Native American Youth: Information on Involvement in Justice Systems and Grant Programs to Help Address Juvenile Delinquency
Released: 2018-09-26T00:00:00

Letter

Available Data Indicate Native American Youth Involvement in Justice Systems Declined from 2010 through 2016 and Differed in Some Ways from That of Non-Native American Youth

In our September 2018 report, we found that from 2010 through 2016 the number of Native American youth in federal and state and local justice systems declined across all phases of the justice process—arrest, adjudication, and confinement—according to our analysis of available data. At the federal level, arrests by federal agencies dropped from 60 Native American youth in 2010 to 20 in 2016, and at the state and local level, arrests of Native American youth declined by almost 40 percent from 18,295 arrested in 2010 to 11,002 in 2016.

Our analysis also found that the vast majority of these Native American youth came into contact with state and local justice systems, not the federal system. For example, from 2010 through 2016, there were 105,487 total arrests of Native American youth reported by state and local law enforcement agencies (LEAs). In contrast, there were 246 Native American youth held in federal custody by the U.S. Marshals Service due to arrest by federal LEAs during the same period.

We also found a number of similarities between Native American and non-Native American youth in state and local justice systems. For example, the offenses that Native American youth and non-Native American youth were arrested, adjudicated, and confined for were generally similar. In contrast, our analysis also showed a number of differences between Native American and non-Native American youth in the federal justice system. For example, our analysis showed variation in the types of offenses committed by each group. From fiscal years 2010 through 2016, the majority of Native American youth in the federal justice system were arrested, adjudicated, or confined for offenses against a person, with the top two specific offenses being assault and sex offenses. In contrast, the majority of involvement of non-Native American youth in the federal system during the same period was due to public order or drug and alcohol offenses at all three stages, with the top two specific offenses being drug and immigration related. Our September 2018 report contains additional information on the differences between Native American and non-Native American youth involved with the federal justice system.

Further, we found that the percent of Native American youth involved in most state and local systems was generally similar to their representation in the youth populations in those states. For example, our analysis found that the majority (about 75 percent) of Native American youth arrested by state and local LEAs from calendar years 2010 through 2016 were located in 10 states: Alaska, Arizona, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin. These 10 states had among the highest percent of Native Americans in their states’ overall youth populations, according to 2016 U.S. Census estimates we reviewed. In 2016, the largest number of arrests by state and local LEAs occurred in Arizona and South Dakota.

In contrast, we found that representation of Native American youth arrested, referred for adjudication, and confined at the federal level during the period reviewed was greater (13 to 19 percent) than their representation in the nationwide youth population (1.6 percent).

DOJ officials told us that the population of Native Americans in the federal justice system has historically been higher than their share in the nationwide population, and they attributed this and other differences shown by our analysis to federal government jurisdiction over certain crimes in Indian country, as well as the absence of general federal government jurisdiction over non-Native American youth. According to DOJ officials, this jurisdiction requires the federal government to prosecute offenses that would commonly be prosecuted by states if committed outside of Indian country. According to DOJ officials, a small handful of federal criminal statutes apply to all juveniles, such as immigration and drug statutes, but the federal government has been granted greater jurisdiction over Native American youth than non-Native American youth by federal laws that apply to crimes committed in Indian Country, such as the Major Crimes Act. For example, one DOJ official noted that the Major Crimes Act gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over crimes such as burglary and sex offenses committed in Indian country. This differs from the treatment of non-Native American youth, who are not prosecuted in the federal system for the same types of offenses, because the federal government does not have jurisdiction over those youth for such offenses. Non-Native American youth are instead subject to the general juvenile delinquency jurisdiction of state and local courts.

Additionally, DOJ officials stated that tribal justice systems are often underfunded and do not have the capacity to handle Native American youths’ cases. Therefore, they stated that when both federal and tribal justice systems have jurisdiction, the federal system might be the only system in which the youth’s case may be adjudicated. For these reasons, the percentage of Native American youth offenders in the federal justice system is higher than non-Native American juveniles in accordance with population size, according to DOJ officials.

Representatives from four of the five Native American organizations we interviewed, whose mission and scope of work focus on Native American juvenile justice issues and that have a national or geographically specific perspective, noted that federal jurisdiction is a key contributor to the higher percentage of Native American youth involved at the federal justice level. Additionally, representatives from all five organizations noted, similarly to DOJ officials, that federal jurisdiction over crimes in Indian country is typically for more serious offenses (specifically under the Major Crimes Act), such as offenses against a person.

Comprehensive data from tribal justice systems on the involvement of Native American youth were not available. However, we identified and reviewed a few data sources that provided insights about the arrest, adjudication, and confinement of Native American youth by tribal justice systems. See appendix II for a summary of our analysis of data from these sources.

DOJ and HHS Offered at Least 122 Grant Programs; Tribal Governments or Native American Organizations Were Eligible for Almost All but in a Sample of Applications We Reviewed, Applied Primarily for Programs Specifying Native Americans

In our September 2018 report, we identified 122 discretionary grants and cooperative agreements (grant programs) offered by DOJ and HHS from fiscal years 2015 through 2017 that could help prevent or address delinquency among Native American youth. DOJ and HHS made approximately $1.2 billion in first-year awards through the 122 programs over the period, of which the agencies awarded about $207.7 million to tribal governments or Native American organizations. A list of the 122 programs, which focus on a range of issues such as violence or trauma, justice system reform, alcohol and substance abuse, and reentry and recidivism, can be found in our September 2018 report.

The 122 DOJ and HHS grant programs we identified included 27 programs that specified tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary and 95 programs that did not specify these populations but could include them as beneficiaries. For example, the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention offered the Defending Childhood American Indian/Alaska Native Policy Initiative: Supporting Trauma-Informed Juvenile Justice Systems for Tribes program for funding in fiscal year 2016. The goal of this program— increasing the capacity of federally recognized tribes’ juvenile justice and related systems to improve the life outcomes of youth who are at risk or who are involved in the justice system and to reduce youth exposure to violence—explicitly focused on tribal communities. On the other hand, the Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act grant program, which HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration offered for funding in fiscal year 2016 to prevent and reduce alcohol use among youth and young adults, is an example of a program that did not specify tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary but could include them as beneficiaries.

We found that tribal governments and Native American organizations were eligible for almost all of the grant programs we identified. Specifically, they were eligible to apply for 70 of 73 DOJ programs and 48 of 49 HHS programs. However, although tribal governments and Native American organizations were eligible to apply for almost all of the programs, we found in a non-generalizable sample of applications we reviewed that they applied primarily for the programs that specified tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary. For example, we reviewed applications for 18 DOJ grant programs and found that tribal governments and Native American organizations accounted for over 99 percent of the applications for the 5 grant programs within the sample that specified tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary. However, tribal governments and Native American organizations accounted for about 1 percent of the applications for the 13 programs in the sample that did not specify tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary.

We interviewed officials from DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and seven HHS operating divisions to obtain their perspectives on why tribal governments and Native American organizations might not apply for grant programs that do not specify them as a primary beneficiary. They identified various reasons, including that tribal governments and Native American organizations might not be aware that they are eligible to apply for certain grant programs; might believe that their applications to grant programs that do not specify tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary will not be competitive with other applications; or might prefer to apply for those grant programs that specify tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary.

We also interviewed representatives from 10 tribal governments and Native American organizations, who provided perspectives on whether or not a grant program’s focus on tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary affected their decision to apply for the program. Officials from 6 of 10 tribal governments and Native American organizations indicated that they would consider any grant program that met the needs of their communities, while the remaining 4 indicated that a grant program’s focus or lack thereof on tribes or Native Americans could affect their ability to apply for it.

Officials from the 10 tribal governments and Native American organizations also identified various federal practices they found helpful or challenging when applying for grant programs related to preventing or addressing delinquency among Native American youth. When asked what federal practices, if any, were particularly helpful when applying to receive federal funding, they most frequently responded that they found it particularly helpful to be able to call or meet with federal officials if they had questions about or needed help on their applications. Regarding the biggest challenges, they cited short application deadlines, difficulties collecting data for grant program applications, and a scarcity of grant writers and other personnel needed to complete a quality application.

In addition, DOJ OJP and HHS officials provided perspectives on why some tribal governments and Native American organizations might be more successful in applying for federal funding than others. The officials stated, among other things, that larger and better-resourced tribal governments and Native American organizations were more successful at applying for federal funding and that previously successful grant program applicants were more likely to be successful again.

More detailed information on the perspectives from tribal governments, Native American organizations, and agency officials regarding the factors they believe affect the ability of tribal governments and Native American organizations to apply successfully for federal grant programs can be found in our September 2018 report.

Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and Members of the Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have at this time.

Appendix I: Data Sources for Federal, State and Local, and Tribal Justice Systems by Phase of the Justice Process

For our September 2018 report, we obtained and analyzed record-level and summary data from federal, state and local, and tribal justice systems from 2010 through 2016. Figure 1 illustrates the data sources we included in our report for each phase of the justice process (arrest, adjudication, and confinement) in each justice system (federal, state and local, and tribal). Generally, state and local entities include those managed by states, counties, or municipalities.

Appendix II: GAO Findings Regarding American Indian and Alaska Native Youth Involvement with Tribal Justice Systems

Comprehensive data from tribal justice systems on the involvement of American Indian and Alaska Native (Native American) youth were not available. However, in our September 2018 report, we identified and reviewed a few data sources that can provide certain insights about the arrest, adjudication, and confinement of Native American youth by tribal justice systems. The following is a summary of our analysis of data from these sources.

Arrests. Although comprehensive data on the number of tribal law enforcement agency (LEA) arrests were not available, we obtained and reviewed admission records from three juvenile detention centers in Indian country managed by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Based on those records, at least 388 Native American tribal youth were admitted to these three facilities in 2016, as shown in table 1. In the Northern Cheyenne facility, for which we obtained records for 5 years, the number of youth admitted increased yearly between 2012 and 2016, from 14 to 204.

According to BIA officials, this growth in the number of youth admitted to the Northern Cheyenne facility likely reflects an increase in admissions of Native American youth from surrounding tribes. Specifically, because the Northern Cheyenne facility is centrally located, the officials said that the facility admits youth from other tribes, which have grown accustomed to sending their youth to the facility. BIA officials also noted that the Northern Cheyenne facility services an area where there is a high rate of delinquency among youth, and because the facility works well with Native American youth struggling with delinquency issues, many tribes elect to send their delinquent youth to the facility. Further, since 2012, the Northern Cheyenne facility increased its bed space and staff, thus increasing its capacity to admit more youth, according to BIA officials.

Even though comprehensive tribal arrest data were not available, we reported in September 2018 that the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) was undertaking an effort to increase collection of arrest data from tribal LEAs. Specifically, this data collection activity is the Census of Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies. This collection activity, which BJS plans to conduct in 2019, is to capture information including tribal LEA workloads and arrests, tribal LEA access to and participation in regional and national justice database systems, and tribal LEA reporting of crime data into FBI databases.

Adjudication. Comprehensive data were not available to describe the extent to which tribal courts processed Native American youth or found them guilty. However, BJS concluded a tribal court data collection effort— the National Survey of Tribal Court Systems—in 2015. Through this survey, BJS gathered information from more than 300 tribal courts and other tribal judicial entities on their criminal, civil, domestic violence, and youth caseloads, and pretrial and probation programs, among other things. DOJ officials told us that BJS has analyzed the data, and plans to release results in the future.

Confinement. According to data published by BJS, the number of youth in Indian country jails declined from 190 in 2014 to 170 in 2016 (about an 11 percent decrease).

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please contact Gretta L. Goodwin, Director, Homeland Security and Justice at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony are Tonnye’ Conner-White, Assistant Director; Steven Rocker, Analyst-in- Charge; Haley Dunn; Angelina Torres; Taylor Matheson; Anne Akin; Paul Hobart; Jamarla Edwards; Claire Peachey; Eric Hauswirth; Heidi Neilson; Amanda Miller; and Elizabeth Dretsch. Key contributors to the previous work on which this testimony is based are listed in our September 2018 report.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.