1. Association for Criminal Justice Research Sacramento, California March 17 – 18, 2011 Nicole Sieminski, J.D. Researcher Specialist American Indian Studies Center University of California, Los Angeles James F. Mensing, J.D., Ph.D. Senior Research Analyst Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts Center for Families, Children & the Courts San Francisco, CA

2.  Introductions  Summary of UCLA National Institute of Justice Project – A Study of the Administration of Criminal Justice in Indian Country  Summary of Native American Community Justice Project (NACJP)  Outcome of NACJP: California Tribally Specific Data Investigation  One Area of Focus: Indian Child Welfare Data and CMS/CWS  Group Discussion of Availability of Tribally Specific Data 2

3. Tribal Law and Policy Institute 3

4.  Non-PL280 Tribe and feds share jurisdiction over major crimes by Indians and over Indian- against-non-Indian crimes Tribes have exclusive jurisdiction over non-major crimes committed by Indians against Indians States or feds have jurisdiction over non-Indians, depending on whether victim is Indian or non-Indian  PL280 (or like statute) Tribe shares jurisdiction over Indians with state State has sole jurisdiction over non-Indians Special situation in Alaska, where state has more jurisdiction because of limited Indian country

5.  Model 1 NON-PL 280 – All Tribal (court, police & jail)  Model 2NON-PL 280 – All Tribal, contract jail  Model 3 NON-PL 280 – All BIA  Model 4NON-PL 280 – Mixed (tribal except jail)  Model 5NON-PL 280 – Mixed (BIA except court)  Model 6 NON-PL 280 – Mixed (tribal except police)  Model 7PL 280 – All State (court, police & jail)  Model 8PL 280 – Concurrent (all tribal but may contract jail)  Model 9Alaska – All state except no longer burdened by PL280  Model 10Partial PL 280 (ALL the Idaho tribes, Salish-Kootenai of MT, and all of the WA tribes EXCEPT Muckleshoot, Nisqually, Skokomish, and Squaxin Island)  Model 11Mixed – CFR courts enforcing CFR codes but tribal police (Wyandotte) 5

6.  Number of repeat offenders  Number of tribal members admitted to jail facilities  Crime/victimization rates  Number of arrests for Indian country-based offenses  Number of criminal prosecutions for Indian country-based offenses  Percentage of defendants released on bail or their own recognizance  Approximate rate of pre-trial release violation  Conviction rates for criminal cases involving Indian country-based offenses  Percentage of convicted defendants sentenced to incarceration, fines, community service, treatment  Number of tribal convictions resulting in habeas corpus petitions  Recidivism rates for Indian inmates in tribal and nontribal facilities  Percentage of Indian defendants who plead guilty or plea bargain  Number of reported Part I violent crime incidents  Number of major felony cases reported, number of major felony cases closed

7.  Tribal Approval  Accessibility  Format  Incomplete  Unwillingness to share

8.  Full Reports: Policy Paper (PDF) Research Report (PDF)  Definition of Family Violence Sexual Assault Domestic Violence Stalking Teen Dating Violence Elder Abuse Little data or information exists on these issues 8

9. Strategic Approach respecting tribal sovereignty  Letter to Chairs of Federally and Non-federally Recognized Tribes seeking recommendation for tribal consultant  Consultants hired were Tribes’ first or second consultant choice  Outreach to urban Indians in San Francisco and Los Angeles areas  Updated all Tribes in California through updated Fact Sheet  Planning Meeting invitation to participants of local community meetings and Tribes 9

10.  17 community meetings held  Over 250 California Native participants: Service providers Advocates Tribal Leaders Elders Interested Community Members Victim/Survivors 10

11.  Federally Recognized Tribes  Non-Federally Recognized Tribes  Urban Community Meetings  Facilitator guided  Open ended questions  Notes taken  Survey filled out by most participants 11

12. 1: Crime Statistics and Family Violence Data 2: Reporting Family Violence and Treatment of Native Americans 3: Services 4: Restraining Orders 5: State Courts 6: Tribal Courts and Police 7:Community—Level Concerns 12

13. Violence Against Men Youth and Violence Domestic Violence/Family Violence Definitions Systemic Problems AND Lack of Data…. Tribal Law and Policy Institute 13

14. Discussion Question: What sources of data exist (or should exist) to document the problems?  Data collection is directly related to securing funding.  Some data is not accurate.  Reports often come “through the grapevine.”  Underreporting is a problem. 14

15.  Data is collected by outside agencies and organizations. The data is then used to obtain money and other resources that are not shared with tribal/Native American people. Giving back the data to the tribes and communities from which it was collected is a crucial issue.  Data is sometimes collected from different sources. More information is needed on how to mine data and calculate data from different sources.  Any data collection or reporting should be mindful of confidentiality. 15

16. 16

17.  Cooperation Cooperative efforts with the county and the tribe/Native American community to collect data.  Coordination Recognize and standardize reporting for different sources to make data mining easier.  Capacity Tribe needs funding for a full-time salaried employee to mine data from all sources. 17

18.  Obstacle to implementing change: Lack of tribally specific data to document the problem  AI/AN data exists, but over 500 tribes have very different circumstances State level data is better, but often not sufficient  Requests for Proposals (RFPs) require tribally specific data  Respect for Tribal Sovereignty requires each tribe to be treated as a separate sovereign entity 18

19.  Initital Goals Data Stakeholders Meeting Data Investigation Data Availability Report Data Availability Grid  Additional Tasks Identified Annotated Bibliography of Reports Virtual Native California Data Community 19

20. 1. Juvenile Dependency 2. Elder Abuse 3. Violence Against Women 4. Juvenile Delinquency 5. General Crime 6. General Health 7. Child Custody and Support 8. Demographic 9. DMV 10. TANF 20

24.  Familiarity with ICWA...  CMS/CWS data State and local social service departments BIA federal and regional offices Drop down list of federally recognized tribes for local caseworkers 24

25.  AI/AN children may be identified in two places: Through ethnicity Through ICWA eligibility  Tribal affiliation may be entered if known at initial intake  Tribal affiliation may not be entered if learned at later date through ICWA or other investigation  Data on known tribal affiliations exists at both county and state levels 25

26.  Data is not available through public website because of reliability and confidentiality concerns  Data can be requested through special ad hoc reports from state social services 26

27.  Juvenile, Family, and Probate cases  Case participant by federally recognized tribe or historical identity  Track noticing information under ICWA  View ICWA status of case participant 27

28.  Indian Unit within Department of Social Services  State/tribal data sharing agreements  All tribes in state are part of data sharing agreement  Data used for funding primarily 28

29.  Is Tribally Specific Child Welfare Data Available in your organization? If so, how is it made available? If not, would this be useful? How might it happen? 29