U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

BJS

Mandatory P.L. 280 states

Optional P.L. 280 states

Indian reservations (U.S. Census Bureau)

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

Overview

Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities

Duren Banks, Steven W. Perry, and Allina Lee

Tribal Law Enforcement, 2008

Brian Reaves

State Prosecutors’ Offices with Jurisdiction in Indian Country, 2007

Steven W. Perry, Ron Malega, and Duren Banks

Selected Findings: Jails in Indian Country, 2009

Todd Minton

Summary: Tribal Youth in the Federal Justice System

Mark Motivans and Howard Snyder

Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011
2 June 2011

Bureau of Justice Statistics

James P. Lynch

Director

BJS Website:

www.bjs.gov

For information contact:

BJS Clearinghouse

1-800-732-3277

The Bureau of Justice Statistics 

is the statistics agency of the 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

Duren Banks coordinated the 

development of this compendium. 

Contributing authors include Duren 

Banks, Allina Lee, Ron Malega, Todd 

Minton, Mark Motivans, Steven W. 

Perry, Brian Reaves, and Howard 

Snyder.

In addition to the authors, other BJS 

staff who contributed to verification 

include Paul Guerino, Tracey 

Kyckelhahn, and Tracy L. Snell.

Morgan Young and Jill Thomas edited 

the report, Barbara Quinn designed 

and produced the report, and Jayne 

Robinson and Tina Dorsey prepared 

the report for final printing under the 

supervision of Doris J. James.

June 2011, NCJ 234459 
Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011 3

Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

BJS

Mandatory P.L. 280 states

Optional P.L. 280 states

Indian reservations (U.S. Census Bureau)

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

Overview

Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities

Duren Banks, Steven W. Perry, and Allina Lee

Tribal Law Enforcement, 2008

Brian Reaves

State Prosecutors’ Offices with Jurisdiction in Indian Country, 2007

Steven W. Perry, Ron Malega, and Duren Banks

Selected Findings: Jails in Indian Country, 2009

Todd Minton

Summary: Tribal Youth in the Federal Justice System

Mark Motivans and Howard Snyder
4 June 2011

Content s

 Overview 7

 Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities 9

The Tribal Law and Order Act, 2010 (TLOA; Pub. L. No. 111-211, 124 Stat. 2258, 

Section 251(b)) requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to establish and 

implement a tribal data collection system and to support tribal participation 

in national records and information systems. This is the first BJS report on the 

status of tribal data collection activities as required by the act. It describes 

BJS’s activities between July 2010 and June 2011 to improve tribal law 

enforcement reporting to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) 

and BJS’s direct collaboration with tribal criminal justice systems to collect 

data about tribal court systems. It summarizes data published by BJS on jails 

in Indian country, tribal law enforcement agencies, state prosecutors’ offices 

with jurisdiction in Indian country, tribal youth in the federal justice system, 

and reporting to the UCR. It describes activities and funding opportunities to 

improve tribal crime data collection through programs such as the National 

Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), the National Instant Criminal 

Background Check System (NICS), Byrne/JAG funding, and UCR training. 

Table 1.1. Tribes submitting crime data to the Uniform Crime Reporting 

Program (UCR) Program and receiving Byrne/Justice Assistance Grant 

(JAG) awards, FY 2008-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 1.2. Bureau of Justice Statistics planned program activities in response 

to the Tribal Law and Order Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

 Tribal Law Enforcement, 2008 15

Presents data on tribal law enforcement agencies from the 2008 Census of 

State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies. This report defines the number 

and locations of tribal law enforcement agencies, service populations, and the 

number of sworn and nonsworn employees. It describes agency participation 

in traditional law enforcement (routine patrol, criminal investigation, 

and dispatching calls for service), public safety functions (emergency 

management, animal control, and fire services), specialized functions (search 

and rescue, tactical operations, and underwater recovery), and court-related 

activities (executing arrest warrants, enforcing protection orders, and serving 

process). The report details participation in multiagency task forces involving 

drug and human trafficking, gangs, violent crime, and antiterrorism. It 

presents data on community outreach efforts, such as school resource officers 

and community policing officers. 

Table 2.1. Tribally operated law enforcement agencies, by type of agency 

and number of full-time sworn personnel, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 2.2. The 25 largest tribally operated law enforcement agencies, by 

the number of full-time sworn personnel, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 2.3. Use of community policing and school resource officers by tribal 

police departments, 2000 and 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 2.1. Location of tribally operated law enforcement agencies, 2008 . 15 

Figure 2.2. Selected law enforcement functions performed by tribal police 

departments, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 2.3. Selected court-related functions performed by tribal police 

departments, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 2.4. Selected special functions performed by tribal police 

departments, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 2.5. Task force participation of tribal police departments, 2008 . . . 19

 State Prosecutors’ Offices with Jurisdiction in Indian Country, 2007 21

Describes state prosecutors’ offices with jurisdiction in Indian country 

under Public Law 83-280 (P.L. 280). This report examines the activities of 

prosecutors’ offices in states affected by P.L. 280 through either mandatory 

or optional jurisdiction. Six states have mandatory jurisdiction under P.L. 280 

over crimes in Indian country: Alaska, California, Minnesota (except the Red 

Lake Reservation), Nebraska, Oregon (except the Warm Springs Reservation), 

and Wisconsin. The report also examines activities of prosecutors’ offices 

in the 10 states that have an option to assume jurisdiction over crimes in 

Indian country within their borders: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, 

Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington. Using data from 

the 2007 National Census of State Court Prosecutors, this report describes 

the characteristics of state prosecutors’ offices with jurisdiction for crimes 

committed in Indian country, including budgets, staffing, and caseload. It 

also examines the types of offenses committed in Indian country that were 

prosecuted in 2007.

Table 3.1. Number of tribes participating in the Census of Tribal Justice 

Agencies in Indian Country, by P.L. 280 status, type of court systems, and 

state, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 3.2. State prosecutors’ offices with jurisdiction for crimes committed 

in Indian country, by P.L. 280 status, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 3.3. Type of state prosecutors’ offices in Indian country, by P.L. 280 

status, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 3.4. Budget, staffing, and caseload of state prosecutors’ offices, 

by P.L. 280 status, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 3.1. State prosecutors’ offices reporting jurisdiction in Indian 

country under P.L. 280, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 3.2. State prosecutors’ offices reporting prosecution of specific 

crimes in Indian country, by P.L. 280 status, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011 5

Contents (continued)

 Selected Findings: Jails in Indian Country, 2009 27

Presents selected findings from the bulletin Jails in Indian Country, 2009, 

released in February 2011 (NCJ232223). Data are based on an enumeration 

of 80 jails, confinement facilities, detention centers, and other facilities 

operated by tribal authorities or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) reported 

to the annual Survey of Jails in Indian Country. The report includes data on 

the number of adults and juveniles held, type of offense, number of persons 

confined on the last weekday of each month, average daily population, peak 

population, and admissions in June 2009. It also summarizes rated capacity, 

facility crowding, and jail staffing.

Table 4.1. Inmates, rated capacity, and percent of capacity occupied in 

Indian country jails, 2004 and 2007-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 4.2. Jails in Indian country that held the majority of inmates in 2009 

compared to 2008, by facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 4.3. Number of Indian country jails, by percent of rated capacity 

occupied, June 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 4.4. Admissions and expected length of stay in Indian country jails 

during June, by facility size, June 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Table 4.5. Number of inmates confined in Indian country jails, by 

demographic characteristics, conviction status, and offense, midyear 2000, 

2002, 2004, and 2007-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 4.6. Number of persons employed in Indian country jails, by job 

function, June 30, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 4.1. Inmates confined in Indian country jails, at midyear 2000-2004 

and 2007-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 4.2. Percent of rated capacity occupied, by type of inmate count, 

June 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

 Summary: Tribal Youth in the Federal Justice System 35

Presents findings on tribal youth processed through the federal criminal 

justice system between 1999 and 2008. Findings are from a recent study 

conducted by the Urban Institute under the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Federal 

Justice Statistics Program (FJSP). This report describes the number of tribal 

youth in the federal system and examines how they are handled through 

the stages of the federal criminal case process, from arrest to confinement. 

It describes tribal youth demographic characteristics, offenses, and case 

outcomes, such as referrals for prosecution, dismissal rates, sentencing, and 

time served.

Table 5.1. Reason for matters declined for prosecution with tribal youth 

suspects, 2005-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 5.2. Federally recognized tribes and enrolled members, 2005 . . . . 38

Table 5.3. Tribal and non-tribal youth admitted to the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons, by offense type, 1944-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 5.1. Tribal youth referred to and prosecuted by U.S. attorneys, 

2000-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 5.2. Case-related reasons for declination, 2005-2008 . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 5.3. Tribal youth admitted to the custody of federal prison authorities, 

and five federal judicial districts that committed the majority of tribal youth, 

2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 5.4. Maximum time in federal custody of juveniles adjudicated 

delinquent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 5.5. Tribal youth in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, by status, at 

admission, 2000-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 5.6. Non-tribal youth admitted to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

by status, at admission, 2000-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Figure 5.7. Non-tribal youth admitted to the custody of federal prison 

authorities, and five federal judicial districts that committed the majority of 

tribal youth, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Highlights

 Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities 9

 The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) consulted with tribal leaders 

through a variety of forums in 2010.

 For the first time, the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) submissions to 

the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) were disaggregated by 

tribe and reported in Crime in the U.S., 2009.

 The number of tribes eligible for Byrne/JAG funding increased from 

5 to 22.

 In 2008, 140 tribal law enforcement staff received UCR training.

 BJS provided competitive funding opportunities for jurisdictions to 

improve criminal records.

 BJS developed a multifaceted data collection system that both 

established new collections and enhanced current programs.
6 June 2011

Highlights (continued)

 Tribal Law Enforcement, 2008 15

 Tribally operated law enforcement agencies employed nearly 4,600 

full-time personnel, including about 3,000 sworn officers. 

 The largest tribal law enforcement agency, the Navajo Police 

Department, employed 393 full-time sworn personnel in Arizona, 

New Mexico, and Utah.

 Eleven of the 25 largest tribal law enforcement agencies served 

jurisdictions covering more than 1,000 square miles.

 Overall, tribal police departments cost about $257 per resident to 

operate during fiscal year 2008.

 In addition to law enforcement functions, nearly all tribal police 

departments performed court-related functions, such as court 

security and serving process.

 More than half of tribal police departments used community 

policing officers, and more than a third used school resource 

officers.

 About 4 in 5 tribal police departments participated in one or more 

multiagency task forces.

 State Prosecutors’ Offices with Jurisdiction in Indian Country, 2007 21

 Ninety-three state court prosecutors’ offices in the 16 P.L. 280 states 

reported jurisdiction for felonies committed in Indian country 

under P.L. 280.

 Seventy-three percent of offices with jurisdiction in Indian country 

reported prosecuting at least one felony case committed in Indian 

country.

 Most offices in P.L. 280 states prosecuted at least one offense 

involving drugs (63%), domestic violence (60%), or aggravated 

assault (58%).

 Eighteen offices in mandatory P.L. 280 states with jurisdiction 

for Indian country prosecuted at least one rape, and 12 offices 

prosecuted a homicide. 

 Of state prosecutors’ offices that reported jurisdiction for felony 

cases in Indian country under P.L. 280, 70% served judicial districts 

with populations of less than 100,000 residents.

 Offices with jurisdiction for felony crimes committed in Indian 

country had an average operating budget of $5.2 million in 2007.

 Selected Findings: Jails in Indian Country, 2009 27

 The number of inmates confined in Indian country jails increased 

by 1.9% between midyear 2008 and 2009, reaching 2,176 inmates. 

 Between June 2008 and June 2009, the average daily jail 

population in Indian country increased by 12%, and the percentage 

of occupied bed space increased from 64.2% to 73.5%.

 Eleven jails (14% of all facilities) held 51% of inmates confined at 

midyear 2009.

 During June 2009, the number of inmates admitted to Indian 

country jails (11,357) was about 5 times the size of the average daily 

population (2,124).

 The expected average length of stay increased by a half day from 

5.1 days during June 2008 to 5.6 days during June 2009.

 Indian country jail authorities reported no deaths in custody 

between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009, down from 4 reported 

deaths during the 12-month period ending June 30, 2008.

 Attempted suicides by inmates declined from 78 in 2008 to 56 in 

2009. 

 Indian country jails held fewer inmates for domestic violence at 

midyear 2009 (252), continuing the downward trend in the number 

held for this offense since 2007 (362). 

 The percentage of certified correctional officers working in Indian 

country jails increased steadily, from 63% at midyear 2007 to 79% at 

midyear 2009.

 Summary: Tribal Youth in the Federal Justice System 35

 In 2008, relatively few juveniles were referred to federal prosecutors 

(315 out of 178,570 suspects) or admitted to federal prison 

jurisdiction (156 out 71,663 offenders).

 Tribal youth (70) comprised nearly half of juveniles (152) handled 

by the federal courts in 2008.

 Federal judicial districts of Arizona, Montana, South Dakota, New 

Mexico, and North Dakota accounted for 94% of tribal youth 

investigated, 92% of those prosecuted, and 88% of those admitted 

to federal prison jurisdiction in 2008.

 In 2008, about 72% of tribal youth were investigated for violent offenses, 

including sexual abuse (35%), assault (20%), and murder (17%).

 About 40% of matters involving tribal youth were declined by 

federal prosecutors in 2008.

 A greater share of cases involving tribal youth in U.S. district courts 

were terminated by conviction (91%) than by dismissal (9%).

 From 1994 to 2008, the lowest number of tribal (72) and non-tribal 

youth (84) admitted to the jurisdiction of federal prison authorities 

occurred in 2008. 

 Admissions to federal prison jurisdiction among tribal youth 

declined 10% per year from 1999 to 2008, while non-tribal youth 

admissions declined 12% per year.

 In 2008, tribal youth served an average of 26 months under federal 

jurisdiction, which was more than double the tribal justice system 

maximum sentence of 12 months.
Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011 7

Overview

The Tribal Law and Order Act 

(TLOA), enacted July 29, 2010, 

requires the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS) to (1) establish and 

implement a tribal data collection 

system and (2) support tribal 

participation in national records and 

information systems (P.L. 111-211, 124 

Stat. 2258, § 251(b)). The act further 

requires the director of BJS to consult 

with Indian tribes to establish and 

implement this data collection system. 

The BJS director is required to report to 

Congress within one year of enactment, 

and annually thereafter, the data 

collected and analyzed in accordance 

with the act. This report describes 

activities in support of BJS’s tribal crime 

data collection system and summarizes 

findings published from that system 

between July 2010 and June 2011.

Multifaceted data collection system

Criminal jurisdiction in Indian 

country—federally recognized 

reservations, tribal communities, and 

identified trust lands—varies by the 

type of crime committed, whether 

the offender or victim was a tribal 

member, and the state in which the 

offense occurred. Due to the sovereign 

status of federally recognized tribes in 

the United States, crimes committed 

in Indian country are often subject 

to concurrent jurisdiction between 

multiple criminal justice agencies. 

Public Law 83-280 (P.L. 280) gave 

select states legal jurisdiction over 

tribal members to prosecute crimes 

that occur on the reservation 

under existing state laws. These 

mandatory P.L. 280 states include 

California, Minnesota (except the 

Red Lake Reservation), Nebraska, 

Oregon (except the Warm Springs 

Reservation), Wisconsin, and Alaska.

P.L. 280 permitted other states to 

acquire jurisdiction over crimes 

committed in Indian country at 

their option. These optional P.L. 280 

states assume jurisdiction, either 

in whole or in part, over Indian 

country within their boundaries, and 

include Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, 

Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Utah, and Washington.

In the remaining states, where 

P.L. 280 does not apply, federal 

and tribal governments maintain 

concurrent jurisdiction for major 

crimes committed in Indian country 

(as defined in the Major Crimes Act 

and subsequent amendments (18 

U.S.C. § 1153)). Tribal governments 

have jurisdiction for all other crimes 

committed in Indian country that 

involve both an Indian offender 

and Indian victim. States retain 

jurisdiction for non-Indian crimes 

committed in Indian country—those 

in which neither the offender nor the 

victim is a tribal member.

Due in part to these jurisdictional 

complexities, existing tribal data 

systems are often limited in scope and 

applicable only to certain jurisdictions 

or states. An effective tribal data 

collection system will include data 

from federal, state, local, and tribal 

agencies. The information maintained 

in this system should further be 

considered in light of the concurrent 

jurisdictional roles multiple agencies 

maintain in Indian country.

Recent findings from the tribal 

data collection system

178 tribal law enforcement agencies 

operated in 2008

In September 2008, American Indian 

tribes operated 178 law enforcement 

agencies. These 178 agencies 

employed at least one full-time sworn 

officer with general arrest powers or 

the equivalent in part-time officers. 

The total includes 157 general 

purpose tribal police departments and 

21 special jurisdiction agencies tasked 

with enforcing natural resources laws 

that pertain primarily to hunting and 

fishing on tribal lands. 

Tribes operated law enforcement 

agencies in 28 states and employed 

about 3,000 full-time sworn 

personnel. Eleven of the 25 largest 

tribal law enforcement agencies 

served jurisdictions of more than 

1,000 square miles. (See Tribal Law 

Enforcement, 2008, page 15, for more 

information.)

83 tribal law enforcement agencies 

provided data through the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) that met the FBI’s 

guidelines for publication

Offenses known to tribal law 

enforcement agencies were reported 

by tribal agencies in the FBI’s Crime in 

the United States, 2009. Eighty-three 

tribal law enforcement agencies met 

FBI guidelines for data publication 

in the report.* Nearly 3,800 violent 

crimes and approximately 11,400 

property crimes were known to 

*Crimes known to tribal law enforcement 

agencies are submitted to the UCR through the 

BIA. UCR data must be submitted by local law 

enforcement with a valid reporting number, 

and be complete for all 12 months of the year.

Data submitted to the UCR must also meet FBI 

data quality guidelines for publication in Crime 

in the U.S.
8 June 2011

these selected tribal law enforcement 

agencies in 2009. (See the FBI’s Crime 

in the United States, 2009, http://

www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/

table_11.html, for more information.)

93 state prosecutors’ offices in P.L. 

280 states reported jurisdiction for 

felonies committed in Indian country

In 2007, 93 state court prosecutors’ 

offices reported jurisdiction under 

P.L. 280 for felonies committed in 

Indian country. Seventy-three percent 

of these offices reported prosecuting 

at least one felony case that arose from 

Indian country in 2007, including at 

least one offense that involved drugs 

(63%), domestic violence (60%), or 

aggravated assault (58%). Most state 

prosecutors’ offices with jurisdiction 

under P.L. 280 served districts with 

100,000 or fewer residents. (See State 

Prosecutors’ Offices with Jurisdiction 

in Indian Country, 2007, page 21, for 

more information.)

Jails in Indian country housed 2,176 

inmates in 2009

The number of inmates confined in 

Indian country jails increased by 1.9% 

between midyear 2008 and midyear 

2009, from 2,135 to 2,176 inmates. 

Over the 12 months ending June 

2009, the average daily jail population 

in Indian country increased by 12%, 

and the percentage of occupied bed 

space increased from 64.2% to 73.5%. 

(See Selected Findings: Jails in Indian 

Country, 2009, page 27, for more 

information.)

Most tribal youth in the federal 

system were referred for violent 

offenses

Between 1999 and 2008, 65% of tribal 

youth in criminal matters received by 

federal prosecutors were referred for 

a violent offense. Sexual abuse was 

the most common violent offense, 

followed by assault and murder.

In 2008, federal prosecutors received 

129 tribal youth suspects in matters 

opened out of 178,570 total matters 

investigated. Tribal youth admitted 

to the legal custody of federal prison 

authorities were mostly male (90%) 

and tended to be older teens; more 

than two-thirds were between the 

ages 16 and 17. (See Summary: Tribal 

Youth in the Federal Justice System, 

page 35, for more information.)
Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2011 9

The Bureau of Justice Statistics 

(BJS), in collaboration with 

other federal agencies and 

American Indian tribes, conducted 

several activities to develop the tribal 

data collection system as of June 2011. 

The data collection system establishes 

both new data collections and 

enhances current programs to carry 

out the requirements of the Tribal 

Law and Order Act (TLOA), 2010. 

BJS focused on improving tribal law 

enforcement reporting to the FBI’s 

Uniform Crime Reporting Program 

(UCR) and developed direct data 

collection from tribal criminal 

justice systems, such as collecting 

information about the nature and 

operation of tribal court systems. 

Efforts also include activities and 

funding opportunities to improve 

tribal crime data collection through 

programs such as the National 

Criminal History Improvement 

Program (NCHIP), the National 

Instant Criminal Background Check 

System (NICS), Byrne/JAG funding, 

and UCR training. 

Activities to Support Tribal Crime 

Data Collection Systems, July 2010 

through June 2011

Tribal consultations conducted in 

2010

BJS consulted with tribal leaders 

through a variety of forums in 2010. 

BJS developed and distributed 

an initial plan that responded to 

the TLOA sections that directly 

referenced tribal crime data 

collection. This plan was presented to 

several stakeholder groups to invite 

feedback and input, including—

 Interdepartmental Tribal Justice 

Safety and Wellness Consultation, 

Session 12 (December 2010, Palm 

Springs, CA)

 Uniform Crime Reporting 

Program (UCR) trainings for 

tribal law enforcement (2010) 

agencies

 National Congress of American 

Indians, 2011 Executive Council 

Winter Meeting (March 2011, 

Washington, DC).

For the first time, the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs’ (BIA) submissions to UCR were 

disaggregated by tribe and reported 

in the FBI’s Crime in the U.S., 2009

Working with the Office of Justice 

Services in the BIA, and the Office 

of Tribal Justice and the FBI in the 

Department of Justice (DOJ), BJS 

developed a process to support tribal 

access to, and input in, regional and 

national criminal justice databases, 

including the National Crime 

Information Center (NCIC) and the 

Uniform Crime Reporting Program 

(UCR).

As a result of this process, data 

provided to the FBI from the BIA 

were able to be disaggregated by 

tribe. Offenses known to tribal law 

enforcement agencies were reported 

by tribal agencies in the FBI’s Crime 

in the United States, 2009. Eightythree tribal law enforcement agencies 

met FBI guidelines for data to be 

published in the report. 

Tribal Crime Data Collection 

Activities, 2011

Duren Banks, Ph.D., and Steven W. Perry, BJS Statisticians

Allina Lee, BJS Policy Analyst

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics June 2011, NCJ 234518

Highlights

 The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) consulted with 

tribal leaders through a variety of forums in 2010.

 For the first time, the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) 

submissions to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program 

(UCR) were disaggregated by tribe and reported in 

Crime in the U.S., 2009.

 The number of tribes eligible for Byrne/JAG funding 

increased from 5 in 2008 to 22 in 2010.

 In 2010, 140 tribal law enforcement staff received UCR 

training.

 BJS provided competitive funding opportunities for 

jurisdictions to improve criminal records in fiscal year 

2011.

 BJS developed a multifaceted data collection system 

that both established new collections and enhanced 

current programs.
10 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

The number of tribes eligible for Byrne/

JAG funding increased from 5 in fiscal 

year 2008 to 22 in fiscal year 2010

Collaborative efforts between the 

departments of Justice and Interior have 

increased the number of tribes reporting 

monthly crime data to the UCR, thereby 

increasing the number of tribes eligible to 

receive Byrne/JAG awards. 

Byrne/JAG funds can be used to support a 

range of activities in seven broad program 

areas, including law enforcement; 

prosecution and courts; crime prevention 

and education; corrections; drug 

treatment and enforcement; program 

planning, evaluation, and technology 

improvement; and crime victim and 

witness programs. 

Most American Indian tribes had been 

ineligible to receive Byrne/JAG funds 

because of gaps in Indian country crime 

statistics and traditional methods for 

reporting data. Prior to 2009, BIA provided 

an aggregate number of crimes known to 

tribal law enforcement to the UCR. Since 

these data could not be disaggregated by 

tribe, tribal law enforcement agencies that 

did not submit information directly to 

the UCR were not eligible for Byrne/JAG 

awards. In FY 2008, 25 tribes submitted 

crime data directly to the FBI, with 5 of 

the tribes eligible to receive Byrne/JAG 

awards totaling $150,000. In FY 2010, 

the number of tribes that submitted 

crime data increased to 144 following 

collaborative efforts between agencies in 

the departments of Justice and Interior, 

with 22 tribes eligible for Byrne/JAG 

awards totaling $709,000 (table 1.1).

More than 140 tribal law enforcement 

staff received UCR training

Through Recovery Act funds, BJS 

developed and implemented the Tribal 

Crime Data project to further support 

the reporting of tribal crime to the UCR, 

and thereby establish eligibility for Byrne/

JAG funds. The project is also part of 

BJS’s larger effort to collect more reliable 

information on American Indians in 

the criminal justice system and crimes 

committed in Indian country. 

Through the Tribal Crime Data project, 

BJS conducted three training sessions 

in 2010, with more than 140 tribal 

members, on the use of the UCR systems. 

In 2011 the project provided training and 

technical assistance to tribes that did not 

meet FBI data quality guidelines or had 

not previously submitted complete crime 

data to BIA.

Table 1.1

Tribes submitting crime data to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) 

and receiving Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) awards, FY 2008–2010

Number of tribes—

Fiscal Year Reporting to UCR Eligible for JAG award Eligible award amount 

2008 25 5 $150,000 

2009 106 20 559,000

2010 144 22 709,000

BJS, acting jointly with 

the Office of Justice 

Services, BIA (DOI), and 

the FBI (DOJ), will work 

with tribes and tribal law 

enforcement to establish 

and implement tribal data 

collection systems (P.L. 

111-211 § 251(b)).
Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2011 11

Funding for improving criminal records

To improve criminal records, BJS 

provided outreach to agencies in tribal 

jurisdictions through two competitive 

funding opportunities:

 National Criminal History 

Improvement Program (NCHIP) 

solicitation, 2011

 National Instant Criminal Background 

Check System (NICS) Act Record 

Improvement Program (NARIP) 

solicitation, 2011.

The TLOA made federally recognized tribes 

eligible for awards under BJS’s NCHIP. 

State and tribal entities apply for NCHIP 

funds to enhance the crime fighting and 

criminal justice capabilities of governments 

by improving the accuracy, utility, and 

interstate accessibility of criminal history 

records. Jurisdictions also apply for NCHIP 

funds to enhance records of protective 

orders that involve domestic violence and 

stalking, sex offender records, automated 

identification systems, and other state 

systems that support national records 

systems and their use for criminal history 

background checks.

BJS released the FY 2011 NCHIP 

solicitation on January 13, 2011, and 

collaborated with other OJP components 

to disseminate information about the 

NCHIP funding announcement as 

broadly as possible. Tribal contacts 

were alerted via email to the funding 

opportunity, and the solicitation was 

posted to the BJS and DOJ Tribal Safety 

and Justice websites. Information about 

the NCHIP funding opportunity was also 

presented during several meetings and a 

consultation in the fall and winter of 2010.

Additionally, BJS developed an addendum 

to the solicitation that identified priority 

funding areas and eligibility requirements 

for tribal applicants. The addendum 

outlined key tribal priority areas activities 

related to—

 information technology systems to 

capture and transmit tribal issued 

domestic violence and stalking records 

to the FBI NCIC Protection Order File

 automation and transmission of 

existing qualifying domestic violence 

and stalking records to the FBI NCIC 

Protection Order File.

The NARIP implements the provisions 

of the NICS Improvement Amendments 

Act of 2007, enacted in the wake of the 

shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech and 

includes tribes as eligible entities.

The NARIP funds provide assistance 

to eligible states and tribes to improve 

the completeness, automation, and 

transmittal of records needed by the 

NICS to identify persons prohibited from 

receiving or possessing a firearm. These 

records include prohibited mental health 

adjudications and commitments, felony 

convictions, felony indictments, fugitives 

from justice, drug arrests and convictions, 

domestic violence protection orders, 

and misdemeanor crimes of domestic 

violence.

BJS will award FY 2011 NARIP funds to 

support efforts to improve the records 

used by NICS, by providing assistance 

to states and tribes to improve the 

completeness, automation, and transmittal 

of records to state and federal systems. BJS 

released the FY 2011 NARIP solicitation 

on March 15, 2011. The same process 

used to disseminate information about the 

NCHIP funding opportunity was followed 

to alert tribes to the NARIP solicitation. 

Subject to the availability of appropriated 

funds and any modifications or additional 

requirements that may be imposed by 

law, BJS plans to competitively award 

NCHIP and NARIP funds in FY 2011. 

Eligible applications will be evaluated and 

scored by peer reviewers, and funding will 

be made based on the selection criteria 

outlined in the solicitations.

BJS is authorized 

to provide for 

improvements in 

the accuracy, quality, 

timeliness, immediate 

accessibility, and 

integration of state 

and tribal criminal history 

and related records (P.L. 

111-211 § 251(b)(1)(H)).
12 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

BJS established new collections 

and enhanced current programs

In addition to collaborating with other 

federal agencies to improve tribal law 

enforcement reporting to the UCR, BJS 

developed a plan to collect information 

about tribal criminal justice systems. This 

multipronged approach both established 

new collections and enhanced current 

programs that serve the purposes of the 

TLOA.

Through its ongoing statistical projects, 

BJS provided information on (1) suspects 

and defendants processed in the federal 

criminal justice system, including federal 

prosecutions of crimes committed in Indian 

country, (2) the incidence of crimes known 

to law enforcement that occur on tribal 

reservations or were reported by Indian 

country law enforcement authorities, (3) 

the characteristics of tribal law enforcement 

agencies, and (4) the characteristics of 

jails in Indian country. BJS plans to begin 

collecting information about the nature and 

operation of tribal court systems in 2012 

(table 1.2).

Survey of Tribal Court Systems

BJS developed the Survey of Tribal Court 

Systems to build on BJS’s previous Census 

of Tribal Justice Agencies (See Census of 

Tribal Justice Agencies in Indian Country, 

2002, BJS Web, December 2005). The 

survey will gather administrative and 

operational information from tribal 

courts, prosecutors’ offices, and indigent 

defense providers operating in the 

estimated 190 federally recognized tribal 

justice systems in the U.S. 

Subject to the availability of appropriated 

funds and any modifications or 

additional requirements that may be 

imposed by law, BJS plans to award the 

Survey of Tribal Court Systems in FY 

2011. BJS will work with the awardee 

and collaborating organizations to 

develop the data collection instrument 

and methodology. The instrument will 

include, at a minimum, measures of 

tribal court organization, court caseload, 

characteristics of prosecutors in tribal 

courts, and systems to provide indigent 

defense in tribal courts.

Based on the results of the initial data 

collection, BJS will devise a strategy for 

conducting a regular data collection 

program among Indian country court 

systems.

Census of State and Local Law 

Enforcement Agencies

The Census of State and Local Law 

Enforcement Agencies provides data on 

staffing, functions, and expenditures. Data 

collected include the number of sworn 

and civilian personnel by state and type 

of agency, and functions performed by 

each agency. BJS analyzed and published 

findings from data collected in 2008, 

from the Census of State and Local 

Law Enforcement Agencies program, 

including 178 tribal law enforcement 

agencies.

Survey of Jails in Indian Country

The Survey of Jails in Indian Country 

data describe jails, confinement facilities, 

detention centers, and other facilities 

operated by tribal authorities or BIA. The 

annual report from the Survey of Jails 

in Indian Country includes data on the 

number of adults and juveniles held, type 

of offense, number of persons confined on 

the last weekday of each month, average 

daily population, peak population, and 

admissions at midyear. It also summarizes 

rated capacity, facility crowding, and 

jail staffing. The most recent report that 

describes findings from the 2009 survey 

was released in February 2011.

National Census of State Court 

Prosecutors

In 2007 BJS conducted the National 

Census of State Prosecutors, which was the 

second complete enumeration of all chief 

prosecutors who tried felony cases in state 

courts of general jurisdiction. The census 

collected information about whether district 

The director of BJS will 

establish and implement 

a tribal data collection 

system (P.L. 111-211 § 

251(b)).
Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2011 13

Table 1.2

Bureau of Justice Statistics Planned Program Activities in Response to the Tribal Law and Order Act

Program Objective Timeline

Collaboration with DOJ Components 

and BIA

To increase the number of tribes eligible 

to receive Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 

Assistance Grant (JAG) Program funds, ensure 

tribal access to regional and national databases, 

and develop comprehensive tribal crime data 

systems.

Ongoing.

BJS Recovery Act Program To support tribes to more accurately and 

consistently report tribal crime data to the BIA 

and/or the FBI through technical assistance, 

training, and information sharing.

Crimes known to some tribal law enforcement 

agencies published in Crime in the United States, 2009

and annually thereafter.

Grants to Support Tribal Participation in 

Regional and National Databases

To continue to include federally-recognized 

tribes as eligible entities for the National Instant 

Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Act 

Record Improvement Program and add federallyrecognized tribes as eligible entities to the 

National Criminal History Improvement Program 

(NCHIP) grant awards.

Tribes are eligible for awards as of FY 2009 (NICS) and 

FY 2011 (NCHIP).

Census of State and Local Law 

Enforcement Agencies

To collect data from all state, local, and tribal law 

enforcement agencies on staffing, expenditures 

and functions. BJS will continue to implement 

strategies designed to accurately represent the 

work of tribal law enforcement agencies.

Periodically since 1992.

Latest report: 2004 census

2008 census report in 2011.

Survey of Tribal Court Systems To gather administrative and operational 

information from tribal courts, prosecutors’ 

offices, and indigent defense providers.

Award: August 2011.

Design and Data Collection: 2011-2012.

Analysis and Reporting: Early 2013.

Survey of Jails in Indian Country The survey is an annual enumeration of jails, 

confinement facilities, detention centers, and 

other facilities operated by tribal authorities or 

the BIA. 

Data are collected intermittently via an addendum 

to the core survey on the physical conditions 

and operations of Indian country facilities. The 

addendum requests information on inmate medical 

services, mental health services, suicide prevention 

procedures, substance dependency programs, 

domestic violence counseling, sex offender 

treatment, education programs, and inmate work 

assignments. 

Annually since 1998.

Latest report: 2009 survey

2010 survey report expected in 2011.

Federal Justice Statistics Program To compile comprehensive information 

describing suspects and defendants processed in 

the federal criminal justice system.

Ongoing since 1998.

Annual data through 2009 available on the BJS 

website.

BJS Native American Crime Information 

Website

To provide users with easy-to-access and 

current information from existing and new data 

collection programs

Design and populate website: 2010-2011.

Public release: Late 2011.
14 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

attorney offices have jurisdiction for 

prosecuting felony cases occurring 

in Indian country under P.L. 280, 

and what types of crimes the office 

prosecuted. The findings from this 

data collection are in State Prosecutors’ 

Offices with Jurisdiction in Indian 

Country on page 21.

Federal Justice Statistics Program

The Federal Justice Statistics Program 

(FJSP) provides comprehensive and 

detailed information about the federal 

justice system’s processing of criminal 

cases. The FJSP provides annual data 

on workload, activities, and outcomes 

associated with federal criminal cases. 

Information is acquired on all aspects 

of processing in the federal justice 

system, including arrests, prosecution 

decisions, referrals to magistrates, 

court dispositions, sentencing 

outcomes, sentence length, and time 

served. The FJSP receives the source 

data from the U.S. Marshals Service, 

Drug Enforcement Administration, 

Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, 

Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts, U.S. Sentencing Commission, 

and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

BJS is currently developing research 

projects that will examine American 

Indian defendants who are processed 

in the federal justice system. Findings 

from the first of these projects, 

describing characteristics of American 

Indian youth who are processed in 

the federal criminal justice system, are 

in the Summary: Tribal Youth in the 

Federal Justice System on page 35.

References

Crime in the United States, 2009, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Federal Bureau 

of Investigation, September 2010.

Jails in Indian Country, 2009, NCJ 

232223, BJS Web, February 2011.

State Prosecutors Offices with 

Jurisdiction in Indian Country, 2007, 

NCJ 234241, BJS Web, June 2011.

Tribal Law Enforcement, 2008. NCJ 

234217, BJS Web, June 2011.

Summary: Tribal Youth in the Federal 

Justice System, NCJ 234218, BJS Web, 

June 2011.
Tribal Law Enforcement, 2008 15

Tribal Law Enforcement, 2008

Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D., BJS Statistician

I

n September 2008, American 

Indian tribes operated 178 

law enforcement agencies that 

employed at least one full-time sworn 

officer with general arrest powers or 

the equivalent in part-time officers. 

The total includes 157 general 

purpose tribal police departments and 

21 special jurisdiction agencies tasked 

with enforcing natural resources laws 

that pertain primarily to hunting and 

fishing on tribal lands.

Collectively, tribes operated 

law enforcement agencies in 28 

states. Washington (24), Arizona (22), 

Oklahoma (19), and New Mexico (17) 

had the largest numbers of tribal law 

enforcement agencies (figure 2.1). 

These findings are based on the 2008 

Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Census 

of State and Local Law Enforcement 

Agencies.

In addition to tribally operated 

agencies, the Department of the 

Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) operated 42 agencies 

that provided law enforcement 

Highlights

 Tribally operated law enforcement agencies employed 

nearly 4,600 full-time personnel, including about 

3,000 sworn officers.

 The largest tribal law enforcement agency, the Navajo 

Police Department, employed 393 full-time sworn 

personnel in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.

 Eleven of the 25 largest tribal law enforcement 

agencies served jurisdictions covering more than 

1,000 square miles.

 Overall, tribal police departments cost about $257 per 

resident to operate during FY 2008.

 In addition to law enforcement functions, nearly all 

tribal police departments performed court-related 

functions, such as court security and serving process.

 More than half of tribal police departments used 

community policing officers, and more than a third 

used school resource officers.

 About 4 in 5 tribal police departments participated in 

one or more multiagency task forces.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics June 2011 NCJ 234217

NotriballyoperatedLEagencies

Under5agencies

5-9agencies

10ormoreagencies

Figure 2.1

Location of tribally operated law enforcement agencies, 2008

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2008
16 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

services in Indian country. 

Nationwide, BIA employed 277 

full-time sworn personnel in 2008. 

Along with direct oversight of its 

own programs, BIA also provided 

technical assistance and some 

oversight to tribally operated 

agencies.

On the more than 300 federal Indian 

reservation areas in the U.S., police 

officers may be tribal, federal, state, 

county, or municipal employees. 

Some areas may be served by more 

than one type of officer.

Commonly, tribal police department 

funding, administration, and 

employees are based on the 

Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act of 1975, 

(Public Law 93-638 or P.L. 638). 

This law allowed tribes to assume 

responsibility for many programs 

previously administered by the 

federal government, including law 

enforcement. P.L. 638 agencies 

operate with tribal employees under 

contract and with financial assistance 

from the BIA. 

Tribally operated agencies can also 

function under a self-governance 

compact with the BIA. This 

arrangement provides block grant 

payments, allowing for more tribal 

control than the line item funding of 

P.L. 638 contracts. Full tribal control 

over law enforcement services exists 

where such services are entirely 

funded by the tribal government. 

Jurisdiction over offenses in Indian 

country may lie with federal, state, 

or tribal agencies, depending on the 

offense, offender, victim, and offense 

location. Most tribes have crossdeputization agreements, often with 

neighboring nontribal agencies. These 

agreements allow law enforcement 

personnel from state, local, and 

tribal entities to cross jurisdictions 

in criminal cases, and can be used to 

enhance law enforcement capabilities 

in areas where state and tribal lands 

are contiguous and intermingled.

In some instances, the number of 

agreements is large. For example, the 

Cherokee Nation Marshal Service is 

cross-deputized with 50 municipal, 

county, state, and federal agencies. 

Tribal police departments employed 

2.3 full-time officers per 1,000 

residents

In September 2008, the 178 operating 

tribal law enforcement agencies 

employed more than 4,500 fulltime personnel, including about 

3,000 sworn officers (table 2.1). The 

157 general purpose tribal police 

departments employed 4,294 full-time 

personnel, including 2,835 sworn 

officers and 1,459 civilian personnel. 

These agencies employed an additional 

129 part-time personnel, including 80 

sworn officers (not shown in table). 

The 21 natural resources agencies 

employed 271 full-time personnel, 

including 164 sworn officers and 107 

civilian employees. These natural 

resources agencies also employed 

11 part-time personnel, including 7 

sworn officers (not shown in table).

General purpose tribal police 

departments had a combined service 

population of about 1.2 million 

residents.* This corresponds to 

about 2.3 full-time sworn officers 

per 1,000 residents, which was the 

national average for all local police 

departments as of 2007. (See Local 

Police Departments, 2007, BJS Web, 

December 2010.) Collectively, tribal 

police departments cost $257 per 

resident to operate for 2008 (not 

shown in table). In 2007 the national 

average for all local police departments 

was $260 per resident.

*Based on the American Indian service 

population counts published in BIA’s American 

Indian Population and Labor Force Report, 

2005. The service population is the total 

number of enrolled tribal members and 

members from other tribes who live on or near 

the reservation and are eligible to use the BIAfunded tribal services. The service population 

excludes any non-Indian residents served by a 

tribally operated law enforcement agency and 

other persons using roads, stores, casinos, and 

other public places on tribal land.

Table 2.1

Tribally operated law enforcement agencies, by type of agency and 

number of full-time sworn personnel, 2008

Type of agency and number of 

full-time sworn personnel Number of agencies

Number of full-time employees

Total Sworn Civilian

All agencies 178 4,565 2,999 1,566

General purpose police departments

Total 157 4,294 2,835 1,459

50 or more 6 1,397 871 526

25-49 19 955 607 348

10-24 61 1,380 955 425

5-9 47 479 332 147

Under 5 24 83 70 13

Natural resources agencies

Total 21 271 164 107

10-24 8 154 107 47

5-9 4 38 29 9

Under 5 9 79 28 51
Tribal Law Enforcement, 2008 17

11 of the 25 largest tribal law 

enforcement agencies served 

jurisdictions of more than 1,000 

square miles

The 25 largest tribally operated 

agencies employed at least 25 fulltime sworn personnel. The largest 

agency, the Navajo Police Department, 

employed 393 full-time officers to 

serve tribal lands in Arizona, New 

Mexico, and Utah (table 2.2). The 

next largest were the Seminole Police 

Department (Florida) with 144 officers, 

and the Salt River Police Department 

(Arizona) with 125 officers. 

The BIA service population for the 

25 largest agencies ranged from less 

than 1,000 to about 200,000 residents. 

Although not all reservations are 

open to the public, many tribal law 

enforcement agencies deal with a 

significant number of daily visitors in 

addition to the resident population. The 

natural resources of tribal lands attract 

visitors, as do conference facilities and 

casinos. All of the 25 largest agencies 

had at least one casino operating within 

their jurisdictional area.

The amount of land area served by a 

tribal law enforcement agency can be 

quite large. For example, the Navajo 

Police Department has jurisdiction 

over about 22,000 square miles, a 

larger land area than any county in 

the continental United States. Ten 

other agencies among the 25 largest 

had jurisdictional areas exceeding 

1,000 square miles, a larger land 

area than any city in the continental 

United States.

Table 2.2

The 25 largest tribally operated law enforcement agencies, by the number of full-time sworn personnel, 2008

Name and location of agency 

Number of 

full-time sworn 

personnel

BIA service 

population, 

2005

Full-time sworn 

personnel per 

1,000 residents

Reservation

land area 

(square miles)

Full-time sworn 

personnel per 

25 square miles

Navajo Police Department (AZ, NM, UT) 393 192,067 2.0 22,174 0.4

Seminole Police Department (FL) 144 3,165 45.5 141 25.5

Salt River Police Department (AZ) 125 7,313 17.1 81 38.6

Gila River Indian Community Police Department (AZ) 93 14,966 6.2 584 4.0

Tohono O’odham Police Department (AZ) 66 26,673 2.5 4,453 0.4

Choctaw Police Department (MS) 50 8,313 6.0 25 50.0

Oglala Sioux Tribe Department of Public Safety (SD) 49 43,146 1.1 3,159 0.4

Cherokee Indian Police Department (NC) 45 13,562 3.3 83 13.6

Muscogee (Creek) Nation Lighthorse Tribal Police (OK) 39 55,817 0.7 4,648 0.2

Miccosukee Police Department (FL) 36 589 61.1 128 7.0

Poarch Creek Tribal Police Department (AL) 33 1,567 21.1 0.4 --

Cherokee Nation Marshal Service (OK) 32 197,684 0.2 6,702 0.1

Choctaw Nation Tribal Police Department (OK) 32 99,371 0.3 10,613 0.1

Colville Tribal Police Department (WA) 32 5,052 6.3 2,117 0.4

Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Police Department (MI) 30 1,799 16.7 218 3.4

Tulalip Tribal Police Services (WA) 30 2,869 10.5 35 21.4

Warm Springs Tribal Police Department (OR) 30 4,079 7.4 1,011 0.7

White Mountain Apache Police Department (AZ) 30 12,213 2.5 2,628 0.3

Isleta Police Department (NM) 29 3,980 7.3 331 2.2

Yakama Nation Tribal Police Department (WA) 28 16,815 1.7 2,153 0.3

Pascua Yaqui Tribal Police Department (AZ) 27 14,787 1.8 2 --

Puyallup Tribal Police Department (WA) 27 24,016 1.1 29 23.3

Rosebud Sioux Tribal Police Department (SD) 27 22,293 1.2 1,388 0.5

Red Lake Tribal Police Department (MN) 26 10,338 2.5 880 0.7

Oneida Indian Nation Police (NY) 25 650 38.5 0.1 --

Note: Land area data are from the U.S. Census Bureau, and include reservation land only. 

--Reservation land area is less than 25 square miles.
18 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

Tribal law enforcement agencies 

were responsible for a broad range of 

services and functions during 2008

Nearly all general purpose tribal 

police departments were responsible 

for traditional law enforcement 

functions, such as routine patrol 

(100%), responding to citizen requests 

for service (100%), special events 

and crowd control (98%), criminal 

investigation (96%), and traffic 

enforcement (96%) (figure 2.2). About 

4 in 5 departments were responsible for 

parking enforcement (80%), and about 

2 in 3 departments dispatched calls for 

service (66%). 

About 3 in 5 general purpose tribal 

police departments had full-time 

community policing officers

A majority of tribal police departments 

used a community policing approach 

in their efforts to prevent crime 

and maintain partnerships with 

the communities they serve. About 

three-fifths (59%) of departments had 

full-time sworn personnel serving as 

community policing officers (table 

2.3). As of September 2008, about 500 

tribal police officers were designated as 

community policing officers. In 2000, 

73% of tribal agencies reported using 

community policing officers, with 

about 700 designated as such. 

For more than a third (36%) of tribal 

police departments, community 

policing efforts extended into the 

schools, with 82 full-time sworn 

personnel assigned as school resource 

officers. Although the percentage of 

departments using school resource 

officers in 2008 was about the same 

as in 2000 (37%), the total number of 

officers was about half of 2000 levels.

Nearly all tribal police departments 

performed a variety of court-related 

functions

In addition to law enforcement duties, 

nearly all tribal police departments 

were responsible for a variety of 

court-related functions (figure 2.3). 

The most common functions were 

executing arrest warrants (95%), 

enforcing protection orders (92%), 

serving process (89%), apprehending 

fugitives (88%), and providing court 

security (75%). 

Table 2.3

Use of community policing and 

school resource officers by tribal 

police departments, 2000 and 

2008

2000 2008

Community policing officers

Percent of agencies using 73% 59%

Number of officers 714 503

School resource officers

Percent of agencies using 37% 36%

Number of officers 162 82

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent of agencies

Dispatching 

calls Parking enforcement 

Accident 

investigation

Crime 

investigation

Trac law 

enforcement Special events/crowd 

control

Responding 

to calls 

for service

Routine

 patrol

Type of function

Figure 2.2

Selected law enforcement functions performed by tribal police 

departments, 2008

Figure 2.3

Selected court-related functions performed by tribal police departments, 

2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent of agencies 

Type of function

Enforcing child 

support orders

Serving 

eviction 

notices

Inmate 

transport

Court 

security

Apprehension 

of fugitives

Serving 

process

Enforcing 

protection 

orders

Executing 

arrest 

warrants
Tribal Law Enforcement, 2008 19

Nearly half of tribal police 

departments were responsible for 

search and rescue operations

Nearly 9 in 10 tribal police 

departments performed one or more 

special public safety functions, the 

most common being emergency 

management (65%) and animal 

control (64%) (figure 2.4). About 

a third (31%) provided emergency 

medical services. Nearly a fifth 

provided fire services (19%) and 

school crossing services (18%).

More than half (58%) of tribal police 

departments performed at least one 

specialized function, such as search 

and rescue (43%), tactical operations 

(26%), or underwater recovery (10%). 

About 1 in 6 agencies operated at 

least one jail (17%), and about 1 in 10 

agencies operated an overnight lockup 

facility separate from a jail (10%). (For 

more information, see Jails in Indian 

County, 2009, BJS Web, February 

2011.) 

The 21 special jurisdiction agencies, 

whose primary focus was the 

enforcement of natural resources laws, 

performed a variety of functions as 

well. In addition to providing patrol 

and response services, a majority of 

these agencies performed the following 

functions: criminal investigation (82%), 

search and rescue (71%), apprehension 

of fugitives (59%), animal control 

(59%), traffic enforcement (59%), and 

dispatching calls for service (53%) (not 

shown in figure).

About two-thirds of general 

purpose tribal police departments 

participated in a multiagency drug 

task force

About 4 in 5 (78%) tribal police 

departments partnered with 

federal, state, and local agencies in 

multiagency task forces to combat 

crime problems in Indian country 

during 2008. These task forces allow 

participating agencies to share in 

pooled resources, information, 

and expertise across jurisdictional 

boundaries. 

Tribal police departments were most 

likely to participate in task forces 

formed to combat drug trafficking 

(66% of agencies) (figure 2.5). About 

2 in 5 (41%) departments participated 

in multiagency gang task forces, and 

about a third (32%) participated 

in violent crime task forces. 

Smaller percentages of tribal police 

departments participated in antiterrorism (17%) or human trafficking 

(9%) task forces.

0

20

40

60

80

Percent of agencies

Jail 

operation

School 

crossing 

services

Fire 

services 

Tactical 

operations 

(SWAT)

Emergency 

medical 

services

Search 

and rescue

Animal 

control Emergency management

Type of function

Figure 2.4

Selected special functions performed by tribal police departments, 2008

0

20

40

60

80

Percent of agencies

Human 

tracking

AntiterrorismViolent 

crime Drug Gangs tracking

One or 

more types

Type of function

Figure 2.5

Task force participation of tribal police departments, 2008
20 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

Methodology

The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 

(BJS) Census of State and Local Law 

Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA) is 

conducted every 4 years to provide 

a complete enumeration of agencies 

and their employees. Employment 

data are reported for sworn and 

nonsworn personnel and, within 

these categories, by full-time or parttime status. Agencies also complete a 

checklist of functions they regularly 

perform, or for which they have 

primary responsibility. 

The CSLLEA provides national 

data on the number of state and 

local law enforcement agencies and 

employees for general purpose local 

police departments (including tribal 

agencies), sheriffs’ offices, the primary 

state law enforcement agencies, and 

special jurisdiction (e.g., natural 

resources) agencies. It also serves as 

the sampling frame for BJS surveys of 

law enforcement agencies. 

The 2008 CSLLEA form was mailed 

to approximately 20,000 agencies 

that were determined to potentially 

be operating on the reference date of 

September 30, 2008. This master list 

was created by compiling information 

from the following sources:

 the 2004 CSLLEA

 lists provided by Peace Officer 

Standards and Training offices, 

and other state agencies

 an FBI list of agencies requesting 

new identifiers since the 2004 

CSLLEA.

Responding agencies were screened 

for eligibility and were excluded if any 

of the following conditions existed 

on the CSLLEA reference date of 

September 30, 2008: 

 The agency employed only 

part-time officers, and the total 

combined hours worked for these 

officers averaged less than 35 

hours per week.

 The agency contracted or 

outsourced to another agency for 

performance of all services.

 The agency was closed, a duplicate 

listing, or otherwise an invalid 

entry on the master list.

 The agency did not employ 

personnel with general arrest 

powers.

 The agency did not operate with 

funds from a state, local, special 

district, or tribal government.

 All sworn officers volunteered 

their time on an unpaid basis. 

Data on number and type of 

personnel were obtained from all 

eligible tribal agencies. For general 

purpose tribal police departments, 

the item response rates were as 

follows: community policing and 

school resource officers, 100%; 

agency functions, 99%; task force 

participation, 99%; and operating 

budget, 87%.

References

American Indians and Crime, NCJ 

173386, BJS Web, February 1999.

American Indian Population and Labor 

Force Report, 2005, U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Office of Indian Services.

Census of State and Local Law 

Enforcement Agencies, 2008, NCJ 

233982, BJS Web, June 2011. 

Census of Tribal Justice Agencies in 

Indian Country, 2002, NCJ 205332, 

BJS Web, December 2005.

Indian Country Law Enforcement 

Review, U.S. Department of Justice, 

December 1999.

Jails in Indian Country, 2009, NCJ 

232223, BJS Web, February 2011.

Local Police Departments, 2007, NCJ 

231174, BJS Web, December 2010.

Policing on American Indian 

Reservations, U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Justice, 

NCJ 186185, September 2001.

Tribal Law Enforcement, 2000, NCJ 

197936, BJS Web, January 2003.
State Prosecutors’ Offices with Jurisdiction in Indian Country, 2007 21

State Prosecutors’ Offices with 

Jurisdiction in Indian Country, 2007

Steven W. Perry, Ron Malega, Ph.D., and Duren Banks, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians

I

n 2007, 93 state court prosecutors’ 

offices reported jurisdiction under 

Public Law 83-280 (P.L. 280) for 

felonies committed in Indian country. 

Seventy-three percent of these offices 

prosecuted at least one felony case 

that arose from Indian country in 

2007, including at least one offense 

that involved drugs (63%), domestic 

violence (60%), or aggravated assault 

(58%).

This report presents selected findings 

from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’s 

(BJS) 2007 National Census of State 

Prosecutors. Criminal jurisdiction 

in Indian country is divided among 

federal, state, and tribal governments. 

Jurisdiction in a specific incident 

depends on the nature of the offense, 

whether the offender or victim was a 

tribal member, and the state in which 

the crime occurred.

Crimes committed in Indian country 

are often subject to concurrent 

jurisdiction between multiple criminal 

justice agencies. The Major Crimes Act 

(18 U.S.C. § 1153), as amended, grants 

concurrent federal jurisdiction for 16 

major crimes committed by Native 

Americans occurring in Indian country. 

State jurisdiction for crimes committed 

in Indian country is primarily provided 

for under P.L. 280. Tribal courts 

maintain concurrent jurisdiction when 

federal or state jurisdiction is applied.

State prosecutors’ offices generally 

do not have jurisdiction over crimes 

committed in Indian country due 

to the sovereign status of federally 

recognized tribes in the United States. 

However, state prosecutors’ offices 

in 16 states may exercise jurisdiction 

over crimes committed on tribal lands 

under P.L. 280. This law established 

state jurisdiction over offenses 

committed by or against American 

Indians in Indian country, including 

federally recognized reservations, 

tribal communities, and identified 

trust lands. P.L. 280 is mandatory for 

6 states and optional for 10 states.

Highlights

 Ninety-three state court prosecutors’ offices in the 

16 P.L. 280 states reported jurisdiction for felonies 

committed in Indian country under P.L. 280.

 Seventy-three percent of offices with jurisdiction in 

Indian country reported prosecuting at least one 

felony case committed in Indian country.

 Most offices in P.L. 280 states prosecuted at least one 

offense involving drugs (63%), domestic violence 

(60%), or aggravated assault (58%).

 Eighteen offices in mandatory P.L. 280 states with 

jurisdiction for Indian country prosecuted at least one 

rape, and 12 offices prosecuted a homicide.

 Of state prosecutors’ offices that reported jurisdiction 

for felony cases in Indian country under P.L. 280, 70% 

served judicial districts with populations of less than 

100,000 residents.

 Offices with jurisdiction for felony crimes committed in 

Indian country had an average operating budget of 

$5.2 million in 2007.

Criminal jurisdiction in 

Indian country

Tribal jurisdiction

 Crimes committed by Native 

Americans in Indian country. 

Sentences are limited to a 

maximum 3-year sentence of 

incarceration per count and 9 

years per case (124 U.S.C. 2258 § 

234 (a) (b)).

Federal jurisdiction

 Pursuant to the Major Crimes 

Act of 1885. 18 U.S.C. § 1153 and 

subsequent amendments

State jurisdiction

 All crimes on tribal lands 

specified under Public Law 

83-280. 18 U.S.C. § 1162

 Crimes committed on tribal 

lands in which neither the 

victim nor the offender is a tribal 

member.

Note: Criminal jurisdiction in Indian country 

depends on several factors, including the 

identity of the defendant, victim, type of 

offense, and where the crime was committed.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics June 2011, NCJ 234241
22 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

According to the 2002 Census of 

Tribal Justice Agencies, 94 of the 123 

responding tribes in mandatory P.L. 280 

states relied on state courts. The 2002 

Census was limited to American Indian 

tribes in the lower 48 states, so tribes in 

Alaska were excluded. The Census also 

found that 19 of 90 reporting tribes in 

optional P.L. 280 states relied on state 

courts (table 3.1).

The federal government retains 

criminal jurisdiction for major crimes 

committed in Indian country in the 

remaining states where P.L. 280 does 

not apply. States retain jurisdiction for 

non-Indian crimes (those in which 

neither the offender nor the victim is 

a tribal member) committed in Indian 

country.* In 2007, 1,548 state court 

prosecutors’ offices were in states not 

affected by P.L. 280 and were excluded 

from this report.

The 93 state prosecutors’ offices 

reporting jurisdiction under P.L. 280 

in mandatory and optional states 

represent 14% of all state prosecutors’ 

offices in states affected by P.L. 280. 

Nearly all of these served districts that 

overlapped with or were adjacent to 

tribal lands (figure 3.1).

Approximately a fifth of state 

prosecutors in mandatory P.L. 280 

states reported jurisdiction for 

crimes committed in Indian country

P.L. 280 gave select states legal 

jurisdiction over tribal members to 

prosecute crimes occurring on the 

reservation under existing state laws. 

These mandatory P.L. 280 states include 

California, Minnesota (except the Red 

Lake Reservation), Nebraska, Oregon 

(except the Warm Springs Reservation), 

Wisconsin, and Alaska (table 3.2). 

*Some tribes have been affected by states that 

have received a federal mandate to exercise 

jurisdiction outside of P.L. 280, e.g., through 

state-wide enactments, restoration acts, or 

land claims settlement acts (Tribal Court 

Clearinghouse, 2010, www.tribal-institute.org/

lists/jurisdiction.htm).

Table 3.1

Number of tribes participating in the Census of Tribal Justice Agencies in 

Indian Country, by P.L. 280 status, type of court systems, and state, 2002

Number of tribes using—

Participating 

in census

Tribal justice 

systems

Indigenous 

courts

CFR 

courtsa

Tribal 

courts

Relying 

on state 

courtsb

Mandatory states 123 39 8 9 37 94

California 88 7 2 7 7 74

Minnesota 12 12 3 0 12 4

Nebraska 4 3 0 2 3 2

Oregon 8 8 1 0 8 6

Wisconsin 11 9 2 0 7 8

Optional states 90 80 13 11 74 19

Arizona 17 16 3 0 16 0

Florida 1 0 0 0 0 1

Idaho 4 4 1 0 4 1

Iowa 1 0 0 0 0 1

Montana 6 6 1 0 5 0

Nevada 16 14 1 4 13 6

North Dakota 3 3 0 0 3 0

South Dakota 9 9 0 2 9 0

Utah 4 2 0 2 2 2

Washington 29 26 7 3 22 8

Note: The 2002 Census of Tribal Justice Agencies was limited to American Indian tribes in the lower 48 states.

Source: Table reproduced from Census of Tribal Justice Agencies in Indian Country, 2002, NCJ 205332, BJS Web, 

December 2005.

aCourt of Federal Regulations (CFR) operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

bTribes that rely on state court for jusidical services (e.g., felony courts, court-ordered treatment, and child support 

enforcement).

Table 3.2

State prosecutors’ offices with jurisdiction for crimes committed in 

Indian country, by P.L. 280 status and state, 2007

Number of offices—

All prosecutors’ 

offices in P.L. 280 

states*

With jurisdiction for felony 

cases occurring in Indian 

country under P.L. 280

Prosecuting at least 

one felony case

All P.L. 280 states 672 93 68 

Mandatory states 294 56 47

Alaska 1 1 --

California 48 23 21

Minnesota 76 15 15

Nebraska 81 3 1

Oregon 31 7 4

Wisconsin 57 7 6

Optional states 378 37 21

Arizona 11 1 1

Florida 16 1 1

Idaho 34 6 4

Iowa 93 1 1

Montana 46 5 1

Nevada 15 2 0

North Dakota 43 2 1

South Dakota 58 1 1

Utah 26 3 2

Washington 36 15 9

Note: The 2007 Census of State Court Prosecutors included 2,330 offices, 66% (1,548) of which were located in 

states not affected by P.L. 280, and therefore were excluded from all analyses. 

--No information reported.

*Excludes data missing for 110 offices.
23

Mandatory P.L. 280 statesOptional P.L. 280 statesIndian reservation (U.S. Census Bureau)

Prosecutors’ oces reporting jurisdiction in Indian Country under P.L. 280

Figure 3.1State prosecutors’ offices reporting jurisdiction in Indian country under P.L. 280, 2007Note: Prosecutors’ offices in non-P.L. 280 states are not shown.Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics
24 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

In 2007, 19% of all state prosecutors’ 

offices in mandatory P.L. 280 states 

reported jurisdiction for felony cases 

occurring in Indian country.

P.L. 280 permitted other states to 

acquire either complete or partial 

jurisdiction over crimes committed 

in Indian country at their option: 

Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, 

Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Utah, and Washington. 

Ten percent of all prosecutors’ offices 

in optional P.L. 280 states reported 

jurisdiction for felony cases in Indian 

country in 2007.

About three-quarters of offices with 

P.L. 280 jurisdiction prosecuted a 

felony case from Indian country in 

2007

Sixty-eight of the 93 prosecutors’ 

offices with jurisdiction in Indian 

country reported prosecuting at least 

one felony case committed in Indian 

country in 2007. Forty-seven offices 

in mandatory P.L. 280 states reported 

prosecuting at least one offense 

committed in Indian country, and 

21 offices in optional P.L. 280 states 

reported prosecuting at least one 

offense committed in Indian country 

in 2007.

Most offices in mandatory P.L. 280 

states with jurisdiction for felony 

offenses in Indian country also 

reported prosecuting at least one 

drug-related crime (42 of 56 offices), 

domestic violence offense (40), 

aggravated assault (38), parole or 

probation violation (31), or a crime 

involving sexual assault or sexual 

abuse (30) (figure 3.2). 

Offices in mandatory P.L. 280 states 

with jurisdiction for Indian country 

also reported prosecuting serious 

felony offenses, including 18 offices 

that prosecuted at least one rape 

committed in Indian country and 12 

offices that prosecuted a homicide.

Prosecutors’ offices with jurisdiction 

in Indian country had an average of 

16 assistant prosecutors on staff

The 2007 National Census of State 

Prosecutors collected operational 

and administrative information from 

state prosecutors’ offices, including 

budgets, staffing, and caseload. Offices 

reporting jurisdiction for crimes 

committed under P.L. 280 were not 

asked to disaggregate office resources 

or operations by whether they were 

directed toward crimes committed in 

Indian country or elsewhere in the 

judicial district. 

The census asked respondents to 

provide or estimate the total number 

of felony cases closed in 2007. The 

survey did not ask respondents to 

provide information on the number 

of cases that arose from crimes 

committed in Indian country. This 

section describes the entire operations 

of the state prosecutors’ offices 

reporting jurisdiction under P.L. 280, 

not operations specific to crimes 

committed in Indian country.

Homicide

Rape

Robbery

Sexual assault/abuse

Parole/probation violation

Aggravated assault

Domestic violence

Drug-related

All felony cases prosecuted in Indian Country, under P.L. 280

Optional P.L. 280

Mandatory P.L. 280

Number of oces

47 21

42 17

40 16

38 16

31 15

30 10

21 8

18 5

12 4

Figure 3.2

State prosecutors’ offices reporting prosecution of specific crimes in Indian country, by P.L. 280 status, 2007
State Prosecutors’ Offices with Jurisdiction in Indian Country, 2007 25

Most (71) state prosecutors’ offices 

that reported jurisdiction for felony 

cases occurring in Indian country 

under P.L. 280 served judicial districts 

with populations of less than 100,000 

residents or were part-time offices. 

In mandatory P.L. 280 states, 7 of the 

56 offices with jurisdiction in Indian 

country served districts with 250,000 

or more residents (table 3.3).

Offices with jurisdiction for felony 

crimes committed in Indian country 

had an average 2007 budget of $5.2 

million, or an expenditure of about 

$31 per district resident. The median 

budget was $722,000. The office staff 

included an average of 16 assistant 

prosecutors, 3 victim advocates, 4 

legal services staff, and 19 support 

staff (table 3.4).

Offices in mandatory P.L. 280 states 

reported an average of 61 total staff, 

including 19 assistant prosecutors, 

8 investigators, and 22 support staff. 

Offices in optional P.L. 280 states 

reported an average of 38 total 

staff, 11 assistant prosecutors, 1 

investigator, and 14 support staff. 

Offices in mandatory P.L. 280 states, 

reported closing a similar number 

of felony cases in 2007 compared to 

optional state offices. State prosecutors’ 

offices in optional P.L. 280 states closed 

1,784 felony cases in 2007, while offices 

in mandatory P.L. 280 states closed 

1,699 felony cases.

Table 3.3

Type of state prosecutors’ offices reporting jurisdiction in Indian country, 

by P.L. 280 status, 2007

Total

P.L. 280 Status

Population served Mandatory Optional

All offices 93 56 37

Full-time offices serving a judicial district with—

1 million or more residents 4 2 2

250,000 to 999,999 5 5 0

100,000 to 249,999 13 8 5

99,999 or fewer 65 37 28

Part-time offices* 6 4 2

*Part-time offices are defined as those that reported a part-time chief prosecutor in 2007.

Table 3.4

Budget, staffing, and caseload of state prosecutors’ offices, by P.L. 280 status, 2007

Total

P.L. 280 status

Mandatory Optional

Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median

Total resident population served 156,495 28,893 177,407 28,965 124,846 28,606 

Total operating budget $5,173,831 $722,208 $6,560,838 $735,735 $3,074,577 $670,000

Budget per resident population served $31 $26 $35 $27 $25 $24

Total staffa 51 12 61 12 38 12

Chief prosecutor 1 1 1 1 1 1

Assistant prosecutors 16 3 19 4 11 3

Civil prosecutors 2 0 1 0 4 1

Supervisors 2 1 2 0 2 1

Managers 1 0 1 0 0 0

Victim advocates 3 1 3 1 2 1

Legal services 4 0 3 0 4 1

Investigators 5 0 8 0 1 0

Support staff 19 3 22 4 14 3

Felony cases closedb 1,733 300 1,699 300 1,784 275 

Note: Statistics include imputed data for some offices. Data were missing for 3 offices that did not provide total operating budget, 1 office that did not provide staffing 

information, and 6 offices that did not provide the number of felony cases closed. See Methodology for more information. 

aAll staff statistics are presented as full-time equivalent staff, calculated as the number of full-time staff plus 50% of the number of half time staff.

bIncludes all cases charged as a felony that had a judgment of conviction, acquittal, or dismissal, with or without prejudice, entered by the court. Cases closed include all felony 

cases closed by the prosecutors’ offices and include an unknown number of cases committed in Indian country.
26 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

Methodology

The 2007 National Census of State 

Court Prosecutors (NCSP-07) 

surveyed 2,330 chief prosecutors 

in the United States who handled 

felony cases in state courts of general 

jurisdiction. The census did not 

include municipal attorneys or county 

attorneys who primarily operate in 

courts of limited jurisdiction. This 

report describes characteristics of 

offices that reported jurisdiction 

for crimes committed in Indian 

country under P.L. 280 in 2007. Most 

(66%) state court prosecutors’ offices 

included in the 2007 census were in 

states not affected by P.L. 280 and are 

excluded from this report.

The operational and administrative 

characteristics described in this 

report represent the functions of the 

entire office and are not restricted 

to those functions, staff, budget, or 

other resources specifically devoted to 

crimes committed in Indian country, 

unless otherwise noted.

Data Imputations 

BJS relied on previously reported 

data and valid office characteristics 

to impute values for critical variables 

where missing. These critical 

variables, found in Table 3.4, include 

the total operating budget, total 

staff, full- or part-time status of 

chief prosecutor, number of assistant 

prosecutors, and number of felony 

cases closed. Critical variables that 

were missing in 2007 were imputed 

from the same office’s response to 

the 2001 Census of State Prosecutors 

wherever possible. 

For each jurisdiction with valid 2001 

and 2007 data, an adjustment ratio 

was calculated as the ratio of the 

critical variable’s 2001 value to its 

2007 value. All ratios greater than 

the 90th percentile were discarded 

for imputation purposes. For those 

offices missing 2007 data, a hot deck 

imputation procedure was employed 

to impute the adjustment ratio value 

from the office’s nearest neighbor in 

terms of state and population size. 

Where there were no suitable donors 

in the same state, a donor of similar 

population size was used. The 2001 

data were then adjusted using the 

imputed adjustment ratio to create 

the imputed 2007 value for the 

critical variable where missing. This 

procedure was followed for 3 offices 

missing total operating budget, 1 

office missing staffing information, 

and 6 offices missing the number of 

felony cases closed.

Reference

Census of Tribal Justice Agencies in 

Indian Country, 2002, NCJ 205332, 

BJS Web, `December 2005. 
Selected Findings: Jails in Indian Country, 2009 27

Selected Findings: Jails in Indian 

Country, 2009

Todd D. Minton, BJS Statistician

At midyear 2009, a total of 2,176 inmates were 

confined in Indian country jails, a 1.9% increase 

from the 2,135 inmates confined at midyear 2008 

(figure 4.1). This count was based on data from 80 facilities, 

including jails, confinement facilities, detention centers, 

and other correctional facilities, that were in operation in 

Indian country at midyear 2009. For 2008, the number of 

inmates was based on data for 82 facilities in operation 

at midyear 2008. The number of inmates held in Indian 

country jails between 2004 and 2009 increased by 25% from 

1,745 inmates to 2,176. 

The number of jails in Indian country has increased 

between 2004 and 2009 

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) collected data from 

68 correctional facilities in Indian country in 2004, from 

79 in 2007, 82 in 2008, and 80 in 2009. The survey was 

not conducted in 2005 and 2006. Over the 5-year period, 

a number of facilities closed and new facilities became 

operational. Eleven facilities permanently closed between 

2004 and 2009, and a total of 21 facilities were newly 

Highlights

 The number of inmates confined in Indian country jails 

increased by 1.9% between midyear 2008 and 2009, 

reaching 2,176 inmates. 

 Between June 2008 and June 2009, the average daily 

jail population in Indian country increased by 12%, and 

the percentage of occupied bed space increased from 

64.2% to 73.5%.

 Eleven jails (14% of all facilities) held 51% of inmates 

confined at midyear 2009.

 During June 2009, the number of inmates admitted to 

Indian country jails (11,357) was about 5 times the size 

of the average daily population (2,124).

 The expected average length of stay increased by a half 

day from 5.1 days during June 2008 to 5.6 days during 

June 2009.

 Indian country jail authorities reported no deaths in 

custody between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009, down 

from 4 reported deaths during the 12-month period 

ending June 30, 2008.

 Attempted suicides by inmates declined from 78 in 

2008 to 56 in 2009. 

 Indian country jails held fewer inmates for domestic 

violence at midyear 2009 (252), continuing the 

downward trend in the number held for this offense 

since 2007 (362). 

 The percentage of certified correctional officers 

working in Indian country jails increased steadily, from 

63% at midyear 2007 to 79% at midyear 2009.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics June 2011, NCJ 232223

0

400

800

1,200

1,600

2,000

2,400

Number of inmates

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2007 2008 2009

At midyear

Figure 4.1

Inmates confined in Indian country jails, midyear 

2000-2004 and 2007-2009

Note: The Survey of Jails in Indian Country was not conducted in 2005 and 2006. 

Midyear count is the number of inmates held on the last weekday in June.
28 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

constructed. BJS estimated inmate 

population counts for 7 facilities 

in 2004 and 4 facilities in 2007 that 

did not respond to the surveys. All 

known operating facilities responded 

to the 2008 and 2009 surveys. (See 

Methodology for additional details 

on facility counts and participation 

in the surveys.) (See Methodology in 

Jails in Indian Country, 2009, NCJ 

232223, BJS Web, February 2010, for 

additional details on facility counts 

and participation in the surveys.)

On an average day in June, the 

percentage of occupied bed space 

increased from 64.2% to 73.5%

At midyear 2009, the 80 jail facilities 

in Indian country were rated to hold 

2,891 inmates, down from 2,963 in 82 

facilities during the same period in 2008 

(table 4.1). The average daily population 

(ADP) in June—the population 

measure used to calculate percent of 

capacity occupied—increased by nearly 

12%, from 1,903 inmates (June 2008) 

to 2,124 (June 2009), while the capacity 

to hold inmates decreased by 2%. 

Consequently, the percentage of rated 

capacity occupied in Indian country 

jails increased from 64% to 73% during 

the period. 

On June 30, 2009, the 80 facilities 

held a total of 2,176 inmates and were 

operating at 75% of rated capacity, 

remaining relatively stable since 

2007. From June 2004 to June 2009, 

the overall number of beds (or rated 

capacity) grew at a faster rate (34%) 

than the the inmate population (25%).

Small number of jails held more than 

half of the inmate population

Eleven jails held more than half 

(51%) of the total inmate population 

at midyear 2009 (table 4.2). Between 

midyear 2008 and midyear 2009, the 

population in these jails increased by 

247 inmates (29%). In 2008, 9 of the 

11 facilities held the majority of jail 

inmates in Indian country.

Over the 365-day period, 6 jails that 

held the majority of inmates in Indian 

country in 2008 experienced large 

declines in their jail populations. The 

combined decrease in the size of the 

jail population in these facilities was 

33% (90 inmates) from midyear 2008 

to midyear 2009.

Among the 11 facilities holding the 

majority of inmates in 2009, the Gila 

River Department of Rehabilitation 

and Supervision - Adult facility 

reported the largest decline (30 

inmates or 17%) in the number of jail 

inmates. The jail population in this 

facility has decreased by 92 inmates 

(38%) from its peak of 241 inmates 

reported at midyear 2007.

Table 4.1

Inmates, rated capacity, and percent of capacity occupied in Indian 

country jails, 2004 and 2007–2009

2004 2007 2008 2009

Number of inmates

Midyeara 1,745 2,163 2,135 2,176

ADPb 1,622 2,046 1,903 2,124

Rated capacity 2,162 2,900 2,963 2,891

Percent of capacity occupiedc

Midyear 80.7% 74.6% 72.1% 75.3%

ADP 75.0 70.6 64.2 73.5

Number of operating facilities 68 79 82 80 aMidyear count is the number of inmates held on the last weekday in June.

bAverage daily population (ADP) is the sum of the number of inmates held on each day in June, divided by 30.

c

Population as a percent of capacity occupied is calculated by dividing the population count of a facility by its rated 

capacity and multiplying by 100.

Table 4.2

Jails in Indian country that held the majority of inmates in 2009 compared to 2008, by facility

Custody population at midyear* Change in population

Facility 2008 2009 Number Percent

Total, 11 facilities 859 1,106 247 29%

Tohono O’odham Adult Detention Center (AZ) 137 192 55 40%

Gila River Department of Rehabilitation and Supervision - Adult (AZ) 179 149 -30 -17

San Carlos Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation - Adult and Juvenile Detention (AZ) 88 147 59 67

Truxton Canyon Adult Detention Center (AZ) 39 105 66 169

White Mountain Apache Detention Center (AZ) 101 95 -6 -6

Oglala Sioux Tribal Offenders Facility (SD) 52 95 43 83

Standing Rock Law Enforcement and Adult Detention Center (ND) 71 93 22 31

Nisqually Adult Corrections (WA) 59 73 14 24

Menominee Tribal Detention Facility (WI) 54 53 -1 -2

Navajo Department of Corrections - Shiprock Police Department and Adult Detention (NM) 46 52 6 13

Laguna Tribal Police and Detention Center (NM) 33 52 19 58

Note: Based on facilities that held the most inmates on June 30, 2009.

*Midyear count is the number of inmates held on the last weekday in June.
Selected Findings: Jails in Indian Country, 2009 29

Two facilities, the Truxton Canyon 

Adult Detention Center and the 

Laguna Tribal Police and Detention 

Center, were among the 11 facilities 

holding the majority of jail inmates 

in 2009. These 2 facilities were not 

among the 11 facilities holding the 

majority of inmates in 2008. (See Jails 

in Indian Country, 2008, BJS Web, 

December 2008.)

The Truxton Canyon Adult Detention 

Center reported the largest increase 

in the inmate population (66 inmates 

or 169%) between midyear 2008 and 

midyear 2009. The Laguna Tribal Police 

and Detention Center increased by 58% 

(19 inmates) between 2008 and 2009.

Based on the 80 facilities responding 

to the survey in both 2008 and 2009, 

the overall change in the inmate 

population (up 45 inmates) was 

relatively small. Thirty-three facilities, 

which were mostly the larger facilities, 

accounted for this increase (not 

shown in table).

Change in the size of the jail 

population in Indian country was 

varied. More than half of the 80 jails 

experienced either a decline (40 jails) 

or no change (7 jails) in the size of 

their inmate population over the 

12-month period ending midyear 

2009. Overall, the 50% increase (415 

inmates) in the jail population in 33 

jails was offset by a 30% decline (370 

inmates) in 40 jails.

The use of jail space varied by facility 

size

Indian country jails rated to hold 25 to 

49 inmates were operating at 89% of 

their rated capacity on June 30, 2009, 

and at 79% on an average day in June. 

An average day in June was based on 

the ADP, or the sum of the numbers 

held on each day in June divided by 

30. In contrast, the lowest percentage 

of capacity occupied during June 2009 

was among the 11 small jails rated 

to hold fewer than 10 inmates. These 

facilities were operating at 21% of 

rated capacity at midyear and at 17% 

of capacity on an average day in June 

2009 (figure 4.2).

Compared to facilities in all other size 

categories, the large jails with a rated 

capacity of 50 or more inmates reported 

the only increase in occupied bed space 

between 2008 and 2009. The percentage 

of capacity occupied in these jails 

increased from 51% to 69% during the 

12 months ending at midyear 2009, and 

from 49% to 73% on an average day in 

June 2008 and 2009.

The amount of bed space occupied 

was also measured based on a facility’s 

most crowded day in June. Nearly half 

(38 facilities) of the 80 facilities in 

Indian country were operating above 

rated capacity on the most crowded 

day in June (table 4.3). Of those 

Table 4.3

Number of Indian country jails, by percent of rated capacity occupied, 

June 2009

Number of jails

Percent of capacity occupieda Midyearb ADPc Peakd

Less than 25% 17 20 7

25-49% 15 11 8

50-74% 19 21 15

75-100% 11 15 12

More than 100% 18 13 38 aPopulation as a percent of capacity occupied is calculated by dividing the population count of a facility by its 

rated capacity and multiplying by 100.

bMidyear count is the number of inmates held on the last weekday in June.

c

Average daily population (ADP) is the sum of the number of inmates held on each day in June, divided by 30. 

dPeak population is the population held on the day in June in which the custody population of a facility was the largest.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Peak

Total Fewer than 10 inmates 10 to 24 25 to 49 50 or more

Percent of capacity occupied

ADP

Midyear

Figure 4.2

Rated capacity occupied, by type of inmate count, June 2009

Note: Rated capacity is the maximum number of beds or inmates assigned by a rating official. Midyear count is the 

number of inmates held on the last weekday in June. Average daily population (ADP) is the sum of the number of 

inmates held on each day in June divided by 30. Peak population is the population held on the day in June in which 

the custody population of a facility was the largest.
30 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

facilities, 18 were operating above 

rated capacity on June 30, and 13 were 

operating above rated capacity on an 

average day during June 2009.

High volumes of admissions of 

inmates were processed through 

Indian country jails

Eighty Indian country jails admitted 

11,357 persons during June 2009, up 

slightly from 11,149 admissions in 81 

facilities during June 2008 (table 4.4). 

The number of admissions grew by 

1.6% in the 79 facilities that reported 

data on admissions in both June 2009 

(11,323) and June 2008 (11,147) (not 

shown in table).

Admissions to facilities rated to 

hold between 25 to 49 inmates 

accounted for about 48% (5,503) of 

all admissions in June 2009, down 

from 59% of all admissions in June 

2008. The largest Indian country jails 

accounted for less than 20% of all 

facilities and reported a total increase 

of nearly 75% in the number of jail 

admissions during the 12-month 

period. Admissions to the largest 

Indian country jails increased from 

1,915 inmates to 3,342 from June 2008 

to June 2009. The 15 jails rated to hold 

50 or more inmates had the highest 

average number of admissions per 

month (233), compared to jails in all 

other size categories (not shown in 

table).

Inmate deaths and attempted 

suicides in Indian country jails 

declined

Indian country jail authorities 

reported no deaths in custody 

between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 

2009, down from 4 reported deaths 

during the 12-month period ending 

June 30, 2008. Attempted suicides by 

inmates declined from 78 in 2008 to 

56 in 2009.

Expected length of stay was 5.6 days 

for Indian country jail inmates in 

June 2009

During June 2009, the expected 

average length of stay for inmates 

confined in Indian country jails was 

5.6 days, up from 5.1 days during 

June 2008. Length of stay is the time 

held in custody from admission to 

release. The expected length of stay 

for inmates was the highest (9.1 days) 

Table 4.4

Admissions and expected length of stay in Indian country jails 

during June, by facility size, June 2009

Facility sizea

Number 

of facilities ADPb

Estimated June 

admissions

Expected average 

length of stayc

Total 80 2,124 11,357 5.6 days

Fewer than 10 inmates 11 9 133 2.1

10 to 24 24 276 2,379 3.5

25 to 49 30 820 5,503 4.5

50 or more 15 1,018 3,342 9.1

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

a

Based on the rated capacity, the maximum number of beds or inmates assigned by a rating official.

bAverage daily population (ADP) is the sum of the number of inmates held on each day in June, divided by 30.

c

Expected length of stay was calculated by dividing the average daily population (ADP) by the number of June 

admissions, and multiplying by 30. See Methodology in Jails in Indian Country, 2009 for details on estimating 

expected length of stay.
Selected Findings: Jails in Indian Country, 2009 31

Table 4.5

Number of inmates confined in Indian country jails, by demographic characteristic, conviction status, and 

offense, midyear 2002, 2004, and 2007–2009

Number of inmates held at midyeara Percent of inmates held at midyear

Characteristic 2000 2002 2004 2007 2008 2009 2000 2002 2004 2007 2008 2009

Total 1,775 2,006 1,745 1,996 2,135 2,176 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Sex

Male 1,421 1,618 1,346 1,582 1,678 1,754 80% 81% 77% 79% 79% 81%

Female 354 388 398 414 457 422 20 19 23 21 21 19

Age group/sex

Adults 1,498 1,699 1,546 1,743 1,882 1,919 84% 85% 89% 87% 88% 88%

Male 1,214 1,399 1,222 1,415 1,498 1,571 68 70 70 71 70 72

Female 284 300 324 328 384 348 16 15 19 16 18 16

Juveniles 277 307 198 253 253 257 16 15 11 13 12 12

Male 207 219 124 167 180 183 12 11 7 8 8 8

Female 70 88 74 86 73 74 4 4 4 4 3 3

Conviction status

Convicted 1,072 1,120 966 1,116 1,340 1,496 61% 57% 58% 59% 63% 69%

Unconvicted 689 857 697 763 776 680 39 43 42 41 37 31

Type of offense

Domestic violence ... 291 257 362 307 252 ...% 15% 18% 20% 15% 12%

Assault ... ... 190 233 308 299 ... ... 13 13 15 15

Rape or sexual assault ... ... 34 45 42 42 ... ... 2 2 2 2

Other violence ... ... 79 108 177 168 ... ... 6 6 9 8

DWI/DUIb 274 226 195 137 184 229 17 11 14 8 9 11

Drug law violation 133 126 104 132 104 107 8 6 7 7 5 5

Other ... ... 569 804 954 955 ... ... 40 44 46 47

Offense not reported ... ... 317 175 59 124 / / / / / /

Note: Detailed characteristics may not be equal to the total number of confined inmates because of incomplete data. See appendix tables 1-3 in Jails in Indian Country, 2009, 

NCJ 232223, BJS Web, February 2011, for a list of all facilities and inmate characteristics.

aMidyear count is the number of inmates held on the last weekday in June.

bIncludes driving while intoxicated and driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

...Not collected.

/Not reported.

in facilities that were rated to hold 

50 or more inmates, down from 10.3 

days in June 2008. Inmates held in 

jails rated to hold less than 10 inmates 

experienced the shortest expected 

length of stay (2.1 days).

Inmate characteristics remain 

relatively unchanged; the number 

held for domestic violence declined

Inmate characteristics by sex, age, 

and offense have changed in absolute 

numbers since 2000 (table 4.5). 

However, the distribution within most 

categories remained stable between 

2000 and 2008, with a change in 

the distribution of inmates by sex, 

conviction status, and offense type at 

midyear 2009.

Adult males accounted for the largest 

portion of the inmate population 

in Indian country jails during the 

decade. The female jail population 

had small but steady increases 

from midyear 2000 to 2008, with a 

nearly 8% decrease in the size of this 

population between midyear 2008 

and midyear 2009. Except for one 

juvenile female inmate, the decline 

was entirely among the adult female 

jail population.

The percentage of convicted inmates 

increased from 57% in 2002 to 69% in 

2009. Inmates confined for a violent 

offense made up about 37% of the jail 

population at midyear 2009, down 

from 41% at midyear 2008. Most 

(75%) of this decline was among 

the population held for domestic 

violence. Domestic violence (12%) 

and simple or aggravated assault 

(15%) accounted for the largest 

percentage of violent offenders held in 

2009, followed by unspecified violent 

offenses (8%) and rape or sexual 

assault (2%). 

Since peaking at midyear 2007, 

the percentage of inmates held 

for domestic violence has steadily 

declined, from 20% in 2007 to 12% 

in 2009. The Gila River Department 

of Rehabilitation and Supervision - 

Adult accounted for a large portion 

of the decline in domestic violence 

offenders between 2007 and 2009. 
32 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

It reported a 38% decrease in the 

confined inmate population between 

midyear 2007 (241) and midyear 

2009 (149), and a 74% decline in 

the number of inmates held for a 

domestic violence (from 180 inmates 

in 2007 to 46 in 2009).

The number of certified correctional 

officers and in-service training 

steadily increased

Seventy-nine Indian country jails 

employed 1,332 persons at midyear 

2009 (table 4.6). About 69% (916) of 

all personnel were jail operations staff, 

including correctional officers and 

other staff who spent more than 50% 

of their time supervising inmates. The 

remaining 416 jail personnel included 

administrative employees, educational 

staff, technical or professional staff, 

clerical, maintenance, or food service 

staff, and other job functions. Overall, 

the ratio of inmates to jail operations 

employees was 2.4 inmates to 1 

employee at midyear 2009, remaining 

relatively stable since 2008 (2.3 to 1) 

and 2004 (2.5 to 1).

Seventy-six facilities reported that 710 

(79%) correctional officers received 

basic detention officer certification, 

up from 69% in 2008 and 63% in 2007 

(not shown). Seventy-four facilities 

reported that 750 (84%) correctional 

officers received 40 hours of in-service 

training, up from 74% in 2008 and 

70% in 2007.

Table 4.6

Persons employed in Indian country jails, by job function, midyear 2009

Job function Number Percent

Totala 1,332 100%

Administrativeb 136 10.2%

Jail operations 916 68.8

Educational staff 29 2.2

Technical/professional 51 3.8

Clerical/maintenance/food service 173 13.0

Number of inmates per jail operations staff 2.4 a

Includes 27 other persons with unspecified functions not shown in table.

bIncludes jail administrators, assistants, and other personnel who work in an administrative capacity more than 

50% of the time.
Selected Findings: Jails in Indian Country, 2009 33

Methodology

The Annual Survey of Jails in Indian 

Country (SJIC) includes all known 

Indian country correctional facilities 

operated by tribal authorities or 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 

The survey was conducted in June 

2009, and included the number of 

inmates and percent of capacity 

occupied based on the ADP, midyear 

population, and peak population in 

facilities in June 2009. (See table 10 in 

Jails in Indian Country, 2009, BJS Web, 

February 2011.)

Through a cooperative agreement 

with the Bureau of Justice Statistics 

(BJS), Westat, Inc. conducted the 

SJIC to describe all adult and juvenile 

jail facilities and detention centers 

in Indian country. For this report, 

Indian country includes reservations, 

pueblos, rancherias, and other 

appropriate areas (18 U.S.C.§ 1151). 

The reference date for the survey is 

June 30, 2009.

Annually, BIA provides BJS a list of 

Indian country jail facilities, including 

detention centers, jails, and other 

correctional facilities operated by 

tribal authorities or BIA. BJS uses this 

list to update its existing roster of jails 

in Indian country. BJS obtains data 

from administrators of Indian country 

jails by mailed questionnaires and 

through follow-up phone calls and 

facsimiles.

In 2004, BJS contacted administrators 

in 70 facilities to participate in the 

survey. BJS received responses from 

61 facilities; 7 did not respond, and 

2 facilities were non-operational. In 

2007, the BJS roster consisted of 86 

facilities. Seventy-nine of the facility 

administrators responded to the 

survey; 4 did not respond, and BJS 

found that 3 facilities were nonoperational. In 2008, BJS’s roster of 

Indian country jails consisted of 85 

facilities. BJS received responses from 

82 facility administrators; there were 

no nonrespondents, and 3 facilities 

were non-operational. For 2009, the 

BJS roster consisted of 86 facilities. 

BJS received responses from 80 

facility administrators; there were no 

nonrespondents, and 6 facilities were 

non-operational.

For comparison over time, BJS 

estimated data on inmate populations 

for the 7 facilities in 2004 and 4 

facilities in 2008 that did not respond 

to the surveys.

Expected length of stay

The stock-flow ratio method was 

used to measure the expected average 

length of stay for inmates held during 

June 2009 in the 80 Indian country 

jails that responded to stock and flow 

items in the survey:

Stock—average daily population

Flow—inmate admissions during June 

2009

Stock-flow ratio in June 2009 

(2,124/11,357=0.187)

Expected length of stay in days (0.187 

× 30)—is the average number of days 

held in custody from admission to 

release.

Indian country is a statutory term 

that includes all lands within an 

Indian reservation, dependent Indian 

communities, and Indian trust 

allotments (18 U.S.C. § 1151). Courts 

interpret Section 1151 to include 

all lands held in trust for tribes or 

their members. (See United States 

v. Roberts, 185 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 

1999).) Tribal authority to imprison 

American Indian offenders is limited 

to one year per offense by statute (25 

U.S.C. § 1302), a $5,000 fine, or both.

Tribal law enforcement agencies act 

as first responders to both felony 

and misdemeanor crimes. For 

most of Indian country, the federal 

government provides felony law 

enforcement concerning crimes by 

or against Indians. Certain areas 

of Indian country are under Public 

Law 83-280, as amended. P.L. 280 

conferred jurisdiction on certain 

states over Indian country and 

suspended enforcement of the Major 

Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153) and 

the General Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 

§ 1152) in those areas. Indian tribes 

retain concurrent jurisdiction to 

enforce laws in Indian country where 

P.L. 280 applies.
34 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011
Summary: Tribal Youth in the Federal Justice System 35

Summary: Tribal Youth in the Federal 

Justice System

Mark Motivans, Ph.D., and Howard Snyder, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians

The federal criminal justice response to tribal youth 

varies by the state in which the offense occurred, the 

nature of the offense, the availability of communityand confinement-based services, and discretionary 

decisions made by tribal, state, and federal justice agencies. 

Cases involving tribal youth in the federal system may 

result in 1) a delinquency adjudication and court-ordered 

supervision and out-of-home placement, or 2) the youth 

being transferred to adult status and prosecuted and 

sentenced as an adult. 

This summary describes the federal response to tribal youth 

during the case-processing stages from investigation to 

corrections. In this report, a federal juvenile delinquent is a 

person who has committed an offense while under age 18, 

and the federal prosecutor has certified a federal basis for 

jurisdiction. Juvenile and youth are used interchangeably in 

this report. 

The number of tribal youth in matters concluded by federal 

prosecutors and the total number of tribal youth prosecuted 

decreased from 2003 to 2008 (figure 5.1). Tribal youth in 

matters concluded by federal prosecutors dropped to 115 in 

2008, down from 230 in 2003.

Highlights

 In 2008, relatively few juveniles were referred to federal 

prosecutors (315 out of 178,570 suspects) or admitted 

to federal prison jurisdiction (156 out 71,663 offenders).

 Tribal youth (70) comprised nearly half of juveniles 

(152) handled by the federal courts in 2008.

 Federal judicial districts of Arizona, Montana, South 

Dakota, New Mexico, and North Dakota accounted 

for 94% of tribal youth investigated, 92% of those 

prosecuted, and 88% of those admitted to federal prison 

jurisdiction in 2008.

 In 2008, about 72% of tribal youth were investigated 

for violent offenses, including sexual abuse (35%), 

assault (20%), and murder (17%).

 About 40% of matters involving tribal youth were 

declined by federal prosecutors in 2008.

 A greater share of cases involving tribal youth in U.S. 

district courts were terminated by conviction (91%) 

than by dismissal (9%).

 From 1994 to 2008, the lowest number of tribal (72) 

and non-tribal youth (84) admitted to the jurisdiction 

of federal prison authorities occurred in 2008. 

 Admissions to federal prison jurisdiction among tribal 

youth declined 10% per year from 1999 to 2008, while 

non-tribal youth admissions declined 12% per year.

 In 2008, tribal youth served an average of 26 months 

under federal jurisdiction, which was more than double 

the tribal justice system maximum sentence of 12 months.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics June 2011, NCJ 234218

Findings presented in this report are mostly from a recent 

study conducted by The Urban Institute under a cooperative 

agreement with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The 

study was also sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). See page 43 for more 

information.

Figure 5.1

Tribal youth in matters concluded and in matters 

prosecuted by U.S. attorneys, 2000–2008

Number of tribal youth

Fiscal year

0

50

100

150

200

250

Suspects in 

matters prosecuted

Suspects in 

matters concluded

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Source: Urban Institute analysis. See Methodology for more information.
36 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

Tracking tribal youth through the stages of the federal criminal case process

The federal criminal justice system is not currently wellequipped to monitor how tribal juvenile offenders 

are processed across stages. There is a lack of unified, 

system-wide data standards in reporting how youth—

especially tribal youth—are handled in the federal system. 

Juveniles or offenses committed in Indian country are not 

systematically tracked across the federal justice agencies. 

Researchers have to devise analytic methods to identify 

tribal youth using administrative data from each criminal 

justice stage (arrest, sentencing, and corrections). 

How is federal jurisdiction over tribal juvenile 

delinquents determined?

The determination of jurisdiction over offenses occurring in 

Indian country is first subject to whether state courts have 

jurisdiction based on Public Law 280 (P.L. 280).1 If a state 

has P. L. 280 status, jurisdiction over offenses occurring 

in Indian country lies with the state or tribal courts, not 

the federal courts. The determination of whether federal 

jurisdiction applies next depends on the offender and 

victim in the crime: 

 If the offender is a juvenile tribal member and the victim 

is also a tribal member, and the offense is 1 of 15 crimes 

covered by the Major Crimes Act then jurisdiction is with 

both the tribal and federal courts.2

 If the offender is a juvenile tribal member and the 

victim is a non-tribal member, and the crime is covered 

by the Major Crimes Act or federal enclave status, then 

federal and tribal courts have shared jurisdiction. The 

Assimilative Crimes Act permits state law to be applied 

in federal court where the Major Crimes Act does not 

apply but federal interest exists.

 If the crime involves a non-tribal offender and a tribal 

member victim, then federal courts have exclusive 

jurisdiction.

Once federal jurisdiction has been established, the Federal 

Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA) provides the procedures 

to bring the tribal youth to federal court. A federal juvenile 

delinquent is defined as a person who has committed an 

offense while less than 18 years old, but has not reached 

age 21 at sentencing. Juvenile and youth are used 

interchangeably in this report.

How are juveniles handled in the federal 

justice system?

Most juveniles, or persons under age 18, in the United 

States are handled in state or local courts, which have a 

separate juvenile justice system, rather than in the federal 

courts. Federal law permits handling of juveniles in the 

federal system only in limited circumstances. Apart from 

those committing crimes in Indian country or on military 

bases, juveniles that commit offenses as members of drug 

trafficking gangs, violent criminal gangs, or other federal 

offenses may be subject to federal jurisdiction. In these 

cases, the U.S. attorney for each district must certify to 

the district court that (1) the juvenile court or court of 

a state does not have jurisdiction or refuses to assume 

jurisdiction; 2) the state does not have available programs 

or services adequate for the needs of juveniles; or 3) the 

offense charged is a felony crime of violence or specified 

drug offenses, and there is substantial federal interest in 

the case. 

In what circumstances are tribal and nontribal juveniles transferred to adult status (for 

prosecution and sentencing as an adult rather 

than a juvenile delinquent)?

Once federal jurisdiction has been determined and 

certification of delinquency established, a transfer hearing 

establishes the status of juveniles as to whether they will 

be transferred for prosecution as an adult. Felony crimes 

of violence or drug or firearm offenses trigger eligibility for 

adult transfer with certain age restrictions. Age thirteen is 

the minimum age for transfer to adult status for murder 

and assault, and for robbery, bank robbery, or aggravated 

sexual abuse with a firearm. An exception is crimes 

committed in Indian country where the tribe has opted not 

to permit prosecution of juveniles age 13 as adults. Age 

fifteen is the minimum age for transfer to adult status for 

committing any crime of violence (including physical force 

against a person or property). 

A juvenile can be housed in a Federal Bureau of Prisons 

(BOP) institution at age 18 if sentenced as an adult. BOP 

does not operate its own facilities for juveniles; rather, 

they contract with private entities and state and local 

governments for both secure and non-secure (communitybased) juvenile facilities to house tribal and non-tribal 

youth under their jurisdiction. 1Congress passed Public Law 280 in 1953, which relinquishes the 

federal government of criminal and civil jurisdiction in certain states 

and places jurisdiction with those states. 

2The Major Crimes Act provides federal jurisdiction over certain 

offenses committed by tribal members. (See Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 

1153.)
Summary: Tribal Youth in the Federal Justice System 37

Table 5.1

Reason for matters declined for prosecution with tribal youth suspects, 

2005–2008

Reasons for declinations

Fiscal 

year

Matters 

concluded

Number of 

declinations

Caserelateda

SuspectrelatedbNo 

crime

Referred to 

other authorities Total c Other

2005 172 69 100% 58% 10% 9% 13% 10%

2006 164 80 100% 61 10 10 13 6

2007 143 68 100% 47 15 10 18 10

2008 115 46 100% 50 7 15 20 8 aIncludes weak evidence, stale case, witness problems, or jurisdiction or venue problems.

bIncludes age of offender and offender ‘s criminal history and drug/alcohol use.

cIncludes pretrial alternative resolutions, such as pretrial diversion.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, National LIONS data base, fiscal years 

2005–2008.

Investigation and Prosecution

Tribal police are often the first to 

respond to a crime in Indian country. 

Offenses committed by tribal youth 

may be investigated by a combination 

of tribal police and federal law 

enforcement agencies. The federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are 

the primary federal law enforcement 

agencies investigating tribal youth 

matters. 

Tribal youth commonly enter the 

federal justice system with an arrest for 

a warrant issued on either a complaint 

or juvenile information (written 

accusation made by the prosecutor). 

For serious offenses that may indicate 

a federal crime, the U.S. attorney’s 

office in the district is notified as is 

the juvenile’s parent/guardian. The 

juvenile must be taken before a U.S. 

magistrate as soon as possible, where 

charges are read and the juvenile is 

informed of rights. Federal prosecutors 

next determine if the matter should be 

adjudicated in federal courts, disposed 

by U.S. magistrate, or declined for 

prosecution. 

In 2008, 4 in 10 matters involving a 

tribal youth were declined by federal 

prosecutors

During 2008, 40% of tribal youth in 

matters concluded were declined for 

further prosecution, which was lower 

than the 46% declination rate for 

non-tribal youth in 2008. However, 

the average declination rate for tribal 

youth (45%) was higher than for nontribal youth (37%) from 2004 to 2008.

The most common reason for 

declination of tribal youth matters in 

2008 was case related (50%) (table 

5.1). Case-related reasons included 

weak evidence, stale case, witness 

problems, and jurisdiction or venue 

problems (figure 5.2). Some declined 

matters involved tribal youth that 

were subsequently referred to other 

authorities for prosecution, such as to 

the tribe or the state where the tribe is 

located. 

The share of declinations for tribal 

youth that were referred to other 

authorities or received an alternative 

resolution increased from 13% of all 

declinations in 2005 to 20% in 2008. 

Among non-tribal youth, the most 

common reason for declination (71%) 

was that the suspect was a juvenile (not 

shown in table).

Most tribal youth in matters referred 

to U.S. attorneys were prosecuted by 

federal prosecutors

In 2008, 59% of tribal youth who 

were referred to federal prosecutors 

were prosecuted, which was 

higher than the 54% prosecution 

rate for non-tribal youth in 2008 

(including matters disposed by U.S. 

magistrates). From 2004 to 2008, the 

averageprosecution rate for tribal 

youth (55%) was comparable to that 

of non-tribal youth (53%).

Various factors go into the decision 

to prosecute a matter, including 

seriousness of the crime, strength of 

the evidence, youth’s criminal history 

and drug/alcohol use, tribal capacity to 

prosecute, and tribal preference. Tribes 

having concurrent jurisdiction with 

federal jurisdiction may have limitations 

on available secure placement options 

and treatment resources. The potential 

penalty that could be received if a matter 

was handled in tribal or state venues 

may also be considered.3

3The Indian Civil Rights Act (Title 25 U.S.C. 

§ 1302(7)), for example, limited tribes in 

sentencing persons convicted of serious crimes 

to a maximum of 1 year in jail and a $5,000 

fine. Recently, the Tribal Law and Order Act 

extended the maximum sentence that a tribe 

can impose to three years.

Figure 5.2

Case-related reasons for matters declined for prosecution with tribal 

youth suspects, 2005–2008

Jurisdiction or venue problems

Stale case

Witness problems

Weak evidence

Percent of cases

77%

13%

8%

2%

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, National LIONS data base, fiscal years 

2005–2008.
38 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

Nearly 9 of 10 tribal youth admitted to Federal Bureau of Prisons jurisdiction 

from 2006 to 2008 came from five federal judicial districts

From 2006 to 2008, 85% of tribal youth admitted to the 

jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) were 

from these five federal judicial districts: Arizona, Montana, 

New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota (figure 5.3).

The most recent tribal population data from the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (2005) showed that these five districts 

contained 12% of the 590 federally recognized tribal 

entities and 35% of the more than 1.9 million total tribal 

enrollment population (table 5.2). Thirty-four percent of 

the enrolled tribal population under age 16 resided on or 

near reservations in these five federal judicial districts.

Table 5.2

Federally recognized tribes and enrolled members, 2005

Tribal entities Tribal enrollment Tribal population under age 16

Federal judicial district Number Percent Number Percent District rank Number

Percent of total 

enrollment District rank

Total 590 100% 1,978,099 100% ~ 503,958 100% ~

Arizona 22 3.7% 269,778 13.6% 2 70,854 14.1% 2

New Mexico 25 4.2 174,199 8.8 3 43,234 8.6 4

South Dakota 8 1.4 115,513 5.8 5 27,534 5.5 6

Montana 8 1.4 66,962 3.4 6 14,957 3 9

North Dakota 6 1 58,220 2.9 8 13,851 2.7 10

All other districts 521 88.3 1,293,427 65.4 ~ 333,528 66.2 ~

~Not available.

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. American Indian Population and Labor Force Report, 2005, available at: http://www.bia.gov/

WhatWeDo/Knowledge/Reports/index.htm, calendar year 2005.

45–87

16–44

1–15

0

District of Arizona (14%)

District of New Mexico (12%)

District of Montana (28%)

District of North Dakota (4%)

District of South Dakota (27%)

Numberoftribalyouth admitted

Figure 5.3

Tribal youth admitted to the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and five federal judicial districts 

that committed the majority of tribal youth, 2006–2008

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics analysis of data from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, SENTRY database, fiscal years 2006–2008.
Summary: Tribal Youth in the Federal Justice System 39

Adjudication and Sentencing

Federal statutes provide for a youth’s 

release pending trial to a parent/ 

guardian, unless it is determined 

that detention is necessary to ensure 

a timely appearance or to ensure 

safety of juveniles or others (Title 18 

U.S.C. § 5034). The federal pretrial 

services agency oversees supervision 

of the youth on pretrial release. For 

juveniles detained, a foster home 

or community-based facility near 

the youth’s home community is 

sought. Pretrial juveniles are not to 

be detained in facilities permitting 

regular contact with adult offenders 

nor with other juveniles who have 

been adjudicated. 

In 2008, 91% of cases terminated 

in U.S. district court involving tribal 

youth resulted in conviction 

Most (91%) tribal youth cases 

terminated ended in conviction in 

2008. Most of the convictions were 

the result of a guilty plea (88%) than a 

determination of guilt at trial (3%). In 

comparison, 95% of non-tribal youth 

were convicted in 2008, with 91% 

resulting from guilty pleas and 5% 

following trial. From 2004 to 2008, 

the average conviction rate for tribal 

youth (92%) was higher than for nontribal youth (87%). 

In juvenile adjudication proceedings, 

the judge has the discretion to impose 

an out-of-home placement, probation 

and conditions of probation, or 

restitution. The youth may also 

be transferred to adult status and 

prosecuted and sentenced as an adult.

An adjudicated juvenile can 

receive up to 3 years of probation. 

The duration of a sentence for 

youth adjudicated delinquent to 

the jurisdiction of federal prison 

authorities depends on the age of 

the juvenile at disposition (see text 

box below). Juveniles under the age 

of 18 are not allowed to be placed 

in an institution in which the youth 

has regular contact with incarcerated 

adults. A juvenile can be housed 

in a Federal Bureau of Prisons 

(BOP) institution at the age of 21 if 

sentenced as a juvenile. 

The maximum time under federal jurisdiction of juveniles adjudicated 

delinquent depends on the age at disposition

 If a juvenile was under 18 years of age at time of disposition, detention may not extend beyond the juvenile reaching age 

21 (figure 5.4).

 If a juvenile was between the ages of 18 and 21 at time of disposition, the maximum federal jurisdiction is 5 years. 

 Juveniles adjudicated delinquent and under the age of 21 are not to be detained in facilities permitting regular contact 

with adult convicts. At age 21, however, an adjudicated delinquent can be placed in an adult facility. 

 The term that an adjudicated delinquent receives may not exceed the maximum period of imprisonment authorized had 

the juvenile been an adult. Federal sentencing guidelines do not apply to adjudications of delinquency.

11 or 

younger

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Maximum age in federal 

jurisdiction is 21 if age 

at disposition is under 

18 years

Age at disposition

Maximum age of federal jurisdiction

For disposition between ages 18 

and 21, the maximum length of 

federal jurisdiction is 5 years 

Age of delinquent at disposition

Figure 5.4

Maximum time under federal jurisdiction of juveniles adjudicated delinquent, by age at disposition
40 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

Corrections

The number of tribal youth admitted 

to BOP jurisdiction increased from 

107 in 1994 to a peak of 252 in 2000—

a 136% increase due exclusively to 

the growth in tribal youth handled as 

adjudicated delinquents (figure 5.5). 

The number of tribal youth admitted 

to the BOP subsequently decreased 

from 252 in 2000 to 72 in 2008. 

In 2008, the number of tribal (72) 

and non-tribal youth (84) admitted 

to the jurisdiction of federal prison 

authorities was the lowest in the 

period from 1994 to 2008. From 

1999 to 2008, the number of tribal 

youth admissions declined an annual 

average of 10%, and non-tribal 

admissions declined at an annual 

average of 12%. Tribal youth peaked 

at 252 admissions in 2000, and nontribal youth peaked at 272 admissions 

in 1999 (figure 5.6).

Most (88%) of the decline in tribal 

youth from 1999 to 2008 was due to 

a decrease in youth who had been 

adjudicated delinquent. Twelve 

percent of the decline was due to a 

decrease in tribal youth who had 

been transferred to adult status. In 

comparison, most of the decline for 

non-tribal youth admitted to the BOP 

over this period was comprised of 

juveniles who had been transferred to 

adult status. 

In 2008, 72% of tribal youth were 

admitted to BOP jurisdiction for 

a violent offense, including sexual 

abuse (29%), assault (25%), and 

murder (15%) (table 5.3). Tribal 

youth admitted for property offenses 

(mostly burglary) peaked in 2000 

(66) and began to decline in 2001, 

dropping to 14 admissions in 2008. 

By 2008, tribal youth admitted to 

BOP jurisdiction for both property 

and violent offenses had declined 

to the lowest levels since 1999. 

Among non-tribal youth admitted to 

BOP jurisdiction, violent and drug 

offenses comprised the majority of 

offense types (not shown in table). 

Most tribal youth admitted to BOP 

jurisdiction from 1999 to 2008 had 

been adjudicated delinquent (83%), 

while most non-tribal youth had been 

prosecuted as adults (65%).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300 Tribal-transferred as adult

Tribal-adjudicated delinquent

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Number of tribal youth

Fiscal year

Figure 5.5

Tribal youth admitted to the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons, by status at admission, 1994–2008

Note: Data for fiscal years 1999–2008 based on Urban Institute analysis of Federal Bureau of Prisons, SENTRY 

database. Data for fiscal years 1994–1998 based on BJS analysis of SENTRY data.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300 Non-tribal-transferred as adult

Non-tribal-adjudicated delinquent

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Number of non-tribal youth 

Fiscal year

Figure 5.6

Non-tribal youth admitted to the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons, by status at admission, 1994–2008

Note: Data for fiscal years 1999–2008 based on Urban Institute analysis of Federal Bureau of Prisons, SENTRY 

database. Data for fiscal years 1994–1998 based on BJS analysis of SENTRY data.
Summary: Tribal Youth in the Federal Justice System 41

At yearend 2003, 298 tribal youth 

were in BOP facilities, including both 

juvenile contract and adult facilities

In 2003, 74% of tribal youth were 

housed under BOP jurisdiction 

in Minnesota, Arizona, Utah, the 

Western District of Texas, and 

Colorado. BOP facilities (including 

contract facilities) were not located in 

the states that contained large tribal 

populations and had committed 

a large number of Indian country 

juveniles (South Dakota, North 

Dakota, Montana, and New Mexico). 

For example, tribal youth whose 

legal residence was South Dakota 

comprised over half of the juveniles in 

BOP facilities in Minnesota. 

Among tribal youth under BOP 

jurisdiction in 2003, most were 

committed for a violent felony 

offense, including homicide, 

manslaughter, serious sexual assault 

or abuse, and serious physical 

assault. In comparison, 185 tribal 

juveniles were in custody in 10 

juvenile tribal facilities in 2002. 

(See American Indians and Crime, 

BJS Web, December 2004.) These 

tribal youth were confined mostly 

for misdemeanor (62%) and status 

offenses (29%); 10% of the youth were 

confined in tribal juvenile facilities for 

felony offenses.

Table 5.3

Tribal youth admitted to the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1999–2008

Year of commitment to BOP jurisdiction

Commitment offense Total 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Total 1,909 241 252 219 234 212 231 208 164 76 72

Murder/Negligent manslaughter* 218 31 27 25 18 20 24 26 20 16 11

Assault 491 44 65 70 57 52 64 52 49 20 18

Robbery 51 7 5 9 4 7 9 4 3 1 2

Sexual abuse 441 55 52 33 65 46 55 57 40 17 21

Embezzlement 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Burglary 442 62 66 59 61 53 43 42 30 12 14

Larceny 56 12 7 5 8 4 4 6 6 2 2

Motor vehicle theft 8 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0

Arson and explosives 69 2 6 3 5 11 17 9 6 7 3

Other property offenses 38 13 6 6 4 1 3 3 1 1 0

Other drug felonies 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

Weapon offenses 9 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0

Nonviolent sex offenses 36 4 4 1 4 7 7 3 5 0 1

Traffic offenses 13 2 5 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0

Note: Total includes juveniles whose offenses were missing or unclassifiable. 

*Includes attempted murder.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Federal Bureau of Prisons, SENTRY data base, fiscal years 1999-2008.
42 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011

Tribal youth served a sentence in 

federal facilities that was twice as 

long as the maximum sentence tribal 

facilities can impose 

From 1999 to 2008, the average 

time served by tribal youth tended 

to be longer (about 26 months, on 

average) than the tribal justice system 

maximum sentence of 12 months. 

The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 

recently extended the maximum a 

tribal court can sentence to 3 years 

for those courts meeting conditions 

placed on the legal process. The 

average time served by non-tribal 

youth in BOP facilities more than 

doubled from 15 months in 1999 to 

over 38 months by 2008.

Non-tribal youth admitted to the 

federal prison authorities were 

somewhat more dispersed than 

tribal youth with respect to district of 

commitment 

About 32% of non-tribal youth were 

committed from the five federal 

districts that committed the most 

tribal youth. Thirty-six percent of 

non-tribal youth were committed to 

the BOP from five federal judicial 

districts along the U.S.-Mexico 

border: California-Southern, Arizona, 

New Mexico, Texas-Western, and 

Texas-Southern. (figure 5.7).

Among juveniles admitted to the 

jurisdiction of the BOP in 2008, nontribal youth were slightly older at age 

of offense than tribal youth

The average of age tribal youth at 

time of offense was about 15 years 

compared to 16 years for non-tribal 

youth. Most tribal youth were male 

(92%), American Indian (96%), nonHispanic (99%), and United States 

citizens (100%). The majority of nontribal youth were male (93%), white 

(60%), non-Hispanic (58%), and 

United States citizens (71%).

26–60

10–25

1–9

0

Number of non-tribal youth admitted

District of Arizona (19%)

New Mexico (5%)

District of Western Texas (7%)

District of South Dakota (3%) District of Eastern New York (4%)

Figure 5.7

Non-tribal youth admitted to the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and five federal judicial districts 

that committed the majority of non-tribal youth, 2006–2008

Source: Based on BJS analysis of data from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, SENTRY database, fiscal years 2006–2008.
Summary: Tribal Youth in the Federal Justice System 43

Methodology

The primary source of data presented 

in this report is from the Federal 

Justice Statistics Program (FJSP). The 

methodology to identify tribal youth 

was developed by the Urban Institute, 

and primary findings reported here 

are drawn from their 2011 study, 

Tribal Youth in the Federal Justice 

System (http://ncjrs.gov). This report 

supplemented findings from the 

Urban Institute’s study with additional 

analyses based on BJS analysis of 

FJSP data. Data from the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP), SENTRY 

database, which contains information 

on all federally sentenced offenders 

admitted to BOP jurisdiction at fiscal 

yearend were analyzed for the years 

1994 to 1998. 

The source of the data in figure 5.1 

is The Urban Institute analysis of 

Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, 

National LIONS database, fiscal years 

2000 to 2008. Suspects in matters 

concluded include all matters which 

were concluded in each respective 

year. Suspects in matters prosecuted 

include matters for which the U.S. 

attorneys in that district made the 

decision to prosecute the matter in 

each fiscal year. The unit of count for 

figure 5.1 is the suspect matter.

A matter is a referral on which an 

attorney spends one hour or more 

investigating, and on which formal 

papers have not been filed with the 

Court. If a decision is made not to 

continue with the investigation, it is 

disposed of in the LIONS database by 

declination and closed.

References

American Indians and Crime, NCJ 

203097, BJS Web, December 2004. 

2005 American Indian Population and 

Labor Force Report. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, 2005. 

The Urban Institute. Tribal Youth 

in the Federal Justice System, NCJ 

234549, May 2011. Available at 

http://ncjrs.gov.

Researchers from The Urban 

Institute investigated how 

youth from Indian Country 

were processed by the federal 

criminal justice system. They 

used a combination of qualitative 

and quantitative information, 

including administrative data 

from the BJS-sponsored Federal 

Justice Statistics Program (FJSP) 

and information drawn from 

interviews with more than three 

dozen federal and tribal justice 

system personnel.

Staff at the Urban Institute 

who contributed to the study 

included—

Co-principal Investigators

William Adams and Julie Samuels

Contextual Analysis Team

Janeen Buck Willison

Hannah Dodd

Meredith Dank

Quantitative Analysis Team

Barbara Parthasarathy

Kamala Mallik Kane

Jessica Kelly

Sybil Mendonca

KiDeuk Kim
Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

http://www.ojp.gov