Australian Indigenous Law Reporter
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Indigenous Law Reporter |
|
Inquiries and Reports – United States of America
Stewart Wakeling, Miriam Jorgensen, Susan Michaelson, Manley Begay
US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice
July 2001
This study had two principal goals. The first was to take a broad look at policing in Indian Country in order to better understand the many arrangements for administering reservation police departments, develop an initial assessment of the challenges facing Indian policing, and identify policing strategies and approaches that might be successful in responding to the growing crime problem in Indian Country. The second was to evaluate the prospects for community policing in Indian Country. Could this strategy, which grew out of the experience of police departments in urban settings, be usefully applied to the strikingly different cultural, geographic, and demographic features typical of Indian reservations? This study is a first effort to characterize the variety of arrangements for reservation policing combined with a more comprehensive effort to better understand the operations of a limited set of representative departments and their tribal contexts.
Research for this study included several components. We began with a literature review and visits to several Indian police departments and the Indian Police Academy in New Mexico. We then distributed a two-part survey to Indian police departments and undertook intensive site visits to four reservations. The strategy for selecting study sites was to choose Indian nations that varied on as many relevant dimensions as could be captured in a small sample. The four nations selected were the Tohono O’odham (in Arizona), the Gila River Indian Community (also in Arizona), the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation (in Montana), and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation (in North Dakota). We studied these reservation departments and the tribal contexts in which they operate in order to gain a richer understanding of the diverse and complex ways in which Native communities cope with policing challenges. One caution is offered here and echoed in the work of other researchers and practitioners in Indian Country (for example, Elias 1998): All but the most basic and easily verified data must be interpreted carefully. For complex reasons, researchers must hold very loosely to data describing important dimensions of policing (including crime) in Indian Country.
In the mid-1990s, estimates of the non-Alaska service population (the number of Native Americans living on or very near reservations) ranged from 1.1 to 1.3 million (Indian Health Service 1997). This population is distributed across the more than 330 Indian nations in the continental United States.
Indian nations exhibit an exceptionally wide variety of social and economic characteristics. One important additional type of variation is the substantial cultural diversity found among American Indian communities. While ‘American Indian’ is a single race category on the US Census, members of one tribe can be as different from those of another tribe as citizens of Greece are from citizens of Vietnam. Even so, most Indian nations face severe social and economic problems. Despite new tribal opportunities and ventures, American Indians living on reservations have been and may remain the poorest minority in the United States (Kilborn 1992; Cornell et al 1998; Pace 2000).
More than 200 police departments operate in Indian Country, serving an even larger number of tribal communities. These departments range in size from only 2 or 3 officers to more than 200 officers. The communities they serve are as small as the Grand Canyon-based Havasupai Tribe (with a population of only 600) and as large as the Navajo Nation (with a population of more than 250,000 and a land area larger than the State of Connecticut).
The most common administrative arrangement for police departments in Indian Country is organization under the auspices of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. Also known as Public Law 93–638 (PL 93–638), this law gives tribes the opportunity to establish their own government functions by contracting with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Thus, ‘638ed’ departments are administered by tribes under contract with the BIA’s Division of Law Enforcement Services. Typically, a 638 contract establishes the department’s organizational framework and performance standards and provides basic funding for the police function. Officers and non-sworn staff of these departments are tribal employees.
Departments administered by the BIA are the second most common type of police department in Indian Country. Staff in these departments are Federal employees. For many years, patrol officers were under the line authority of the local BIA superintendent (each reservation has a BIA superintendent who oversees all or most of the BIA functions on that reservation), and criminal investigators were under the line authority of the BIA’s Division of Law Enforcement Services. Recent changes have placed line authority for patrol under the BIA’s Division of Law Enforcement Services as well.
Less common are departments that receive funding under the auspices of the self-governance amendments to PL 93–638 and departments that are funded completely with tribal money. These arrangements grant tribes much more control over government functions than is permitted under 638 contracts. A number of tribes rely on State and local authorities for police services under Public Law 83–280, 67 Stat 588 (1953). This law, passed as part of a larger effort to ‘terminate’ American Indian tribes, gave a number of States the power to enforce the same criminal laws within Indian Country as they did outside of Indian Country.
The typical department serves an area the size of Delaware, but with a population of only 10,000, that is patrolled by no more than three police officers and as few as one officer at any one time (a level of police coverage that is much lower than in other urban and rural areas of the country). In other words, the typical setting is a large area with a relatively small population patrolled by a small number of police officers; the superficial description is of a rural environment with rural-style policing. In fact, many reservation residents live in fairly dense communities, which share attributes of suburban and urban areas. Officers who work in Indian Country are almost always graduates of high schools and certified law enforcement training academies; a slight majority are Native American.
Eileen Luna and Samuel Walker (1998) offer detailed statistical profiles of these departments. Therefore, our focus is on the core management challenges across the range of departments. While there are many more small departments (approximately 150) than medium-sized or large departments, they serve substantially fewer people — between 25 and 30 percent of all the citizens served by the BIA and tribally administered police departments in Indian Country. These very small departments have at most nine officers. Among the most important challenges facing these departments is providing around-the-clock police coverage to their communities. These departments rarely have more than one officer on duty at any time, and their officers often work without adequate backup. They are true generalists, working across numerous police and administrative functions.
There are more than 75 medium-sized police departments in Indian Country, serving over half of the Native Americans living in reservation communities subject to BIA or tribal policing. These departments have from 10 to 50 officers. The key organizational attribute that distinguishes medium-sized departments from small departments is that it is theoretically possible for these departments to provide 24-hour police coverage, even though it may be quite difficult in practical terms. At the high end of the size range, departments can support some specialized activities; not only are some officers free to focus on standard patrol activities, but some may specialize in such areas as substance abuse and domestic violence. This transition signals a staffing level at which specialization can help a department focus on critical strategic issues.
Two police departments in Indian Country — those of the Navajo Nation and the Oglala Sioux Tribe — have 100 or more officers. These departments serve about 15 percent of the residents of Indian Country and feature levels of organizational complexity not present in smaller departments. This complexity is driven by increased specialization, more elaborate oversight mechanisms, district-based organization, and other factors.
Inadequate funding is an important obstacle to good policing in Indian Country. Existing data suggest that tribes have between 55 and 75 percent of the resource base available to non-Indian communities. But the terms used in this comparison may underestimate the resource needs of Indian Country departments. The appropriate police coverage (police officers per thousand residents) comparison may not be between Indian departments and departments serving communities of similar size, but between Indian departments and communities with similar crime problems. Given that the violent crime rate in Indian Country is between double and triple the national average (Greenfeld and Smith 1999, 2), comparable communities would be large urban areas with high violent crime rates. For example, Baltimore, Detroit, New York City, and Washington, DC, feature high police-to-citizen ratios, from 3.9 to 6.6 officers per thousand residents (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1998). Few, if any, departments in Indian Country have ratios of more than 2 officers per thousand residents.
The threat of increasing crime, particularly violent crime, is especially worrisome because we know far less than we would like about crime in Indian Country. The lack of good data on crime in Indian Country stems from (1) issues of culture, geography, and economics unique to American Indian reservations; (2) the limited administrative and technological resources available to tribal police departments; (3) inadequate coordination between tribal and Federal agencies; and (4) management problems common to both tribal and BIA police departments. Even when it is possible to obtain accurate tribal-level data, the prevalence and character of crime vary widely from reservation to reservation. Our research suggests the following about the general prevalence, distribution, and character of crime on reservations:
The typical department that we describe is attempting to cope with an increasing workload (a change driven by rising crime, increased police involvement in the social concerns that relate to crime, and greater community demands for police services) and is doing so with a quite limited resource base. In fact, this characterization only begins to capture the severity and complexity of the challenges to reservation policing. Police in Indian Country function within a complicated jurisdictional web, answer to multiple authorities, may operate without strategic direction from their tribal governments, and often lack a sense of ‘partnership’ with their service populations. In a review of one of the largest police departments in Indian Country, Naranjo and colleagues (1996) both echo and expand on these concerns. They find that —
Such findings have led many researchers, policy-makers, and police professionals to conclude that reservation policing is in crisis. In response, a number of special reports, commissions, conferences, and blue-ribbon committees have grappled with the problems and have produced a wide variety of recommendations and proposals. These include increasing funding, tightening management, clarifying ambiguous reporting relationships, and improving technology. Many of these responses are necessary to improve policing in Indian Country, but we are concerned that they may treat the symptoms, rather than the disease.
In particular, we argue that many of the problems with policing in Indian Country, which subsequently affect the quality of policing, are linked in important ways to Federal policy. Strong evidence points to longstanding, cumulative negative effects of Federal policy on the practice of policing in Indian Country. The historical record shows how Federal policy created a system that served the interests of the US government and non-tribal citizens and failed to promote the ability of Indian nations to design and exert meaningful control over their own policing institutions. Departments administered by the BIA are not agents of tribes but of the Federal Government and, as such, have limited incentive to look to the communities they serve for legitimacy or for authorization of the police function. Over time, this arrangement has created a significant gap between tribal police and the communities they serve, a gap that is reflected in mismatches between police and community priorities and between police methods and tribal norms and values.
We stress that when tribal members do turn to the police with problems, they encounter organizations with priorities that have been shaped by a model of policing that limits their attention to a narrow band of crime problems and police strategies. An emblematic example of this philosophy came from a high BIA official encountered on a site visit who stated, ‘Law enforcement is law enforcement’ — a claim that often exempts Indian police departments from adapting strategies, policies, and procedures to local needs. As a result, disputes, conflicts, and problems that police and citizens see as each other’s responsibility can continue to simmer and escalate into real crimes. In addition, as tribal members conclude that the police are insensitive and unresponsive to community needs, their support for the police diminishes.
A substantial body of research suggests a road map for understanding and beginning to remedy the problems with policing that are rooted in Federal policy. Beginning in the 1970s, a handful of Indian nations embarked on successful paths of social and economic development. Research by the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development indicates that the common denominator among these successful tribes was an effective government — one that was capable of both determining and implementing the policy priorities of the community.
One indicator of a tribal government’s ability to make and implement effective decisions is whether or not it has increased control over its own institutions. Stability, the separation of powers, and competent, respected bureaucracies are further indicators of a tribal government’s effectiveness. The research also indicates that an alignment between the form and powers of a government’s contemporary institutions and the form and powers of its pre-reservation institutions is most likely to create this stability, respect, and legitimacy.
An important lesson from this research is the effect of increased tribal control over tribal institutions. Only those tribes that have acquired meaningful control over their governing institutions have experienced improvements in local economic and social conditions. The research has not found a single case of sustained economic development where the tribe is not in the driver’s seat. While tribal-BIA relationships in thriving Indian nations range from cooperative to contentious, they are all characterized by a demotion of the BIA (and of other Federal agencies) from decision-maker to advisor and provider of technical assistance. The general point is that self-determined institutions, ones that reflect American Indian nations’ sovereignty, are more effective.
This lesson has yet to be applied to Indian policing. Federal policies that regulate Indian policing have the twin effect of reducing tribal control and diffusing accountability for institutional performance. Tribes regularly blame Federal agencies for the poor state of policing in Indian Country; not only are the resources provided by Federal agencies inadequate, but Federal policies are driven by a misreading of tribes’ real needs and priorities. On the other hand, representatives of Federal agencies express skepticism about the ability and intention of tribes to develop and manage effective police departments. The very fact that power is shared between tribal and Federal authorities allows each to avoid their more appropriate roles and, thus, to perpetuate poor policing.
The second relevant lesson for Indian policing from this research is the importance of cultural match. A consonance between present and pre-reservation institutional forms confers legitimacy on the methods and outcomes of government decision-making and channels political energy in productive directions. How do the dynamics of cultural match play out in practical terms? The police officer at Tohono O’odham who aggressively confronts a suspect will have offended longstanding tribal norms and will have failed to draw on them in the service of obtaining the suspect’s compliance. By contrast, the police officer at Turtle Mountain or one of the Lakota tribes who fails to confront a suspect is guilty of the same error. To the extent that the ethos of the organization in which these officers work perpetuates such conflicts, both public support for and the effectiveness of the organization are diminished. It is, however, important not to be naive about the possibilities. There are no guarantees that pre-reservation institutions will be effective in a contemporary setting. If old forms cannot be adapted to modern problems, the challenge becomes to design new ones that both make cultural sense and work.
If the roots of the problems with Indian policing lie in Federal policy, and if a road map for remedying these problems is provided by research showing how the effectiveness of other tribal government functions has increased, the question remains: How, exactly, can similar work be accomplished with policing?
Community policing may be the answer. Community policing is a method by which communities lend their authority to the police enterprise, see their norms and values reflected in the police mission, and employ their considerable formal and informal resources to address crime. In turn, the strategy enhances the capacity of police to address crime and to help communities become strong, independent, and resourceful. (We emphasize that community policing is not only a set of tactics, such as foot patrol, but also a process by which police partner with communities.) Indeed, the growing body of experience with and research on community policing is remarkably congruent with the findings on effective governing institutions in Indian Country.
Community policing gives rise to law enforcement institutions that have the characteristics cited above (self-determination and cultural appropriateness) and such institutions have the potential to substantially improve public safety. Seen in this light, community policing provides a framework that tribes might use to design and implement Native approaches to policing — approaches that should improve the quality of policing in Indian Country and, rather than perpetuate an inappropriate Federal structure, enhance tribal nation building.
Our earlier finding — that tribal citizens rely increasingly on their police departments to settle disputes, conflicts, and problems that police themselves do not consistently treat as legitimate crime problems — reinforces the conclusion. The overarching lesson of community policing is that if reservation police were to pay attention to these problems, and if they were to use credible tribal approaches as remedies, they would become more effective problem solvers, more respected by tribal citizens, and better able to prevent problems that might otherwise escalate.
The first step in improving policing in Indian Country, therefore, is to systematically link community values to departmental values and to express these values in concrete operations. For any given Indian nation, the systems that animate and guide policing — such as the organizational structures of the police department, tribal personnel and training systems, local management information and control systems, and departmental policies and procedures — can be linked to a vision of policing shaped by that nation’s beliefs, priorities, and resources. The policies and procedures for dispatch offer a useful, concrete example of this nuts-and-bolts linkage between policing systems and tribal priorities. Depending on a dispatcher’s assessment of a call, a local elder could accompany a responding officer; in many instances, the officer might be there only to support the elder’s authority (or vice versa). Such an effort would lend credibility to the modern police function while showing respect for important tribal traditions.
Tribes, with the support of the Federal Government, must reconsider the foundations of policing on American Indian reservations. The lessons drawn by tribes, academics, and policymakers from the research on and accumulating experience in community policing and the design of effective governing institutions in Indian Country provide the necessary starting points for tribes as they rethink policing. The same evidence and experience can productively inform the development of Federal policy. Significantly, we do not recommend that policymakers direct their full attention and resources to increasing funding for reservation police departments, developing specialized crime-fighting task forces, and improving technology. Without the core investment in ‘rethinking policing’ that we describe, these efforts do not do enough to help Indian police departments and tribal communities address the problems they face. Similarly, we are not recommending that tribes reflexively resurrect dormant pre-reservation methods of social control and policing, nor are we giving a blanket endorsement to restorative justice. The challenge is to create workable, nation-specific policing institutions and approaches informed by traditional customs — because they lay the best foundation for improving safety, preventing crime, and promoting the practice of effective policing in Indian Country.
... ?
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1998. Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics — 1997. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
...
Cornell, Stephen, and Joseph P Kalt. 1998. Sovereignty and nation-building: The development challenges in Indian Country today. American Culture and Research Journal 22:187–214.
...
Elias, Gail L. 1998. Criminal justice data collection issues in Indian Country. Paper presented at the National Institute of Justice Strategic Planning Meeting on Crime and Justice Research in Indian Country. Portland, Oregon, October 14–15.
...
Greenfeld, Lawrence A, and Steven K Smith. 1999. American Indians and crime. Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February.
...
Indian Health Service, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Legislation, Division of Program Statistics. 1997. Trends in Indian health, 1996. Washington, DC: US. Department of Health and Human Services.
...
Kilborn, Peter T. 1992. Sad distinction for the Sioux: Homeland is No 1 in poverty. New York Times, 20 September.
...
Luna, Eileen, and Samuel Walker. 1998. Policing in Indian Country: A national survey of tribal law enforce-ment agencies. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, February.
...
Naranjo, Edwin, Frank Adakai, Brent LaRocque, Warren LeBeau, and Dwain Holland. 1996. Oglala Sioux Tribe, Department of Public Safety program review. Albuquerque: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Law Enforcement Services, Aberdeen Area Office. October.
...
Pace, David. 2000. Most Indians haven’t benefited from casino boom. Associated Press, <wire.ap.org>, downloaded September 1, 2000.
...
The full report can be found at <www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1 /nij/188095.pdf>.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUIndigLawRpr/2002/21.html