This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-252 
entitled 'Indian Country Criminal Justice: Departments of the Interior 
and Justice Should Strengthen Coordination to Support Tribal Courts' 
which was released on March 10, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

February 2011: 

Indian Country Criminal Justice: 

Departments of the Interior and Justice Should Strengthen Coordination 
to Support Tribal Courts: 

GAO-11-252: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-252, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) reports from the latest available data 
that from 1992 to 2001 American Indians experienced violent crimes at 
more than twice the national rate. The Department of the Interior 
(DOI) and DOJ provide support to federally recognized tribes to 
address tribal justice issues. Upon request, GAO analyzed (1) the 
challenges facing tribes in adjudicating Indian country crimes and 
what federal efforts exist to help address these challenges and (2) 
the extent to which DOI and DOJ have collaborated with each other to 
support tribal justice systems. To do so, GAO interviewed tribal 
justice officials at 12 tribes in four states and reviewed laws, 
including the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, to identify federal 
efforts to assist tribes. GAO selected these tribes based on court 
structure, among other factors. Although the results cannot be 
generalized, they provided useful perspectives about the challenges 
various tribes face in adjudicating crime in Indian country. GAO also 
compared DOI and DOJ’s efforts against practices that can help enhance 
and sustain collaboration among federal agencies and standards for 
internal control in the federal government. 

What GAO Found: 

The 12 tribes GAO visited reported several challenges in adjudicating 
crimes in Indian country, but multiple federal efforts exist to help 
address some of these challenges. For example, tribes only have 
jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by Indian offenders in 
Indian country. Also, until the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (the 
Act) was passed in July 2010, tribes could only sentence those found 
guilty to up to 1 year in jail per offense. Lacking further 
jurisdiction and sentencing authority, tribes rely on the U.S. 
Attorneys’ Offices (USAO) to prosecute crime in Indian country. 
Generally, the tribes GAO visited reported challenges in obtaining 
information on prosecutions from USAOs in a timely manner. For 
example, tribes reported they experienced delays in obtaining 
information when a USAO declines to prosecute a case; these delays may 
affect tribes’ ability to pursue prosecution in tribal court before 
their statute of limitations expires. USAOs are working with tribes to 
improve timely notification about declinations. DOI and the tribes GAO 
visited also reported overcrowding at tribal detention facilities. In 
some instances, tribes may have to contract with other detention 
facilities, which can be costly. Multiple federal efforts exist to 
help address these challenges. For example, the Act authorizes tribes 
to sentence convicted offenders for up to 3 years imprisonment under 
certain circumstances, and encourages DOJ to appoint tribal 
prosecutors to assist in prosecuting Indian country criminal matters 
in federal court. Federal efforts also include developing a pilot 
program to house, in federal prison, up to 100 Indian offenders 
convicted in tribal courts, given the shortage of tribal detention 
space. 

DOI, through its Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and DOJ components 
have taken action to coordinate their efforts to support tribal court 
and tribal detention programs; however, the two agencies could enhance 
their coordination on tribal courts by strengthening their information 
sharing efforts. BIA and DOJ have begun to establish task forces 
designed to facilitate coordination on tribal court and tribal 
detention initiatives, but more focus has been given to coordination 
on tribal detention programs. For example, at the program level, BIA 
and DOJ have established procedures to share information when DOJ 
plans to construct tribal detention facilities. This helps ensure that 
BIA is prepared to assume responsibility to staff and operate tribal 
detention facilities that DOJ constructs and in turn minimizes 
potential waste. In contrast, BIA and DOJ have not implemented similar 
information sharing and coordination mechanisms for their shared 
activities to enhance the capacity of tribal courts to administer 
justice. For example, BIA has not shared information with DOJ about 
its assessments of tribal courts. Further, both agencies provide 
training and technical assistance to tribal courts; however, they are 
unaware as to whether there could be unnecessary duplication. 
Developing mechanisms to identify and share information related to 
tribal courts could yield potential benefits in terms of minimizing 
unnecessary duplication and leveraging the expertise and capacities 
that each agency brings. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney 
General direct the relevant DOI and DOJ programs to develop mechanisms 
to identify and share information related to tribal courts. DOI and 
DOJ concurred with our recommendation. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-252] or key 
components. For more information, contact David Maurer at (202) 512-
9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Tribes We Visited Reported Challenges in Adjudicating Crime in Indian 
Country; Various Federal Efforts Exist to Help Address Those 
Challenges: 

BIA and DOJ Have Taken Action to Coordinate Their Efforts on Tribal 
Justice Issues, but Should Strengthen Coordination on Tribal Courts by 
Establishing Information Sharing Mechanisms: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology: 

Objectives: 

Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Federal, State, and Tribal Jurisdiction over, and the 
Prosecution of Crime in, Indian Country: 

Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country: 

Tribal Prosecutions under the Indian Civil Rights Act: 

Appendix III: Overview of Selected Tribal Courts: 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe: 

Gila River Indian Community: 

Pueblo of Isleta: 

Pueblo of Laguna: 

Navajo Nation: 

Oglala Sioux Tribe: 

Pueblo of Pojoaque: 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe: 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe: 

Pueblo of Taos: 

Three Affiliated Tribes: 

Tohono O'odham Nation: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Summary of Three Major Federal Laws Governing Criminal 
Jurisdiction in Indian Country: 

Table 2: Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country Where Jurisdiction 
Has Not Been Conferred on a State: 

Table 3: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Gila River Indian 
Community: 

Table 4: Gila River Civil and Criminal Caseload Data for 2008 through 
2010: 

Table 5: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Pueblo of Isleta: 

Table 6: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Pueblo of Laguna: 

Table 7: Pueblo of Laguna Civil and Criminal Caseload Data for 
Calendar Years 2008 and 2009: 

Table 8: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Navajo Nation: 

Table 9: Navajo Nation Judicial Branch Civil and Criminal Caseload 
Data for Fiscal Years 2008 through 2010: 

Table 10: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Oglala Sioux Tribe: 

Table 11: Pueblo of Pojoaque Civil and Criminal Caseload Data for 
Calendar Years 2008 and 2009: 

Table 12: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Rosebud Sioux Tribe: 

Table 13: Rosebud Sioux Civil and Criminal Caseload Data for Calendar 
Years 2008 through 2010: 

Table 14: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Standing Rock Sioux 
Tribe: 

Table 15: Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court Caseload Data for Calendar 
Years 2008 and 2009: 

Table 16: Pueblo of Taos Caseload Data for Calendar Years 2008 through 
2010: 

Table 17: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Three Affiliated 
Tribes: 

Table 18: Three Affiliated Tribes Civil and Criminal Caseload Data for 
Calendar Years 2008 through 2010: 

Table 19: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Tohono O'odham Nation: 

Table 20: Tohono O'odham Court Civil and Criminal Caseload Data for 
Calendar Years 2008 through 2010: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Overview of DOI Responsibilities to Support Tribal Justice 
Systems: 

Figure 2: Overview of DOJ Responsibilities to Support Tribal Justice 
Systems: 

Figure 3: Warning against Unwarranted Judicial Contact: 

Figure 4: Location of Cheyenne River Indian Reservation: 

Figure 5: Location of Gila River Indian Community: 

Figure 6: Location of Pueblo of Isleta: 

Figure 7: Location of Pueblo of Laguna: 

Figure 8: Location of Navajo Nation: 

Figure 9: Location of Pine Ridge Indian Reservation of the Oglala 
Sioux Tribe: 

Figure 10: Location of Pueblo of Pojoaque: 

Figure 11: Location of Rosebud Indian Reservation: 

Figure 12: Location of Standing Rock Reservation: 

Figure 13: Location of Pueblo of Taos: 

Figure 14: Location of the Fort Berthold Reservation of Three 
Affiliated Tribes: 

Figure 15: Location of Tohono O'odham Nation: 

Abbreviations: 

AUSA: Assistant U.S. Attorney: 

BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 

BJA: Bureau of Justice Assistance: 

BOP: Bureau of Prisons: 

DOI: Department of the Interior: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

ICRA: Indian Civil Rights Act: 

JABG: Juvenile Accountability Block Grant: 

OJP: Office of Justice Programs: 

Recovery Act: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: 

SAUSA: Special Assistant U.S. Attorney: 

SLEC: Special Law Enforcement Commission: 

TLOA: Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010: 

USAO: U.S. Attorney's Office: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

February 14, 2011: 

The Honorable Daniel Akaka: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable John Barrasso: 
Vice Chairman: 
Committee on Indian Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable John Thune: 
United States Senate: 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has reported from the latest available 
data that the crime rates experienced by American Indians nationwide 
are two and a half times higher than those experienced by the general 
population in the United States. Specifically, DOJ reported that from 
1992 to 2001, American Indians, nationally, experienced violent crimes 
at an estimated rate of 101 violent crimes per 1,000 Indians annually, 
which is more than twice the estimated national rate of 41 per 1,000 
persons. While violent crime rate statistics specific to Indian 
country are not available, the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (TLOA) 
recognizes that Indian tribes have faced significant increases of 
burglary, assault, child abuse, and domestic violence as a direct 
result of increased methamphetamine use on Indian reservations. 
[Footnote 1] Further, it is estimated that 39 percent of American 
Indian and Alaska Native women will be subjected to domestic violence 
during their lifetime. Such crime levels can have a devastating effect 
on the quality of life for tribal communities and signal a public 
safety crisis in Indian country. [Footnote 2] Tribal, state, or 
federal governments may have jurisdiction to prosecute Indian 
offenders who commit crimes of a more serious nature in Indian 
country; however, tribal governments do not have jurisdiction to 
prosecute non-Indians, even if the victim is Indian. Rather, non-
Indian offenders who commit crimes against Indians may be prosecuted 
by the federal government or, where jurisdiction has been conferred, a 
state government.[Footnote 3] Although TLOA acknowledges that tribal 
justice systems are often the most appropriate institutions for 
maintaining law and order in Indian country, they face challenges in 
effectively administering justice due to limited personnel and 
resources, increasing volume and complexity of criminal caseload, and 
limited sentencing authority. To that end and in light of the 
challenges that tribes face in adjudicating crimes, tribal communities 
rely on the federal government to investigate and prosecute a variety 
of crimes in Indian country. 

The Department of the Interior (DOI) and DOJ are the two primary 
federal agencies that provide support to federally recognized tribes 
to ensure safe communities in Indian country and help tribes 
administer justice. First, DOI, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA), provides funding to entities of the tribal justice system 
including tribal courts, law enforcement agencies, and detention 
facilities. Additionally, BIA investigates crimes that occur in Indian 
country, and assists tribes in their efforts to establish and maintain 
judicial systems, among other things. Second, within DOJ, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducts criminal investigations, while 
the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) may exercise its jurisdiction to 
prosecute crime in Indian country. A number of DOJ components provide 
grant funding, training, and technical assistance to tribes for the 
purpose of enhancing tribal justice systems. In 2010, DOI and DOJ 
announced that public safety in tribal communities is to be a priority 
for their respective agencies and launched a number of initiatives 
intended to help address tribal justice issues. Further, TLOA was 
signed into law on July 29, 2010, to help address the wide-ranging 
challenges facing tribes and improve the response to and prosecution 
of crime in Indian country. 

You requested that we review the challenges facing selected tribal 
justice systems in adjudicating crime in Indian country as well as 
federal agencies' efforts to coordinate their activities to support 
tribal justice systems. We prepared this report to answer the 
following questions: 

1. What challenges do tribes face in adjudicating crime in Indian 
country and what federal efforts exist to help address those 
challenges? 

2. To what extent have DOI and DOJ components collaborated with each 
other to support tribal justice systems? 

To identify the challenges facing tribes in adjudicating criminal 
matters in Indian country and federal efforts that exist to help 
address those challenges, we met with tribal justice officials such as 
judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and court 
administrators from a nonprobability sample of 12 federally recognized 
tribes in Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota. 
[Footnote 4] We selected the tribes based on several considerations 
such as reservation and land size, types of tribal court structures, 
and number of Indian country criminal matters referred to the USAO. 
Given the breadth of public safety and justice issues underlying the 
requests for this work as well as the recently enacted TLOA, we 
focused on criminal rather than civil law matters within the tribes 
selected for review. While the results of these interviews cannot be 
generalized to reflect the views of all federally recognized tribes 
across the United States, the information obtained provided us with 
useful information on the perspectives of various tribes about the 
challenges they face in adjudicating criminal matters. Additionally, 
we reviewed existing law, including the recently enacted TLOA, to 
identify federal efforts to help support tribes' efforts to adjudicate 
criminal matters in Indian country. We also interviewed officials and 
obtained documents from the BIA and various DOJ components such as the 
FBI, the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, select district USAOs, 
and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to obtain information about their 
efforts to implement TLOA provisions and other initiatives that 
address the challenges facing tribes in administering justice in 
Indian country. 

To assess the extent to which DOI and DOJ collaborate with each other 
to support tribal justice systems, we identified practices that our 
previous work indicated can help enhance and sustain collaboration 
among federal agencies.[Footnote 5] In this report, we primarily 
focused on tribal courts and, to some extent, tribal detention 
programs. We compared the two agencies' efforts to share information 
on their tribal justice programs to select criteria in Standards for 
Internal Control in the Federal Government as well as select criteria 
on effective interagency collaboration.[Footnote 6] We also analyzed 
DOI and DOJ documents--such as tribal consultation and coordination 
plans--that describe the two agencies' efforts to consult and 
coordinate with each other on public safety and justice issues. 
Further, we interviewed officials from DOI and DOJ components 
including DOI's Office of Justice Services and DOJ's Office of Tribal 
Justice and Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to determine the extent 
to which they had (1) implemented the practices we identified for 
effective interagency collaboration, and (2) identified and shared 
information that could be beneficial in addressing public safety and 
justice in Indian country. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2009 through 
February 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards.[Footnote 7] Those standards require that we plan 
and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 
our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence provides a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. Appendix I contains more details on our scope and 
methodology. 

Background: 

Criminal Justice in Indian Country: 

In 2004, DOJ estimated that American Indians experience rates of 
violent crime that are far higher than most other racial and ethnic 
groups in the United States. For example, DOJ estimated that across 
the United States, the annual average violent crime rate among 
American Indians was twice as high as that of African Americans, and 2-
˝ times as high as that of whites, and 4-˝ times as high as that of 
Asians. Also, domestic and sexual violence against American Indian 
women is among the most critical public safety challenges in Indian 
country, where, in some tribal communities, according to a study 
commissioned by DOJ, American Indian women face murder rates that are 
more than 10 times the national average. Oftentimes, alcohol and drug 
use play a significant role in violent crimes in Indian country. 
According to DOJ, American Indian victims reported alcohol use by 62 
percent of offenders compared to 42 percent for all races. 

Tribal or BIA law enforcement officers are often among the first 
responders to crimes on Indian reservations; however, law enforcement 
resources are scarce. BIA estimates that there are less than 3,000 
tribal and BIA law enforcement officers to patrol more than 56 million 
acres of Indian country. According to a DOJ study, the ratio of law 
enforcement officers to residents in Indian country is far less than 
in non-tribal areas. In the study, researchers estimated that there 
are fewer than 2 officers per 1,000 residents in Indian country 
compared to a range of 3.9 to 6.6 officers per 1,000 residents in non-
tribal areas such as Detroit, Michigan and Washington, D.C. The 
challenge of limited law enforcement resources is exacerbated by the 
geographic isolation or vast size of many reservations. In some 
instances officers may need to travel hundreds of miles to reach a 
crime scene. For example, the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South 
Dakota has about 88 sworn tribal officers to serve 47,000 residents 
across 3,466 square miles, which equates to a ratio of 1 officer per 
39 square miles of land, according to BIA. 

In total there are 565 federally recognized tribes; each has unique 
public safety challenges based on different cultures, economic 
conditions, and geographic location, among other factors. These 
factors make it challenging to implement a uniform solution to address 
the public safety challenges confronting Indian country. Nonetheless, 
tribal justice systems are considered to be the most appropriate 
institutions for maintaining law and order in Indian country. 
Generally, tribal courts have adopted federal and state court models; 
however, tribal courts also strive to maintain traditional systems of 
adjudication such as peacemaking or sentencing circles. 

Law enforcement, courts, and detention/correction programs are key 
components of the tribal justice system that is intended to protect 
tribal communities; however, each part of the system faces varied 
challenges in Indian country. Shortcomings and successes in one area 
may exacerbate problems in another area. For example, a law 
enforcement initiative designed to increase police presence on a 
reservation could result in increased arrests, thereby overwhelming a 
tribal court's caseload or an overcrowded detention facility. 

Federal, State, and Tribal Jurisdiction over Crimes Committed in 
Indian Country: 

The exercise of criminal jurisdiction in Indian country depends on 
several factors, including the nature of the crime, the status of the 
alleged offender and victim--that is, whether they are Indian or not-- 
and whether jurisdiction has been conferred on a particular entity by, 
for example, federal treaty or statute. As a general principle, the 
federal government recognizes Indian tribes as "distinct, independent 
political communities" that possess powers of self-government to 
regulate their "internal and social relations," which includes 
enacting substantive law over internal matters and enforcing that law 
in their own forums.[Footnote 8] The federal government, however, has 
plenary and exclusive authority to regulate or modify the powers of 
self-government that tribes otherwise possess, and has exercised this 
authority to establish an intricate web of jurisdiction over crime in 
Indian country.[Footnote 9] The General Crimes Act, the Major Crimes 
Act, and Public Law 280, which are broadly summarized in table 1, are 
the three federal laws central to the exercise of criminal 
jurisdiction in Indian country.[Footnote 10] These laws as well as 
provisions of the Indian Civil Rights Act related to tribal 
prosecutions are discussed more fully in appendix II.[Footnote 11] 

Table 1: Summary of Three Major Federal Laws Governing Criminal 
Jurisdiction in Indian Country: 

Federal law: General Crimes Act; 
Description: Enacted in 1817, the General Crimes Act (also referred to 
as the Federal Enclaves Act or Indian Country Crimes Act), as amended, 
extended the criminal laws of the federal government into Indian 
country and generally established federal criminal jurisdiction where 
either, but not both, the alleged offender or the victim is Indian. 

Federal law: Major Crimes Act; 
Description: Enacted in 1885, the Major Crimes Act, as amended, 
provides the federal government with criminal jurisdiction over 
Indians charged with felony-level offenses enumerated in the statute, 
even when the victim is Indian. The tribes retained exclusive 
jurisdiction over other criminal offenses (generally, misdemeanor-
level) where both parties are Indian. 

Federal law: Public Law 280; 
Description: Enacted in 1953, Public Law 280, as amended, confers 
criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed in Indian country to the 
governments of six states--Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, 
Oregon, and Wisconsin, except as specified by statute, thereby waiving 
federal jurisdiction in Indian country under the General and Major 
Crimes Acts and subjecting Indians to prosecution in state court. 

Source: GAO analysis of General Crimes Act, Major Crimes Act, and 
Public Law 280. 

[End of table] 

The exercise of criminal jurisdiction by state governments in Indian 
country is generally limited to two instances, both predicated on the 
offense occurring within the borders of the state--where both the 
alleged offender and victim are non-Indian, or where a federal statute 
confers, or authorizes, a state to assume criminal jurisdiction over 
Indians in Indian country. Otherwise, only the federal and tribal 
governments have jurisdiction. Where both parties to the crime are 
Indian, the tribe generally has exclusive jurisdiction for misdemeanor-
level offenses, but its jurisdiction runs concurrent with the federal 
government for felony-level offenses. Where the alleged offender is 
Indian but the victim is non-Indian, tribal and federal jurisdiction 
is generally concurrent. Finally, federal jurisdiction is exclusive 
where the alleged offender is non-Indian and the victim is Indian. 
Table 2 summarizes aspects of federal, state, and tribal jurisdiction 
over crimes committed in Indian country. 

Table 2: Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country Where Jurisdiction 
Has Not Been Conferred on a State: 

Identity of the offender: Indian; 
Identity of the victim: Indian; 
Jurisdiction: If the offense is listed in the Major Crimes Act, as 
amended, (18 U.S.C. § 1153), the tribal and federal governments have 
jurisdiction; the states do not. If the offense is not listed in the 
Major Crimes Act, tribal jurisdiction is exclusive. 

Identity of the offender: Indian; 
Identity of the victim: Non-Indian; 
Jurisdiction: If the offense is listed in the Major Crimes Act, the 
tribal and federal governments have jurisdiction; the states do not. 
If the offense is not listed in the Major Crimes Act, under the 
General Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1152) the tribal and federal 
governments have jurisdiction; the states do not. 

Identity of the offender: Non-Indian; 
Identity of the victim: Indian; 
Jurisdiction: Federal jurisdiction is exclusive; tribal and state 
governments do not have jurisdiction. 

Identity of the offender: Non-Indian; 
Identity of the victim: Non-Indian; 
Jurisdiction: States have exclusive jurisdiction; tribal and federal 
governments do not have jurisdiction. 

Source: U.S. Attorney's Manual and GAO analysis of relevant statutory 
provisions. 

[End of table] 

DOI and DOJ Are the Two Primary Federal Entities That Support Tribal 
Justice Systems: 

DOI is one of two key federal agencies that have a responsibility to 
provide public safety in Indian country. Within DOI, BIA is assigned 
responsibility to support tribes in their efforts to ensure public 
safety and administer justice within their reservations as well as to 
provide related services directly or through contracts, grants, or 
compacts to 565 federally recognized tribes with a service population 
of about 1.6 million Indians across the United States. To that end, 
BIA's Office of Justice Services manages law enforcement, detention, 
and tribal court programs. Specifically, within BIA's Office of 
Justice Services, the Division of Law Enforcement supports 191 tribal 
law enforcement agencies and the Division of Corrections supports 91 
tribal detention programs.[Footnote 12] About 90 BIA special agents 
are responsible for investigating crimes that involve violations of 
federal and tribal law that are committed in Indian country including 
crimes such as murder, manslaughter, child sexual abuse, burglary, and 
production, sale, or distribution of illegal drugs, among other 
criminal offenses. Following completion of an investigation, BIA 
special agents will refer the investigation to the USAO for 
prosecution. 

BIA reported that it distributed approximately $260 million of its 
fiscal year 2010 appropriation among tribal law enforcement and 
detention programs.[Footnote 13] Additionally, BIA reported that it 
funded maintenance and repair projects at four tribal detention 
centers totaling $6.5 million from amounts appropriated under the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). 
[Footnote 14] Within BIA's Office of Justice Services, the Division of 
Tribal Justice Support for Courts works with tribes to establish and 
maintain tribal judicial systems. This includes conducting assessments 
of tribal courts and providing training and technical assistance on a 
range of topics including establishing or updating law and order codes 
and implementing strategies to collect and track caseload data. 
[Footnote 15] BIA reported that it distributed $24.5 million to 
support tribal court initiatives in fiscal year 2010. Figure 1 depicts 
the key DOI entities and their respective responsibilities related to 
supporting tribal justice systems. 

Figure 1: Overview of DOI Responsibilities to Support Tribal Justice 
Systems: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Department: Department of the Interior. 

Office: Bureau of Indian Affairs; 
Responsibilities: Provides direct services and annual funding through 
contracts, grants, or compacts to federally recognized tribes to, 
among other things, uphold law and justice in Indian country. 

Office: Office of Justice Services; 
Responsibilities: Oversees the justice services that BIA provides to 
tribes including law enforcement, corrections, and tribal courts. 

Office: Office of Justice Services: Division of Law Enforcement; 
Responsibilities: Investigates crime in Indian country and refers 
criminal investigations to U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for prosecution. 

Office: Office of Justice Services: Division of Tribal Justice Support 
for Courts; 
Responsibilities: Assesses tribal court functions and capabilities for 
select tribes. Provides funding, training, and technical assistance to 
tribal courts. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOI and BIA documents. 

[End of figure] 

DOJ also plays a significant role in helping tribes maintain law and 
order in Indian country and DOJ officials have stated that the 
department has a duty to help tribes confront the dire public safety 
challenges in tribal communities. Within DOJ, responsibility for 
supporting tribal justice systems falls to multiple components, 
including the FBI, which investigates crimes;[Footnote 16] the U.S. 
Attorneys' Offices, which prosecute crimes in Indian country; and the 
Office of Justice Programs, which provides grant funding, training, 
and technical assistance to federally recognized tribes to enhance the 
capacity of tribal courts, among other tribal justice programs. Figure 
2 depicts the key DOJ entities and their respective responsibilities 
related to supporting tribal justice systems. 

Figure 2: Overview of DOJ Responsibilities to Support Tribal Justice 
Systems: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Department: Department of Justice. 

Office: Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
Responsibilities: Investigates crime in Indian country and refers 
criminal investigations to the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for prosecution. 

Office: U.S. Attorneys’ Offices; 
Responsibilities: Prosecutes crime in Indian country where federal 
jurisdiction applies. 

Office: Office of Justice Programs; 
Responsibilities: Provides grant funding, training, and technical 
assistance to federally recognized tribes for tribal correctional 
facilities and tribal courts, among other things. 

Office: Office of Tribal Justice; 
Responsibilities: Serves as DOJ’s primary point of contact for 
federally recognized tribes and coordinates DOJ’s policy and 
legislative agenda regarding Indian country. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ documents. 

[End of figure] 

* The FBI works with tribal and BIA police and BIA criminal 
investigators to investigate crime in Indian country. Currently, the 
FBI dedicates more than 100 FBI special agents from approximately 16 
field offices to investigate cases on over 200 reservations, 
nationwide. According to the FBI, its role varies from reservation to 
reservation, but generally the agency investigates crimes such as 
murder, child sexual abuse, violent assaults, and drug trafficking, 
among other criminal offenses. FBI officials explained that 
approximately 75 percent of the crimes it investigates in Indian 
country include death investigations, physical and sexual abuse of a 
child, and violent felony assaults such as domestic violence and rape. 
Similar to BIA criminal investigators, FBI special agents refer 
criminal investigations to the USAO for prosecution; however, FBI 
officials explained that FBI agents may elect not to refer 
investigations that, pursuant to supervisory review, lack sufficient 
evidence of a federal crime or sufficient evidence for prosecution. 

* Under the direction of the Attorney General, the USAO may prosecute 
crimes in Indian country where federal jurisdiction exists. Of the 94 
judicial districts located throughout the United States and its 
territories, 44 districts contain Indian country. According to DOJ, 
approximately 25 percent of all violent crime cases opened each year 
by district USAOs nationwide occur in Indian country. In 2010, DOJ 
named public safety in Indian country as a top priority for the 
department. To that end, in January 2010, each USAO with Indian 
country jurisdiction was directed to develop operational plans that 
outline the efforts the office will take to address public safety 
challenges facing tribes within its district--particularly violence 
against women. 

* The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) within OJP is one of several 
DOJ components that provide grant funding, training, and technical 
assistance designed to enhance and support tribal government's efforts 
to reduce crime and improve the function of criminal justice in Indian 
country.[Footnote 17] For example, BJA awards grant funding to tribes 
for the planning, construction, and renovation of correctional 
facilities. In fiscal year 2010, BJA awarded 25 grants to tribes 
totaling about $9 million to support tribal correctional facilities. 
Further, in fiscal year 2010, BJA awarded $220 million in grant 
funding provided through the Recovery Act for 20 construction and 
renovation projects at correctional facilities on tribal lands. 
[Footnote 18] Additionally, BJA administers the Tribal Courts 
Assistance Program--a grant program--which is intended to help 
federally recognized tribes develop and enhance the operation of 
tribal justice systems which may include activities such as training 
tribal justice staff, planning new or enhancing existing programs such 
as peacemaking circles and wellness courts and supporting alternative 
dispute resolution methods. In fiscal year 2010, BJA awarded 48 grants 
totaling $17 million to tribes to establish new or enhance existing 
tribal court functions. 

* In its role as a policy and legal advisor regarding Indian country 
matters within DOJ, the Office of Tribal Justice facilitates 
coordination among DOJ components working on Indian issues. 
Additionally, the office functions as the primary point of contact for 
tribal governments. 

Tribes We Visited Reported Challenges in Adjudicating Crime in Indian 
Country; Various Federal Efforts Exist to Help Address Those 
Challenges: 

Selected Tribes Face Difficulties in Adjudicating Crime in Indian 
Country: 

All 12 tribes we visited reported challenges that have made it 
difficult for them to adjudicate crime in Indian country including: 
(1) limitations on criminal jurisdiction and sentencing authority, (2) 
delays in receiving timely notification about the status of 
investigations and prosecutions from federal entities, (3) lack of 
adequate detention space for offenders convicted in tribal court, (4) 
perceived encroachment upon judicial independence by other branches of 
the tribal government, and (5) limited resources for day-to-day court 
operations. Various ongoing and planned federal efforts exist to help 
tribes effectively adjudicate crimes within their jurisdiction. For 
example, TLOA, which was enacted in July 2010, attempts to clarify 
roles and responsibilities, increase coordination and communication, 
and empower tribes with the authorities necessary to reduce the 
prevalence of crime in Indian country.[Footnote 19] 

Tribes Often Rely on the Federal Government to Prosecute Crime in 
Indian Country because of Limited Sentencing Authority, Tribal 
Jurisdiction, and Resources: 

Tribal courts only have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by 
Indian offenders in Indian country, and their ability to effectively 
promote public safety and justice is curtailed by their limited 
sentencing authority and jurisdiction. As a result, even where tribal 
jurisdiction exists, tribes will often rely on the federal government 
to investigate and prosecute more serious offenses, such as homicide 
and felony-level assault, because a successful federal prosecution 
could result in a lengthier sentence and better ensure justice for 
victims of crime in Indian country. First, federal law limits the 
general sentencing authority of tribal courts to a maximum term of 
imprisonment not to exceed 1 year per offense.[Footnote 20] Officials 
from 6 of the 12 tribes we visited told us that the 1-year limit on 
prison sentences did not serve as an effective deterrent against 
criminal activity and may have contributed to the high levels of crime 
and repeat offenders in Indian country. Second, tribes do not have any 
jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indian criminal offenders in Indian 
country including those who commit crimes of domestic violence, 
assault, and murder. Therefore, tribes must rely on the USAO to 
prosecute non-Indian offenders.[Footnote 21] For example, in instances 
where a non-Indian abuses an Indian spouse, the tribe does not have 
the jurisdiction to prosecute the offender, and unless the USAO 
prosecutes the case, the non-Indian offender will not be prosecuted 
for the domestic violence offense.[Footnote 22] 

The rate at which non-Indians commit crime on the reservations we 
visited is unclear as the tribes were not able to provide related 
crime data. Officials from 6 of the tribes we visited noted that non-
Indians may be more likely to commit crimes in Indian country because 
they are aware that tribes lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians 
and that their criminal activity may not draw the attention of federal 
prosecutors. For example, an official from a South Dakota tribe that 
we visited told us that the tribe has experienced problems with MS-13 
and Mexican Mafia gangs who commit illegal activities such as 
distribution or sale of illegal drugs on the reservation because, as 
the official explained, they presume that federal prosecutors may be 
more inclined to focus their resources on higher-volume drug cases. 
Further, in 2006, the U.S. Attorney for the Wyoming district testified 
about a specific instance where a Mexican drug trafficker devised a 
business plan to sell methamphetamine at several Indian reservations 
in Nebraska, Wyoming, and South Dakota that first began with 
developing relationships with American Indian women on these 
reservations who would then help to recruit customers. According to a 
special agent involved in the case, the drug trafficker established 
drug trafficking operations to exploit jurisdictional loopholes 
believing that he could operate with impunity. According to a tribal 
justice official from a New Mexico pueblo, small-scale drug 
trafficking operations in Indian country can have an equally 
devastating effect on tribes as the effects of large-scale operations 
in large cities; therefore, if the federal government does not respond 
to small-scale operations in Indian country, the success of such 
operations may contribute to the sense of lawlessness in Indian 
country. 

When we asked tribes that we visited about how they decide to 
prosecute serious crimes over which they do have jurisdiction, 9 of 
the 12 tribes we visited noted that they may exercise concurrent 
jurisdiction and prosecute those crimes in tribal court. Some 
officials reported they would rather preserve their tribe's limited 
resources, recognizing that sentences considered more commensurate 
with the crime may only result from federal prosecution. Nonetheless, 
5 of the 12 tribes we visited in Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, 
and South Dakota perceive that the district USAOs decline to prosecute 
the majority of Indian country matters that are referred to them. 
Officials from the tribes we visited expressed concerns about the rate 
at which USAOs decline to prosecute Indian country crimes and noted 
that a high number of declinations sends a signal to crime victims and 
criminals that there is no justice or accountability. In December 
2010, we reported that approximately 10,000 Indian country criminal 
matters were referred to USAOs from fiscal year 2005 through 2009. 
[Footnote 23] During that period, USAOs declined to prosecute 50 
percent of the approximately 9,000 matters that they resolved, while 
they had not yet decided whether to prosecute or decline the remaining 
1,000 matters. For criminal matters referred to USAOs, "weak or 
insufficient admissible evidence" followed by "no federal offense 
evident" were among the most frequently cited reasons associated with 
declinations based on available data in DOJ's case management system, 
Legal Information Office Network System. 

[Side bar: 
Declination Rates for Select USAO District Offices: 

For fiscal years 2005 through 2009, the rate at which district USAOs 
declined to prosecute criminal matters, which they categorize as 
violent and nonviolent, varied for the tribes we visited in Arizona, 
New Mexico, and North and South Dakota. As shown in the table below, 
we found that the Arizona USAO declined to prosecute 38 percent of the 
violent and nonviolent criminal matters that it resolved, whereas the 
North Dakota USAO declined to prosecute 64 percent of the criminal 
matters that it resolved. Of the four states, North and South Dakota 
were among the five USAO districts with the highest declination rates 
for the reporting period. It is important to note that USAOs have the 
discretion to determine which matters they will prosecute and are not 
required to prosecute all criminal investigations that are referred to 
them—regardless of whether the crime is committed in Indian country or 
elsewhere in the United States and its territories. According to DOJ 
officials, there is great variation in how USAOs decide whether to 
decline or prosecute a matter. 

USAO decisions to decline a prosecution may be driven by the quality 
of available evidence and applicable law; therefore, according to DOJ, 
declinations should not be construed as a lack of commitment to or 
unwillingness to enforce federal criminal law in Indian country. 
Further, according to DOJ, in some instances, a declination may 
reflect a determination that: (1) no federal crime was committed as 
the offense was not sufficient to satisfy the Major Crimes Act, for 
example; (2) there was no federal jurisdiction because the crime did 
not occur in Indian country; (3) the evidence or witnesses is unlikely 
to support a conviction; and (4) a state or tribe was proceeding with 
prosecution. 

Table: 

USAO District: Arizona; 
Declination percentage rate for violent and nonviolent crimes in 
Indian country: 38%. 

USAO District: New Mexico; 
Declination percentage rate for violent and nonviolent crimes in 
Indian country: 40%. 

USAO District: North Dakota; 
Declination percentage rate for violent and nonviolent crimes in 
Indian country: 64%. 

USAO District: South Dakota; 
Declination percentage rate for violent and nonviolent crimes in 
Indian country: 61%. 

Source: GAO-11-167R. 

[End of table] 

[End of side bar] 

Delays in Receiving Timely Investigation and Declination Information 
Could Affect Tribes' Ability to Prosecute an Offender in Tribal Court: 

Eight of the twelve tribes we visited stated that they rely on the 
federal government to investigate and prosecute serious crimes; 
however, officials from the tribes we visited reported that their 
tribe had experienced difficulties in obtaining information from 
federal entities about the status of criminal investigations. For 
example: 

* Officials from 5 of the 12 tribes we visited told us that oftentimes 
they did not know whether criminal investigators--most commonly, BIA 
or FBI--had referred the criminal investigation to the USAO for 
prosecution. 

* Officials from the tribes we visited expressed concern about the 
lack of timely notification from local USAOs about decisions to 
prosecute a criminal investigation. 

* Tribal justice officials from 4 of the 12 tribes we visited noted 
that they have to initiate contact with their district USAOs to get 
information about criminal matters being considered for prosecution 
and that only upon request will the USAO provide verbal or written 
notification of the matters they decline to prosecute; however, little 
detail is provided about the reasons for the declination. We examined 
a declination letter that was sent to one of the tribes we visited and 
found that the letter stated that the matter was being referred back 
to the tribe for prosecution in tribal court, but no additional 
information was provided about the reason for the declination 
decision. The Chief Prosecutor from one of the pueblos we visited 
noted that it can be difficult for the USAO to share details about a 
criminal matter for fear that doing so may violate confidentiality 
agreements or impair prosecutors' ability to successfully prosecute 
should the investigation be reopened at a later date. However, 
according to tribal officials, it is helpful to understand the reason 
for declining to prosecute a criminal matter so that tribal 
prosecutors can better determine whether to expend its resources to 
prosecute the matter in tribal court. 

* Officials from 6 of the 12 tribes we visited told us that when 
criminal matters are declined, federal entities generally do not share 
evidence and other pertinent information that will allow the tribe to 
build its case for prosecution in tribal court. This can be especially 
challenging for prosecuting offenses such as sexual assault where DNA 
evidence collected cannot be replicated should the tribe conduct its 
own investigation following notification of a declination, according 
to officials. 

* When the federal government decides not to pursue a prosecution, a 
tribe may decide to prosecute such a case provided that any tribal 
statute of limitations has not expired. Officials from 6 of the 12 
tribes that we visited noted that it is not uncommon for the tribe to 
receive notification of USAO declination letters after the tribe's 
statute of limitations has expired, which, ranges from 1 to 3 years. 
In addition to affecting the tribe's ability to administer justice in 
a timely manner--that is, before the statute of limitations expires-- 
officials also noted that the absence of investigation or declination 
information makes it difficult for tribal justice officials to 
successfully prosecute a criminal matter in tribal court and assure 
crime victims that every effort is being made to prosecute the 
offender. 

Tribes Often Lack Adequate Detention Space and Are Sometimes Faced 
with Making Difficult Tradeoffs: 

Officials from 6 of the 12 tribes we visited reported that they do not 
have adequate detention space to house offenders convicted in tribal 
courts and may face overcrowding at tribal detention facilities. 
Similarly, BIA and DOJ have acknowledged that detention space in 
Indian country is inadequate. One of the New Mexico pueblos we visited 
noted that the detention facility has a maximum capacity of 43 
inmates; however, as of October 2010, there are more than 90 inmates 
imprisoned at the facility. In some instances, tribal courts are 
forced to make difficult decisions such as (1) foregoing sentencing a 
convicted offender to prison, (2) releasing inmates to make room for 
another offender who is considered to be a greater danger to the 
community, and (3) contracting with state or tribal detention 
facilities to house convicted offenders, which can be costly. 
According to an official from one of the New Mexico pueblos we 
visited, at times, when the pueblo has reached its detention capacity--
up to three inmates--the pueblo has had to forego sentencing convicted 
juvenile or adult offenders to prison because using a nearby tribal 
facility to house its inmates would pose an economic hardship for the 
pueblo. Also, of the 12 tribes we visited, 5 noted that using 
detention facilities at another location is not always a viable option 
for housing offenders. Housing offenders in another entities' 
detention facility can be costly for the tribe who has to pay to 
transport inmates between the tribal court of jurisdiction and 
detention facility for arraignments, trial, and other appearances. 

Various Factors Could Affect Judicial Independence: 

Generally, the tribes we visited have incorporated practices that help 
to foster and maintain judicial independence--that is, the ability of 
the tribal courts to function without any undue political or 
ideological influence from the tribal government. Various factors such 
as a tribe's approach to removing judges and intervening on behalf of 
tribal members during an ongoing criminal matter could affect internal 
and external perceptions of a tribal court's independence. The manner 
in which some tribes remove judges serves as an example of the tribe's 
efforts to foster and maintain judicial independence. For example, at 
11 of the 12 tribes we visited, a tribal judge can only be removed 
from office for cause following a majority vote by the Tribal Council. 
In another instance, the Chief Judge at one of the tribes we visited 
explained that tribal members will often approach the Tribal Council 
to intervene when members are not satisfied with the tribal court's 
decision. The Tribal Council subsequently issued several reminders to 
tribal members that unsatisfied parties to a criminal matter can 
appeal the trial court's decisions in the tribe's appellate court. 
Decisions of this tribe's appellate court; however, are final and not 
subject to review by the Tribal Council, thereby upholding and 
preserving the decisions and independence of the tribal court. The 
constitution for 4 of the 12 tribes we visited, stated that, upon 
appointment, judges' salaries cannot be reduced while serving in 
office, thereby helping to protect the independence of the judiciary. 

Additionally, officials from the tribes we visited reported that 
certain activities may undermine a tribal court's independence. For 
example, officials from 5 of the 12 tribes we visited noted that the 
tribal court is viewed as a tribal program by tribal members rather 
than as a separate and autonomous branch of government. For example, 
according to officials at one of the tribes we visited, the 
constitution was amended in 2008 to articulate the independence of the 
tribal court from the legislative and executive branches of the tribal 
government. However, according to the officials from this tribe, 
Tribal Council members continue to approach criminal court judges to 
inquire about the status of ongoing cases and Tribal Council members 
have intervened on behalf of tribal members to discuss reversing the 
court's decisions on certain criminal matters. Such actions 
potentially add to the perception that the court is not autonomous and 
is subject to the rule of the executive or legislative branch, which, 
in turn can threaten the integrity of the tribal judiciary and create 
the perception of unfairness. Figure 3 shows a sign at a tribal court 
designed to serve as a measure to prevent people from engaging in ex 
parte communications.[Footnote 24] 

Figure 5: Warning against Unwarranted Judicial Contact: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Warning text: 

"Absolutely No Loitering" 

If you are here to see the Judge, you must sign in at the front desk 
and you will be called. This is to stop ex-parte communication. 

No Admittance: 

The Chief Judge's Office is no longer accessible to the public. 

If you have court business, you should contact one of the following: 

1. Prosecutors: for criminal matters; 
2. Attorney: for legal advice; 
3. Clerk-civil: for filing civil documents; 
4. Clerk-criminal: for criminal case forms; 
5. Juvenile clerk: for juvenile cases. 

The Judge will see attorneys and staff in his office as necessary. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Additionally, the manner in which tribal governments distribute 
federal funding to tribal courts may limit courts' control of their 
budgets. According to a BIA official and judges from one of the tribes 
we visited, the placement of the tribal court within the tribe's 
overall budget structure--that is, not separate from other tribal 
programs that BI funds--could contribute to the perception that the 
tribal court has little to no autonomy and separation from other 
tribal programs. 

Selected Tribes Reported Various Resource Challenges: 

Officials at the 12 tribes we visited told us they face various 
resource limitations resulting in reliance on federal funding, 
staffing shortages, and limited capacity to conduct jury trials. 

* Tribes We Visited Reported They Rely on Federal Funding to Operate 
Tribal Courts Regardless of Their Size or Economic Condition. We found 
that all of the 12 tribes we visited rely fully or partially on 
federal funding to operate their court systems regardless of the size 
of the population the tribal court serves, its geographic location, or 
economic conditions. For example, one of the tribes we visited relies 
on federal funding for aspects of its court system even though federal 
funding generally accounts for less than 10 percent of the court 
system's total budget, according to a senior tribal court official. 
This official explained that federal funding is barely sufficient to 
pay salaries for positions such as court clerks. Generally, of the 12 
tribes we visited, the tribal government provided partial funding to 
10 of the tribal courts; the remaining 2 were solely funded by federal 
funding.[Footnote 25] For further information about the funding levels 
for each of the 12 tribes we visited, see appendix III. 

Further, officials at 11 of the 12 tribes we visited noted that their 
tribal courts' budgets are inadequate to properly carry out the duties 
of the court; therefore, the tribes often have to make tradeoffs, 
which may include not hiring key staff such as probation officers or 
providing key services such as alcohol treatment programs. According 
to BIA, historically, federal funding for tribal courts has been less 
than what tribes deemed necessary to meet the needs of their judicial 
systems. While tribal courts we visited collect a range of fees and 
fines, which can be an additional source of operating revenue, 6 of 
the 12 tribes noted that the fees and fines the court collects are to 
be returned to the tribal government's general fund rather than 
retained for use by the tribal court. Where possible, to help fill the 
courts' budget shortfalls, officials at 3 of the 12 tribes we visited 
told us that they have sought funding from other sources such as state 
grants or partnered with other tribal programs to provide treatment 
services for parties appearing before their courts. 

* According to Tribes We Visited, Lack of Funding Affects Tribal 
Courts' Ability to Maintain Adequate Staffing Levels and Provide 
Training to Court Personnel. Officials at 7 of the 12 tribes we 
visited told us that their tribal courts are understaffed and that 
funding is often insufficient to employ personnel in key positions 
such as public defenders, prosecutors, and probation officers, among 
other positions. Additionally, officials at three of the New Mexico 
pueblos we visited told us that law enforcement officers also served 
as prosecutors despite not being trained in the practice of law and 
not having sufficient training to serve as prosecutors. The Chief 
Judges at two of the New Mexico pueblos told us that the pueblos do 
not have any other alternatives due to the lack of funding. For 
further information about the staffing levels at each of the 12 tribes 
we visited, see appendix III. 

Tribal justice officials also stated that their tribal courts face 
various challenges in recruiting and retaining qualified judicial 
personnel including: (1) inability to pay competitive salaries, (2) 
housing shortages on the reservation, and (3) rural and remote 
geographic location of the reservation, among other things. For 
example, a tribal justice official from one of the South Dakota tribes 
we visited noted that the tribe is often forced to go outside its 
member population to hire judges and attorneys because tribal members 
often lack education beyond the eighth grade; however, the tribe often 
faces difficulties in paying competitive salaries to hire legally 
trained non-Indians who often command salaries that are higher than 
the tribe can afford. Additionally, tribal justice officials noted 
that while some tribal members do pursue higher education, they do not 
often always return to work in tribal communities, thereby creating a 
shortage in available talent to draw from within the tribe's 
community. Further, officials from two of the tribes we visited noted 
that they may not be able to attract qualified applicants because of 
the rural location. Even if tribes overcome recruitment challenges, 
tribal justice officials noted that they may also face difficulties in 
retaining personnel--particularly, non-Indians--because these 
candidates' marketability often increases after gaining experience in 
Indian country and they are able to pursue opportunities that meet 
their compensation and quality-of-life needs such as higher salaries 
and improved housing. 

Four of the twelve tribes we visited noted that the courts often use 
DOJ grant funds to pay salaries for various positions without the 
benefit of a sustainable funding source once the grant funds expire. 
For example, one of the South Dakota tribes we visited used grant 
funds to hire a compliance officer, probation officer, and process 
server to focus exclusively on domestic violence cases, which were 
occurring at a high rate on the reservation. Officials explained that 
they saw a decrease in reported cases of domestic violence during this 
time; however, once the grant funds expired, they were no longer able 
to maintain these positions and perceived an increase in domestic 
violence cases. 

Additionally, lack of funding hinders tribes' abilities to provide 
personnel with training opportunities to obtain new or enhance 
existing skills. For example, at one of the North Dakota tribes we 
visited, court personnel explained that court clerks needed training 
to enhance their knowledge of scheduling court proceedings, developing 
case and records management systems, and familiarizing themselves with 
criminal procedures, among other things. Additionally, because of the 
increases in the number of cases involving illegal drugs, one of the 
judges we met with also expressed a need for training to effectively 
manage criminal proceedings that involve the use of methamphetamines. 
In particular, 8 of the 12 tribes we visited noted that they face 
difficulties in acquiring funds to register personnel for training as 
well as to pay for related expenses such as mileage reimbursement or 
other transportation costs, lodging, and per diem. The Chief Judge 
from one of the tribes we visited noted that the tribe has been able 
to acquire scholarships from various training providers to help absorb 
full or partial costs for certain training. Further, training 
providers such as the National Judicial College have begun to provide 
web-based training which, according to officials, is more cost-
effective. 

* Tribes We Visited Reported Having Limited Capacity to Conduct Jury 
Trials. Upon request, any defendant in tribal court accused of an 
offense punishable by imprisonment is entitled to a trial by jury of 
not less than six persons.[Footnote 26] However, officials from 7 of 
the 12 tribes we visited reported that their tribal courts have 
limited capacity to conduct jury trials due to limited courtroom 
space, funding, and transportation. For example, the courtroom for one 
of the New Mexico pueblos that we visited does not have adequate space 
to seat a six-person jury and, according to officials, there is not 
another facility that can be used to set up a jury box. Additionally, 
tribal officials at 2 of the 12 tribes we visited stated that their 
courts lack funding to pay tribal members a per diem for jury duty. 
Additionally, potential jurors' lack of access to personal or public 
transportation can hinder the courts' ability to seat a jury. For 
example, officials from two of the Arizona tribes we visited explained 
that there is no public transportation on the reservations, and 
consequently it is difficult for tribal members without access to 
personal transportation to travel to court. 

Multiple Federal Efforts Exist to Help Address Some of the Challenges 
That Tribes Face in Adjudicating Criminal Matters: 

Various federal efforts exist that could help to address some of the 
challenges that tribes face in effectively adjudicating crime in 
Indian country. For example, TLOA: (1) authorizes tribal courts to 
impose a term of imprisonment on certain convicted defendant in excess 
of 1 year;[Footnote 27] (2) authorizes and encourages USAOs to appoint 
Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys (SAUSA), including the appointment of 
tribal prosecutors to assist in prosecuting federal offenses committed 
in Indian country;[Footnote 28] (3) requires that federal entities 
coordinate with appropriate tribal law enforcement and justice 
officials on the status of criminal investigations terminated without 
referral or declined prosecution;[Footnote 29] and (4) requires BOP to 
establish a pilot program to house, in federal prison, Indian 
offenders convicted of a violent crime in tribal court and sentenced 
to 2 or more years imprisonment.[Footnote 30] Additionally, to help 
address issues regarding judicial independence, BIA has ongoing and 
planned training to help increase tribes' awareness about the 
significance of judicial independence. Many of these initiatives 
directly resulted from the enactment of TLOA in July 2010; and at this 
time, these initiatives are in the early stages of implementation. As 
a result, it is too early to tell the extent to which these 
initiatives are helping to address the challenges that tribes face in 
effectively adjudicating crime in Indian country. 

Federal Efforts Are Underway to Assist Tribes in Prosecuting Crime in 
Indian Country and Afford Tribal Courts Enhanced Sentencing Authority: 

Various federal efforts are underway that provide additional resources 
to assist tribes in the investigation and prosecution of crime in 
Indian country including (1) additional federal prosecutors, (2) 
authorizing tribal courts to impose longer prison sentences on certain 
convicted defendants, (3) mandating changes to the program that 
authorizes BIA to enter into agreements to aid in law enforcement in 
Indian country, and (4) affording tribal prosecutors opportunities to 
become Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys to assist in prosecuting 
federal offenses committed in Indian country. First, to help address 
the high levels of violent crime in Indian country, in May 2010, DOJ 
announced the addition of 30 Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSA) to serve 
as tribal liaisons in 21 USAO district offices that contain Indian 
country including the four states that we visited as part of our work-
-Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota.[Footnote 31] 
According to DOJ, these additional resources will help the department 
work with its tribal law enforcement partners to improve public safety 
in Indian country. DOJ also allocated 3 additional AUSAs to help 
support its Community Prosecution Pilot Project which it launched at 
two of the tribes we visited--the portion of Navajo Nation within New 
Mexico and the Oglala Sioux Tribe in South Dakota.[Footnote 32] Under 
this pilot project, the AUSAs will be assigned to work at their 
designated reservation on a regular basis and will work in 
collaboration with the tribe to develop strategies that are tailored 
to meet the public safety challenges facing the tribe. 

Second, TLOA authorizes tribal courts to imprison convicted offenders 
for up to a maximum of 3 years if the defendant has been previously 
convicted of the same or a comparable crime in any jurisdiction 
(including tribal) within the United States or is being prosecuted for 
an offense comparable to an offense that would be punishable by more 
than 1 year if prosecuted in state or federal court. To impose an 
enhanced sentence, the defendant must be afforded the right to 
effective assistance of counsel and, if indigent, the assistance of a 
licensed attorney at the tribe's expense; a licensed judge with 
sufficient legal training must preside over the proceeding; prior to 
charging the defendant, the tribal government criminal laws and rules 
of evidence and criminal procedure must be made publicly available; 
and the tribal court must maintain a record of the criminal 
proceedings.[Footnote 33] Generally, tribal justice officials from 9 
of the 12 the tribes we visited stated that they welcome the new 
sentencing authority, but officials from 2 of the tribes noted that 
they would likely use the new authority on a case-by-case basis 
because they lacked the infrastructure to fully meet the requisite 
conditions. For example, the Chief Judge from one of the New Mexico 
pueblos we visited noted that rather than hiring a full-time public 
defender, the pueblo is considering hiring an attorney on contract to 
be used on a case-by-case basis when the enhanced sentencing authority 
may be exercised.[Footnote 34] 

Third, TLOA mandates changes to the Special Law Enforcement Commission 
(SLEC) program which authorizes BIA to enter into agreements for the 
use of personnel or facilities of federal, tribal, state, or other 
government agencies to aid in the enforcement of federal or, with the 
tribe's consent, tribal law in Indian country.[Footnote 35] 
Specifically, within 180 days of enactment, the Secretary of the 
Interior shall develop a plan to enhance the certification and 
provision of special law enforcement commissions to tribal law 
enforcement officials, among others, that includes regional training 
sessions held at least biannually in Indian country to educate and 
certify candidates for the SLEC. The Secretary of the Interior, in 
consultation with tribes and tribal law enforcement agencies, must 
also develop minimum requirements to be included in SLEC agreements. 
Under the SLEC program, administered by the BIA, tribal police may be 
deputized as federal law enforcement officers, which affords them the 
authorities and protections available to federal law enforcement 
officers. According to BIA, given the potential difficulties arresting 
officers face in determining whether a victim or offender is an Indian 
or not or whether the alleged crime has occurred in Indian country 
(for purposes of determining jurisdiction at the time of arrest) a 
tribal officer deputized to enforce federal law is not charged with 
determining the appropriate jurisdiction for filing charges; rather 
this is to be determined by the prosecutor or court to which the 
arresting officer delivers the offender. 

Lastly, among other provisions, TLOA explicitly authorizes and 
encourages the appointment of qualified attorneys, including tribal 
prosecutors, as Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys (SAUSA) to assist in 
the prosecution of federal offenses and administration of justice in 
Indian country.[Footnote 36] If appointed as a SAUSA, a tribal 
prosecutor may pursue in federal court an Indian country criminal 
matter with federal jurisdiction that, if successful, could result in 
the convicted defendant receiving a sentence greater than if the 
matter had been prosecuted in tribal court. According to the Associate 
Attorney General, many tribal prosecutors have valuable experience and 
expertise that DOJ can draw on to prosecute crime and enforce federal 
criminal law in Indian country. Further, tribal prosecutors at 4 of 
the 12 tribes we visited are in varying stages of obtaining SAUSA 
credentials. The Chief Prosecutor at a New Mexico pueblo who is in the 
process of obtaining a SAUSA credential cited various benefits arising 
from a SAUSA appointment including increased: (1) prosecution of 
criminal cases that involve domestic violence and child sexual abuse; 
[Footnote 37] (2) prosecution of misdemeanor-level offenses committed 
by non-Indians against Indians that occur in Indian country; (3) 
ability to directly present criminal investigations to the district 
USAO rather than solely relying on BIA criminal investigators to do 
so;[Footnote 38] and (4) cooperation from tribal crime victims and 
witnesses who may be more forthcoming with someone closely affiliated 
with the pueblo rather than federal investigators or prosecutors, 
thereby helping to facilitate a more successful investigation and 
prosecution of a federal crime. 

Investigative and Prosecutorial Coordination Requirements May Improve 
Timeliness and Adequacy of Information Shared by the Federal 
Government with Tribes: 

TLOA provides that federal investigators and prosecutors must 
coordinate with tribes to communicate the status of investigations and 
prosecutions relating to alleged criminal offenses in Indian country 
crimes.[Footnote 39] More specifically, if a federal entity terminates 
an investigation, or if a USAO declines to prosecute or terminates a 
prosecution of an alleged violation of federal criminal law in Indian 
country, they must coordinate with the appropriate tribal officials 
regarding the status of the investigation and the use of evidence 
relevant to the case in a tribal court with authority over the crime 
alleged. Individually and collectively, these requirements could 
better enable tribes to prosecute criminal matters in tribal court 
within their statute of limitations. Although TLOA does not prescribe 
how coordination is to occur between federal entities--such as FBI and 
BIA criminal investigators--and tribes, DOJ directed relevant USAOs to 
work with tribes to establish protocols for coordinating with tribes. 
For example, the USAO for the District of Arizona, in consultation 
with Arizona tribes, has established protocols to guide its 
coordination with tribes. Specifically, within 30 days of a referral 
of a criminal investigation for prosecution, the Arizona district USAO 
plans to notify the relevant tribe in writing if the office is 
declining to prosecute the matter. Officials from one of the New 
Mexico pueblos we visited explained that they would like to have an 
entrance conference with the USAO for the District of New Mexico on 
each criminal investigation that is referred to the USAO for which the 
tribe has concurrent jurisdiction and an exit conference to discuss 
the USAO reasons for declining to prosecute the crime. Tribal 
officials explained that the exit conference could serve to educate 
the tribe about what it can do to better prepare an investigation for 
referral to the USAO. According to DOJ, each USAO and FBI field office 
will make efforts to reach agreements with tribes in their 
jurisdiction about communicating the status of investigation and 
prosecutions based on the unique needs of the tribe. 

Federal Efforts Exist to Help Tribes Address Detention Space in Tribal 
Prisons and Related Challenges: 

Pursuant to TLOA, on November 26, 2010, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 
launched a 4-year pilot program to house at the federal government's 
expense up to 100 Indian offenders convicted of violent crimes in 
tribal courts and sentenced to terms of imprisonment of 2 or more 
years.[Footnote 40] DOJ considers the pilot program to be an important 
step in addressing violent offenders and underresourced correctional 
facilities in Indian country. BOP's goal is to reduce future criminal 
activity of Indian offenders by providing them with access to a range 
of programs such as vocational training and substance abuse treatment 
programs that are designed to help offenders successfully reenter 
their communities following release from prison. It is unlikely that 5 
of the 12 tribes we visited will immediately begin participating in 
the pilot because they are not yet positioned to fully meet the 
conditions that are required to imprison Indian offenders convicted in 
tribal court for two or more years. Additionally tribal officials 
expressed concern about placing convicted Indian offenders in federal 
prison because tribal members would likely oppose having tribal 
members sent to locations that are not in close proximity to the 
reservation, making it difficult for family members to visit and 
ensure the convicted Indian offender is able to maintain a connection 
with the tribal community--a key aspect of tribes' culture and values. 
While tribes expressed concern about the placement of tribal members 
in federal prison, officials from 2 of the tribes we visited stated 
that access to federal programs such as substance abuse and mental 
health treatment programs and job training would be a major benefit 
that offenders would likely not have access to while imprisoned in 
tribal detention facilities. More broadly, TLOA requires that BIA, in 
coordination with DOJ and in consultation with tribal leaders, law 
enforcement and correctional officers, submit a long-term plan to 
address incarceration in Indian country to Congress by July 29, 2011. 
[Footnote 41] The long-term plan should also describe proposed 
activities for constructing, operating, and maintaining juvenile and 
adult detention facilities in Indian country and construction of 
federal detention facilities in Indian country, contracting with state 
and local detention centers upon the tribe's approval, and 
alternatives to incarceration developed in cooperation with tribal 
court systems. BIA and DOJ officials noted that they have begun to 
conduct consultations with tribal entities to address incarceration in 
Indian country. 

BIA Has Efforts Underway to Increase Awareness about Judicial 
Independence in Indian Country: 

BIA has taken steps to help increase awareness about the importance 
and significance of judicial independence in tribal communities. For 
example, officials from one of the tribes we visited told us that, at 
the request of the tribal court, the BIA Superintendent is to conduct 
a workshop for tribal leaders and community members to, among other 
things, provide instruction on how interference with the tribal 
court's decisions can threaten the judiciary's ability to provide 
equitable adjudication of crimes. Further, BIA's Division of Tribal 
Justice Support for Courts has conducted similar workshops in the past 
and expects to do so again in fiscal year 2011. 

BIA and DOJ Have Taken Action to Coordinate Their Efforts on Tribal 
Justice Issues, but Should Strengthen Coordination on Tribal Courts by 
Establishing Information Sharing Mechanisms: 

BIA and DOJ Components Have Taken Action to Coordinate Their Efforts 
to Support Tribal Court and Detention Initiatives: 

According to BIA and DOJ officials, the two agencies have begun to 
establish interagency coordinating bodies intended to facilitate the 
agencies' efforts to coordinate on tribal court and detention 
initiatives. Officials noted that because Indian country issues are a 
top priority across the federal government, federal departments and 
agencies are focused on ensuring that, where appropriate, they work 
together to address the needs of Indian tribes. For example, when DOI 
and DOJ developed tribal consultation plans for their respective 
agencies in 2010, the two agencies cited interagency coordination as a 
key element to meeting the tribes' needs.[Footnote 42] According to 
DOJ, interagency coordination is essential to holding stakeholders 
accountable and achieving success. Similarly, DOI acknowledged the 
importance of collaborating and coordinating with its federal partners 
regarding issues that affect tribes. 

BIA and DOJ officials told us that communication between the two 
agencies has increased and their staff now know whom to call about 
various tribal justice issues, which they commented is a significant 
improvement over prior years when there was little to no 
communication. For example, DOJ has begun to consult BIA about its 
future plans to fund the construction of tribal correctional 
facilities, which has helped to resolve past inefficiencies. BIA 
officials told us that they need to know which tribes DOJ plans to 
award grants to construct correctional facilities at least 2 years in 
advance so that they can plan their budget and operational plans 
accordingly in order to fulfill their obligation to staff, operate, 
and maintain detention facilities. According to BIA, there have been 
instances where they were unaware of DOJ's plans to award grant funds 
to tribes to construct tribal detention facilities, which could result 
in new facilities remaining vacant until BIA is able to secure funding 
to operate the facility. 

DOJ has implemented a process whereby when tribes apply for DOJ grants 
to construct correctional facilities, DOJ consults BIA about each 
applicant's needs as BIA typically has firsthand knowledge about 
tribes' needs for a correctional facility and whether the tribe has 
the infrastructure to support a correctional facility, among other 
things. BIA then prioritizes the list of applicants based on its 
knowledge of the detention needs of the tribes. DOJ officials noted 
that the decision about which tribes to award grants to rests solely 
with them; however, they do weigh BIA's input about the tribes' needs 
for and capacity to utilize a correctional facility when making grant 
award decisions. To help BIA anticipate future operations and 
maintenance costs for new tribal correctional facilities, each year 
DOJ's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) provides BIA with a list of 
planned correctional facilities that includes the site location, size, 
and completion date. BIA officials noted that this level of 
coordination with DOJ is an improvement over past years as it helps to 
facilitate planning and ensure they are prepared to assume 
responsibility to staff, operate, and maintain tribal detention 
facilities. 

BIA and BJA also serve on a governmentwide coordinating body, the 
Planning Alternatives and Correctional Institutions for Indian Country 
Advisory Committee, which brings together federal stakeholders who 
play a role in planning detention and correctional programs and 
facilities in Indian country.[Footnote 43] The advisory committee is 
responsible for developing strategic approaches to plan the training 
and technical assistance that BJA provides to tribes that receive 
grant funding to construct or renovate juvenile and adult correctional 
facilities.[Footnote 44] Specifically, among other things, the 
agencies work together to plan the training and technical assistance 
to be delivered to tribes on issues such as alternatives to help 
control and prevent jail overcrowding, controlling costs to develop 
and operate detention facilities, developing alternatives to 
incarceration, and implementing substance abuse and mental health 
treatment programs at correctional facilities. According to DOJ 
officials, the advisory committee helps to provide a coordinated 
federal response that leverages the full scope of agency resources 
needed to deliver services that meet the tribes' needs. 

BIA and DOJ officials have committed to working together to help meet 
the two agencies' shared goal to improve the criminal justice crisis 
in Indian country. To that end, in 2009, DOI, through BIA, and DOJ 
established both department level and program level coordinating 
bodies to increase communication and information exchange between the 
two agencies. At the department level, the Deputy Attorney General and 
the Deputy Secretary of the Interior jointly chair a working group 
that meets quarterly to facilitate governmentwide policymaking on 
tribal justice issues and coordinate agency activities on a range of 
tribal justice issues that are designed to help BIA and DOJ achieve 
their individual and shared goal of improving public safety in Indian 
country. For example, the working group is to oversee BIA and DOJ's 
efforts to assess tribal correctional and tribal court systems' needs 
and to develop strategies such as prisoner reentry programs in Indian 
country. In addition, the working group will oversee the 
implementation of various provisions included in TLOA such as 
assessing the effectiveness of the enhanced sentencing authority that 
tribal courts may exercise.[Footnote 45] 

At the program level, in 2009, BIA and DOJ established task forces to 
address key issues including tribal judicial systems and tribal 
detention, among other issues.[Footnote 46] The task forces that 
report to the department level working group are chaired by senior 
officials from BIA and DOJ and serve as a forum for BIA and DOJ to, 
where appropriate, jointly address a range of public safety and 
justice issues in Indian country. For example, as part of the 
detention task force, BIA and DOJ officials are now working together, 
in consultation with tribes, to identify alternatives to incarceration 
in Indian country. According to BIA and DOJ officials, the task 
force's activities are to, among other things, support the activities 
of the department-level working group. For example, the work conducted 
by the task forces is intended to help facilitate the two agencies' 
efforts to develop a long-term plan for submission to Congress in July 
2011 that includes proposals on how to address juvenile and adult 
detention facilities. 

Although BIA and DOJ have taken action to coordinate their activities, 
according to officials the agencies' coordination efforts are in the 
early stages of development and it is too early to gauge how effective 
these efforts will be based on six of the eight practices that we have 
identified for ensuring that collaborating agencies conduct their work 
in a coordinated manner[Footnote 47]. We found that the two agencies 
have defined a common outcome--improving public safety and justice in 
Indian country--which is one of the eight practices that we have 
identified for enhancing and maintaining effective collaboration among 
federal agencies.[Footnote 48] In our previous work we have reported 
that it is a good practice for agencies to have a clearly defined 
outcome, as doing so can help align specific goals across agencies and 
help overcome differences in agency missions, cultures, and 
established ways of doing business. Officials told us that as they 
work toward defining approaches to achieve their common goal there 
could be a need to take a more strategic approach that incorporates 
the key collaboration practices that we have identified to help 
achieve sustainable interagency coordination. To that end, BIA 
officials told us that in January 2011, they expect to deploy a 
liaison to DOJ's Office of Tribal Justice to help foster ongoing 
sustainable collaboration between the two agencies. The BIA liaison is 
to work with staff from various DOJ components as the two agencies 
develop and execute coordinated plans to implement various provisions 
in TLOA regarding tribal detention and tribal courts, among other 
tribal justice initiatives. 

By Strengthening Information Sharing, BIA and DOJ Could Help Ensure 
Efficient Use of Limited Resources and Enhance the Capacity of Tribal 
Courts: 

To meet their respective responsibilities to support tribal courts, 
BIA and DOJ provide funding, training, and technical assistance to 
tribal courts; however, the two agencies do not leverage each other's 
resources--one of the eight collaboration practices that we have 
identified--by sharing certain relevant information that could benefit 
each agency's efforts to enhance the capacity of tribal courts to 
effectively administer justice in Indian country. In October 2009, DOJ 
told the leadership of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee that it was 
taking action to provide better coordination with DOI to ensure that 
the two agencies' tribal courts initiatives are coordinated to develop 
and support tribal courts to help tribal courts build the capacity 
needed to exercise the enhanced sentencing authority proposed for 
tribes under TLOA. However, when we met with OJP and BIA program 
officials in October 2010 and November 2010, respectively, they noted 
that the information sharing and coordination mechanisms that are in 
place to support tribal detention initiatives have not extended to 
tribal courts initiatives. For example: 

* Since 2005, BIA has commissioned reviews of about 90 tribal court 
systems that include the collection of data such as court funding and 
operating budget, training needs for court clerks and judges, and 
technical assistance needs such as developing and maintaining a 
complete collection of a tribal criminal code. DOJ officials told us 
that they were vaguely aware of these court reviews but stated they 
had never seen the reviews or the accompanying corrective action 
plans. BIA officials told us that DOJ had never requested the court 
reviews or corrective action plans and that they had never shared this 
information with DOJ. 

* BIA officials stated that they were aware that DOJ awards 
competitive grants to tribal courts; however, DOJ does not share 
information with BIA about which tribal courts have applied for DOJ 
grants to establish new or enhance existing tribal court systems. BIA 
officials noted that DOJ could benefit from BIA's insights and 
firsthand knowledge about the needs of tribal courts including those 
tribal courts that BIA has identified as having the greatest need for 
additional funding. 

* Further, BIA officials noted that they were unaware of the training 
and technical assistance that DOJ provides to tribal courts and noted 
that there could be potential unnecessary duplication with the 
training and technical assistance that both agencies provide as well 
as inefficient use of scarce resources. For example, according to BIA, 
there was an instance where DOJ and BIA provided funding to a tribe to 
purchase the hardware and software for a case management system, but 
neither DOJ nor BIA consulted each other about the purchase. 
Ultimately, the tribe did not have any funds to purchase software 
training and, as a result never used the system. Sharing information 
about training and technical assistance could help ensure that BIA and 
DOJ avoid such situations. 

* DOJ officials stated that they frequently hear concerns from tribes 
that tribal courts lack the funds needed to operate effectively; 
however, DOJ does not have direct access to information about the 
funding that BIA provides to tribal courts. According to DOJ 
officials, gaining access to BIA's annual funding data could be useful 
in DOJ's efforts to implement a more strategic approach to meet the 
needs of tribal courts. Specifically, officials told us that data on 
the annual funding to tribal courts could help DOJ to first establish 
a baseline, then conduct a needs assessment to identify overall needs 
and then use that information to identify what additional funding, if 
any, is needed to close the gap between the baseline and overall 
resource need. 

We have previously reported that collaborating agencies are most 
effective when they look for opportunities to leverage each other's 
resources, thereby obtaining benefits that may not otherwise be 
available if the agencies work separately.[Footnote 49] Further, 
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government call for 
agencies to enhance their effectiveness by obtaining information from 
external stakeholders that may have a significant impact on the agency 
achieving its goals.[Footnote 50] Developing mechanisms for 
identifying and sharing information and resources related to tribal 
courts could yield potential benefits in terms of leveraging efforts 
already underway and minimizing the potential for unnecessary 
duplication in federal agencies' efforts to support tribal courts. 
Moreover, by sharing information resources, BIA and DOJ could achieve 
additional benefits that result from the different levels of expertise 
and capacities that each agency brings. BIA and DOJ officials 
acknowledged that the two agencies could benefit from working together 
to share information and leverage resources to address the needs of 
tribal courts and stated that they would begin taking steps to do so. 

Conclusions: 

Because responsibilities for enhancing the capacity of tribal courts 
is shared among two key federal agencies--DOI and DOJ--effective 
collaboration is important to operating efficiently and effectively 
and to producing a greater public benefit than if the agencies acted 
alone. Although the two agencies have information regarding tribal 
courts that could be of benefit to the other, they have not fully 
shared their information with each other. As a result, they have 
missed opportunities to share information that could be used to better 
inform decisions about funding and development of training and 
technical assistance that meets the tribes' needs. Developing 
mechanisms for better sharing information about tribal courts could 
help the agencies ensure they are targeting limited federal funds to 
effectively and efficiently meet the needs of federally recognized 
tribes. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

To maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of each agency's efforts 
to support tribal courts by increasing interagency coordination and 
improving information sharing, we recommend that the Attorney General 
and the Secretary of the Interior direct DOJ's Office of Justice 
Programs and BIA's Office of Justice Services, respectively, to work 
together to develop mechanisms, using GAO collaboration practices as 
guide, to identify and share information and resources related to 
tribal courts. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOI and DOJ for review and 
comment. The DOI audit liaison stated in an e-mail response received 
on January 25, 2011, that DOI agreed with the report's findings and 
concurred with our recommendation; however, DOI did not provide 
written comments to include in our report. DOJ provide written 
comments that are reproduced in appendix IV. DOJ concurred with our 
recommendation and noted that OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance has 
begun discussions with BIA's Office of Justice Services about plans 
to, among other things, coordinate training activities and share 
funding information regarding tribal courts. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 
to the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of the 
Interior, and appropriate congressional committees. This report will 
also be available at no charge on our website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

David C. Maurer: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology: 

Objectives: 

We were asked to review the challenges facing selected tribal justice 
systems as well as federal agencies' efforts to coordinate their 
activities to support tribal justice systems. Specifically, we 
prepared this report to answer the following questions: 

1. What challenges do tribes face in adjudicating Indian country 
crimes and what federal efforts exist to help address those challenges? 

2. To what extent have the Department of the Interior (DOI) and 
Department of Justice (DOJ) components collaborated with each other to 
support tribal justice systems? 

Scope and Methodology: 

To identify the challenges facing tribes in adjudicating criminal 
matters in Indian country and what federal efforts exist to help 
address those challenges, we met with tribal justice officials such as 
judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and court 
administrators from a nonprobability sample[Footnote 51] of 12 
federally recognized tribes in Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and 
South Dakota.[Footnote 52] We selected the tribes based on several 
considerations. First, we identified the U.S. Attorney district 
offices that received the largest volume of Indian country criminal 
matters from fiscal years 2004 through 2008, the five most recent 
years of available data at the time we conducted our selection. We 
interviewed DOJ officials about the data-entry process, performed 
electronic testing for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness of 
the data, and reviewed database documentation to determine that the 
data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of our review. Next, 
we considered a variety of factors including (1) reservation land 
size, (2) population, (3) types of tribal court structures, (4) number 
and type of courts, and (5) number of full-time judicial personnel 
such as judges and prosecutors. The selected tribes have a range of 
land and population size, court size, and tribal court structures such 
as traditional and modern court systems. We also obtained 
documentation on the tribal courts' operations, caseload, and funding. 
Because we are providing the caseload and funding data for 
informational purposes only, we did not assess the reliability of the 
data we obtained from the tribes. 

Additionally, we obtained the tribe's perspectives on the federal 
process to communicate declination decisions. In light of the public 
safety and justice issues underlying the requests for this work and 
the focus in the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (TLOA) on criminal 
matters, we focused on criminal rather than civil law matters during 
the course of this review.[Footnote 53] While the results of these 
interviews cannot be generalized to reflect the views of all federally 
recognized tribes across the United States, the information obtained 
provided us with useful information on the perspectives of various 
tribes about the challenges they face in adjudicating criminal 
matters. Additionally, we identified federal efforts to help support 
tribal efforts to adjudicate criminal matters in Indian country based 
on new or amended statutory provisions enacted through TLOA. We also 
interviewed cognizant officials from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 
various DOJ components such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, and select U.S. Attorneys 
Offices to obtain information about their efforts to implement TLOA 
provisions to help address the challenges facing tribes in 
administering justice in Indian country. 

To determine the extent that DOI and DOJ collaborate with each other 
to support public safety and justice in tribal communities, we first 
compared the agencies' efforts against criteria in Standards for 
Internal Control in the Federal Government which holds that agencies 
are to share information with external stakeholders that can affect 
the organization's ability to achieve its goals.[Footnote 54] Next, we 
identified practices that our previous work indicated can enhance and 
sustain collaboration among federal agencies[Footnote 55] and assessed 
whether DOI and DOJ's interagency coordination efforts reflected 
consideration of those practices. For purposes of this report, we 
define collaboration as any joint activity by two or more 
organizations that is intended to produce more public value than could 
be produced when the organizations act alone. We use the term 
"collaboration" broadly to include interagency activities that others 
have defined as cooperation, coordination, integration, or networking. 
Eight practices we identified to enhance and sustain collaboration are 
as follows: 

(1) define and articulate a common goal; 

(2) establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies to achieve that 
goal; 

(3) identify and address needs by leveraging resources; 

(4) agree on roles and responsibilities; 

(5) establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to 
operate across agency boundaries; 

(6) develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; 

(7) reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts through 
agency plans and reports; and: 

(8) reinforce individual accountability for collaborative efforts 
through performance management systems. 

In this report, we focused on two of the eight practices--defining and 
articulating a common goal and identifying and addressing needs by 
leveraging resources--that we previously identified for enhancing and 
maintaining effective collaboration among federal agencies. We were 
not able to address the remaining six practices because we found that 
DOI and DOJ were in the early stages of implementing these two 
practices that serve as the foundation for the remaining practices. 
For example, because collaboration activities are in the early stages 
of development and the agencies have not yet established joint 
strategies to achieve the goal of enhancing the capacity of tribal 
courts, we did not expect the agencies to have developed mechanisms to 
monitor and report on the results of their collaboration, reinforce 
accountability by preparing reports, or establish performance 
management systems. We selected examples that, in our best judgment, 
clearly illustrated and strongly supported the need for improvement in 
specific areas where the key practices could be implemented. We met 
with officials from DOI and various DOJ components such as the Office 
of Tribal Justice and Office of Justice Programs to discuss the 
mechanisms they have put in place to enhance and sustain collaboration 
between the two agencies. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2009 through 
February 2011 in accordance with generally accepted auditing 
standards.[Footnote 56] Those standards require that we plan and 
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 
our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence provides a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Federal, State, and Tribal Jurisdiction over, and the 
Prosecution of Crime in, Indian Country: 

Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country: 

The exercise of criminal jurisdiction in Indian country depends on 
several factors, including the nature of the crime, the status of the 
alleged offender and victim (that is, whether they are Indian or not) 
and whether jurisdiction has been conferred on a particular entity by, 
for example, federal treaty or statute. As a general principle, the 
federal government recognizes Indian tribes as "distinct, independent 
political communities" with inherent powers of self-government to 
regulate their "internal and social relations," which includes 
enacting substantive law over internal matters and enforcing that law 
in their own forums.[Footnote 57] The federal government, however has 
plenary and exclusive authority to regulate or modify the powers of 
self-government the tribes otherwise possess, and has exercised this 
authority to establish an intricate web of jurisdiction over crime in 
Indian country.[Footnote 58] 

Enacted in 1817, the General Crimes Act (also referred to as the 
Federal Enclaves Act or Indian Country Crimes Act), as amended, 
established federal criminal jurisdiction in Indian country over cases 
where either the alleged offender or the victim is Indian.[Footnote 
59] It did not, for example, establish federal jurisdiction over cases 
where both parties are Indian and, in effect, left jurisdiction over 
cases where both parties are non-Indian to the state.[Footnote 60] 
Enacted in 1885, the Major Crimes Act extended federal criminal 
jurisdiction in Indian country to Indians who committed so-called 
"major crimes," regardless of the victim's status.[Footnote 61] As 
amended, the Major Crimes Act provides the federal government with 
criminal jurisdiction over Indians charged with felony-level offenses 
enumerated in the statute.[Footnote 62] The tribes retained exclusive 
jurisdiction over other criminal offenses (generally, misdemeanor- 
level) where both parties are Indian. 

State governments, however, may not exercise criminal jurisdiction 
over Indians or their property in Indian country absent a "clear and 
unequivocal grant of that authority" by the federal treaty or statute. 
[Footnote 63] Enacted in 1953, Public Law 280 represents one example 
of a "clear and unequivocal" grant of state criminal jurisdiction. 
[Footnote 64] As amended, Public Law 280 confers exclusive criminal 
jurisdiction over offenses committed in Indian country to the 
governments of six states--Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, 
Oregon, and Wisconsin, except as specified by statute, thereby waiving 
federal jurisdiction under the General and Major Crimes acts in these 
states and subjecting Indians to prosecution in state court.[Footnote 
65] Subsequent amendments to Public Law 280 and other laws further 
define state criminal jurisdiction in Indian country.[Footnote 66] 

To summarize the foregoing discussion, the exercise of criminal 
jurisdiction by state governments in Indian country is generally 
limited to two instances, both predicated on the offense occurring 
within the borders of the state--where both the alleged offender and 
victim are non-Indian, or where a federal treaty or statute confers, 
or authorizes a state to assume, criminal jurisdiction over Indians in 
Indian country. Otherwise, jurisdiction is distributed between federal 
and tribal governments. Where both parties to the crime are Indian, 
the tribe generally has exclusive jurisdiction for misdemeanor-level 
offenses, but its jurisdiction runs concurrent with the federal 
government for felony-level offenses. Where the alleged offender is 
Indian but the victim is non-Indian, tribal and federal jurisdiction 
is generally concurrent. Finally, federal jurisdiction is exclusive 
where the alleged offender is non-Indian and the victim is Indian. 

Tribal Prosecutions under the Indian Civil Rights Act: 

When a tribal government exercises its jurisdiction to prosecute an 
Indian offender, it must do so in accordance with the Indian Civil 
Rights Act (ICRA). Enacted in 1968, ICRA limited the extent to which 
tribes may exercise their powers of self-government by imposing 
conditions on tribal governments similar to those found in the Bill of 
Rights to the U.S. Constitution.[Footnote 67] For example, the act 
extended the protections of free speech, free exercise of religion, 
and due process and equal protection under tribal laws.[Footnote 68] 
With respect to alleged criminal conduct, tribes are prohibited from 
trying a person twice for the same offense (double jeopardy), 
compelling an accused to testify against himself or herself in a 
criminal case, and imposing excessive fines or inflicting cruel and 
unusual punishment.[Footnote 69] Tribes must also afford a defendant 
the rights to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the nature 
and cause of the accusation, to be confronted by witnesses of the 
prosecution, to have compulsory process for witnesses in his favor, 
and to be represented by counsel at his own expense, among other 
things.[Footnote 70] 

ICRA also governs the sentencing authority tribes exercise over 
convicted Indian offenders. First, any person accused of an offense 
punishable by imprisonment has the right, upon request, to a trial by 
jury of not less than six persons.[Footnote 71] Second, the act limits 
the maximum sentence a tribe may impose. Prior to amendments made by 
the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) in July 2010, ICRA limited the 
maximum sentence for any one offense to a term of 1 year imprisonment, 
a $5,000 fine, or both, regardless of the severity of the alleged 
offense.[Footnote 72] The July 2010 amendments, however, authorize 
tribal courts to impose sentences in excess of 1 year imprisonment or 
$5,000 fine if the tribe affords the defendant certain additional 
protections specified in the statute.[Footnote 73] Specifically, a 
tribal court may subject a defendant to a maximum term of imprisonment 
of 3 years (or a fine not to exceed $15,000, or both) for any one 
offense if the defendant had been previously convicted of the same or 
a comparable offense by any jurisdiction in the United States, or the 
defendant was prosecuted for an offense comparable to one punishable 
by more than 1 year of imprisonment if prosecuted by the United States 
or any of the states.[Footnote 74] To exercise this enhanced 
sentencing authority, the tribe must afford a criminal defendant the 
following additional protections: effective assistance of counsel; if 
indigent, the assistance of a licensed defense attorney appointed at 
the tribe's expense; a presiding judge with sufficient legal training 
and a license to practice law; prior to charging the defendant, make 
publicly available the criminal laws and rules of evidence and 
criminal procedure of the tribal government; and maintain a record 
(audio or otherwise) of the criminal proceeding.[Footnote 75] Finally, 
although ICRA protects alleged offenders from double jeopardy in 
tribal courts, neither the federal government nor the tribal 
government is precluded from pursuing a prosecution if the other 
sovereign elects to prosecute the case.[Footnote 76] Therefore, by 
example, a criminal defendant prosecuted in tribal court may still 
face prosecution, and a potentially more severe sentence if convicted, 
in federal court. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Overview of Selected Tribal Courts: 

This appendix summarizes information regarding the court systems of 
the 12 tribes we visited in Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and 
South Dakota. Specifically, in Arizona, we visited Gila River Indian 
Community, Navajo Nation,[Footnote 77] and Tohono O'odham Nation. New 
Mexico tribes we covered include the Pueblos of Isleta, Laguna, 
Pojoaque, and Taos. In North Dakota, we included Standing Rock Sioux 
[Footnote 78] and Three Affiliated Tribes. Lastly, the South Dakota 
tribes we visited include Cheyenne River Sioux, Oglala Sioux, and 
Rosebud Sioux tribes. The 12 tribes that we visited ranged in 
enrollment from 417 members to nearly 300,000 tribal members. Tribal 
enrollment data showed that for 9 of the 12 tribes we visited, more 
than 50 percent of the enrolled members live on the reservation. 
[Footnote 79] 

Enclosed in this appendix are individual summaries for each tribe that 
include a description of: (1) land area and population data, (2) 
establishment of the court system, (3) availability of tribal code and 
court rules and procedures, (4) structure of the court system, (5) 
selection and removal of judges as well as requisite qualifications, 
(6) judicial personnel and court staff, (7) caseload levels, and (8) 
funding information. 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe: 

Land Area and Population: 

The Cheyenne River Indian Reservation of the Cheyenne River Sioux 
Tribe covers 4,410 square miles in north-central South Dakota, as 
shown in figure 4, and is between Delaware and Connecticut in size. Of 
the estimated 16,622 enrolled members of the tribe, an estimated 8,000 
live on the reservation. 

Figure 4: Location of Cheyenne River Indian Reservation: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of South Dakota depicting the location of 
the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation] 

Source: Census Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Establishment of Court System and Relationship to Tribal Council: 

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's constitution, which was adopted in 
1935, assigned the duty of establishing a court to the Tribal Council. 
The court system was established in the late 1930s. Tribal officials 
stated that the tribe's judiciary is a separate branch of government. 
Further, a 1992 amendment to the constitution stated that decisions of 
tribal courts shall not be subject to review by the Tribal Council. 
Officials noted that the Judiciary and Codification Committee of the 
Tribal Council and the Chief Judge, among others, oversee the 
operations of the tribal court. 

Tribal Code and Court Rules and Procedures: 

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's Law and Order Code, established in 
1978, has been amended a number of times and is available in 
electronic format, according to officials. The Chief Judge reported 
that the Law and Order Code is modeled after South Dakota laws. The 
Tribal Council's Judiciary and Codification Committee is responsible 
for updating the criminal code. Additionally, members of the tribal 
court and the tribe's legal department also assist the Committee in 
updating the code. According to officials, the tribe follows federal 
rules of evidence and has adopted rules of criminal and civil 
procedure as well as a Code of Judicial Conduct that are modeled after 
federal and state courts. 

Structure of the Court System: 

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's court system is composed of a tribal 
court, a juvenile court, a mediation court, and an appellate court. 
Tribal officials consider the court system to be modern, though the 
mediation court incorporates some traditional practices that promote 
tribal traditions and values to resolve disputes. In 1992, according 
to tribal officials, the tribe's constitution was amended to include a 
provision that states that decisions of the tribal court may be 
appealed to the tribe's appellate court, but shall not be subject to 
review by the Tribal Council. 

Judicial Qualifications, Selection, Term Limits, and Removal: 

Tribal judges are elected by voting members of the tribe and must (1) 
be a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, (2) have resided on the 
reservation for 1 year preceding the election, and (3) be over 25 
years of age. We were not able to obtain complete information about 
the required qualifications for judges and the tribe's process to 
select and remove judges. 

Judicial Personnel and Court Staff: 

Information about judicial personnel and court staff are not reported 
as we were not able to obtain complete information from the tribe. 

Caseload Information: 

Data about the court's caseload for fiscal years 2008 through 2010 are 
not included as we were not able to obtain complete information from 
the tribe. 

Funding Information: 

BIA reported that for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, it did not 
distribute any funding to Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe specifically for 
tribal court programs. In fiscal year 2010, BIA distributed $190,503 
to the tribe, but we were not able to obtain information from the 
tribe on how much funding was allocated to tribal court programs. 
Further, DOJ did not award any grant funding to Cheyenne River Sioux 
Tribe as part of its Tribal Court Assistance Program (TCAP) for fiscal 
years 2008 through 2010. 

Gila River Indian Community: 

Land Area and Population: 

The Gila River Indian Reservation covers 584 square miles in Arizona, 
and is between the District of Columbia and Rhode Island in size. Of 
the estimated 20,590 enrolled members of the tribe, approximately 82 
percent, or 16,783, live on the reservation. 

Figure 5: Location of Gila River Indian Community: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of Arizona depicting the location of the 
Gila River Indian Community] 

Source: Census Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Establishment of Court System and Relationship to Tribal Council: 

The Gila River Indian Community's constitution, adopted in 1960, 
authorized but did not establish a court system or articulate its 
jurisdiction or powers, leaving this to the Tribal Council. Although 
the council exercised its authority to establish a court system, there 
is no formal document marking when this occurred. The tribe has 
efforts underway to adopt a revised constitution, which seeks to 
establish a separate judicial branch that is autonomous and 
independent of other branches of the tribal government. The draft 
constitution calls for a court system that is comprised of a tribal 
court known as the Community Court, Supreme Court, and other lower 
courts, including forums for traditional dispute resolution, as deemed 
necessary by the legislature. 

Tribal Code and Court Rules and Procedures: 

Gila River Indian Community has civil, criminal, traffic, and 
children's codes. Officials noted that the current criminal code may 
not be applicable to address new uses of technology to commit crime. 
The children's code was most recently revised in 2010 and now 
addresses gang-related offenses, according to officials. Some 
procedural guidance is provided by legislation, but the tribal court 
does not have formal rules of criminal procedures since the court has 
not been granted authority to promulgate such rules. However, 
officials explained that the tribal court has developed an 
administrative order and understanding between parties for some rules. 
The court has not established rules of evidence; although it will 
occasionally incorporate state or federal rules of evidence as 
permitted by the criminal code. 

Structure of the Court System: 

Officials describe the court as modern because it is modeled after the 
state of Arizona's judicial system. The court system is composed of a 
tribal court, children's court, and appellate court. The children's 
court was officially established by statute in 1983. Gila River has 
two courthouses: a main court located in Sacaton, Arizona, and another 
located in Laveen, Arizona. 

Judicial Qualifications, Selection, Term Limits, and Removal: 

The Chief Judge and five Associate Judges are elected by tribal 
members to the general jurisdiction court for 3-year terms. 
Additionally, two judges are appointed to the children's court by the 
Tribal Council for 4-year terms. The general jurisdiction court 
consists of six elected judicial positions with all judges up for 
election at the same time. Judges must be a member of the tribe and be 
at least 25 years old, among other requirements. Certain residency 
requirements must also be met. The Tribal Council can remove a judge 
from office for any reason it deems cause for removal. 

Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Gila River Indian Community: 

One of the eight judges in the tribal court is law-trained; however, 
there are no requirements that judges are to be law-trained or 
licensed by a state or tribal bar association. Public defenders and 
prosecutors are required to be law-trained and licensed by a state bar 
association. The tribe has six public defenders and nine prosecutors. 

Table 3: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Gila River Indian 
Community: 

Position title: Tribal court judge; 
Number of staff: 8. 

Position title: Prosecutor; 
Number of staff: 9. 

Position title: Public defender; 
Number of staff: 6. 

Position title: Probation officer; 
Number of staff: 18. 

Position title: Bailiff; 
Number of staff: 10. 

Position title: Process server; 
Number of staff: 0. 

Position title: Court administrator; 
Number of staff: 3. 

Position title: Court clerk; 
Number of staff: 22. 

Position title: Other court staff; 
Number of staff: 3. 

Source: Gila River Indian Community. 

[End of table] 

Caseload Information: 

Criminal cases accounts for the majority of the tribal court's 
caseload. 

Table 4: Gila River Civil and Criminal Caseload Data for 2008 through 
2010: 

Type of case: Civil; 
New cases filed: 
2008: 579; 
2009: 614; 
2010: 667. 

Type of case: Criminal; 
New cases filed: 
2008: 8,620; 
2009: 8,204; 
2010: 8,244. 

Source: Gila River Indian Community. 

[End of table] 

Funding Information: 

For fiscal years 2008 through 2010, the tribal government funded at 
least 90 percent of the Gila River Indian Community Court, and the 
court did not receive any funding from BIA.[Footnote 80] According to 
tribal court officials, the court was awarded $13,000 in fiscal years 
2008 and 2009 through the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG)-- 
a grant program that is administered by Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention within DOJ.[Footnote 81] In fiscal year 2009, 
the tribal court was awarded $49,977 in grant funding under DOJ's 
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program. Further, in fiscal 
year 2010, the Gila River court system was awarded $499,586 in grant 
funding as part of DOJ's Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation. 

Pueblo of Isleta: 

Land Area and Population: 

The Pueblo of Isleta covers 331 square miles in New Mexico and is 
between the District of Columbia and Rhode Island in size. Of the 
estimated 3,496 enrolled members of the pueblo, 58 percent, or 2,013 
live on the pueblo's lands. 

Figure 6: Location of Pueblo of Isleta: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of New Mexico depicting the location of 
Pueblo of Isleta] 

Source: Census Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Establishment of Court System and Relationship to Pueblo Council: 

The most recent revision to the constitution of the Pueblo of Isleta 
was adopted in 1991; however, according to tribal officials, Isleta 
has efforts underway to amend its constitution. In an effort to help 
address concerns about the court's perceived lack of autonomy, 
according to Isleta officials, the Tribal Council established the 
Judicial Law and Order Committee to conduct a review of the 
constitution that includes examining the authorities of each branch of 
tribal government. 

Tribal Code and Court Rules and Procedures: 

The Pueblo of Isleta's Law and Order Code was first adopted in 1965 
and revised in 2008. The Tribal Council established a committee to 
recommend amendments regarding the code to the Council. 

Structure of the Court System: 

The Pueblo of Isleta's court system is composed of a tribal and 
appellate court. The tribal court is presided over by one or more 
judges and has jurisdiction over all criminal and civil matters 
articulated in the Law and Order Code. The majority of the court's 
cases are adjudicated by applying federal or state law; however, the 
court seeks first to apply traditional law in cases where it may be 
applicable. The Tribal Council serves as the appellate court, and 
appeals are granted as a matter of right. However, the council may 
delegate its appellate authority to an appeal committee, appellate 
judge, or other appellate body established by the council. The 
constitution holds that all appeals decisions are final. 

Judicial Qualifications, Selection, Term Limits, and Removal: 

Judges are appointed by the tribal governor with the concurrence of a 
two-thirds majority of the council. According to the constitution, the 
Tribal Council is to prescribe the qualifications and terms of office 
for judges. The constitution states that judges' salaries may not be 
modified during the judges' term in office. The council is currently 
drafting an ordinance establishing qualifications and salaries for 
judges. Those convicted of felonies are not eligible to serve as a 
judge. Judges can be removed from office after a hearing and a two- 
thirds vote of the full council. 

Judicial Personnel and Court Staff: 

Because of funding limitations, according to officials, criminal 
investigators also serve as tribal prosecutors. 

Table 5: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Pueblo of Isleta: 

Position title: Tribal court judge; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Appellate judge; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Prosecutor; 
Number of staff: 0. 

Position title: Public defender; 
Number of staff: 0. 

Position title: Probation officer; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Bailiff; 
Number of staff: 0. 

Position title: Process server; 
Number of staff: 0. 

Position title: Court administrator; 
Number of staff: 0. 

Position title: Court clerk; 
Number of staff: 2. 

Position title: Other court staff; 
Number of staff: 2. 

Source: Pueblo of Isleta. 

[End of table] 

Caseload Information: 

Data about the court's caseload for 2008 through 2010 are not reported 
here as we were not able to obtain this information from the tribe. 

Funding Information: 

BIA told us that it distributed $76,923, $128,279, and $99,071 in 
fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. We were not able to 
obtain information from the tribe on how much of the funding was 
provided to the tribal court. Our review of DOJ grants awarded under 
the Tribal Court Assistance Program showed that the Pueblo of Isleta 
did not receive any grant funding for tribal courts initiatives for 
fiscal years 2008 through 2010. 

Pueblo of Laguna: 

Land Area and Population: 

The Pueblo of Laguna reservation covers 779 square miles in New Mexico 
and is between the District of Columbia and Rhode Island in size. Of 
the estimated 8,413 enrolled members in the pueblo, 4,315 live on or 
near the pueblo's lands; Laguna's total population, including 
nonpueblo members, is estimated at 5,352. 

Figure 7: Location of Pueblo of Laguna: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of New Mexico depicting the location of 
Pueblo of Laguna] 

Source: Census Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Establishment of Court System and Relationship to Pueblo Council: 

The Pueblo of Laguna's constitution, adopted in 1908, empowered the 
pueblo's Governor and certain members of the Tribal Council to 
function as the pueblo's court. A subsequent version of the 
constitution, adopted in 1949, maintained this judicial structure. In 
1958, the pueblo amended its constitution and thereby vested the 
Pueblo's judicial power in the Pueblo's tribal court, and in 1984, 
another constitutional amendment vested the pueblo's judicial power in 
the pueblo's tribal court and in an appellate court. Currently, the 
pueblo's Governor and certain members of the Tribal Council serve as 
the pueblo's appellate court, according to tribal officials. 

Tribal Code and Court Rules and Procedures: 

The pueblo has a written criminal code that was enacted in 1999, 
according to officials. The Tribal Secretary is responsible for 
keeping ordinances enacted by the Tribal Council. Revisions to the 
criminal code were pending adoption by the Tribal Council as of 
October 2010. The pueblo is in the process of adopting rules of 
judicial conduct and criminal procedure. 

Structure of the Court System: 

The Pueblo of Laguna's court system combines aspects of modern and 
traditional courts. The court relies on the written codes and laws of 
the pueblo, but they may also defer to the pueblo's traditions, when 
possible. The pueblo's court system includes a tribal court that 
adjudicates both civil and criminal matters, a juvenile court, and an 
appellate court that reviews cases from the lower courts. The 
appellate court is composed of the Governor and certain members of the 
Pueblo Council, though this composition of the appellate court is not 
provided for by constitution or code; rather it is to be established 
by ordinances passed by the Pueblo Council. 

Judicial Qualifications, Selection, Term Limits, and Removal: 

Judges must be law-trained, have a state bar license, and must have at 
least 1 year of judicial experience or related law practice, among 
other things. Judges are appointed by the Tribal Council for a term 
that does not exceed 3 years, and may be removed from office if 
convicted of a felony or if found to have grossly neglected the duties 
of the office. 

Judicial Personnel and Court Staff: 

The Pueblo of Laguna's court system employs one full-time contract 
judge and three part-time contract judges. In addition, the tribe 
employs two prosecutors, and a public defender, among other staff. 

Table 6: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Pueblo of Laguna: 

Position title: Tribal court judge; 
Number of staff: 4. 

Position title: Appellate judge; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Prosecutor; 
Number of staff: 2. 

Position title: Public defender; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Probation officer; 
Number of staff: 2. 

Position title: Bailiff; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Court administrator; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Court clerk; 
Number of staff: 3. 

Position title: Other court staff; 
Number of staff: 3. 

Source: Pueblo of Laguna. 

[End of table] 

Caseload Information: 

Traffic offenses, which are not reported in table 7 below, account for 
a large portion of the court's activity and are considered criminal 
offenses. For example, there were 2,685 traffic cases opened in 2009. 

Table 7: Pueblo of Laguna Civil and Criminal Caseload Data for 
Calendar Years 2008 and 2009: 

Type of case: Civil; 
2008: Carried over from prior year: Data not provided; 
2008: New cases filed: 308; 
2009: Carried over from prior year: 284; 
2009: New cases files: 238. 

Type of case: Criminal; 
2008: Carried over from prior year: Data not provided; 
2008: New cases filed: 711; 
2009: Carried over from prior year: 375; 
2009: New cases files: 845. 

Source: Pueblo of Laguna. 

[End of table] 

Funding Information: 

The Pueblo of Laguna court system's main funding sources are the 
tribal government and funding from the BIA. Additionally, in fiscal 
year 2010 the Pueblo of Laguna was awarded $350,000 for tribal courts 
initiatives under DOJ's Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation 
grant program. 

Navajo Nation: 

Land Area and Population: 

The Navajo Nation's land area totals 24,097 square miles and is mostly 
situated in Arizona though its boundaries extends into parts of New 
Mexico and Utah. The reservation is between Maryland and West Virginia 
in size. Of the estimated 292,023 enrolled members of the Navajo 
Nation, approximately 234,124, or about 80 percent, live on the 
reservation. 

Figure 8: Location of Navajo Nation: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and 
Utah depicting the location of the Navajo Nation] 

Source: Census Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Establishment of Court System and Relationship to Tribal Council: 

The Navajo Nation does not have a written constitution. However, the 
duties of the court system are documented in the Navajo Nation Codes. 
The tribal court was established in 1959. 

Tribal Code and Court Rules and Procedures: 

The Navajo Nation criminal code was created in 1959 and has been 
amended as necessary. The Legislative Council, within the legislative 
branch, is responsible for updating the code. The court system has 
rules of judicial conduct, criminal procedure, as well as rules of 
evidence. 

Structure of the Court System: 

Officials described the Navajo Nation court system as a modern system 
that continues to embody Navajo customs and traditions. The Chief 
Justice is the administrator of the judicial branch, which consists of 
10 District Courts, the Supreme Court of the Navajo Nation, and other 
courts that may be created by the Navajo Nation Council. The Navajo 
Nation Supreme Court comprises one Chief Justice and two Associate 
Justices. 

Judicial Qualifications, Selection, Term Limits, and Removal: 

The President of the Navajo Nation appoints Judges and Justices, who 
are appointed for a 2-year probation period. The appointees are 
selected from a panel recommended by the Judicial Committee of the 
Navajo Nation Council. After 2 years, the Judicial Committee can 
recommend a permanent appointment. If the Judge or Justice is 
recommended, the President submits the name to the Navajo Nation 
Council for confirmation. There are no term lengths; however, judges 
can be removed for cause. All judicial appointments must meet certain 
qualifications, including a higher education degree, preferably a law 
degree, and have work experience in law-related fields and a working 
knowledge of Navajo, state, and federal laws. Judges must be a member 
of the Navajo Nation Bar Association. 

Judicial Personnel and Court Staff: 

Only members in good-standing with the Navajo Nation Bar Association, 
including public defenders and prosecutors can provide legal 
representation in the court system. 

Table 8: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Navajo Nation: 

Position title: Tribal court judge; 
Number of staff: 17. 

Position title: Appellate judge; 
Number of staff: 3. 

Position title: Prosecutor; 
Number of staff: 32. 

Position title: Public defender; 
Number of staff: 12. 

Position title: Probation officer; 
Number of staff: 30. 

Position title: Bailiff; 
Number of staff: 16. 

Position title: Court administrator; 
Number of staff: 12. 

Position title: Court staff attorney; 
Number of staff: 12. 

Position title: Peacemaker staff; 
Number of staff: 13. 

Position title: Other court staff; 
Number of staff: 133. 

Source: Navajo Nation. 

[End of table] 

Caseload Information: 

The data provided in table 9 below comprises caseload information from 
the 10 District Courts, Family Courts, Probation, Peacemaking, and 
Supreme Court. As shown in the table below, criminal offenses account 
for much of the court's activity. 

Table 9: Navajo Nation Judicial Branch Civil and Criminal Caseload 
Data for Fiscal Years 2008 through 2010: 

Type of case: Civil; 
Fiscal Year 2008: Carried over from prior year: 2,122; 
Fiscal Year 2008: New cases filed: 3,237; 
Fiscal Year 2009: Carried over from prior year: 1,592; 
Fiscal Year 2009: New cases filed: 2,749; 
Fiscal Year 2010: Carried over from prior year: 1,279; 
Fiscal Year 2010: New cases filed: 2,523. 

Type of case: Criminal; 
Fiscal Year 2008: Carried over from prior year: 8,874; 
Fiscal Year 2008: New cases filed: 8,843; 
Fiscal Year 2009: Carried over from prior year: 6,366; 
Fiscal Year 2009: New cases filed: 7,826; 
Fiscal Year 2010: Carried over from prior year: 6,670; 
Fiscal Year 2010: New cases filed: 7, 457. 

Type of case: Civil traffic; 
Fiscal Year 2008: Carried over from prior year: 5,269; 
Fiscal Year 2008: New cases filed: 26,789; 
Fiscal Year 2009: Carried over from prior year: 6,924; 
Fiscal Year 2009: New cases filed: 23,634; 
Fiscal Year 2010: Carried over from prior year: 3,612; 
Fiscal Year 2010: New cases filed: 16,372. 

Type of case: Criminal traffic; 
Fiscal Year 2008: Carried over from prior year: 2,534; 
Fiscal Year 2008: New cases filed: 2,402; 
Fiscal Year 2009: Carried over from prior year: 2,222; 
Fiscal Year 2009: New cases filed: 2,209; 
Fiscal Year 2010: Carried over from prior year: 2,112; 
Fiscal Year 2010: New cases filed: 2,230. 

Type of case: Family civil; 
Fiscal Year 2008: Carried over from prior year: 947; 
Fiscal Year 2008: New cases filed: 1,936; 
Fiscal Year 2009: Carried over from prior year: 1,170; 
Fiscal Year 2009: New cases filed: 2,179; 
Fiscal Year 2010: Carried over from prior year: 1,284; 
Fiscal Year 2010: New cases filed: 2,074. 

Type of case: Domestic violence; 
Fiscal Year 2008: Carried over from prior year: 723; 
Fiscal Year 2008: New cases filed: 3,803; 
Fiscal Year 2009: Carried over from prior year: 716; 
Fiscal Year 2009: New cases filed: 4,572; 
Fiscal Year 2010: Carried over from prior year: 860; 
Fiscal Year 2010: New cases filed: 4,478. 

Type of case: Dependency; 
Fiscal Year 2008: Carried over from prior year: 266; 
Fiscal Year 2008: New cases filed: 230; 
Fiscal Year 2009: Carried over from prior year: 261; 
Fiscal Year 2009: New cases filed: 180; 
Fiscal Year 2010: Carried over from prior year: 241; 
Fiscal Year 2010: New cases filed: 228. 

Type of case: Delinquency; 
Fiscal Year 2008: Carried over from prior year: 268; 
Fiscal Year 2008: New cases filed: 481; 
Fiscal Year 2009: Carried over from prior year: 179; 
Fiscal Year 2009: New cases filed: 384; 
Fiscal Year 2010: Carried over from prior year: 215; 
Fiscal Year 2010: New cases filed: 354. 

Type of case: Child in need of services; 
Fiscal Year 2008: Carried over from prior year: 121; 
Fiscal Year 2008: New cases filed: 423; 
Fiscal Year 2009: Carried over from prior year: 133; 
Fiscal Year 2009: New cases filed: 301; 
Fiscal Year 2010: Carried over from prior year: 144; 
Fiscal Year 2010: New cases filed: 204. 

Type of case: Probation; 
Fiscal Year 2008: Carried over from prior year: 2,103; 
Fiscal Year 2008: New cases filed: 6,926; 
Fiscal Year 2009: Carried over from prior year: 1,387; 
Fiscal Year 2009: New cases filed: 7,076; 
Fiscal Year 2010: Carried over from prior year: 1,685; 
Fiscal Year 2010: New cases filed: 8,606. 

Type of case: Peacemaking; 
Fiscal Year 2008: Carried over from prior year: 206; 
Fiscal Year 2008: New cases filed: 741; 
Fiscal Year 2009: Carried over from prior year: 221; 
Fiscal Year 2009: New cases filed: 691; 
Fiscal Year 2010: Carried over from prior year: 265; 
Fiscal Year 2010: New cases filed: 951. 

Type of case: Supreme Court; 
Fiscal Year 2008: Carried over from prior year: 67; 
Fiscal Year 2008: New cases filed: 140; 
Fiscal Year 2009: Carried over from prior year: 92; 
Fiscal Year 2009: New cases filed: 129; 
Fiscal Year 2010: Carried over from prior year: 56; 
Fiscal Year 2010: New cases filed: 111. 

Source: Navajo Nation. 

[End of table] 

Funding Information: 

The Navajo Nation judicial branch is funded primarily by the tribal 
government. It is important to note that the funding supports the 
operations of the 10 districts courts, among other courts within the 
judiciary branch of the Navajo Nation. 

Oglala Sioux Tribe: 

Land Area and Population: 

The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation of the Oglala Sioux Tribe covers 
3,466 square miles in Southwest South Dakota, and is between Delaware 
and Connecticut in size. Of the estimated 47,000 enrolled members of 
the tribe, an estimated 29,000 Indian people live on the reservation. 

Figure 9: Location of Pine Ridge Indian Reservation of the Oglala 
Sioux Tribe: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of South Dakota depicting the location of 
the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation] 

Source: Census Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Establishment of Court System and Relationship to Tribal Council: 

The Oglala Sioux Tribe's court system was established by the tribe's 
constitution in 1936. A 2008 amendment to the tribe's constitution 
vests the tribe's judicial power in one Supreme Court and in other 
inferior tribal courts established by the Tribal Council. As amended, 
the constitution provides that the tribe's judiciary is independent 
from the legislative and executive branches of government. The 
Judiciary Committee of the Tribal Council oversees the administrative 
function of the court. 

Tribal Code and Court Rules and Procedures: 

In September 2002, the Oglala Sioux Tribal Council passed an ordinance 
to adopt its Criminal Offenses Code. In addition, the Oglala Sioux 
Tribe has adopted criminal procedures and court rules, which includes 
a judicial code of ethics. According to court officials, the tribal 
court generally applies federal rules of evidence. Further, the Tribal 
Council, through its Judiciary Committee, is responsible for 
maintaining and updating the Criminal Offenses Code. 

Structure of the Court System: 

The Oglala Sioux Tribe's court system combines aspects of modern and 
traditional approaches to administer justice, and is composed of the 
Supreme Court, a tribal court, and a juvenile court. The Supreme Court 
has appellate jurisdiction, and is composed of a Chief Justice, two 
Associate Justices, and one Alternate Justice.[Footnote 82] Given the 
vast size of the reservation, the tribe operates two courthouses, 
which are located in Pine Ridge, South Dakota and Kyle, South Dakota. 

Judicial Qualifications, Selection, Term Limits, and Removal: 

The Oglala Sioux Tribe's court system comprises a Chief Judge, 
associate judges,[Footnote 83] and Supreme Court justices. The Chief 
Judge of inferior courts, who oversees the inferior courts, must be 
law-trained and bar-licensed in any state or federal jurisdiction, and 
is elected by members of the tribe for a 4-year term. Justices of the 
Supreme Court must be law-trained and bar-licensed in any state or 
federal jurisdiction. They are appointed by the Tribal Council for 6- 
year terms. Any judge may be removed by a two-thirds vote of the 
Tribal Council for unethical judicial conduct, persistent failure to 
perform judicial duties, or gross misconduct that is clearly 
prejudicial to the administration of justice, among other things. 

Judicial Personnel and Court Staff: 

The Oglala Sioux Tribe's court system employed a Chief Judge, three 
associate judges, and two Supreme Court justices. The Oglala Sioux 
Attorney General's Office employed four tribal prosecutors--one of 
which is law-trained and bar licensed. 

Table 10: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Oglala Sioux Tribe: 

Position title: Tribal court judge; 
Number of staff: 5. 

Position title: Appellate judge; 
Number of staff: 2. 

Position title: Prosecutor; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Public defender; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Bailiff; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Court administrator; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Court clerk; 
Number of staff: 8. 

Position title: Other court staff; 
Number of staff: 1. 

[End of table] 

Source: Oglala Sioux Tribe. 

Caseload Information: 

Officials estimated that in 2009, there were approximately 1,245 civil 
cases and 7,470 criminal cases. Additional data about the court's 
caseload for fiscal years 2008 through 2010 are not reported as we 
were not able to obtain this information from the tribe. 

Funding Information: 

Based on data provided by the tribe, the Oglala Sioux court system did 
not receive any funding from the tribal government for fiscal years 
2008 through 2010. Rather, the main source of funding was from BIA. 

Pueblo of Pojoaque: 

Land Area and Population: 

The Pueblo of Pojoaque covers 21 square miles in New Mexico, and is 
smaller in size than the District of Columbia. Of the estimated 417 
enrolled members of the pueblo, an estimated 325 enrolled members live 
on the pueblo's lands. 

Figure 10: Location of Pueblo of Pojoaque: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of New Mexico depicting the location of 
Pueblo of Pojoaque] 

Source: Census Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Establishment of Court System and Relationship to Pueblo Council: 

The Pueblo of Pojoaque has not adopted a constitution, and, according 
to a court official, the tribal government operates in a traditional 
manner. From 1932 to 1978, the Pueblo of Pojoaque's Tribal Court 
operated according to tradition. For example, the pueblo's Governor or 
the Tribal Council served as the tribal court. In 1978, the tribal 
code formally established a court system. There are no distinct 
branches of government within the Pueblo of Pojoaque and a court 
official stated that the Tribal Council does not intervene in 
individual cases before the court. When the tribal court has concerns 
about the direction of the Tribal Council regarding court matters, 
such concerns are discussed openly at Tribal Council meetings and 
resolutions are passed and incorporated in the Tribal Law and Order 
Code, as needed. 

Tribal Code and Court Rules and Procedures: 

According to a court official, the Pueblo of Pojoaque's Tribal Law and 
Order Code was adopted in 1978. One of the court officials explained 
that the court's judges are responsible for suggesting code revisions 
to the Tribal Council, and that the Tribal Council amends the code by 
resolutions. Further, complete copies of the Tribal Law and Order Code 
are made available through the court. The Tribal Law and Order Code 
includes a criminal code as well as basic rules of procedure and 
evidence as many of the parties appearing before the court typically 
advocate on their own behalf rather than being represented by an 
attorney. The court system has adopted rules of judicial conduct, and, 
pursuant to the law and order code, judges are permitted to defer to 
either state or federal rules of procedure or evidence, and, according 
to the Chief Judge, this option is often exercised when both parties 
appearing before the court have legal representation. 

Structure of the Court System: 

The Pueblo of Pojoaque's court system combines aspects of modern and 
traditional courts, and includes a tribal court, a juvenile court, and 
traditional methods of dispute resolution. The Tribal Council serves 
as the pueblo's appellate court. 

Judicial Qualifications, Selection, Term Limits, and Removal: 

The Pueblo of Pojoaque's court system includes two types of judges--a 
Chief Judge and judges pro tempore--and the qualifications for these 
positions are identical. Judges are appointed by the Tribal Council 
and serve at the pleasure of the Pueblo Council and the Tribal 
Governor. Though there are no set educational requirements for judges, 
prospective judges who do not have a law degree must complete a 
specific training course in judicial proceedings within 6 months after 
being appointed as a judge. Age requirements and a background 
interview also apply. Given the small population of the pueblo, the 
Tribal Council prohibits judges, who are enrolled members of the 
pueblo, from hearing cases of other enrolled members, according to a 
court official. 

Judicial Personnel and Court Staff: 

The Pueblo of Pojoaque court system employed one full-time Chief 
Judge, one part-time judge pro tempore; two contract judges pro 
tempore, as needed; one part-time court clerk; and one full-time court 
and traffic court clerk. Tribal police, who are not law-trained, serve 
as prosecutors. 

Caseload Information: 

The caseload data reported below in table 11 does not reflect the 
number of civil and criminal matters that are resolved through 
traditional means and mediation. Traffic violations, which are not 
included in the table below, account for much of the court's activity. 
For example, in 2009, there were 7,316 traffic citations docketed, of 
which 825 resulted in a court hearing. 

Table 11: Pueblo of Pojoaque Civil and Criminal Caseload Data for 
Calendar Years 2008 and 2009: 

Type of case: Civil; 
2008: New cases filed: 68; 
2009: New cases filed: 59. 

Type of case: Criminal; 
2008: New cases filed: 70; 
2009: New cases filed: 76. 

Source: Pueblo of Pojoaque. 

[End of table] 

Funding Information: 

The Pueblo of Pojoaque court system's main funding sources are the 
tribal government and BIA funding. Generally, for fiscal years 2009 
and 2010, the BIA funding accounted for about 30 percent of the 
court's total funding. 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe: 

Land Area and Population: 

The Rosebud Indian Reservation of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe covers 1,971 
square miles in south-central South Dakota, as shown in figure 11 
below, and is between Rhode Island and Delaware in size. Of the 
estimated 29,710 enrolled members of the tribe, approximately 85 
percent, or 25,254, live on the reservation. 

Figure 11: Location of Rosebud Indian Reservation: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of South Dakota depicting the location of 
the Rosebud Indian Reservation] 

Source: Census Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Establishment of Court System and Relationship to Tribal Council: 

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe's court was established in 1975, according to 
officials, replacing the Court of Indian Offenses administered by BIA. 
A 2007 amendment to the tribe's constitution, which was originally 
adopted in 1935, established the tribal court as separate and distinct 
from the legislative and executive branches of the tribal government 
and established the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Supreme Court as the tribe's 
appellate court. The Tribal Council's Judiciary Committee helps to 
oversee the administration of court. 

Tribal Code and Court Rules and Procedures: 

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe's Law and Order Code was adopted in 1986 and 
is available by request from the Tribal Secretary's office, although 
tribal court officials indicated that the status of the code has been 
an ongoing concern. The Law and Order Code contains a criminal code 
and rules of criminal procedure. Additionally, officials noted that 
the code adopts by reference federal rules of evidence and requires 
tribal judges to conform their conduct to the Code of Judicial Conduct 
as adopted by the American Bar Association. 

Structure of the Court System: 

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe's court system is composed of a tribal court, 
a juvenile court, a limited mediation court, and an appellate court. 
While the court applies traditional methods of dispute resolution, 
officials described the court system as mostly modern in that it is 
modeled on federal and state court systems and applies federal rules 
of evidence and judicial conduct. It is traditional in that the Law 
and Order Code, which the courts apply, contains references to tribal 
customs. Further, in some cases, tribal courts include interested 
community members in the court proceedings. For example, in some 
family disputes, members of the community such as family members or 
concerned citizens may participate in the court process even though 
they are not parties appearing before the court. Decisions of the 
tribal court and juvenile court are subject to appellate review by the 
Rosebud Sioux's Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is composed of six 
justices, three of whom sit as a panel to hear a case. 

Judicial Qualifications, Selection, Term Limits, and Removal: 

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe's court system includes a Chief Judge, 
associate judges, and Supreme Court justices. The Chief Judge must be 
law-trained, bar-licensed, and admitted to practice before the U.S. 
District Court for South Dakota. The Chief Judge is appointed by the 
Tribal Council for a 4-year term. Associate judges are appointed by 
the Tribal Council for 2-year terms, and must have a high-school 
education or equivalent. Further, at least one associate judge must be 
bilingual in English and Lakota--the tribe's traditional language. Of 
the three justices in an appellate panel, two must be law-trained, bar-
licensed, and admitted to practice in the U.S. District Courts of 
South Dakota. One may be a lay judge who must have a high-school 
education or equivalent. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the 
Tribal Council for 5-year terms. Removal of any judge or justice must 
be for cause after a public hearing by the Tribal Council and by a two-
thirds vote of Tribal Council members present at the hearing. 

Judicial Personnel and Court Staff: 

As of October 2010, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe's court system employed a 
Chief Judge, two associate judges--one law-trained but not bar- 
licensed, and the other a lay judge--and four Supreme Court justices. 
There is one law-trained, bar-licensed tribal prosecutor, an assistant 
prosecutor who works mainly in juvenile court, a public defender, and 
an assistant public defender who works mainly in juvenile court. 
Additionally, in fiscal year 2010, the tribe received a DOJ grant to 
fund three additional attorney positions, though tribal officials 
stated that these positions may be difficult to fill because of 
recruitment and retention challenges. Tribal officials stated that the 
numbers of prosecutors and public defenders is inadequate for the 
tribes' caseload and affects the tribe's ability to effectively 
administer justice. 

Table 12: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Rosebud Sioux Tribe: 

Position title: Tribal court judge; 
Number of staff: 3. 

Position title: Prosecutor; 
Number of staff: 2. 

Position title: Public defender; 
Number of staff: 2. 

Position title: Probation officer; 
Number of staff: 4. 

Position title: Bailiff; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Court administrator; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Court clerk; 
Number of staff: 5. 

Source: Rosebud Sioux Tribe. 

[End of table] 

Caseload Information: 

Criminal offenses account for much of the court's caseload. Traffic 
violations are considered criminal offenses; however, they are not 
included in the data in the table below. 

Table 13: Rosebud Sioux Civil and Criminal Caseload Data for Calendar 
Years 2008 through 2010: 

Type of case: Civil; 
2008: New cases filed: 808; 
2009: New cases filed: 771; 
2010: New cases filed: 805. 

Type of case: Criminal; 
2008: New cases filed: 4,865; 
2009: New cases filed: 2,270; 
2010: New cases filed: 2,173. 

Source: Rosebud Sioux Tribe. 

[End of table] 

Funding Information: 

Based on data provided by officials for fiscal years 2008 through 
2010, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe court system is primarily funded by BIA, 
although the court received funding from other sources. 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe: 

Land Area and Population: 

The Standing Rock Reservation covers 3,654 square miles in south- 
central North Dakota and north-central South Dakota, and is between 
Connecticut and Delaware in size. Of the estimated 14,914 enrolled 
members of the tribe, 8,656 live on the reservation. 

Figure 12: Location of Standing Rock Reservation: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of North and South Dakota depicting the 
location of the Standing Rock Reservation] 

Source: Census Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Establishment of Court System and Relationship to Tribal Council: 

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Constitution, adopted in 1959, empowers 
the Tribal Council to establish courts on the reservation and define 
those courts' duties and powers. Exercising this constitutional 
authority, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council established the 
tribal court system. Further, the constitution vests the tribe's 
judicial authority in a Supreme Court and in a Tribal Court and 
specifies the process by which judges for these courts would be 
selected and removed, as described below. Subsequent amendments to the 
tribe's constitution did not alter these provisions. 

Tribal Code and Court Rules and Procedures: 

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's Code of Justice addresses criminal 
offenses, criminal procedure, and civil procedure, among other things. 
In addition, the Tribe's Rules of Court include provisions regarding 
civil procedure, criminal procedure, rules of evidence, among other 
things. However, court officials reported challenges in keeping the 
code current and stated that they do not have access to the entire 
code. 

Structure of the Court System: 

The court system is composed of a tribal court, a children's court, 
and a Supreme Court that has appellate jurisdiction over the tribe's 
other courts. The Supreme Court is composed of a chief justice and two 
associate justices. 

Judicial Qualifications, Selection, Term Limits, and Removal: 

The Code of Justice articulates the composition of the court as well 
as the qualifications, selection, and removal of judges. Specifically, 
the Supreme Court is to include a Chief Justice and Associate 
Justices. Additionally, the tribal court is to include a Chief Judge, 
Associate Chief Judge, and Associate Judges. The Chief Justice, Chief 
Judge, and Associate Chief Judge must be law-trained and bar-licensed. 
Associate justices and judges must have at least a high-school diploma 
or its equivalent. All justices and judges are appointed by the Tribal 
Council and face a retention election at the tribe's next election. 
Justices and judges retained then serve 4-year terms and may be 
removed from office for cause by a two-thirds vote of the Tribal 
Council. 

Judicial Personnel and Court Staff: 

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's court system employed three appellate 
judges, four tribal court judges, six court clerks, two prosecutors, 
one public defender, among other staff. Of the four tribal court 
judges, three are bar-licensed and one is law-trained but not bar- 
licensed. Of the three appellate judges, two are bar-licensed and one 
is a lay judge. 

Table 14: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Standing Rock Sioux 
Tribe: 

Position title: Tribal court judge; 
Number of staff: 3. 

Position title: Appellate judge; 
Number of staff: 3. 

Position title: Prosecutor; 
Number of staff: 2. 

Position title: Public defender; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Defense advocate; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Probation officer; 
Number of staff: 3. 

Position title: Bailiff; 
Number of staff: 2. 

Position title: Process server; 
Number of staff: 2. 

Position title: Court administrator; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Court clerk; 
Number of staff: 8. 

Position title: Other court staff; 
Number of staff: 7. 

Source: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. 

[End of table] 

Caseload Information: 

Criminal offenses account for much of the court's caseload. Traffic 
violations are considered criminal offenses; however, they are not 
included in the data in the table below. 

Table 15: Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court Caseload Data for Calendar 
Years 2008 and 2009: 

Type of case: Civil; 
2008: Carried over from prior year: 127; 
2008: New cases filed: 756; 
2009: Carried over from prior year: 174; 
2009: New cases filed: 735. 

Type of case: Criminal; 
2008: Carried over from prior year: Data not provided; 
2008: New cases filed: 3,171; 
2009: Carried over from prior year: Data not provided; 
2009: New cases filed: 2,979. 

Source: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. 

[End of table] 

Funding Information: 

For fiscal years 2008 through 2010, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal 
Court did not receive any funding from the tribal government and 
federal funding is the primary source of funding for the court, based 
on data provided by officials. The BIA funding has remained unchanged 
during this time. Additionally, officials told us that they received 
grant funding from the South Dakota Department of Corrections totaling 
$15,000 and $25,000 in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, respectively. 

Pueblo of Taos: 

Land Area and Population: 

The Pueblo of Taos covers 156 square miles north of Santa Fe, New 
Mexico, and is between the District of Columbia and Rhode Island in 
size. Of the estimated 2,500 enrolled members of the pueblo, 
approximately 1,800 members live on the pueblo's lands. 

Figure 13: Location of Pueblo of Taos: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of New Mexico depicting the location of 
Pueblo of Taos] 

Source: Census Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Establishment of Court System and Relationship to Pueblo Council: 

The Pueblo of Taos does not have a written constitution and has not 
established a separate judicial branch within its tribal government. 
Rather, according to officials, the pueblo has an unwritten social 
order that dates back to the pueblo's origins and continues to be 
practiced and adhered to. Officials noted that they are exploring the 
possibility of establishing three distinct branches within the tribal 
government that would include a judicial branch. The Pueblo is 
governed by a Tribal Governor and a War Chief, both of whom are 
appointed by the Tribal Council for a 1-year term and operate the 
pueblo's traditional courts. 

Tribal Code and Court Rules and Procedures: 

In 1986, the Tribal Council adopted the pueblo's law and order code. 
Tribal officials explained that the tribal court is responsible for 
updating the criminal code and the Tribal Council approves amendments 
or revisions. The Pueblo has not fully revised the code since its 
adoption but has efforts underway to update and revise the criminal 
code. The tribal court does not have rules of judicial conduct or 
rules of evidence. However, the tribal court applies federal rules of 
evidence and New Mexico state rules regarding judicial conduct. 
Officials noted that rules of judicial conduct and rules of evidence 
are to be developed as part of the law and order code update. The code 
is available in hard copy only, and is generally made available to 
parties appearing before the court. Officials expect that the law and 
order code will be available in electronic format once revisions are 
completed. 

Structure of the Court System: 

The Pueblo of Taos has two traditional courts and one tribal court. 
The Lieutenant Governor of the tribe serves as a Traditional Court 
Judge to hear both civil matters, such as contract violations, and 
family disputes. The War Chief also serves as a Traditional Court 
Judge and generally hears civil cases that involve disputes over land, 
natural resources, and fish and wildlife. The tribal court was 
established in the late-1980s to provide tribal members an alternative 
dispute resolution forum and to address the changes in the types of 
crimes being committed on the pueblo's lands. Further, according to 
officials, the tribal court is intended to supplement rather than 
replace the traditional courts. Officials explained that tribal 
members may choose to have their case heard before the traditional or 
tribal court; however, once the case is filed with either court, the 
parties cannot then request a transfer to the other court. The Pueblo 
of Taos does not have an appellate court. However, appeals can be made 
to the Traditional Court Judge, usually the Lieutenant Governor, to 
challenge tribal court decisions. In the future, the Pueblo of Taos 
may use the Southwest Intertribal Court of Appeals.[Footnote 84] 

Judicial Qualifications, Selection, Term Limits, and Removal: 

The Chief Judge is retained under contract, and the contract can be 
issued for up to 12 months. The Pueblo of Taos has not yet established 
requirements regarding selection, removal, and qualifications of 
judges, but expects to do so in the future. 

Judicial Personnel and Court Staff: 

The pueblo employs one tribal court judge for the modern court, who is 
not bar-licensed. Additionally, the pueblo does not have pubic 
defenders or prosecutors; rather, the police, who are not law-trained, 
serve as prosecutors in addition to their patrol duties. 

Caseload Information: 

Criminal cases account for much of the court's activity for fiscal 
years 2008 through 2010. 

Table 16: Pueblo of Taos Caseload Data for Calendar Years 2008 through 
2010: 

Type of case: Civil; 
2008: Carried over from prior year: Data not available; 
2008: New cases filed: 43; 
2009: Carried over from prior year: Data not available; 
2009: New cases files: 69; 
2010 (as of October 2010): Carried over from prior year: 20; 
2010 (as of October 2010): New cases filed: 25. 

Type of case: Criminal; 
2008: Carried over from prior year: [Empty]; 
2008: New cases filed: 468; 
2009: Carried over from prior year: [Empty]; 
2009: New cases files: 394; 
2010 (as of October 2010): Carried over from prior year: Data not 
available; 
2010 (as of October 2010): New cases filed: 235. 

Source: Pueblo of Taos. 

[End of table] 

Funding Information: 

Based on data provided by officials for fiscal years 2008 through 
2010, with the exception of fiscal year 2009, BIA funding accounted 
for much of the court system's entire budget. 

Three Affiliated Tribes: 

Land Area and Population: 

The Fort Berthold Reservation of the Three Affiliated Tribes covers 
1,578 square miles in northwest North Dakota, and is between Rhode 
Island and Delaware in size. Of the 11,993 enrolled members of the 
tribe, about half live on the reservation. 

Figure 14: Location of the Fort Berthold Reservation of Three 
Affiliated Tribes: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of North Dakota depicting the location of 
the Fort Berthold Reservation] 

Source: Census Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Establishment of Court System and Relationship to Tribal Council: 

According to officials, the Three Affiliated Tribe's court system was 
established by the Tribal Business Council[Footnote 85] in the 1930s. 
Further, officials estimated that in the 1990s, an amendment to the 
constitution established the court's authority. The Tribal Business 
Council has a Judicial Committee, composed of tribal council members, 
that regularly reviews court operations such as funding, staffing, and 
evaluation, among other things. 

Tribal Code and Court Rules and Procedures: 

The Three Affiliated Tribes have a tribal code that, according to a 
court official, was developed in 1935. The tribal code contains a 
criminal code, although officials stated that the court does not have 
rules of criminal procedure. The code also has a section that 
addresses federal rules of evidence. According to court officials, it 
is not always clear what the current law is because the tribal code is 
not kept up-to-date. 

Structure of the Court System: 

The Three Affiliated Tribes' court system combines aspects of modern 
and traditional courts. The court is modern in that it applies the 
tribal code; the court is traditional in that tribal members and court 
staff are personally acquainted, tribal members who appear before the 
court readily accept tribal laws that regulate conduct on the 
reservation, and Indian language is sometimes used in court. The court 
system includes a tribal court and a juvenile court. Appeals from 
either of these courts are addressed by an intertribal appeals court, 
the Northern Plains Intertribal Court.[Footnote 86] 

Judicial Qualifications, Selection, Term Limits, and Removal: 

The Three Affiliated Tribe's court system includes a Chief Judge and 
associate judges, also called magistrate judges. Court officials 
reported that all judges must be law-trained, bar-licensed members of 
the tribes. However, at their discretion, the Tribal Council may 
overrule the requirement that judges must be members of the tribe. The 
Chief Judge is elected tribal members for a 4-year term. Associate 
Judges are appointed by the Tribal Council for 1-year terms. All 
judges may be removed by the Tribal Council for cause. 

Judicial Personnel and Court Staff: 

As of November 2010, the Three Affiliated Tribes' court system 
employed a law-trained Chief Judge, two law-trained associate judges, 
a prosecutor, and a public defender, among other staff. Prosecutors 
are not required to be law-trained or bar-licensed, according to 
officials. 

Table 17: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Three Affiliated 
Tribes: 

Position title: Tribal court judge; 
Number of staff: 2. 

Position title: Prosecutor; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Public defender; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Probation officer; 
Number of staff: 2. 

Position title: Bailiff; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Court administrator; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Court clerk; 
Number of staff: 4. 

Position title: Other court staff; 
Number of staff: 4. 

Source: Three Affiliated Tribes. 

[End of table] 

Caseload Information: 

Criminal offenses account for the majority of the court's caseload. 
Traffic violations are considered civil matters; however, they are not 
included in the data in the table below. 

Table 18: Three Affiliated Tribes Civil and Criminal Caseload Data for 
Calendar Years 2008 through 2010: 

Type of case: Civil; 
2008: Carried over from prior year: Data not provided; 
2008: New cases filed: 416; 
2009: Carried over from prior year: Data not provided; 
2009: New cases files: 607; 
2010: Carried over from prior year: Data not provided; 
2010: New cases filed: 693. 

Type of case: Criminal; 
2008: Carried over from prior year: Data not provided; 
2008: New cases filed: Data not provided; 
2009: Carried over from prior year: Data not provided; 
2009: New cases files: 2,362; 
2010: Carried over from prior year: 97; 
2010: New cases filed: 3,000. 

Source: Three Affiliated Tribes. 

[End of table] 

Funding Information: 

Based on data provided by the tribe, the Three Affiliated Tribes court 
systems' main funding sources are the tribal government and BIA. 

Tohono O'odham Nation: 

Land Area and Population: 

The Tohono O'odham Nation covers 4,456 square miles within Arizona, 
although it encompasses land on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. 
Tohono O'odham Nation is between Delaware and Connecticut in size. Of 
the 29,974 members of Tohono O'odham Nation, approximately 13,035, or 
43 percent, live on the reservation. 

Figure 15: Location of Tohono O'odham Nation: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of Arizona depicting the location of the 
Tohono O'odham Nation] 

Source: Census Bureau. 

[End of figure] 

Establishment of Court System and Relationship to Tribal Council: 

The Tohono O'odham Nation adopted its most recent constitution in 
1986, which replaced an earlier constitution from 1937. The 
constitution established a judicial branch and articulates the powers 
and duties of the court. The judicial branch is an independent branch 
within the tribal government, according to officials. 

Tribal Code and Court Rules and Procedures: 

The Tohono O'odham Nation's criminal code was adopted in 1985 and 
subsequently has been updated by the legislative branch with input 
from the Tohono O'odham Prosecutor's Office and Attorney General's 
Office. The most updated code is available on the tribe's website. The 
judicial branch has adopted Arizona rules of criminal procedure, with 
modification, and has also adopted Arizona rules of evidence. 

Structure of the Court System: 

The Tohono O'odham Nation's court system is composed of a tribal 
court, an appeals court, children's court, family court, traffic 
court, and criminal court. The chief judge is the constitutionally-
mandated administrative head of the judicial branch and oversees the 
operations and decisions of the court. Appellate cases are heard by a 
three-judge panel, designated by the chief judge. In order to hear the 
appeal, the appellate judges must not have presided over the original 
case. Appeals panel decisions are final. 

Judicial Qualifications, Selection, Term Limits, and Removal: 

The legislative branch of Tohono O'odham Nation is responsible for the 
selection of tribal court judges. The judges of Tohono O'odham Nation 
select a chief judge from among themselves, who serves as the chief 
administrative officer for the judiciary and serves in that capacity 
for 2 years. Potential judges pro tempore are referred by the chief 
judge to the Judiciary Committee of the Tribal Council. All judges are 
appointed by the legislative branch. The six full time judges mandated 
by the constitution are appointed for 6-year terms that are staggered. 
However, judges may be reappointed to the bench upon application. 
Judges pro tempore are typically appointed to a term of no more than 6 
years. Judicial qualifications, which changed in 2008, include 
preferences for members of federally-recognized Indian tribes, with 
first preference given to qualified, enrolled members of the Tohono 
O'odham Nation. Further, persons with felony or recent misdemeanor 
convictions are not eligible. Finally, the candidate must be either a 
bar-admitted, Indian-law experienced attorney, or possess a bachelor's 
degree and have work experience and training in judicial or law-
related fields. Judges may be removed by vote of the Legislative 
Council upon the petition of a tribal member for felony convictions, 
malfeasance in office, among other things. 

Judicial Personnel and Court Staff: 

Tohono O'odham Nation has 6 full-time judges, 6 prosecutors, 6 full- 
time public defenders, and approximately 100 support staff, among 
other staff. 

Table 19: Judicial Personnel and Court Staff of Tohono O'odham Nation: 

Position title: Tribal court judge; 
Number of staff: 10. 

Position title: Prosecutor; 
Number of staff: 6. 

Position title: Legal advocates; 
Number of staff: 10. 

Position title: Public defender; 
Number of staff: 6. 

Position title: Probation officer; 
Number of staff: 19. 

Position title: Bailiff/Court officer; 
Number of staff: 4. 

Position title: Process server; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Court administrator; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Court clerk; 
Number of staff: 1. 

Position title: Other court staff; 
Number of staff: 61. 

Source: Tohono O'odham Nation. 

[End of table] 

Caseload Information: 

Criminal cases accounted for more than 85 percent of the court's 
docket as shown in table 20 below. 

Table 20: Tohono O'odham Court Civil and Criminal Caseload Data for 
Calendar Years 2008 through 2010: 

Type of case: Civil; 
New cases filed 2008: 278; 
New cases filed 2009: 255; 
New cases filed 2010: 279. 

Type of case: Criminal; 
New cases filed 2008: 3,747; 
New cases filed 2009: 4,641; 
New cases filed 2010: 3,940. 

Type of case: Traffic; 
New cases filed 2008: 1,304; 
New cases filed 2009: 1,782; 
New cases filed 2010: 1,858. 

Type of case: Children's (Civil); 
New cases filed 2008: 168; 
New cases filed 2009: 192; 
New cases filed 2010: 149. 

Type of case: Child Offender; 
New cases filed 2008: 458; 
New cases filed 2009: 472; 
New cases filed 2010: 342. 

Type of case: Appellate; 
New cases filed 2008: 2; 
New cases filed 2009: 0; 
New cases filed 2010: 2. 

Source: Tohono O'odham Nation. 

[End of table] 

Funding Information: 

Tohono O'odham Nation's court was funded, for the most part, by the 
tribal government during fiscal years 2008 through 2010, though the 
tribe received BIA funding. Additionally, a court official explained 
that in fiscal year 2006, DOJ awarded an Indian Alcohol and Substance 
Abuse grant totaling $500,000 that permitted the tribe to implement 
the grant over a 3-year period through fiscal year 2009. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice: 

U.S. Department of Justice: 
Office of Justice Programs: 
Office of the Assistant Attorney General: 
Washington, DC 20531: 

February 1, 2011: 

Mr. David C. Maurer: 
Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Maurer: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled, "Indian Country Criminal 
Justice: Departments of Interior and Justice Should Strengthen 
Coordination to Support Tribal Courts" (GAO-11-252). The draft GAO 
report contains one Recommendation for Executive Action to the U.S. 
Deportment of Justice (1301). which is restated in bold text below and 
is followed by our response. 

To maximize the efficiency and effectiveness or each agency's efforts 
to support tribal courts by increasing interagency coordination and 
improving information sharing, we recommend that the Attorney General 
and the Secretary of the Interior direct DOJ's Office of Justice 
Programs and BIA's Office of Justice Services, respectively, to work 
together to develop mechanisms, using GAO collaboration practices as a 
guide, to identify and share information and resources related to 
tribal courts. 

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) agrees with the Recommendation 
for Executive Action, and appreciates the feedback provided by GAO. 
Recognizing the need for better coordination on tribal court issues, 
OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs' (BIA's) Office of Justice Services, have discussed enhancing 
coordination in this area. The discussions between BJA and BIA have 
focused on: 

* establishing a Memorandum of Understanding to support collaboration 
efforts between the agencies; 

* coordinating training activities; 

* sharing information about current grant activities to assist BIA in 
anticipating future requests from tribes for Section 638 contract 
funding, to support sustainability of BJA's investments in new tribal 
courts; 

* exploring strategies to coordinate funding requests during the 
application phase to reduce potential duplication and to expand the 
information available to both agencies to inform funding priorities; 
and; 

* forming a committee to engage staff across DOJ and BIA to address 
the range of issues impacting tribal courts throughout the United 
States. 

If you have any questions regarding this response, you or your staff 
may contact Maureen Henneberg, Director, Office of Audit Assessment, 
and Management, at (202)616-3282. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Laurie O. Robinson: 
Assistant Attorney General: 

cc: 

Phillip Merkle: 
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Operations and Management: 

James H. Burch, II: 
Acting Director: 
Bureau of Justice Assistance: 

Leigh Benda: 
Chief Financial Officer: 

Maureen Henneberg: 
Director: 
Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management: 

Richard P. Theis: 
Audit Liaison: 
Department of Justice: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

David Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, William Crocker and Glenn 
Davis, Assistant Directors and Candice Wright, analyst-in-charge, 
managed this review. Ami Ballenger and Christoph Hoashi-Erhardt made 
significant contributions to the work. Christine Davis and Thomas 
Lombardi provided significant legal support and analysis. David 
Alexander provided significant assistance with design and methodology. 
Katherine Davis provided assistance in report preparation. Melissa 
Bogar and Rebecca Rygg made contributions to the work during the final 
phase of the review. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (TLOA), Pub. L. No. 111-211, tit. 
II, 124 Stat. 2258, 2261. 

[2] The term "Indian country" refers to all land within the limits of 
any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, 
all dependent Indian communities within U.S. borders, and all existing 
Indian allotments, including any rights-of-way running through an 
allotment. See 18 U.S.C. § 1151. 

[3] Criminal jurisdiction in Indian country, including jurisdiction 
exercised by state governments, will be discussed in more detail later 
in this report. 

[4] Nonprobability sampling is a method of sampling when 
nonstatistical judgment is used to select members of the sample, using 
specific characteristics of the population as criteria. Results from 
nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences about a 
population because in a nonprobability sample, some elements of the 
population being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being 
selected as part of the sample. 

[5] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/AO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005). 

[6] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] and GAO, 
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.: 
November 1999). 

[7] This is the second of two efforts related to tribal justice issues 
that we reviewed in response to your request during this time. The 
results of the first effort were issued in December 2010 and are 
focused on DOJ declinations of Indian country matters. See GAO, U.S. 
Department of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-167R] (Washington, 
D.C.: Dec. 13, 2010). 

[8] See, e.g., Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 55-56 
(1978) (citing United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978)). See 
also 25 U.S.C. § 1301(2) (defining an Indian tribe's power of self- 
government). 

[9] See United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 200-01 (2004) 
(referencing the Indian Commerce Clause, U.S. CONST., art. I, § 8, cl. 
3, and the Treaty Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, as 
authority for the federal regulation of Indian affairs). 

[10] See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152 (codifying the General Crimes Act, as 
amended), 1153 (codifying the Major Crimes Act, as amended), and 1162 
(codifying Public Law 280, as amended). 

[11] See Pub. L. No. 90-284, tit. II, 82 Stat. 73, 77 (1968) (codified 
as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-41). 

[12] Of the 191 tribal law enforcement agencies that BIA supports, 151 
are operated by the tribes through self-determination contracts or 
self-governance compacts, with the remaining facilities operated 
directly by BIA. Additionally, BIA directly operates 19 of the 91 
tribal detention programs, and 62 are operated by the tribes through 
self-determination contracts or self-governance compacts. The 
remaining 10 detention facilities are suspended or closed for 
services, according to BIA, due to lack of adequate staffing. 

[13] See generally Department of the Interior, Environment, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-88, 123 
Stat. 2904, 2916 (2009). 

[14] See American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 
111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 168. The following tribal detention centers 
received Recovery Act funding for improvement and repairs: Fort 
Belknap Detention Center in Montana, Hopi Detention Center in Arizona, 
Turtle Mountain Detention Center in North Dakota, and Walter Minor 
Detention Center in South Dakota. 

[15] BIA also operates Courts of Indian Offenses to provide judicial 
services for tribes that do not have a tribal court. 

[16] Two additional DOJ components also play a role in investigating 
Indian country crimes. First, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 
and Explosives assists tribal governments in combating gang violence 
and offenses involving firearms. Second, the Drug Enforcement 
Administration works with tribes to combat smuggling, distribution, 
and abuse of controlled substances. 

[17] The Office on Community Oriented Policing Services, Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office on 
Violence Against Women also provide grant funding, training, and 
technical assistance to tribes to help them address a range of public 
safety issues. 

[18] See Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. at 130. 

[19] See Pub. L. No. 111-211, tit. II, § 202(b), 124 Stat. at 2263. 

[20] TLOA authorizes tribal courts to sentence convicted offenders to 
prison for up to 3 years per offense and sets forth conditions under 
which a tribal court may exercise this authority. See 18 U.S.C. § 
1302(b). Tribal courts have authority to impose fines instead of, or 
in addition to, a term of imprisonment; however, officials noted that 
this is not a viable form of punishment as Indian offenders typically 
lack the resources to pay a fine given the dire economic conditions in 
Indian country. 

[21] Federal jurisdiction over non-Indian offenders in Indian country 
is generally limited to circumstances where there is an Indian victim; 
if both parties are non-Indian, the state in which the offense 
occurred, and not the federal government, has jurisdiction to 
prosecute the offender. 

[22] BIA and FBI officials told us that they currently have efforts 
underway to collect and track a range of Indian country crime data to 
include the status of victims and offenders as Indian or non-Indian 
for reported crimes. 

[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-167R]. 

[24] An "ex parte communication" is generally a communication between 
counsel and the court when opposing counsel in not present. Black's 
Law Dictionary, p. 316 (9th ed. 2009). 

[25] When this report refers to the tribal government as a source of 
funding it refers to funding generated by tribal activities, not 
federal funding passed through the tribal government. 

[26] See 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(10). 

[27] See 25 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 

[28] See 28 U.S.C. § 543; 25 U.S.C. § 2810(d). 

[29] See 25 U.S.C. § 2809. 

[30] See Pub. L. No. 111-121, tit. II, § 234(c), 124 Stat. at 2281-82 
(defining "violent crime" as one comparable to those listed in the 
Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153(a)) for which the sentence includes 
a term of imprisonment of 2 or more years). 

[31] DOJ allocated additional prosecutors in the four district offices 
as follows: Arizona (5), New Mexico (2), North Dakota (1), and South 
Dakota (2). The remaining 20 prosecutors were allocated among 17 
district USAOs across the United States. See 25 U.S.C. § 2810 
(requiring the USAO in each district that includes Indian country to 
appoint not less than one AUSA to serve as a tribal liaison for the 
district). 

[32] The Menominee Indian Tribe in Wisconsin will also participate in 
the Community Prosecution Pilot Project. 

[33] See 25 U.S.C. § 1302(c). 

[34] The law, however, does not require that a tribe hire a full-time 
public defender to exercise the sentencing authority extended under 
TLOA; rather defendants must be afforded the right to effective 
assistance of counsel (enabling a defendant to appeal a conviction due 
to the ineffective assistance of counsel) and an indigent defendant 
must be provided the assistance of licensed defense attorney at the 
tribe's expense. See 25 U.S.C. § 1302(c)(1)-(2). 

[35] See 25 U.S.C. § 2804. 

[36] See 28 U.S.C. § 543; 25 U.S.C. § 2810. 

[37] The SAUSA designation, however, only enables a tribal prosecutor 
to pursue an offense in federal court if the federal government would 
otherwise have jurisdiction to prosecute the offense. 

[38] While a tribe with a SAUSA-appointed prosecutor may be better 
situated to present criminal investigations to the USAO, pre-TLOA law 
did not preclude tribal law enforcement or prosecutors from presenting 
criminal investigations to the USAO. 

[39] See 25 U.S.C. § 2809. 

[40] See Pub. L. No. 111-211, tit. II, § 234(c), 124 Stat. at 2281-82 
(defining "violent crime" as one comparable to those listed in the 
Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153(a)) for which the sentence includes 
a term of imprisonment of 2 or more years). The statute further 
requires BOP to notify Congress if the demand for participation in the 
pilot exceeds 100 tribal offenders. 

[41] See 25 U.S.C. § 2802(f). 

[42] A Presidential Memorandum dated November 2009 directed federal 
departments and agencies to develop plans, after consultation with 
Indian tribes and tribal officials, for implementing the policies and 
directives of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments. See 74 Fed. Reg. 57,881 (Nov. 9, 2009) 
(referencing Exec. Ord. No. 13,175, 65 Fed. Reg. 67,249 (Nov. 9, 
2000)). 

[43] The Planning Alternatives and Correctional Institutions for 
Indian Country Advisory Committee comprises of federal stakeholders 
from the Indian Health Services and the Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration within the Department of Health and 
Human Services; the Department of Housing and Urban Development; BIA 
entities including the Division of Corrections, Office of Facilities 
Management and Construction, Office of Justice Services, and Bureau of 
Indian Education within DOI; and OJP entities such as BJA and Office 
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Executive Office of 
the U.S. Attorneys, the National Institute on Corrections, and Office 
of Tribal Justice, among others, within DOJ. 

[44] In developing these approaches, the Advisory Committee is to draw 
on each agency's expertise and lessons learned. 

[45] TLOA requires that DOJ, in coordination with DOI, submit a report 
to the appropriate committees of Congress not later than 4 years after 
the date of enactment (July 29, 2010) describing the effectiveness of 
the enhanced tribal sentencing authority in curtailing violence and 
improving the administration of justice on Indian lands, along with a 
recommendation on whether the authority should be discontinued, 
enhanced, or maintained. See Pub. L. No. 111-211, tit. II, § 234(b), 
124 Stat. at 2281. 

[46] In addition to the tribal courts and tribal detention task 
forces, BIA and DOJ have established three additional task forces that 
are to focus on Indian country law enforcement training, violence 
against women in tribal communities, and Indian country crime data 
collection. 

[47] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. The 
collaboration practices that we have identified generally consist of 
two or more agencies (1) defining and articulating a common outcome; 
(2) establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies to achieve 
the outcome; (3) identifying and addressing needs by leveraging 
resources; (4) agreeing upon agency roles and responsibilities; (5) 
establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other means to 
operate across agency boundaries; (6) developing mechanisms to 
monitor, evaluate, and report the results of collaborative efforts; 
(7) reinforcing agency accountability for collaborative efforts 
through agency plans and reports; and (8) reinforcing individual 
accountability for collaborative efforts through agency performance 
management systems. 

[48] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. We will 
discuss our evaluation of another of the eight practices--leveraging 
resources--in the next section of the report. 

[49] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[50] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[51] Nonprobability sampling is a method of sampling when 
nonstatistical judgment is used to select members of the sample, using 
specific characteristics of the population as criteria. Results from 
nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences about a 
population because in a nonprobability sample, some elements of the 
population being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being 
selected as part of the sample. 

[52] We interviewed tribal justice officials from the following tribes 
in Arizona: Gila River Indian Community, Navajo Nation, and Tohono 
O'odham Nation. New Mexico tribes we covered included the Pueblos of 
Isleta, Laguna, Pojoaque, and Taos. In North Dakota, we met with 
tribal justice officials from Standing Rock Sioux and Three Affiliated 
Tribes. Lastly, the South Dakota tribes we covered included Cheyenne 
River Sioux, Oglala Sioux, and Rosebud Sioux tribes. 

[53] Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-211, tit. II, 
124 Stat. 2258, 2261. 

[54] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[55] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[56] This is the second of two efforts related to tribal justice 
issues that we reviewed in response to your request during this time. 
The results of the first effort were issued in December 2010 and are 
focused on DOJ declinations of Indian country criminal matters. See 
GAO, U.S. Department of Justice declinations of Indian Country 
Criminal Matters, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-167R] 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 13, 2010). 

[57] See, e.g., Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 55-56 
(1978) (citing, among others, United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 
323-324 (1978)). See also 25 U.S.C. § 1301(2) (defining an Indian 
tribe's power of self-government). 

[58] See United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 200 (2004) (referencing 
the Indian Commerce Clause, U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and the 
Treaty Clause, U.S. Const., art. II, § 2, cl. 2, as authority for the 
federal regulation of Indian affairs). 

[59] See 18 U.S.C. § 1152 (codifying the General Crimes Act, as 
amended). The Assimilative Crimes Act, enacted in 1825 and 
subsequently amended, further extends federal criminal jurisdiction 
into Indian country by authorizing the federal government to prosecute 
offenses punishable as a violation of the law of the state in which it 
was committed if not otherwise addressed by federal law. See 18 U.S.C. 
§ 13 (codifying the Assimilative Crimes Act, as amended). In effect, 
the federal government enforces a gap in federal law by incorporating 
or applying state law to the offense. 

[60] Specifically, the General Crimes Act, as amended, precludes the 
exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction in Indian country where both 
parties are Indian, the Indian offender has already been punished by 
the local law of the tribe, and where, by treaty stipulation, the 
offense is within a tribe's exclusive jurisdiction. See 18 U.S.C. § 
1152. Where both parties are non-Indian, the state in which the 
offense occurs has criminal jurisdiction. See U.S. v. McBratney, 104 
U.S. 621 (1881) (holding that non-Indian against non-Indian crimes are 
subject to state jurisdiction, based upon the state's authority to 
exercise criminal jurisdiction over its own citizens throughout its 
territorial limits, including any Indian country within those limits). 

[61] See 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (codifying the Major Crimes Act, as amended). 

[62] The enumerated offenses are: murder; manslaughter; kidnapping; 
maiming; felony provisions of the Sexual Abuse Act of 1986, as 
amended; incest; assault with intent to commit murder; assault with a 
dangerous weapon; assault resulting in serious bodily injury; assault 
against an individual who has not attained the age of 16 years; felony 
child abuse or neglect; arson; burglary; robbery; and felony larceny, 
theft, and embezzlement. See 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a). The federal 
government also has jurisdiction to prosecute crimes of general 
applicability, such as violations of the Controlled Substances Act of 
1970, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., and certain other crimes that relate 
specifically to Indian tribal organizations and resources, without 
regard for the Indian status of the alleged offender or victim. See 
generally 18 U.S.C. §§ 1154-70. 

[63] See Langley v. Ryder, 778 F.2d 1092, 1095-96 (5th Cir. 1985) 
(citing, among others, Oliphant v. Saquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 
191 (1978) and Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382 (1976)). See 
also Felix Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, § 6.03(1)(a), (2005 
ed.) (1941). 

[64] See 18 U.S.C. § 1162 (codifying Public Law 280, as amended). 

[65] Although § 1162 establishes certain exceptions to state criminal 
jurisdiction within each state, this report focuses on the 
relationship between the federal and tribal governments and therefore 
does not include a detailed discussion of the extent or exercise of 
state criminal jurisdiction in Indian country. Section 221(b) of the 
recently enacted TLOA, however, further amends § 1162 by enabling the 
federal government to assume jurisdiction under the General Crimes Act 
and Major Crimes Act in the Indian Country areas of a requesting tribe 
otherwise subject to exclusive state jurisdiction. Upon the request of 
such a tribe and with the Attorney General's consent, the federal 
government shall have concurrent jurisdiction with that of the state 
and, where applicable, the tribe. 

[66] See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321 (authorizing a state to assume 
criminal jurisdiction over areas of Indian country with the consent of 
the Indian tribes occupying those areas, though such jurisdiction is 
to be concurrent with the federal government at the request of an 
Indian tribe and with the Attorney General's consent) and 1323 
(authorizing the United States to accept a state decision to retrocede 
part or all of its jurisdiction over Indian country to the federal 
government). See also, e.g., Act of May 31, 1946, ch. 279, 60 Stat. 
229 (conferring criminal jurisdiction over Devil's Lake, now Spirit 
Lake, Indian Reservation to North Dakota). 

[67] Pub. L. No. 90-284, tit. II, 82 Stat. 73, 77 (1968) (codified as 
amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-41). See Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 
56-58 (explaining that tribes, as separate sovereigns preexisting the 
Constitution, "have historically been regarded as unconstrained by 
those constitutional provisions specifically as limitations on federal 
or state authority" and that through 25 U.S.C. § 1302 (enacted as 
amended through Indian Civil Rights Act), "Congress acted to impose 
certain restrictions upon tribal governments similar, but not 
identical, to those contained in the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth 
Amendment"). 

[68] See 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(1), (8). 

[69] 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(3)-(4), (7)(A). 

[70] 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(6). 

[71] 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(10). 

[72] See 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(7)(B). 

[73] See Pub. L. No. 111-211, tit. II, § 234(a)(3), 123 Stat. 2258, 
2280-81 (2010) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1302(b)). 

[74] See 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(7)(C), (b). The maximum penalty or 
punishment that may arise from any single criminal proceeding (e.g., 
if a defendant is convicted of multiple offenses) may not exceed 9 
years imprisonment. See 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(7)(D). 

[75] See § 1302(c). This enhanced sentencing authority neither affects 
the preexisting tribal authority to sentence defendants to prison for 
a period of up to 1 year for an offense nor does it afford indigent 
defendants a right to counsel at the tribe's expense when sentenced 
for a period of up to 1 year for an offense. 

[76] See United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 210 (2004) (holding that 
the double jeopardy clause did not prohibit the federal government 
from prosecuting a defendant where the tribe had already prosecuted 
and convicted the defendant for an offense involving the same instance 
and conduct for which the federal government sought to prosecute). 

[77] The Navajo Nation extends into three states: Arizona, New Mexico, 
and Utah. For purposes of this report, we counted Navajo Nation among 
the Arizona tribes we visited because the tribal government offices 
and the main district court of the tribe are headquartered in Window 
Rock, Arizona. 

[78] The Standing Rock Sioux Reservation is situated in North Dakota 
and South Dakota. For purposes of this report, we counted the Standing 
Rock Sioux Tribe among the North Dakota tribes we visited because the 
tribal government offices and the tribal court are headquartered in 
Fort Yates, ND. 

[79] An enrolled member is a person whose name appears on the formally 
approved membership roll of a tribe. Enrolled members may reside 
anywhere in the world. 

[80] When this report refers to the tribal government as a source of 
funding it refers to funding generated by tribal activities, not 
federal funding passed through the tribal government. 

[81] Under the JABG, DOJ, through OJJDP, provides funds as block 
grants to qualifying states and U.S. territories to implement 
accountability-based programs and services that are designed to reduce 
juvenile crime and strengthen the juvenile justice system. The JABG is 
a competitive bock grant program wherein local and tribal governments 
can apply to state governments for funds to support local juvenile 
justice programs. 

[82] Alternate Justices will hear cases where there are instances of 
conflicts or other permanent judges are otherwise unavailable. 

[83] The Oglala Sioux Tribe's constitution provides for "inferior 
court judges." As many of the other tribes use the term "associate 
judges" to describe analogous positions, we use the term "associate 
judges" here. 

[84] The Southwest Intertribal Court of Appeals hears appeals from 
tribal courts for federally recognized tribes located in Arizona, 
Colorado, New Mexico, and west Texas. 

[85] The Tribal Business Council is the Tribe's governing body. 

[86] The Northern Plains Intertribal Court of Appeals is a consortia 
court that hears appeals from seven Indian tribes in North Dakota, 
South Dakota, and Nebraska including: Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Omaha 
Tribe of Nebraska, Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux 
Tribe, Spirit Lake Tribe, Three Affiliated Tribes, and Yankton Sioux 
Tribe. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: