Task Force recommendations

Recommendations on the
National Institute of Justice
Proposed Program of Research to
Examine Acts of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault,
Stalking, and Murder Committed Against Indian Women and
Evaluate the Effectiveness of
Federal, State, Tribal, and Local
Responses to such Violence
as Required Under the
Violence Against Women Act,
Safety for Indian Women Title, Section 904
Submitted by Members of the
Section 904 Violence Against Women in Indian Country Task Force
of the
Office on Violence Against Women and the National Institute of Justice
United States Department of Justice
Tuesday, March 23, 2010

1

Members
Section 904 Violence Against Women in Indian Country Task Force
United States Department of Justice1
Ms. Jacqueline Agtuca
Ms. Cheryl Neskahi Coan

Ms. Shannon Cozzoni
Ms. Jolanda Ingram-Marshal

Ms. Pamela Iron
Hon. Billy Jo Jones

Ms. Lori Jump

Ms. Bernadette LaSarte
Ms. Patricia McGeshick
Ms. Denise Morris
Mr. Arlen Quetawki
Hon. Vikki Shirley
Ms. Nancy J. Soctomah

Director of Public Policy,
Clan Star, Inc., Cherokee, NC
Director of Training and Technical Assistance,
Southwest Indigenous Women’s Coalition,
Phoenix, AZ
First Assistant Attorney General,
Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Okmulgee, OK
Executive Director,
Niwhongwh xw E:na:wh STOP the Violence Coalition,
Hoopa, CA
Executive Director, National Indian Women’s Health
Resource Center, Tahlequah, OK
Director, Northern Plains Tribal Judicial Training Institute,
Chief Judge, Sisseton-Wahpeton Tribe,
Rapid City, SD
Program Manager, Advocacy Resource Center, Sault Ste.
Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Victim Services Program,
Sault Ste. Marie, MI
Program Director, Coeur d’Alene Tribal Domestic Violence
Program, Plummer, ID
Program Director,
Ft. Peck Family Violence Resource Center, Poplar, MT
President and Chief Executive Officer,
Alaska Native Justice Center, Inc., Anchorage, AK
Zuni Pueblo Law Enforcement Consultant,
Pueblo of Zuni, NM
First Lady, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, AZ
Project Coordinator, Peaceful Relations Domestic Violence
Response Program, Pleasant Point Reservation, ME

1

The Section 904 Task Force was established by the Attorney General on March 31, 2008 pursuant to
Section 904(a)(3) of the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-162. The members listed
completed the two-year term established by the charter of the Task Force and participated in the consensus
process to formulate the recommendations contained in this document.

2

Task Force Recommendations2
Responsibility of the United States to Assist Indian Tribes
In Safeguarding the Lives of Indian Women3
I. Overview
In 2005, Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act4 (“VAWA”) to
continue the progress made under this landmark legislation to enhance the safety of
women. It further acknowledged the responsibility of the United States to assist Indian
tribes in safeguarding the lives of Indian women by including within the VAWA a
specific title to address violence against Indian women; Title IX Safety for Indian
Women.5 This title was enacted in an attempt to protect the safety of Indian Women, a
class that is severely victimized in greater numbers than their non-Indian counterparts.6
The VAWA, Title IX, Section 902 states as its purpose:
(1) to decrease the incidence of violent crimes against Indian women;
(2) to strengthen the capacity of Indian tribes to exercise their sovereign
authority to respond to violent crimes committed against Indian women; and
(3) to ensure that perpetrators of violent crimes committed against Indian
women are held accountable for their criminal behavior.
Title IX was the product of a national alliance of tribal and non-tribal organizational
efforts to respond to questions presented by Congress7 to understand the complexities of
federal Indian law and the impact upon the safety of Indian women.8 It was recognized
by this alliance that the advances made under the VAWA nationally were not reaching
women within tribal communities. While violent victimization was reported to drop
nationally the rates of victimization of Indian women had not decreased but remained the
same or increased. It was commonly understood that certain nuances of federal Indian
law mired the progress within tribal communities toward enhancing the safety of Indian
women under the prior VAWA legislation. Specifically, VAWA is based upon a justice
model that assumes a comprehensive justice system that utilizes a coordinated
community response to VAWA related crimes.
2

The final meeting of the Section 904 Task Force was held on December 1, 2009 in Oklahoma City during
which time the members reached consensus on the recommendations contained in this document. Task
Force members Jacqueline Agtuca and Shannon Cozzoni performed the principal writing of this document.
3
The usage of the term Indian tribe is as defined under the Indian Self-Determination Act.
4
42 U.S.C. § 3796gg-10 note.
5
42 U.S.C. § 3796gg-10 note, Title IX, § 904(a).
6
See e.g., Pub. L. No. 109-162 § 901 (2006).
7
Specifically the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, and Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.
8
The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence was created in 2000 to inform and
educate Congress and the public of the on-going need to enhance the safety of women. The National
Congress of American Indians Task Force on Violence Against Indian Women joined this alliance
following its formation in 2003. These organizations reflect the strong grass roots foundation that informed
then Senator Joe Biden’s efforts to continue to enhance the safety of women and specifically American
Indian women through passage and subsequently reauthorization of the VAWA.

3

Due to federal Indian law jurisdictional restrictions, historical and current lack of
resources and choices a comprehensive western based justice system is not a given within
Indian tribes. Further, institutional barriers created by federal law act as systemic
roadblocks to holding perpetrators accountable for their violence and prevent Indian
tribes from adequately responding to violence against Indian women. Such
institutionalized legal barriers include specific acts of Congress such as the Indian Civil
Rights Act limiting the sentencing authority of Indian tribes to a maximum sentence of
one year per offense and a fine of no more than $5,0009 regardless of the felony level
severity of the crime such as rape.10 Further Indian tribes are restricted from providing a
meaningful remedy when women are physically and sexually assaulted because Indian
tribes have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, and may not prosecute or punish
non-Indians.11 Such institutionalized legal barriers have grave consequences for the
safety of Indian women and often leave them without criminal recourse provided all other
women within the United States. Non-Indian perpetrators are aware of the lack of tribal
jurisdiction and the vulnerability of Indian women.12 State law enforcement and courts
are similarly saddled with limitations on their authority to prosecute non-Indians who
commit acts of violence upon Native women in tribal communities because of the
implications of the General Crimes Act.13
The lack of understanding of these restrictions and other legal barriers contained in this
complex body of federal Indian law was the basis for a section of the tribal title to
mandate analysis and research of the federal, state, tribal, and local systems responsible
for safeguarding the lives of Indian women. If VAWA is to enhance the safety of Indian
women it is critical to understand these systems that are charged with the responsibility of
responding to VAWA related crimes. These legal barriers ultimately impact the ability of
Indian women to live free of violence and the authority of Indian tribes to safeguard the
lives of the citizens of their respective nations.14 The well documented under reporting of
these crimes by Indian women is illustrative of the failure of the systems to be evaluated.
The statute acknowledged that such research would require the close guidance of Indian
tribes, advocates providing services to Indian women, and other policy experts and
mandated that a task force be created to guide the development and implementation of the
9

Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq.

10

Of the 50 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia 20 (37.0%) provide for a maximum term of
life imprisonment for rape. Twenty-four (45.3%) have a maximum penalty of 20 years or more. The
federal sentence provides for a maximum sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole for
offenders convicted of aggravated sexual assault. Report to Congress: Analysis of Penalties for Federal
Rape Cases (U.S. Sentencing Commission 1995) (available at
http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/FEDRAPE.PDF).
11
12

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

A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
2003) (available at http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/na0703/na0204.pdf).
13
14

18 U.S.C. § 1152.

§ 904 recognized that the complexity of understanding and formulating recommendations to be presented
in the report to Congress encompass criminal justice and public health systems. The criminal systems were
mandated under § 904(a) and health under § 904(c). These two research components are essential to a full
understanding of violence against Indian women.

4

research project.15 Specifically, the statute required that the task force was charged with
assisting in the development and implementation of a baseline study to examine violence
committed against Indian women, including: (i) domestic violence; (ii) dating violence;
(iii) sexual assault; (iv) stalking; and (v) murder, including the effectiveness of Federal,
State, Tribal and local response.
The Section 904 Task Force (Task Force) was established by the Attorney General in
March 2008. It has since the first meeting struggled with the daunting nature of the
challenges posed by the authorizing statute. While the responsibilities presented by the
statute are welcomed the Task Force it is also concerned by what it conceives as
presumptions set upon it by the statute. Throughout its two-year existence it has engaged
in a dialogue to advance its understanding of the complicated nature of the issues
presented as a means to formulate recommendations to assist the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) to successfully implement the research required by the statute. To this end
the most prominent of these concerns and corresponding recommendations are
summarized. The program of research proposed by NIJ contains four components and
this document responds to each component in the order presented.
General Notes on Authorizing Statute.
Over the two-year lifetime of the Task Force the authorizing language for the research
has been discussed continuously. The Task Force in general is concerned with the
following statutory language authorizing the research.
1. Usage of Term Indian Country.
First, the term Indian Country contained within subparagraph (a)(1)16 reads as follows:
IN GENERAL. — The National Institute of Justice, in consultation with the
Office on Violence Against Women, shall conduct a national baseline study to
examine violence against Indian women in Indian country.
The complex nature of Indian Country jurisdiction from both a civil and criminal level
does not provide for a streamlined method of addressing violence against Indian women
within the jurisdictional context of solely on Indian Country. The limitation of Indian
Country not only ignores federal law defining the interstate nature of crimes against
women, but also ignores factual situations that exist on a daily basis due to jurisdictional
issues.
Indian Country has changed over the years. Indian Country was once the entire land that
we now call the United States, occupation and attempted assimilation pushed tribes to
smaller and smaller areas of land. In some areas of the United States, the federal
government took all of the tribal lands and gave some to members in allotments.17 These
tribes were left with the burden of rebuilding its land base. In addition, there are
15

§ 904(a)(3).
A provision of S.327 is intended to correct this problem. A similar legislative fix was introduced
immediately following the enactment of VAWA 2006.
17
General Allotment Act of 1887.
16

5

Dependent Indian Communities, defined as Indian Country in 18 U.S.C. § 1151, that
exist outside of formal reservations. 18 Unless the land is the subject of litigation,
Dependent Indian Communities will not have been judicially determined making the
determination of Indian Country problematic for survey purposes. As Indian Country
continues to change, state and federal courts have continued to chip away at the sparse
jurisdiction the federal government left to tribes resulting in confusion over jurisdictional
issues regarding Indian Country.
Although § 904 narrows the baseline study to Indian Country, federal laws that
criminalize domestic violence and stalking, recognize that the victimization of Indian
women does not occur on one location. 18 U.S.C. § 2261, Interstate Domestic Violence,
and 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, Interstate Stalking, subjects individuals who “travel in interstate
or foreign commerce” or “enters or leaves Indian country” to criminal charges. As
recognized by the federal government, violence against Indian women crosses lines and
focusing only on crimes occurring on Indian Country ignores the dynamics of abuse and
the willingness of a perpetrator to cross any line to get to the victim. Focusing solely on
women who reside in Indian Country or women who have been victimized on Indian
Country ignores a segment of Indian victims who may cross into or out of Indian
Country, if even for a brief moment. For instance, what of women who are victimized
outside of Indian Country but escape to their reservation and families for protection?
They may obtain protective orders from the tribal court, seek counseling from tribal
support systems but we are to ignore these women in our study simply because the
assault took place off of Indian Country.
What of jurisdictions such as Oklahoma or Michigan, where the federal policies of
assimilation and allotments created checkerboard jurisdiction and crossing in and out of
Indian Country may not even be cognizant to the batterer? Often in these jurisdictions
the tribes and states combine services to more effectively reach all. A woman may be
battered outside of Indian Country, but she returns to her tribe for counseling and
housing. What of women who have been battered on Indian Country but now live off
Indian Country for various reasons, including residing in off-reservation shelters that may
be supported by tribes. What of native women who leave the reservation to escape a
member of the reservation?
This Task Force believes that studies isolated to crimes occurring only in Indian Country
fail to take into account all factors including where the abuse occurs, where women go to
receive safe shelter and what other services they are taking advantage of. This
information is essential for tribes to continue to take care of its citizens.
If the baseline study is to evaluate the response of Federal, State, tribal and local
governments, how can that study be effective without knowing what happens outside of
Indian Country? Any study of crime against Native women in Indian country must be
interpreted in light of similar crimes occurring against Native women to gain an
understanding of how jurisdictional issues may impact effective prosecution outside
18

See Hydro Resources, Inc. v USEPA, 562 F.3d. 1249 (10th Cir 2009).

6

Indian country as well. If it is determined that a PL 28019 state is filing cases where
Indian women are the victim off of Indian Country but not filing when the abuse happens
on Indian Country then perhaps one issue is confusion over jurisdiction in that state.
Conversely, a lack of response in either situation may reveal apathy towards domestic
violence victims or even to native women.
The lack of jurisdiction at the tribal level presents a gap that allows battering to occur in
Indian Country. If the batterer is a non-Indian tribes must rely on either the state, often
completely uneducated in Indian country jurisdiction and hampered by limitations
imposed by 18 USC § 1152, or the federal government to prosecute. The federal
response is limited because of the Major Crimes Act’s emphasis on serious felonies and
the concomitant prohibition in 18 USC § 1152 on the prosecution of Indian on Indian
crime that does not rise to the level of a Major Crimes violation and may not result in
prosecution. Restoring full prosecutorial jurisdiction to tribes, regardless of whether the
perpetrator is Indian or non-Indian should be seriously studied.
In addition to the confusion regarding criminal jurisdiction, confusion about civil
jurisdiction may also cause victims to go off Indian Country to file for protective orders,
divorces and custody matters, often without reporting to law enforcement. Service on the
batterer may be difficult to obtain with jurisdictional crossings and lack of cooperation on
local levels. Many tribes issue protective orders and although 18 U.S.C. § 2265 grants
full faith and credit to tribal protection orders, if jurisdictions fail to recognize tribal
divorce, custody and protective orders then the effectiveness of the tribal response has
been thwarted by the non-tribal response. A review of the filing of protective orders and
the enforcement of tribal protective orders is necessary to determine the effectiveness of
Indian Country protective orders.
Lastly, the term Indian Country excludes 229 federally recognized Indian tribes within
the State of Alaska.20 It is inconceivable to the Task Force that a national study of
violence against Indian women would exclude almost one-half of all the federally
recognized Indian tribes in the United States. This exclusion the Task Force maintains
was not the intent of the statute and notes the definition of Indian tribe under VAWA
includes all federally recognized Indian tribes.

19

Public Law 83-280 (commonly referred to as PL 280) was a transfer of jurisdiction from the federal
government to certain state governments in Indian country that greatly complicated the concurrent criminal
jurisdiction of Indian tribes over violent crimes. Pub. L. 83-280, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1162, 28 U.S.C. §
1360 (2000). See Carole Goldberg-Ambrose, Planting Tail Feathers: Tribal Survival and Public Law 280
(UCLA American Indian Studies Center, 1997).
20
With the exception of Metlakatla Indian Community Annette Island Reserve that shares concurrent
jurisdiction with the United States.

7

2. Program of Research Remain Consistent with Statutory Scope of Section 904.
Second, the Task Force is concerned that the focus of the statute remains within the
context of the language of the statute defining the scope of the research that reads as
follows:
(2) SCOPE(A) IN GENERAL – The study shall examine violence committed against Indian
women, including—(i) domestic violence; (ii) dating violence; (iii) sexual assault;
(iv) stalking; and, (v) murder.
(B) EVALUATION- The study shall evaluate the effectiveness of Federal, State,
tribal, and local responses to the violations described in subparagraph (A)
committed against Indian women.
(C) RECOMMENDATIONS- The study shall propose recommendations to
improve the effectiveness of Federal, State, tribal, and local responses to the
violation described in subparagraph (A) committed against Indian women.
It is generally agreed that the language of the statute clearly focuses on the following: 1)
examining the violence, 2) the effectiveness of the federal, state, tribal and local systems
responding to the violence, and, 3) as a result of the study report to Congress
recommendations to improve the effectiveness of these systems to the five crimes listed.
It is the concern of the Task Force that the crimes enumerated and the response of the
systems to these crimes remain the focus of the program of research. Further, the §904
study is time sensitive. Everyday the impact of failed systems charged with safeguarding
the lives of Indian women translates into loss of life, constant threat of physical injury,
and in general a detrimental impact on the quality of life of American Indian women.
While much research is needed the NIJ is encouraged to focus on the evaluation of the
effectiveness of these systems.
The Task Force recommends that the NIJ program of research not focus on the behavior
of Indian women participating in the study. For too long the standard responses of
criminal justice personnel to not hold perpetrators accountable have involved the victim’s
behavior. Perpetrators of crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,
and stalking are responsible for their criminal behavior and not the victims of these
horrific crimes. It is the strong opinion of the Task Force that to understand the violence
to be examined the NIJ program of research must provide equal focus on the offenders of
these crimes. The perpetrators of these crimes typically do not commit single acts but
repeat their violent behavior over time with the same or different victims.21 It is the
beliefs offenders use to justify their criminal acts and their patterns of violent behavior
that can enlighten the process of formulating the recommendations to increase the
effectiveness of the systems to be examined. To enhance the safety of Indian women the
current systems must be reformed. It is the strong opinion of the Task Force that primary
data be collected from perpetrators and the systems to be examined to develop such
recommendations.
21

The definition of domestic violence typically refers to a pattern of behavior.

8

Advancing recommendations reforming the systems charged with the responsibility of
responding to such crimes will enhance the safety of Indian women by holding the
perpetrators accountable for their crimes.
II. General Comments on Four Components of NIJ Proposed Program of Research
1. Tribally Representative Primary Data Collection. The NIJ proposes to collect
standardized questionnaire data from a representative sample of Indian women from the
tribal communities that choose to participate in the project. The primary data collection
process would include: questionnaire development (public safety and public health
questions); development of a comprehensive plan to pilot and cognitively test the
questionnaire; submission of required OMB and IRB (federal and tribal) applications;
and development and testing of modes of questionnaire administration and respondent
recruitment strategy. Prior to collection NIJ proposes to develop procedural guidelines,
study manuals, training materials, and protocols, as well as a data dictionary,
codebook(s), and an analysts’ guide including a data repository plan. Other tasks include
developing and implementing marketing, outreach and dissemination strategies, and
creating MOU/MOA and participatory agreements with Tribal Nations.
It is the strong opinion of the Task Force that the primary data collection component be
broadened to include Indian women, perpetrators, and systems’ personnel for the
following purposes:
a) Indian Women – To understand the effectiveness of the systems to be
examined the needs and concerns of actual victims and survivors must be
included in the study,
b) Perpetrators – To understand the violence to be examined research must be
focused upon the perpetrators of the violence. The perpetrators of these crimes
typically do not commit single acts but repeat their violent behavior over time
with the same or different victims. The offender of these crimes can inform the
process of formulating the recommendations to increase the effectiveness of the
systems to be examined,22
c) Systems Personnel - To understand the effectiveness of the federal, state, local,
and tribal systems to be examined personnel working within these systems must
be included. Gathering secondary data of statistics will not by itself form the
recommendations of why the personnel failed to appropriately respond to crimes
of violence committed against Indian women.
22

In the context of Indian perpetrators it is a concern that the violence be addressed in that typically tribal
offenders return to their tribal community. It is important to understand the violence of Indian and nonIndian perpetrators to strategically address and eradicate violence against women. The Task Force
recognizes that perpetrators commonly place responsibility for their violence on the victim of their
violence. Developing recommendations that will highlight the patterns in the violence and gaps in the
systems to be examined can assist in the process of reform.

9

Given the current planning phase of the NIJ proposal the following recommendations
focus on the process for how these tasks will be achieved and not the specific design or
content of these materials.
Recommendations for NIJ in the area of primary data collection:
1) NIJ collect primary data from personnel working within the systems to be
examined to evaluate the effectiveness of those systems.
2) NIJ collect primary data from perpetrators of the crimes to be examined to
evaluate the effectiveness of the systems charged with holding offenders
accountable for their violent behavior.
3) NIJ collect primary data from Indian women to evaluate and increase the
effectiveness of the systems to be examined and form the recommendations to
improve the response of these systems to violence committed against Indian
women.
4) NIJ establish and maintain a governmental relationship with each Indian tribe
choosing to participate in this process. Further, that the NIJ maintain on-going
relations with these Indian tribes to allow full, informed, and consistent
participation in the implementation of this component.
5) NIJ understand the sovereign authority of each Indian tribe and give deference to
the respective Indian tribe to determine the process that is most applicable to its
unique circumstances.
6) NIJ develop an MOU or MOA with each Indian tribe and if agreed upon develop
such written document in conjunction with the respective Indian tribe. The
document should identify the responsibilities of NIJ to the specific Indian tribe
and address issues of concern expressed by the tribal government.
7) NIJ recognize that while partnerships with federal departments charged with
responsibilities for providing services to Indian tribes, such as law enforcement
and health, are helpful they do not constitute formal governmental consultation or
relationships with Indian tribes agreeing to participate in the primary data
collection component.
8) NIJ recognize the sensitive and complex nature of the information to be collected
from Indian women and develop a system for a woman to be accompanied by a
support person to the collection site.
9) NIJ develop in all phases of the primary data collection component partnerships
with the organization providing advocacy and related services to Indian women
seeking safety in the jurisdictions selected as collection sites. The purpose of
these partnerships is to inform the development of the data collection process.
Examples of these organizations are battered women’s shelters, rape crises
services, and prevention and education services provided by tribal women’s
coalitions. Given the current under-resourcing of such advocacy and related
service organizations it is recommended that when appropriate NIJ compensate
these entities for time provided to NIJ in the data collection process.
10) NIJ develop a response for anonymity due to fear of retaliation for participating in
the study and exposing the failure of the federal, state, tribal or local system from
providing a response to a participant. Victims viewed as whistle blowers on the

10

failed response of a system should not face retaliation for their participation in the
NIJ research project.
11) NIJ develop anonymity for Indian tribes concerned about the loss of federal
VAWA or other funding due to participating in the data collection that informs
NIJ of institutionalized barriers created by the current federal or state system.
12) NIJ hire and train tribal women with demonstrated expertise in the areas of
violence against Indian women and Federal Indian Law to implement the primary
data collection component.
13) NIJ contract with researchers with demonstrated expertise in the areas of violence
against Indian women and Federal Indian Law to conduct the data analysis and
write the primary data collection component.
14) NIJ provide training on violence against Indian women and Federal Indian Law to
all participants employed and or contracted to implement this component of the
program of research including the use of tribal colleges as a resource.
2. Secondary Data Analysis of Federal, State, Local and Tribal Crime and Health
Data Systems. The NIJ proposes to review multiple data systems and sources as they
relate to violence against Indian women. Specifically, it proposes to locate and analyze
the following eight pieces of information: Indian Country crime and victimization rates;
number and type of calls for service; number and types of arrests and charges; number of
preliminary and permanent protective orders issued and enforced; Indian Country
prosecution rates and sentencing practices; number and effects of dual jurisdiction; and
homicide and mortality rates. Given the complexity of Federal Indian Law it is important
that this research recognize the unique jurisdictional circumstance impacting specific
Indian tribes and Indian women.
Recommendations for Secondary Data Component:
1) NIJ locate and analyze data from federal agencies, state agencies, and tribal
agencies.
2) NIJ recognize that Indian Civil Rights Act limits the ability of Indian tribes to
adequately sentence persons convicted of the five crimes to be examined under
the statute.
3) NIJ recognize that the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) is the sole
entity with felony sentencing authority within tribal jurisdiction sharing
concurrent federal criminal jurisdiction. The response or lack of response by the
USDOJ to the five crimes listed under § 904 must be focused upon in judicial /
prosecutorial Districts in which Indian tribes are located. Data reflecting no
response or zero prosecution of these crimes must be reflected in this component.
4) NIJ recognize the detrimental impact of Public Law 83-280 and similar legislation
upon Indian tribes.23
5) NIJ develop a process for reporting murders to allow for inclusion of such cases
that may not be reflected in the data collected by federal or state agencies but
known to the tribal community, service provider or family.
23

The Task Force encourages NIJ to recognize the legal barriers created by PL 83-280 and similar
legislation impacting a significant number of Indian tribes such as the 119 Indian tribes located within the
State of California, the 229 Alaska Native Villages located within the State of Alaska, and others.

11

6) NIJ recognize that the concepts of safety, perpetrator accountability and justice
within a western system may not include the restoration of balance and well-being
of a woman in a tribal setting.
3. Recommended Program Evaluations. The NIJ proposes to conduct as the third
component of the program of research program evaluations. Given the mandate of § 904
to evaluate the effectiveness of federal, state, tribal, and local systems response to the five
enumerated crimes of violence against Indian women the Task Force recommends that
the evaluations be of these systems in their entirety.
Given the urgent nature of understanding the varying systems responding to violence
against Indian women the Task Force recommends that NIJ evaluate such system in their
entirety. The Office on Violence Against Women has for over 15 years promoted the
concept of a coordinated community response to domestic violence and VAWA related
crimes. This approach while effective as a national model highlights the severe inequity
in the response of the United States to violence committed against Indian women. The
legal restriction on Indian tribes to appropriately respond to such crimes combined with
the lack resources to do so weakens a strong and immediate response to such crimes. The
lack of a local presence or accountability of the federal or state felony prosecutor furthers
the likelihood that the perpetrator will not be held accountable. Similarly the court with
felony jurisdiction is not local and typically hundreds of miles away. The Task Force is
well aware of these and many other gaps in the current systems upon which Indian
women must rely for their safety. It is the mandate of § 904 to evaluate these systems
and create recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of these systems to such
crimes. Such recommendations hold the potential for creating a comprehensive, effective
and accountable systemic response to violence against Indian women.
Recommendations for the Program Evaluation Component:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

NIJ evaluate the effectiveness of a tribal-federal concurrent jurisdiction system.
NIJ evaluate the effectiveness of a tribal-multiple federal jurisdiction system.
NIJ evaluate the effectiveness of a tribal-state concurrent jurisdiction system.
NIJ evaluate the effectiveness of a tribal system.
NIJ evaluate the effectiveness of advocacy services programs.

4. Special Task Force Requested Studies. The fourth component of the NIJ proposed
program of research is comprised of special studies. Specifically, it contains the
following: trafficking of Indian women; women with special needs; comparison of tribal
laws/codes relating to violence against Indian women; comparison of PL 280 vs. non-PL
280 prosecutorial and sentencing practices; U.S. and Tribal Nation border issues; and
impact of “Full Faith and Credit” statutes. While these specialized topics are important
the Task Force recognizes that funding such studies may require additional resources
beyond the authorized amount and that the primary purpose of § 904 is to provide
Congress with recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of the federal, state, tribal,
and local response. In developing the program of research NIJ is encouraged to focus
and expeditiously implement the three components above to provide such
12

recommendations to Congress and seek additional resources to conduct such specialized
studies.
III. General Recommendations Regarding the Implementation of the Program of
Research.
The following recommendations are not specific to a single component of the proposed
program of research but are made to NIJ with regard to the entire proposed program of
research.
1) NIJ provide to the Task Force an update of the role of the Task Force as required
by § 904(a)(3)(A) to assist in the development and implementation of the study.
2) NIJ maintain on-going relations and provide updates to Indian tribes and national
/ regional tribal24 organizations actively engaged in the effort to increase
awareness of issues concerning the safety of Indian women such as the National
Congress of American Indians25, the United Southern and Eastern Tribes26, the
Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association, Alaska Federation of Natives, and
California Association of Tribal Governments, other tribal organizations.
3) NIJ host a briefing session following each of the annual VAWA USDOJ tribal
consultations to inform tribal leadership of the progress, challenges and status of
the program of research until the report and recommendations required under
§904 are completed.
4) NIJ provide Indian tribes that agree to participate in the research project the data
collected within their respective reservations to assist the tribal government in
increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, services and
other related program areas to cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating
violence and stalking.
5) The Task Force respectfully recommends that Attorney General Holder renew the
charter of the Section 904 Task Force for an additional two-year period to guide
the development and implementation of the NIJ Program of Research and
development of the recommendations to Congress on increasing the effectiveness
of the federal, state, tribal and local response to the violence against Indian
women as required by § 904(a)(3)(A).27

24

The usage of the term tribal organization is as defined under the Indian Self-Determination Act.
Support of the 2011 Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, Res. PSP 09-090c, National
Congress of American Indians (October 16, 2009).
26
Position on Violence Against Women Act Consultation, Res. 209:064, United Southern and Eastern
Tribes (October 29, 2009).
27
The Section 904 Task Force was established by Attorney General Mukasey pursuant to § 904(a)(3) of the
Violence Against Women Act of 2005 on March 31, 2008 for a two-year period and under the sunset
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act the charter of the Task Force will be terminated unless
renewed.
25

13