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. 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. 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. 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. Attorneys (SAUSA), including the appointment of tribal prosecutors to  assist in prosecuting federal offenses committed in Indian country; (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; 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 a guide, to  identify and share information and resources related to tribal courts. What challenges do tribes face in adjudicating Indian country crimes  and what federal efforts exist to help address those challenges? 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? We selected the tribes based on several  considerations. 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. Further, complete copies of the Tribal Law and Order Code  are made available through the court. Katherine Davis  provided assistance in report preparation.
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.