Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011 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 3Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011 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 5Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011 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. 7Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011 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.) 9Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2011 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. Eighty- three 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)). 11Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2011 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)). 13Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2011 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 federally- recognized 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 In 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 No tribally operated LE agencies Under 5 agencies 5-9 agencies 10 or more agencies 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 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 201116 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 cross- deputization 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 full- time 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 BIA- funded 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 full- time 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. Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 201118 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 Tra�c 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 anti- terrorism (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 tra�cking Anti- terrorism Violent crime GangsDrug tra�cking One or more types Type of function Figure 2.5 Task force participation of tribal police departments, 2008 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 201120 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 part- time 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 In 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 jurisdic tion in I ndian countr y 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 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 201122 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 M an da to ry P .L . 2 80 st at es Op tio na l P .L . 2 80 st at es In di an re se rv at io n (U .S . C en su s B ur ea u) Pr os ec ut or s’ o� ce s r ep or tin g ju ris di ct io n in In di an Co un try u nd er P .L . 2 80 Fi g u r e 3 .1 St at e p ro se cu to rs ’ o ffi ce s re p o rt in g ju ri sd ic ti o n in In d ia n c o u n tr y u n d er P .L . 2 80 , 2 00 7 N ot e: P ro se cu to rs ’ o ffi ce s i n no n- P.L . 2 80 st at es a re n ot sh ow n. So ur ce : B ur ea u of Ju st ic e St at ist ic s Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 201124 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 o�ces 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. Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 201126 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 20092008200720042003200220012000 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. Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 201128 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. cPopulation 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. cAverage 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 50 or more25 to 4910 to 24Fewer than 10 inmatesTotal 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. Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 201130 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. aBased 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. cExpected 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. Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 201132 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 aIncludes 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 non- operational. 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. Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 201134 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 community- and 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 200820072006200520042003200220012000 Source: Urban Institute analysis. See Methodology for more information. Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 201136 Tracking tribal youth through the stages of the federal criminal case process The federal criminal justice system is not currently well- equipped 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 jurisdic tion 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. I n what circumstances are tribal and non- tribal 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 (community- based) 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 Case- relateda Suspect- relatedb No crime Referred to other authoritiesc OtherTotal 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 non- tribal 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. Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 201138 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 16–4416–44 1–151–15 0 District of Arizona (14%) District of New Mexico (12%) District of Montana (28%) District of North Dakota (4%) District of South Dakota (27%) Number of tribal youth 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 non- tribal 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 Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 201140 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 non- tribal 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 200820072006200520042003200220012000199919981997199619951994 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 200820072006200520042003200220012000199919981997199619951994 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. Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 201142 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, non- tribal 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%), non- Hispanic (99%), and United States citizens (100%). The majority of non- tribal youth were male (93%), white (60%), non-Hispanic (58%), and United States citizens (71%). 26–6026–60 10–2510–25 1–91–9 00 Number of non-tribal youth admittedNumber of non-tribal youth admitted District of Arizona (19%) New Mexico (5%) District of Western Texas (7%) District of Eastern New York (4%)District of South Dakota (3%) 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