafficking larger amounts 

of the drugs, and local Natives are the ones who are distributing the drugs on the reservation. We have ran across 

several drug stash houses. The cartel knows the rez very 

well, to the point of using tribal “safe houses.” There are 

three different cartels that run through the area, two out of 

[nearby town]. Non-Natives are bringing it to Natives who 

are then distributing. They use the rez as a safe haven 

because they know they can get away with it. They know we 

lack manpower. We shut off the pipeline they had coming in, 

but they are still coming in through the mountains. 

14 PERCEPTIONS OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN INDIAN COUNTRY 
It’s easy to get meth. If they want they can get it. We are close 

to [city] so they can get whatever they want. They get it from 

dealers who go to the city and bring it back. We have made 

arrests of huge cartel members. They run out of the casinos. 

They launder money and sell drugs out of the casino. 

The cartel has to be involved, or a very close group of people. 

The amount of drugs around here is too high for it not to be 

organized trafficking. I think it’s a chain that goes cartel, 

then another local mule, then distributor. Main [traffickers] 

are non-Natives; dealers, people with prison ties, and 

extended family members. We call them come homers— 

people who have left for a long period of time and then 

return—because they still have that connection to the 

community and reservation. They are the ties that bring in 

meth and other drugs. I think there is drug trafficking; 

definitely with marijuana. 

While criminal gangs are often difficult to separate from DTOs 

by definition, there is a distinction between criminal gangs 

involved in the drug market and the larger, often international, 

suppliers. “Criminal gangs—that is street, prison, and outlaw 

motorcycle gangs—remain in control of most of the retail 

distribution of drugs throughout the United States” (National 

Drug Intelligence Center 2011, 11). With a few exceptions, 

tribes reported they did not have a “problem” with criminal 

gangs. Agencies generally reported that any gangs were really 

just “kids” who were “wannabes,” or they were family members 

that ran in a group and participated in crime together. They 

reported that these “wannabe gangs” generally emulated West 

Coast gangs, specifically the Bloods, Crips, and MS-13. 

Not really. Mostly just gang wannabes. Small groups of two 

to three male juveniles. 

I don’t think we have organized gang issues. We have a 

[nearby big city] gang that hides out here. We had a lot of 

Juggalos.5

 But that has calmed down. Tribe passed a law 

forbidding possession [wearing] of any Juggalo memorabilia. 

So all of that is illegal here. 

Not really here; what we normally see is high school kids 

who claim gang ties, or try to affiliate themselves as “gangstas.” They run around with red or blue clothing. Some of 

them don’t even know what it means. When you see 

someone in their thirties carrying a two-year-old kid dressed 

all in red, that kid has no idea why they are dressed that way. 

No, we have people who claim gang affiliation but they are 

usually family, or a group of friends that live around here. 

They emulate the Bloods and Crips. Basically, it is a bunch 

of kids who watch too much MTV. 

5. A Juggalo is a fan of the hip-hop duo Insane Clown Posse. The FBI listed Juggalos as a gang in 2011, with the caveat that Juggalo criminal activity 

is generally “sporadic, disorganized, [and] individualistic” (National Gang Intelligence Center 2011). Juggalos and the Insane Clown Posse have 

protested the gang designation through lawsuits, charity efforts, and a 2017 march on Washington, D.C. (Benderev 2017). 

There were very few reports of methamphetamine laboratories 

in Indian country among the tribes we visited. Those who 

said they had found evidence of manufacturing stated these 

were very small-capacity production laboratories, also known 

as “one-pot” or “shake-and-bake” laboratories. The majority 

reported that the methamphetamine they were seeing was 

brought in from surrounding areas. Only one tribe reported 

finding marijuana being illegally grown in Indian country. Like 

methamphetamine, the majority of tribes believed that marijuana was being trafficked in by organized drug traffickers. 

Law enforcement respondents were asked to describe the 

relationship between drugs (methamphetamine specifically) 

and crime in their jurisdictions. The majority reported that the 

crimes associated with drugs were primarily property crimes 

and sex trafficking. Here are some of their responses: 

Burglary, robbery, snatch and grab, illegal gaming, prostitution, human trafficking. 

There has been an increase in burglaries or stealing stuff 

they can trade for drugs. 

It’s [drug crime] mostly connected to burglary. Violent 

crime is down. The property crime is people pill seeking. 

RESULTS 15 
Houses are broken into and they are taking flat screen TVs 

only, 40 inches or bigger. They may not even take other 

valuables. Dealers only take 40 inch TVs or bigger as payment for drugs. They are also taking EBT cards for drugs. 

Breaking and entering doesn’t happen much. Sometimes 

there is an increase in assaults due to increased drinking but 

we do not see much of an increase in property crimes. We do 

have a prostitution ring; it is tied to meth distribution. The 

girls are around 21 years old. 

We had a problem with prostitution out at the casino, it had 

calmed down, but now seems to be ramping back up. There 

is both organized and unorganized prostitution going on out 

there. There is actually a group of transgender [Native] 

prostitutes that are out there turning tricks. They are lucky 

to be alive. They will get a john and then when discovered 

[to be transgender] they are beaten. 

The presence of violent crime in Indian country due to methamphetamine, while not the norm, was reportedly severe 

in context. Here are two examples of violent crime related to 

methamphetamines from two law enforcement agencies: 

Aggravated assault, we average about one to two a day! 

Rapes are up there, they are being committed by uncles, 

brothers, cousins, and dads. We have about one to two 

a month that are reported. We probably have one or more 

a week that isn’t reported. This year a 13-year-old got a 

hatchet to her head by three guys—her brother and two of 

his friends—who climbed through her window and raped 

her. She fought back and survived, but she lost her motor 

skills; the doctors don’t know if she will recover them with 

time or not. The offenders were 14 years old. 

We had a double murder around Christmas time last year. 

Three druggie dealers believed this guy was a snitch so they 

decapitated him with a screwdriver. They stole a car and 

drove to [nearby town]. One of the men and the woman— 

who were a couple—got paranoid about the third guy [who 

participated in the murder] so they shot him in the head. 

They drove back to the reservation and lit the car on fire 

with his body inside. 

In 2007, reports surfaced that members of the Sagaste-Cruz 

drug gang deliberately targeted Native women from the Wind 

River reservation for exploitation in the pursuit of establishing 

a drug market in Indian country (Wagner 2007). According to 

reports, the Sagaste-Cruz drug gang believed that Native Americans were an ideal population to exploit, based on the rate of 

alcoholism among Native Americans. In 2009, tribal law enforcement discovered a massive illegal marijuana cultivation site 

on the Warm Springs Indian reservation estimated to be worth 

$10 million in street value. According to detectives the site was 

linked to a major Mexican drug gang with ties to an even larger 

DTO (Millman 2009). And in 2013, New Mexico drug investigators with the help of tribal law enforcement arrested a member of the Sinaloa drug cartel who was suspected of running 

cocaine and heroin out of a large tribal casino (U.S. Marshals 

Service 2013). Based on these and other reports gleaned from 

news sources and Congressional reports, we asked tribal law 

enforcement if they perceived the exploitation of Native 

resources (e.g., women, land, housing, businesses) to be a 

problem in their communities. 

Several respondents indicated that there was some degree of 

exploitation of Native American resources. The main resource 

perceived to be under exploitation was Native American women 

and their families. Service providers described cases in which 

Native American women would meet non-Native men outside 

of Indian country and subsequently engage in romantic relationships. Soon thereafter, the women’s homes and lives would 

be taken over by these men and exploited for gain, such as 

access to buyers in a new drug market or free housing or commodities afforded the woman due to her Native status. Respondents also reported that drug traffickers were using casinos in 

Indian country to conduct their illegal business transactions, 

such as drug sales, sex trafficking, and money laundering. Here 

are some selected quotes from the respondents: 

Yes, it usually starts with drugs. Women will go out and 

bring back a non-Native man. To keep her happy he will buy 

her things like a vehicle, smokes; he will provide for the 

family and then he will do drug trafficking out of the house. 

Everything will run along fine until he does something to 

16 PERCEPTIONS OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN INDIAN COUNTRY 
upset her and then she will squawk. We have also run across 

several drug stash houses. We have had problems with 

fugitives hiding out, but there are also issues with trying to 

build cases. 

Absolutely. Non-Natives will go up to Natives and they chat 

them up and they get together. Then they will infiltrate into 

their families. There was one woman who was swindled out 

of $30,000 by her [then] boyfriend. Her dad gave him money 

for renovations to the home but he took off. There are lots of 

people exploiting them. They can get rich. For example, 

some pottery can go for $50,000 for one pot. They exploit 

these families making pottery. 

I don’t think they realize they are being taken advantage of. 

The girl will meet with someone and they move to be closer 

to her and of course they also have moved in the mom, dad, 

or grandma. They may be paying the bills for the family but 

the family still qualifies for assistance. 

Social service providers were asked to describe their perceptions of the problems associated with substance abuse, specifically methamphetamine, and the tribal members they served. 

The majority reported that child neglect, sexual abuse, and 

elder abuse were common issues they have dealt with. Here are 

some of their responses: 

Neglect is the main factor prompting removal of children 

from the home. 

Neglect and abuse. Sexual abuse is a big issue. It’s abuse 

within the immediate family. That’s a problem in this area. 

We have problems with substance abuse, neglect, and child 

endangerment. For example, children were left at the police 

station because there is no one to answer door at home after 

school—left on bus. Another case was where there was a 

five-year-old found with grandma passed out behind the 

wheel at the lounge. 

Rape, sexual abuse are so prevalent. These people are not 

inherently bad—they are using drugs to deal with bad things 

that have happened to them. And it is not bullying on the 

playground—it’s being raped since they were nine years old 

and so were their mom and grandma too. 

We also have a problem with elder abuse associated with 

having a gambling problem; either they [the elders] themselves, or they have family members who exploit them for 

money for gambling. 

We’ve had several calls from grandma about missing pills, 

and when we get there she doesn’t want to push the issue 

because her grandkid was the one who took her pills. 

Social service providers were asked how many of their cases 

involving children were related to substance abuse of any kind. 

These providers reported the overwhelming majority were 

related to substance abuse, primarily alcohol. 

All of our cases are substance abuse–related, because there is 

neglect. So alcohol and drugs. Second is sexual and third is 

physical abuse. 

100 percent of cases are substance abuse–related. The majority of those, around 80 percent, are alcohol. 

Initially you think like half, but then once you get ball rolling and see what’s really going on, 85 to 90 percent are 

substance abuse–related issues. For example, they come in 

for neglect and then you see the neglect is related to the 

substance abuse. 

The majority of kids going into permanent care, their parents are on meth; around 75 to 85 percent. 

75 percent of referrals are alcohol-related. 

About 60 to 75 percent of cases substance abuse–related. 

Probably less than one percent are meth-related. The rest 

are alcohol and probably marijuana. 

Service providers were also asked about the ease with which 

their tribal clients could access services, including wait times for 

essential services such as inpatient treatment. Several agencies 

had services available for clients the minute they walked 

through the door. Others reported that it may take weeks or 

months before they are able to provide services. The main factor 

mediating response time and ease of services appeared to be the 

size of the tribal population that the agency was serving. This 

was also true for law enforcement when asked about response 

times to calls for service within their various tribal jurisdictions. 

RESULTS 17 
The larger the tribal jurisdiction, the greater the response times; 

they ranged from four days to two hours. Smaller tribal jurisdictions reported a response time average of eight minutes. 

Each of the respondents was asked what their biggest challenges 

and greatest needs were in their respective fields of service. 

Law enforcement respondents reported that their number one 

challenge was a lack of trust and cooperation from tribal community members, including members of the local tribal council. 

The second biggest challenge was a lack of manpower, specifically recruiting qualified officers willing to live in tribal areas 

that suffer from a serious lack of housing, low wages, and poor 

job security. Finally, law enforcement respondents reported that 

the current laws governing their tribal entity were insufficient 

and in some cases nonexistent when it came to the issues they 

are facing. Here are some responses: 

Community support or lack thereof. Most police are considered outsiders. We are always encouraging [the community] 

to join in. But they ostracize you. They constantly pick on 

you. Only now are people starting to call the police station 

for service. We had started going to tribal meetings but they 

became so hostile. They don’t understand what we can and 

cannot do. 

The biggest challenge is getting officers here, and once they 

are here how to keep them here. The area is so remote anyone that comes in from the city is not used to it. Or if they 

are married and move here their families are not happy. 

Because there is no housing. You cannot lease a home here 

unless you are a tribal member. Officers are forced to live in 

the BIA compound. A few officers are allowed to live in the 

housing projects due to the “essential community” member 

laws mandated by the Federal government. But then the 

community treats them as outsiders and most of them opt to 

move back to the BIA compound or further away to outlying 

areas. Those are tourist areas where most things are overpriced and home values are overinflated. I’ve thought about 

making new employees sign a two-year contract to at least 

get back the amount we spent on training. I’m down to my 

core group that’s going to stick around awhile. The Tribal 

Law and Order codes aren’t up to date. 

If we had the resources and staff available I think we could 

do more, but we have to have a large visibility in the community and enough personnel to respond to calls. [On 

officers needed:] Ideally, at least seven more; we are understaffed. We don’t have time for paperwork, not to mention 

time for family, et cetera; on top of regular reports there are 

annual reports, inspections, et cetera. If we had more officers 

we could have D.A.R.E. [Drug Abuse Resistance Education], 

and paperwork could be completed on time, but now I have 

to pull officers to take care of other issues. BIA looks at it 

as collateral duties, and that’s not fair. In other agencies 

D.A.R.E. is considered a promotion. If we had a designated 

D.A.R.E. officer he may have to leave to deal with a domestic 

violence situation in the middle of a presentation, or the guy 

may have to arrest dad or mom after seeing the kid in the 

D.A.R.E program. 

Educating the community about problems that exist, and 

how reporting people will make this a safer place to live. 

They are in denial about the extent of the problems here. 

When it came to the biggest needs and challenges for their 

tribal members, social service providers reported a lack of 

treatment facilities, specifically detox centers. Transportation 

to access services, employment, and fresh food, as well as 

adequate housing, jobs, and foster homes were also listed 

among the biggest needs. Here are some of the responses: 

Substance abuse and mental health are the services needed 

the most. Parenting skills are not bad when the parent is 

sober, it’s when they are high or drunk that it’s bad. Dealing 

with a serious lack of resources. We need substance abuse 

detox. We can’t send into rehab if they are strung out on 

drugs and IHS [Indian Health Services] won’t detox. We 

don’t have anyone to do mental health assessment; IHS 

won’t. And they won’t do psychiatric evaluations. IHS refuses 

to do forensic evaluation or interviews. If they [the client] 

don’t have Medicaid we don’t have any place to send them. 

I had to buy Breathalyzer and UA [urine analysis] kits out of 

my own budget to test parents when they come in. I can’t 

send someone to treatment if there is nowhere to send them. 

18 PERCEPTIONS OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN INDIAN COUNTRY 
Very little treatment available for juvenile users. Meth is so 

different than alcohol or other drug issues. We end up being 

detox so they can be fairly stable before going to treatment. 

Meth patients take more time, because they have so many 

needs. Over past year the number of meth kids here 

increased. I have kids telling me that they have had kid 

dealers holding guns to their heads who are also meth 

dealers. These kids suffer from PTSD due to these types 

of traumatic incidents. 

Most people who need these services don’t live in [big city]. 

We are trying to serve the tribe as a whole. Clinics in [tribal 

area] don’t always have substance abuse counselors. Clinics 

are understaffed so many clients have to drive. Transportation is the biggest problem. We can’t get patients to treatment when they live outside town. Many live a good distance 

away from the treatment that they need. They may live in 

an area that has a clinic, but it will be for mental health and 

not substance abuse and the patient needs substance abuse 

[treatment]. And it is not just transportation—there are not 

enough resources. 

We need housing. There is not enough housing. There are 

400 people on the waitlist for housing. It is not unusual to 

have three generations living in the home. If you have 13 

people living in a two bedroom house it causes stress. When 

people leave treatment they have nowhere to go. 

We need jobs. Most people try to work. They can get education, but if they get vocational training still the jobs are 

somewhere else. There is a big problem with a lack of transportation. Vehicles are hard to come by so you have to try 

and catch a ride. 

There are not enough foster families [on reservation] for 

children to be placed. One family we recruited took the baby, 

then decided not to foster and they just dumped the newborn baby. They brought the baby back to us here in the 

office and said they just couldn’t do it anymore. We really 

need a good five to ten foster families to be able to handle 

the load. We have about seven or eight families outside of the 

reservation. Not a lot of luck with getting foster families on 

the reservation. 

There is not enough placement here [on reservation]. There 

is a big need for certain age groups like zero to five [years] 

because there are not enough childcare services and for 

children 16 to 21. Another area is big sibling groups. 

Recently we had sibling group of eight; they went to three 

different homes—off reservation. We also had a sibling 

group of four we couldn’t place. We aren’t able to recruit 

enough families for groups and younger and older children. 

There were two main themes that emerged when social service 

providers were asked about how they measured success: length 

of treatment and the reunification of children with their parents 

if they have been removed. Other responses included participation in community events and number of referrals; one tribe 

reported the allocation of grant money as its best measure. 

Following are selected responses from respondents. 

Personally, by the cases that don’t return. Even getting 

referrals, because it means people see us as competent. 

Success is length of time in treatment. The people who come 

in regularly are the ones who are most likely to be successful. 

We work according to the harm reduction idea. For example, 

if they come to counseling for six months and they are sober 

for some of those months, that’s better than nothing. 

If they are making progress. If they aren’t coming in drunk 

or high. When they have a clean UA when they visit. When 

parents ask for help. Like the dad that checked into treatment after going on a drinking binge because he wants his 

kids back. 

There was one woman who had her fourth felony DUI and 

she went through Healing Court kicking and screaming, but 

now she has been sober for six years. She has her kids back 

and she is taking care of others. She comes in on her own to 

maintain her sobriety. It works when people change their 

social lives. 

RESULTS 19 

Seventy percent of 

the respondents stated 

that casinos located 

in their jurisdictions 

were being used to 

facilitate drug sales 

and sex trafficking by 

organized gangs. 

Conclusion
 

Methamphetamine continues to be a major problem for tribal communities, 

though abuse of controlled prescription drugs is on the rise and could soon 

surpass methamphetamine as a threat to Native Americans in Indian country. 

The nature and extent of the trafficking, distribution, and use of methamphetamine are a significant and dangerous threat to the tribal communities 

that participated in this study. Alcohol and abuse of controlled prescription 

drugs, nonetheless, also reportedly pose serious threats to the lives and 

welfare of Native Americans. 

In interviews with the authors, tribal law enforcement officials reported that 

methamphetamine was the illegal drug that posed the greatest threat to their 

tribal communities. Many believed that abuse of controlled prescription drugs 

was quickly becoming a threat as well. Several agencies also reported that use 

of synthetic cannabinoids, also known as synthetic marijuana, K-2, and Spice, 

was a growing concern. All respondents agreed that methamphetamine was 

qualitatively different than other drugs due to its addictive nature and the 

harms that result from the manufacturing, trafficking, distribution, and use 

of the drug in Indian country. 

Law enforcement professionals perceived both methamphetamine and marijuana to be highly available and easy to obtain. They reported that drugs were 

being trafficked into their areas by large non-Native drug trafficking organizations and being distributed by local Native American dealers. Seventy percent 

of the respondents stated that casinos located in their jurisdictions were being 

used to facilitate drug sales and sex trafficking by organized gangs. Larceny, 

theft, burglary, sexual assault, and sex trafficking were the main crimes directly 

associated with the trafficking, distribution, and use of methamphetamine in 

Indian country. Few agencies reported the presence of criminal gangs. 

21 
Respondents reported that their greatest challenge was a lack of 

community support and resources, namely manpower, 

necessary to fulfill their duties. Several agencies spoke of the 

difficulties they face in attracting qualified candidates for law 

enforcement positions. Poor wages and a lack of adequate 

housing in Indian country were seen as the greatest obstacles in 

the recruitment of qualified law enforcement officers. The lack 

of manpower was directly related to the officers’ inability to 

engage in community policing projects such as D.A.R.E. and 

community watch programs that they believed would help 

strengthen community relationships and aid in the fight against 

drugs in Indian country. There were indications that training 

for law enforcement was available, however, respondents stated 

that they were not able to take advantage of those training 

opportunities because it would leave their agencies short-staffed. 

Social service providers also perceived methamphetamine to 

be uniquely different than other illegal drugs due to the nature 

of the harm that results from its use—particularly the harms 

suffered by Native American children. They reported that the 

overwhelming majority of their cases are related to substance 

abuse, namely of alcohol, methamphetamine, and controlled 

prescription drugs. Many described substance abuse as an 

epidemic that they were not equipped to deal with due to a 

lack of resources and manpower. 

Several respondents reported that they lacked the funds to 

fulfill their clients’ needs, such as housing, clothing, food, and 

healthcare products (e.g., diapers and toothpaste). They 

reported that the lack of transportation in Indian country (both 

private and public) inhibited their clients’ ability to access fresh 

food in grocery stores, healthcare, and employment. 

Agencies that provide substance abuse treatment also reported 

a lack of detoxification centers, which they need so that clients 

can be admitted to inpatient drug treatment centers. Ninety 

percent of the tribes included in this study had no treatment 

centers or programs designed specifically to treat methamphetamine addiction. Respondents expressed the need for halfway 

and sober living establishments for those coming out of treatment and transitioning back into the tribal community. 

Both agencies responsible for child welfare and some tribal 

officials reported that there were not enough foster homes or 

foster families in the communities they serve. This has resulted 

in many Native children being placed with non-family members 

outside of Indian country. Professionals described situations 

where Native families were separated due to cultural differences 

between state and tribal agencies. Many reported that once 

children were taken from tribal lands, few ever returned. 

Limitations 

The results of this study should be considered in light of the 

several limitations of qualitative methodology and the sensitive 

nature of the research. Most notably, there were several times 

when law enforcement respondents declined to answer questions they felt would jeopardize or otherwise threaten ongoing 

drug investigations—for example, when asked to provide 

information regarding specific DTOs engaged in trafficking 

drugs in Indian country. They were also reluctant to disclose 

information regarding investigative techniques that are used to 

combat drug smuggling and distribution. This is absolutely 

understandable, considering the research team were not law 

enforcement officials and were outsiders to the respective tribal 

areas. However, as Congress has asked for empirical evidence of 

specific DTOs operating in Indian country before funding for 

tribal law enforcement will be allocated, it would have been 

helpful to have this information. 

Some participants that tribal executives initially suggested the 

research team contact did not have enough information to 

answer all of the questions posed. For example, the majority of 

social service respondents were unable to provide information 

regarding child protective services or the number of children 

removed due to methamphetamine in their homes, but offered 

information about available social services in general. Moreover, there were insufficient numbers of mental and behavioral 

health participants. Additional participants could have provided 

invaluable information concerning the state of methamphetamine addiction and treatment among Native Americans in 

Indian country. 

22 PERCEPTIONS OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN INDIAN COUNTRY 
Furthermore, due to the sensitive nature of the research there 

was a reluctance, and at times outright refusal, of many tribes 

to participate in the current initiative. While this is certainly 

understandable, research is vital to addressing the needs of 

Native Americans in Indian country. Intertribal cooperation 

is necessary to aid in the collection of data in Indian country. 

This means that researchers need to work to gain the trust of 

tribes. One thing we found is that participants were more likely 

to open up and trust us as researchers when we met with them 

in person. Researchers should try and meet with as many tribal 

officials as possible to explain the purposes of the research 

and to listen to their concerns. This will also give the researchers a chance, in person, to explain the research and allow them 

to assure the tribe that all confidences will kept and allow a 

chance to explain how the research will benefit the tribe. The 

results of all research need to not only be submitted to each 

tribe, but explained. 

implications 

Three major implications can be drawn from the results of 

this study. First, funding for personnel support for tribal law 

enforcement is critically needed to allow these agencies to 

adequately address the trafficking and distribution of methamphetamine and the resultant crimes of theft, violence, sexual 

abuse, sex trafficking, and child and elder neglect in tribal 

communities. Second, detoxification centers for drug and 

alcohol users and additional resources and services for their 

children should be made available in tribal communities. 

Treatment centers and programs that address the unique problems associated with methamphetamine addiction need to be 

established. These centers should use evidence-based practices 

and incorporate traditional cultural components. Third, the 

influence of drug trafficking and distribution on the inhabitants of Indian country needs further research, particularly in 

regard to social services, mental and behavioral health, law 

enforcement, and tribal justice systems. Additional funding and 

support for this research should be made available to Native 

American researchers. 

CONCLUSION 23 

References
 

Adams, W., J. Samuels, and J. Kelly. 2015. Examining Indian 

Country Cases in the Federal Justice System. NCJ 248656. 

Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute. https://www.ncjrs.gov/ 

pdffiles1/bjs/grants/248656.pdf. 

Bachman, R., H. Zaykowski, R. Kallmyer, M. Poteyeva, and 

C. Lanier. 2008. Violence against American Indian and Alaska 

Native Women and the Criminal Justice Response: What Is 

Known. NCJ 223691. Washington D.C.: National Institute 

of Justice. 

Benderev, Chris. 2017. “A Mostly Typical Saturday In Washington, D.C.: Political Rallies — Plus Juggalos.“ National Public 

Radio, September 16, 2017. https://www.npr.org/sections/ 

thetwo-way/2017/09/16/551502217/a-mostly-typical-saturdayin-washington-d-c-political-rallies-plus-juggalos. 

Brownstein, H., T. Mulcahy, and J. Huessy. 2014. The Methamphetamine Industry in America: Transnational Cartels and Local 

Entrepreneurs. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press 

Burbar, R, M. Winokur, and W. Bartlemay. 2007. Perceptions of 

Methamphetamine Use in Three Western Tribal Communities: 

Implications for Child Abuse in Indian Country. Santa Monica, 

CA: Tribal Law and Policy Institute. http://www.wellnesscourts. 

org/files/Final%20Meth%20Article%20for%20Printing%206­

07.pdf. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 2018. “Who is an American Indian or 

Alaska Native?” Accessed March 14, 2018. https://www.bia.gov/ 

frequently-asked-questions. 

Conway, P. 2013. “Introducing Rod Robinson, Director, Office 

of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse.” Prevention & Recovery 

2 (2), 2–3. https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

prevention-recovery-winter2013.pdf. 

Eid, T, and C. Doyle. 2010. “Separate but Unequal: The Federal 

Criminal Justice System in Indian Country.” University of 

Colorado Law Review 81 (4), 1097. http://lawreview.colorado. 

edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/11.-Eid-Doyle-Final_s.pdf. 

Evans, M. 2006. National Methamphetamine Initiative Survey: 

The Status of Methamphetamine Threat and Impact on Indian 

Lands. Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Investigative Support 

Center. http://www.fortpecktribes.org/fpmp/news/pdf/BIA_ 

MethSurvey.pdf. 

Examining Drug Smuggling and Gang Activity in Indian Country. Hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United 

States Senate. 111th Cong. 1 (2009). 

Gilbreath, A. 2015. “From Soda Bottles to Super Labs: An 

Analysis of North American Dual Meth Production Networks.” 

Geographical Review 150 (4), 511–527. 

Harding, A., B. Harper, D. Stone, C. O’Neill, P. Berger, S. 

Harris, S., and J. Donatuto. 2012. “Conducting Research with 

Tribal Communities: Sovereignty, Ethics, and Data-Sharing 

Issues.” Environmental Health Perspectives 120 (1). 6-10. 

https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103904. 

Indian Country Defined, 18 U.S.C. §1151 (2011). 

Kronk, E. 2006. “The Emerging Problem of Methamphetamine: 

A Threat Signaling the Need to Reform Criminal Jurisdiction in 

Indian Country.” North Dakota Law Review 82 (4), 1249–1271. 

Lamonica, A., and M. Boeri. 2012. “An Exploration of the 

Relationship Between the Use of Methamphetamine and Prescription Drugs.” Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative 

Research 6: 160–174. 

Millman, J. 2009. “Mexican pot gangs infiltrate reservations in 

the U.S.” Wall Street Journal, September 9, 2009. http://www.wsj. 

com/articles/SB125736987377028727. 

25 
Motivans, M. 2015. Federal Justice Statistics, 2011-2012. (NCJ 

248493). Washington D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

National Congress of American Indians. 2006. Methamphetamine in Indian Country: An American Problem Uniquely 

Affecting Indian Country. Native American Law Digest 16 (12): 

1–7. http://www.justice.gov/archive/tribal/docs/fv_tjs/ 

session_1/session1_presentations/Meth_Overview.pdf. 

National Drug Intelligence Center. 2011. National Drug Threat 

Assessment 2011. (Product No. 2011-Q0317-001). Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 

National Drug Intelligence Center. 2014. National Drug Threat 

Assessment 2014. (Product No. DEA-DCT-DIR-002-15). Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 

National Gang Intelligence Center. 2011. 2011 National Gang 

Threat Assessment. Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Investigation. https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-

national­ gang-threat-assessment. 

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978). 

Perry, B. 2009. “Impacts of Disparate Policing in 


Indian Country.” Policing and Society 19 (3), 263–281. 


https://doi.org/10.1080/10439460902871348. 


Perry, S. 2004. American Indians and Crime: A BJS Statistical 


Profile 1992-2002. (NCJ 203097). Washington, DC: Bureau of 


Justice Statistics. 


Perry, S. 2015. Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2015. 


(NCJ 248785). Washington D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 


The Problem of Methamphetamine in Indian Country. Hearing 


before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate. 


109th Cong. 1 (2006).
 

Rosenthal, L. 2010. “The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010: 


A Step Forward for Native Women.” White House blog, July 29, 


2010. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2010/07/29/
 

tribal-law-and-order-act-2010-a-step-forward-native-women.
 

Sobeck, J., E. Chapleski, and C. Fisher, C. 2003. “Conducting 

Research with American Indians: A Case Study of Motives, 

Methods, and Results.” Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity 

in Social Work 12 (1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1300?j051v12n01_04. 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 

Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. 2011. 

The NSDUH Report: Substance Use among American Indian or 

Alaska Native Adolescents. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration. https://archive.samhsa. 

gov/data/2k11/WEB_SR_005/WEB_SR_005.htm. 

U. S. Census Bureau. 2014. American FactFinder: American 

Community Survey Demographics and Housing Estimates: 

2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ 

productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_5YR_DP05&src=pt. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. “Methamphetamine: Threatening the Health and Environment of Tribal 

Communities.” Tribal Waste Journal 6, 1–20. https://nepis.epa. 

gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=60000OWL.TXT. 

U.S. Marshals Service. 2013. “Suspected Drug Dealer Arrested 

by U.S. Marshals and Laguna Police.” Press release, April 16, 

2013. http://www.usmarshals.gov/news/chron/2013/042613.htm. 

Wagner, A. 2007. “How Meth Took Hold of Wind River.” 

Indian Country Today Media Network, May 16, 2007. 

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2007/05/16/ 

how-meth-took-hold-wind-river-90760. 

Wells, E. and D. Falcone. 2008. "Tribal Policing on American Indian Reservations." Policing: An International 

Journal of Police Strategies and Management 31 (4), 648–

673. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510810910616. 

Yuan, N., M. Koss, M. Polacca, and D. Goldman. 2006. Risk 

factors for Physical Assault and Rape among Six Native American Tribes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 21 (12), 1566–1590. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506294239. 

26 PERCEPTIONS OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN INDIAN COUNTRY 
About the COPS Office
 

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) is the component of the U.S. Department of 

Justice responsible for advancing the practice of community policing by the nation’s state, local, territorial, and tribal 

law enforcement agencies through information and grant resources. 

Community policing begins with a commitment to building trust and mutual respect between police and communities. It supports public safety by encouraging all stakeholders to work together to address our nation’s crime challenges. When police and communities collaborate, they more effectively address underlying issues, change negative 

behavioral patterns, and allocate resources. 

Rather than simply responding to crime, community policing focuses on preventing it through strategic problemsolving approaches based on collaboration. The COPS Office awards grants to hire community policing officers 

and support the development and testing of innovative policing strategies. COPS Office funding also provides 

training and technical assistance to community members and local government leaders, as well as all levels of 

law enforcement. 

Since 1994, the COPS Office has invested more than $14 billion to add community policing officers to the nation’s 

streets, enhance crime fighting technology, support crime prevention initiatives, and provide training and technical 

assistance to help advance community policing. Other achievements include the following: 

To date, the COPS Office has funded the hiring of approximately 130,000 additional officers by more than 

13,000 of the nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies in both small and large jurisdictions. 

Nearly 700,000 law enforcement personnel, community members, and government leaders have been 

trained through COPS Office–funded training organizations. 

To date, the COPS Office has distributed more than eight million topic-specific publications, training 

curricula, white papers, and resource CDs and flash drives. 

The COPS Office also sponsors conferences, roundtables, and other forums focused on issues critical 

to law enforcement. 

COPS Office information resources, covering a wide range of community policing topics such as school and campus 

safety, violent crime, and officer safety and wellness, can be downloaded via the COPS Office’s home page, www.cops. 

usdoj.gov. This website is also the grant application portal, providing access to online application forms. 

27 

CHAPTER NAME 3 
Native American tribes across the United States have experienced many adverse effects from the distribution, trafficking, and use of methamphetamines and other dangerous drugs. These effects range from 

higher crime rates associated with the sale of drugs, to the displacement of children from homes where 

methamphetamine is being abused or trafficked, to the exploitation of Native resources. In an effort to 

address the increasing concerns raised by the methamphetamine problem in Indian country, law enforcement and social service providers were asked to participate in qualitative interviews regarding their perceptions of the methamphetamine use and implications for crime and treatment in the tribal communities 

where they work and live. The purpose of the study was to determine the nature, extent, and effects of methamphetamine trafficking, distribution, and manufacturing in Indian country. A further goal was to determine what, if any, other illegal drugs or substances posed problems for tribal agencies and the programs 

and policies that are needed to help solve this complex public safety problem. 

 U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

145 N Street NE 

Washington, DC 20530 

To obtain details about COPS Office programs, call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770. 

Visit the COPS Office online at 

www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

e011818869 

Published 2018