Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and the Criminal Justice Response: What is Known, 2008 August

Online content

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.
Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:
Document Title:
Violence Against American Indian and Alaska
Native Women and the Criminal Justice
Response: What is Known
Author:
Ronet Bachman, Heather Zaykowski, Rachel
Kallmyer, Margarita Poteyeva, Christina Lanier
Document No.:
223691
Date Received:
August 2008
Award Number:
1705-219
This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.
To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally-
funded grant final report available electronically in addition to
traditional paper copies.
Opinions or points of view expressed are those
of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.

2
Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and the Criminal Justice
Response: What is Known*

Ronet Bachman1
Heather Zaykowski1
Rachel Kallmyer1
Margarita Poteyeva1
Christina Lanier2

1 Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of Delaware
2 Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of North Carolina, Wilmington

*This project was supported by Contract #1705-219 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, and U.S. Department of Justice. Findings and conclusions of the research reported
here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................14

Part 1:
HOMICIDE VICTIMIZATION..........................................................................27

i. National Level Homicide Data
19

ii. County Level Homicide Data
23

Part 2:
NONFATAL VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION ......................................................27

i Police Reports
27

ii. Victimization Surveys
28

Part 3.
RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT........................................................................31

i. National Surveys
31

a. The National Crime Victimization Survey

1. Variables Used in the NCVS Contextual Analysis

2. Results of NCVS Contextual Analysis for Rape/Sexual Assault

b. The National Violence Against Women Survey

ii. Local Surveys
41

Part 4.
PHYSICAL ASSAULT ........................................................................................46

i. National Surveys
47

a. The National Crime Victimization Survey

1. Results of NCVS Contextual Analysis for Physical Assaults

b. The National Violence Against Women Survey

c. The National Family Violence Survey

ii. Local Surveys of Assaults Against American Indian & Alaska Native Women 55

Part 5.
DATING VIOLENCE..........................................................................................57

Part 6.
STALKING ..........................................................................................................58

i. National Studies
58

ii. Local Studies
60

Part 7.
REASONS FOR VARIABILITY IN ESTIMATES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST
AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN .............................61

i. Screening Questions
61

ii. Reference Period Used
63

iii.Sampling Differences
64

a. Random versus Availability Samples

b. Random Digit Dialing versus In Person Solicitation

iv.Cultural Sensitivity of Interviewers
65

Part 8.
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM’S RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE
AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN ........67

i. Historical Context
68

ii. Federal Indian Law
70

iii.Major Crimes Act
71

iv. Indian Civil Rights Act
72

a. Non-American Indian and Alaska Native Offenders in Tribal Courts

v. Public Law 280
75

vi.The Violence Against Women Act
77
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

4
Part 9.
LAW ENFORCEMENT ......................................................................................78

i. Police Department Characteristics and Problems
80

ii. Cultural and Social Barriers to Effective Law Enforcement
84

Part 10.
COURTS AND PROSECUTION ........................................................................86

i. Tribal Judicial Systems
86

ii. State Judicial Systems
87

iii. Federal Judicial Systems
88

iv. Peacemaking and Tribal Justice
90

Part 11.
PROTECTION ORDERS AND FULL FAITH AND CREDIT .........................94

i. Obtaining Protection Orders
94

ii. Enforcing Protection Orders
96

Part 12.
INCARCERATION AND CORRECTIONS.......................................................98

i. Federal Prisons
98

ii. Tribal Correctional Systems
99

Part 13.
LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING PHYSICAL ASSAULT AGAINST
AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN......................... 100
i. Stalking
101

ii. Dating Violence
102

iii. Law Enforcement and Intimate Partner Violence
102

iv. Reporting to Police
105

v. Criminal Justice Response to Dating Violence
105

Part 14.
LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT AGAINST
AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN......................... 106
i. Federal and State Response to Sexual Assault
107
ii. Law Enforcement of Rape and Sexual Assault
108

iii. Reporting Rape
109

iv. Courts and Prosecution
109

v. Protection Orders and Sexual Assault
111

vi. Tribal Response to Rape and Sexual Assault
111

vii. Tribal and State Courts and Prosecution
112

Part 15.
NONCRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSES TO VIOLENCE AGAINST
AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN......................... 113

i. Barriers to the Utilization of Services
114

Part 16.
CULTURALLY SENSITIVE INTERVENTIONS ........................................... 116

i. Health Care-Based Interventions
122

ii. Victim Services Interventions
126

iii. Offender Oriented Interventions
130

iv. Education and Community Awareness
132

Part 17.
FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES........................................ 133

Part 18.
CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL THOUGHTS ................................................... 139

APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................... 158
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report was to provide an overview of the epidemiology of violence
against American Indian and Alaska Native women as well as an accounting of the criminal
justice responses to this violence. Key findings include:
•
National rates of homicide victimization against American Indian and Alaska Native
women are second to those of their African American counterparts, but higher than those
for white women. However, these national averages hide the extremely high rates of
murder against American Indian and Alaska Native women present in some counties
comprised primarily of tribal lands. Some counties have rates of murder against
American Indian and Alaska Native women that are over ten times the national average.
Like other women, American Indian and Alaska Native women are more likely to be
killed by their intimate partners compared to other offenders.
•
Using information to estimate nonfatal victimizations from official police report data,
such as the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) or the National Incident Based Reporting
System (NIBRS) compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation is extremely
problematic since we know less than half of violent victimizations against women are
ever reported to police. Random sample surveys of women are the most appropriate
method for estimating incidence rates. Unfortunately, a majority of studies that have
examined violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women have relied on
convenience samples of women (e.g. those available for study such as women seeking
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

6
medical care at a clinic), which cannot be generalized to the population of all women,
even women in a particular tribe. The extreme diversity in social, cultural, and economic
conditions across tribes as well as the differences that may exist between American
Indian and Alaska Native women who reside in urban areas (roughly 60%) off tribal
lands, makes estimating rates of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native
women problematic. Making comparisons of incident rates is also difficult because of the
extremely diverse nature of the survey questions used to uncover victimizations.
•
An analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) reveals that rates of
rape and other sexual assaults are higher for American Indian and Alaska Native women
compared to both African American and white women. Rape and sexual assaults against
all women regardless of race were more likely to be committed known offenders. These
results are consistent with findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey
(NVAWS) that found American Indian and Alaska Native women were significantly
more likely to experience a rape in their lifetimes compared to other women.
•
With few exceptions, surveys of American Indian and Alaska Native women conducted
in local areas including those residing on tribal lands as well as those residing in urban
areas also generally find high rates of rape and sexual assault victimization. However,
because of the extreme variation in the wording of the questions used, it is not always
possible to know whether these victimizations were completed rapes or other sexual
assaults. There has been one very rigorous survey that employed a random sampling
design to uncover rape victimizations, both completed and attempted, within six tribal
nations, which generally found high rates of rape with the exception of one tribe.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

7
•
According to NCVS data, rape and sexual assault victimizations against American Indian
and Alaska Native women are just as likely to be reported to police compared to
victimizations against other women, however, a friend, family member, or another
official are most likely to do the reporting, not the victim herself. In only 6% of the
victimizations that were reported were victims aware that the offender had been arrested.
This is similar to the percent of other women who report that an arrest was made in their
case.
•
National annual incidence rates and lifetime prevalence rates for physical assaults are
also higher for American Indian and Alaska Native women compared to other women.
Like other women, American Indian and Alaska Native women are more likely to be
assaulted by known offenders compared to strangers. Roughly equal proportions of these
victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native women are reported to police
compared to other women. In addition, reports to police by American Indian and Alaska
Native women are just as likely to result in arrest compared to reports made by other
women. These national patterns do not, however, reflect variation in reporting and arrest
rates that may occur across tribal nations.
•
The unique position of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes as both sovereign and
dependent creates problematic jurisdictional barriers that sometimes prohibit an effective
criminal justice response to American Indian and Alaska Native victims of violence.
Several federal laws have limited tribal government’s power to prosecute offenders
including the Major Crimes Act (1885), which mandated that virtually all violent crimes
committed on tribal lands were to be prosecuted by the federal government. Although
tribes have the power to concurrently prosecute cases of violence, the Indian Civil Rights
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

8
Act (1968) mandates that tribal courts are not permitted to punish offenders with more
than $5,000 in fines, one year in jail or both. Importantly, tribal sovereignty in punishing
offenders does not apply to non-American Indian and Alaska Natives (Oliphant v.
Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 1978).
•
Complicating jurisdictional issues even more is Public Law 280 (1953), which gave state
governments jurisdiction over offenses committed against American Indian and Alaska
Natives on tribal land in six “mandatory” states including Alaska, California, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin, and some states that also assumed part or total
jurisdiction over some tribes within state boundaries including Arizona, Florida, Idaho,
Iowa, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington. Since
Public Law 280 (PL-280), however, several states have retroceded authority to specific
tribes making jurisdictional issues even more complicated.
•
Complicated jurisdictional issues still produce unique barriers to American Indian and
Alaska Native women seeking help from a criminal justice authority on tribal lands.
When an act of violence occurs on tribal lands, there are several possible law
enforcement officials who may respond including tribal officers, Federal Bureau of
Investigation officers, Bureau of Indian Affairs officers, and in PL-280 states, state police
officers. Deciding who has jurisdictional authority is dependent on several factors
including the crime that was committed, whether the offender or the victim was an
American Indian and Alaska Native, and whether the crime was committed exclusively
on tribal land. The jurisdictional confusion that may ensue when an act of violence occurs
sometimes produces an inadequate and delayed response to female victims. Importantly,
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

9
some tribes have worked out cross-deputization agreements with state police authorities,
which serve to alleviate the jurisdictional confusion over authority.
•
Additional problems in law enforcement are exacerbated on many tribal lands by
insufficient funding, inadequate training, and victims’ lack of trust for outside authority.
•
Although tribal governments do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-American Indian
and Alaska Native offenders in criminal courts, they do have authority to enact civil
orders against them, including Personal Protection Orders (PPOs). PPOs provide
injunctive relief for petitioners who seek to use legal remedies to end threatening
behavior, cease contact with another individual, or to alter custody arrangements. The
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 established “Full Faith and Credit” for
PPOs, which mandates jurisdictions to honor PPOs enacted in other jurisdictions.
Importantly, this means that States and tribal governments must enforce the protection
orders of other State and tribal jurisdictions. In reality, however, the variety of orders and
accompanying legal punishments and the understanding of the intent of the order vary by
each State and tribal government, creating significant barriers to the enforcement of “Full
Faith and Credit.”
•
In addition to legal barriers that may impede American Indian and Alaska Native women
from obtaining justice, there are also other barriers including the social isolation of many
tribal lands that precludes some American Indian and Alaska Native women from
obtaining adequate medical care including the availability of rape kits being performed
by trained medical staff to aid prosecution. Cultural barriers also prevent some American
Indian and Alaska Native women from seeking assistance from those outside the
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

10
community, while issues of privacy may also prevent others from seeking help inside
close-knit tribal communities where “everyone knows everyone else’s business.”
•
Some American Indian and Alaska Native communities are developing culturally
sensitive interventions for violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women
both within and outside of the criminal justice system. These family or community
forums emphasize restorative and reparative approaches to justice. One example of this is
the Navajo Peacemaking system. Other culturally sensitive victim support services are
being created across the country, in both urban settings as well as on rural tribal lands.
•
A great deal of progress has been made to combat violence against American Indian and
Alaska Native women as a result of the VAWA 1994 and its reauthorizations in 2000 and
2005. Initiated in 1995, one of the most significant initiatives administered specifically
for American Indian and Alaska Native communities has been the Services-Training-
Officers-Prosecutors (STOP) Violence Against Indian Women (VAIW) program. The
primary purpose of the STOP VAIW Discretionary Grants Program was to reduce violent
crimes against American Indian and Alaska Native women. In 2006, over $6.7 million
was awarded to 35 American Indian and Alaska Native communities under this initiative.
Additionally, American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments and tribal
associations could obtain funding under other grant programs including the Legal
Assistance for Victims Program, the Rural Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual
Assault, and Stalking Assistance Program, The Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange
Program, and the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection
Orders Program. Over $21 million dollars were awarded to tribal communities under
these initiatives in 2006 and 2007. Title IX of VAWA 2005 significantly increased
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

11
existing set-asides to tribal nations and created a new consolidated initiative called the
Tribal Government Program, which gives tribal governments a longer list of options on
how funds can be utilized to combat violence against American Indian and Alaska Native
women.

In the past few decades, we have learned a tremendous amount about the vulnerabilities that
American Indian and Alaska Native women have to violent victimization as well as the unique
obstacles they face when seeking help from law enforcement authorities and other officials for
these victimizations. We have several recommendations that we believe will provide more
fruitful investments to combat this violence in the future:
•
Valid and reliable data on violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women
are essential in formulating policies likely to prevent this violence and to respond
effectively. Importantly, without solid baseline rates of violence against American Indian
and Alaska Native women at both national and local levels, there is no way to assess the
overall effectiveness of interventions. Using official data from police reports is not
desirable for these endeavors because police reporting by female victims can be
influenced by a number of factors. Moreover, since less than half of all violent
victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native women are ever reported to
police, using survey methodology is the only reliable way to estimate and track trends in
violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women. However, because many
local tribes will not have the resources to conduct surveys, official data from police will
likely remain the principal means to monitor levels of violence. As such, it is important
that efforts be made to improve the official databases that exist at the local tribal level.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

12
We recommend using the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) developed
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation since its data template allows the collection of
detailed information about the incidents including the victim/offender relationship along
with other socio-demographic characteristics of the victim and offender. The
jurisdictional issues described in this report should not prevent tribes from creating
databases from initial victim reports.
•
We now have consistent and reliable evidence from several random sample surveys
conducted at the local tribal level, as well as from two national random sample surveys
that violence disproportionately affects American Indian and Alaska Native women. It is
important, however, that victimization of American Indian and Alaska Native women
continue to be monitored by already existing surveys. Since the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS) remains the only large-scale survey conducted annually,
every attempt should be made to restore the sample size of the NCVS in order to monitor
violence against small subsets of the population, including American Indian and Alaska
Native women. The current sample of the NCVS is insufficient to monitor patterns and
trends of different forms of victimization (rape, assault) against American Indian and
Alaska Native women, even when multiple years are aggregated. Future survey research
efforts should be focused on understanding the causes of violence against American
Indian and Alaska Native women, not just measuring the magnitude of this violence. To
do this, collection efforts must be theoretically guided.
•
Different research designs using different wording in questions to uncover victimization
events at the local level will continue to produce disparate findings in the future. We
contend that new resources directed at counting “how many” American Indian and
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

13
Alaska Native women are victims are misguided. Even the most conservative estimates
indicate that violence is an extremely serious problem in many American Indian and
Alaska Native communities. The limited resources that are available would be better
invested in developing interventions and prevention programs, scientifically evaluating
their efficacy for protecting American Indian and Alaska Native women, and making sure
all female victims of violence have safe havens in the meantime.
•
Research intended to evaluate the efficacy of programs and policies created to protect
American Indian and Alaska Native women must employ scientifically rigorous
standards when possible to determine if programs had their intended “impacts.”
Unfortunately, much of the evaluation research to date has predominately evaluated the
“process” by which programs were implemented. While these are important, they do not
tell us anything about whether programs had the intended consequences of protecting
women. We are not alone in this call. The National Research Council Committee on the
Assessment of Family Violence Interventions similarly identifies improving the standards
of evidence used in the evaluation of family violence programs as critical. We have
learned far too many times that ineffective policies can sometimes do more harm that
good.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

14
INTRODUCTION

While recent research has illuminated the reality of violence present in some American
Indian and Alaskan Native communities, only relatively recently has scholarly and
Congressional attention been given to the vulnerability that American Indian and Alaska Native
women face to violent victimization. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 was
extremely important legislation for protecting female victims of violence in general, and even
more important for American Indian Alaska Native women. VAWA 1994, along with its
subsequent revision in 2000 and 2005, have explicitly set aside funds to combat and respond to
violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women. For example, VAWA 1994 set
aside 4% of its allotment for Services and Training for Officers and Prosecutors (STOP) Grants
for American Indian and Alaska Native federally recognized tribes.1 In the reauthorization of
VAWA in 2000, this allotment was increased to 5%. In addition, many of the sections in the
2000 reauthorization of VAWA allotted 5% to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. For
example, 5% of the funds established for Safe Havens for Children Pilot Programs, which grants
money to provide supervised visitation and safe visitation exchange of children by and between
parents in situations involving domestic violence, were set aside for American Indian and Alaska
Native tribes.2

Because of the high rates of victimization against American Indian and Alaska Native
women have been uncovered at both the local tribal levels and at the national level, section 904
of the 2005 VAWA reauthorization Act explicitly called for a baseline study to: (1) examine
violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women; and (2) examine the effectiveness
of local, tribal, state and federal responses to such violence. In addition, section 904 required the

1 Section 40121 authorized 25% of allotments to go to police, 25% to go to prosecutors, and 25% to go to victim
services. Tribes could apply for funds as individual nations or as a consortium of tribes together.
2 Section 1301 of VAWA 2000.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

15
establishment of a task force to assist with developing and implementing the study consisting of
representatives from a) national tribal domestic violence and sexual assault nonprofit
organizations, b) tribal governments, and c) national tribal organizations.

The goal of this report is to provide a synthesis of the empirical literature at both the local
and national levels that has provided magnitude estimates of violence against American Indian
and Alaska Native women along with a review of the methodologies on which the estimates are
based. The report includes the crimes of homicide, rape and sexual assault, physical assault, and
stalking. In addition to this review, we conduct original data analyses of homicide data from the
Indian Health Service and the Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) as well as rape and
assault data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to provide an
epidemiological assessment of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women and
how the contextual characteristics of these victimization differ from women of other groups
including white, African American, and Asian American women.

Finally, we provide a detailed review of what is known about criminal justice responses
to violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women including the barriers to the legal
interventions of such violence. Included here is a synthesis of other interventions that have been
used at local levels to respond to and prevent violence against American Indian and Alaska
Native women including such innovations as Navajo Peacemaking. We conclude with our
recommendations for future research. Before we begin, however, it is first important to define
what we mean by the term American Indian/Alaska Native.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

16
Who is an American Indian or an Alaskan Native?

There are many obstacles in determining exactly who is an American Indian and Alaska
Native primarily because there is a great deal of variation in definitions across government
agencies and across Indian nations. According to the federal government’s Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), an American Indian is legally defined as a person who is an enrolled or registered
member of a tribe or whose blood quantum is one-fourth or more, genealogically derived. This
level varies, however, with some tribes setting their blood quantum requirements much lower
and some setting them higher. In contrast, the U.S. Bureau of the Census relies on self-
identification, that is, you are an American Indian and Alaska Native if you say you are.

In the 2000 Census, respondents were asked to report one or more races they consider
themselves to be. In 2000, 2,475,956 people considered themselves to be American Indian and
Alaska Native alone (0.9% of the population) and an additional 1,643,345 considered themselves
to be American Indian and Alaska Native in combination with one or more other races (0.6% of
the population), the majority of which were in combination with white. In sum, 4,119,301
people, or 1.5% of the U.S. population, described themselves entirely or partially as American
Indian and Alaska Native in 2000 (U.S. Census, 2002). Males and females represent roughly
equal proportions of the total American Indian and Alaska Native population, 49% and 51%
respectively. About one-third of both males and females are under the age of 18. Regarding
socioeconomic factors, many American Indian and Alaska Natives who reside on isolated tribal
lands have very few educational and economic opportunities. This is reflected in national
averages for educational attainment and income. A higher percentage of American Indian and
Alaska Natives have less than a high school education and fewer American Indian and Alaska
Natives have a bachelor’s degree compared to the general population. The median income for
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

17
both American Indian and Alaska Native men and women is also significantly lower than their
male and female counterparts in the general population. Moreover, the percent of the American
Indian and Alaska Native population American Indian and Alaska Natives who live under the
poverty threshold is almost double that of the total population (25.7% compared to 12.4%) (U.S.
Census, 2002).

Although American Indian and Alaska Natives reside in every state, there are some areas
of the country with larger American Indian and Alaska Native populations. In 2000, 43% lived in
the West, 31% in the South, 17% in the Midwest, and 9% lived in the Northeast. More than half
of American Indian and Alaska Natives resided in urban areas. Of cities with 100,000 or more
population, New York and Los Angeles had the largest number of American Indian and Alaska
Natives followed by Phoenix, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and Anchorage. States with the greatest
percentage of American Indian and Alaska Natives include Alaska (19%), Oklahoma (11.4%),
New Mexico (10.5%), South Dakota (9%), Montana (7.4%), Arizona, (5.7%), and North Dakota
(5.5%) (U.S. Census, 2002).

It is often assumed that most American Indian and Alaska Natives reside on tribal lands,
however, almost 60% of American Indian and Alaska Native individuals reside in urban areas.
Only about 40% live in rural locations, most often on tribal lands (U.S. Census, 2002).
Moreover, there is also a great deal of variability in whether American Indian and Alaska
Natives accept traditionalism or become acculturated to mainstream society. The continuum
stretches from someone who was born and remains on tribal lands to those who were born in a
city and feels little connection to their ancestral tribe. Moreover, this cultural and social diversity
exists even within a single reservation. For example, some American Indian and Alaska Natives
on a reservation may live in a very traditional manner, speaking the native language and
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

18
practicing traditional religions, while others may be fully entrenched in modern society with no
ties to traditional practices. In fact, about one-quarter of individuals who self-identified
themselves as American Indian and Alaska Native to the U.S. Census did not have formal ties to
a tribe (U.S. Census, 2002).

In sum, making generalizations about the characteristics of the entire population of
“American Indian and Alaska Natives” is extremely problematic. Nevertheless, estimating the
unique vulnerabilities to violence among this population is extremely important. As the U.S.
Census states, “all levels of government need information on race to implement and evaluate
programs or enforce laws” (U.S. Census, 2002, p. 10) including such laws as the Equal
Employment Opportunity Act, the Voting Rights Act, and for our purposes, the Violence Against
Women Act. The purpose of this report is to provide such an accounting of violence against
American Indian and Alaska Native women.

HOMICIDE VICTIMIZATION
We know from previous research that homicide victimization rates for American Indian
and Alaska Natives living on certain tribal lands are significantly higher than rates for any other
race/ethnic group in the United States (Bachman, 1992). However, we know very little about
homicide victimization against American Indian and Alaska Native women specifically. To
understand as much as possible about homicides against American Indian and Alaska Native
women, two sources of data and two different geographical units of analysis were analyzed in
this report, data at the county level and data at the national level.

19
National Level Homicide Data

National level data were obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI)
Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program: Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) for 1976
through 2002 (Fox, 2005).3 Although there is variation in definitions of murder across states, the
UCR generally defines murder and non-negligent manslaughter as the willful killing of one
human being by another. Riedel further states, “As a general rule, any death due to injuries
received in a fight, argument, quarrel, assault, or commission of a crime is counted as a murder
or non-negligent manslaughter” (Riedel, 1999). The UCR program collects detailed information
on all murders known to the police in local jurisdictions, including the age, sex, and race of the
victim and, if known, of the perpetrator; the weapons used, the relationship between the victim
and the offender; and the circumstances of the murder. Of course, the reliability of these data is
only as good as the local law enforcement agencies that originally collect the information. That
is, a case first has to be defined by law enforcement as a homicide to be recorded. This reliability
may be further compromised by the complicated jurisdictional issues that surround the
adjudication of violent crime in Indian Country4 (see section on Criminal Justice Responses on
pages 67-79 for a more detailed discussion of this issue).
In the national level analysis, total homicides against American Indian and Alaska
Native, white, and African American females were examined for the entire 1976-2002 time
period. During this time period, American Indian and Alaska Native females were more

3 SHR data were obtained from the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), Study
Number 4179 (Fox, 2005).
4 “Indian Country” is defined in the Major Crimes Act 18 U.S.C. § 1153 as:
(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government,
notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation,
(b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and
(c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running
through the same.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

20
frequently represented among homicides within their racial group (27%) followed closely by
white females (26%). African American females represented only 19% of all African American
homicides (see Figure 1).

For the 1976 through 2002 time period, using the average annual number of homicides
for females for each racial group and estimates from the 1990 Census for a population base for
the denominators, total homicide rates of victimization per 100,000 females in each racial group
were 7.3 for American Indian and Alaska Natives (average annual number of victimizations =
36), 10.4 for African Americans (average annual number = 1,160), and 5.0 for whites (average
annual number = 2,578). Thus, at the national level, although African American women make up
a lower proportion of homicides within their racial group, rates of victimization indicate that they
are at greater risk of homicide compared to either American Indian and Alaska Native or white
females. American Indian and Alaska Native females, however, are at a greater risk of being
murdered than white females. However, as we shall see in the next section, American Indian and
Alaska Native women living in some communities experience significantly higher rates of
homicide victimization than this national average would indicate.
When the contextual characteristics of homicide victimization against women are
examined by race, we see more similarities than differences. For example, when examining the
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

21
age of victims, it can be seen that the majority of female homicide victimizations regardless of
race occur between the ages of 18 and 49 (Figure 2).

Women of all races are more likely to be killed by their intimate partners (such as
spouses, boy/girlfriends, and exes), followed by other known offenders such as friends and
acquaintances (Figure 3). Other non-intimate family members kill an average of 15% of all
female victims. Women of all races are least likely to be killed by strangers.

22
As shown in Figure 4, the precipitating circumstance of homicides against women,
regardless of race, is most likely to be conflict situations (Alvarez & Bachman, 2007). Although
American Indian and Alaska Native females are less likely to be killed as the result of another
felony (e.g. robbery) compared to white and African American females, they are slightly more
likely to be killed as the result of a rape or sexual assault: 7% of all American Indian and Alaska
Native female homicides compared to 5% for white females, and 4% of all African American
females.

The weapons involved in homicides against American Indian and Alaska Native women
show a somewhat different distribution compared to either white or African American female
victims. While firearms represent the most likely weapon to be used in murders against women
regardless of race, American Indian and Alaska Native women are more likely to be killed by
both knives and blunt objects compared to other women (Figure 5).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

County Level Homicide Data
The county level data presented in this report were obtained for American Indian and
Alaska Natives from Indian Health Services, Vital Statistics, National Center for Health
Statistics (NCHS), 1994-1998.5 Unlike UCR data, the information for this data was obtained via
standardized death certificates, not from law enforcement agencies. Because these data do not
rely on reports to police, they do not suffer as much as the UCR from the problem of under-
reporting. One limitation of homicide data from the NCHS reporting system is classification; that
is, it is the responsibility of the certifier to determine if a death was in fact a homicide, regardless
of any legal intervention that may or may not have occurred. This is a crucial decision that

5 The data used to calculate rates at the county level were not obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation but
from Indian Health Service, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which relies on data from the Vital
Statistics, which are based on death certificates from Medical Examiners Officers, not from police reports. These
data are published at that national level by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unlike the
Supplementary Homicide Reports compiled by the FBI, these data are not available to the public at the ICPSR
website. They were obtained through personal correspondence with Joanne Pappalardo at the Indian Health Service.
In addition, like all vital statistics homicide data and FBI Supplementary Homicide Report Data, the numerator for
rate calculation includes those victims who were killed within a particular jurisdiction (e.g. county, state). As such, it
is possible that a victim may be included within a county that she/he did not actually reside. For example, rates of
homicide for county X will include all victims killed within that county during a given time period regardless of a
victim’s actual location of residence. Unlike the SHR data, only 5 years of data could be made readily available at
the county level.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

24
impacts the reliability and validity of this information. Additionally, the death certificate
information must be provided to the National Center for Health Statistics to ensure the data is
recorded. Another disadvantage of the NCHS data is that there is no information on the offender
or the precipitating circumstance of the killing.
The selection of county-level data was based on two criteria: 1) the race specific county
population must be reflective of the national percentage reported in the 2000 U.S. Census and 2)
the race specific county level population must contain at least 100 American Indian and Alaska
Natives. Specifically, those U.S. counties that had at least 1% American Indian and Alaska
Natives and at least 100 American Indian and Alaska Native persons within the county were
included. Specifically, rates are expressed as per 100,000 American Indian and Alaska Native
females and calculated as follows:
Number of AI FemaleVictims
X 100,000
Total AI Female Population
Rate !
"
=#
$
%
&

Table 1 displays the rate of homicide for American Indian and Alaska Native females by
county; for ease of presentation, only those counties with at least 1 homicide (non-zero counties)
are displayed. As can be seen, the low rate of homicide occurred in San Bernardino County,
California (2.06) and the highest rate occurred in Bon Homme County in South Dakota (555). A
glance across the table illuminates the reality of homicide risk for American Indian and Alaska
Native women who live in American Indian and Alaska Native communities. In fact, the
majority of these communities have extremely higher rates of homicide compared to the national
average for American Indian and Alaska Native females.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

25
Table 1.
Average American Indian and Alaska Native homicide rates against females for US
counties with at least 1% American Indian and Alaska Native population, at least
100 American Indian and Alaska Natives, and at least 1 homicide during the 1994-
1998 period, NCHS, Indian Health Service.

State
County
Rate Per 100,000 American Indian
and Alaska Native Women
AK
Aleutians East Borough
43.57
AK
Anchorage Municipality
15.51
AK
Bethel Census Area
3.18
AK
Bristol Bay Borough
78.13
AK
Fairbanks North Star Borough
12.82
AK
Valdez-Cordova Census Area
29.24
AK
Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area
27.65
AZ
Apache County
6.63
AZ
Coconino County
3.59
AZ
Gila County
12.23
AZ
Maricopa County
12.47
AZ
Mohave County
29.94
AZ
Navajo County
3.31
AZ
Pima County
9.85
AZ
Pinal County
21.02
AR
Sebastian County
18.55
CA
Fresno County
3.1
CA
Humboldt County
10.96
CA
Kern County
4.19
VA
Sacramento County
2.79
CA
San Bernardino County
2.06
CA
Sonoma County
7.97
CO
Denver County
28.24
CO
La Plata County
33.56
ID
Bingham County
14.23
IA
Woodbury County
43.38
KS
Labette County
73.26
KS
Sedgwick County
8.4
LA
Terrebonne Parish
7.72
MN
Beltrami County
5.15
MN
Mille Lacs County
45.15
MN
St. Louis County
10.8
MS
Neshoba County
11.09
MT
Hill County
14.48
MT
Missoula County
16.58
MT
Yellowstone County
10.16
NE
Dakota County
92.17
NE
Knox County
62.11
NV
Humboldt County
56.34
NV
Washoe County
6.25
NM
Bernalillo County
18.22
NM
Dona Ana County
16.5
NM
McKinley County
6.18
NM
Sandoval County
2.61
NM
San Juan County
3.76
NM
Santa Fe County
9.74
NC
Bladen County
57.97
NC
Cumberland County
9.06
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

26
State
County
Rate Per 100,000 American Indian
and Alaska Native Women
NC
Graham County
70.18
NC
Harnett County
89.69
NC
Hoke County
9.89
NC
Robeson County
10.98
NC
Scotland County
12.52
NC
Warren County
39.6
ND
Burleigh County
38.54
ND
Ward County
30.4
OK
Adair County
4.42
OK
Blaine County
42.28
OK
Cherokee County
5.77
OK
Cleveland County
4.52
OK
Coal County
38.61
OK
Craig County
17.29
OK
Custer County
25.09
OK
Garfield County
30.63
OK
Kay County
21.53
OK
Latimer County
80.97
OK
Muskogee County
3.78
OK
Oklahoma County
16.7
OK
Okmulgee County
24.09
OK
Osage County
6.11
OK
Payne County
13.44
OK
Pontotoc County
7.16
OK
Pottawatomie County
5.23
OK
Tulsa County
8.04
OR
Multnomah County
5.96
SD
Bennett County
21.62
SD
Bon Homme County
555.56
SD
Charles Mix County
14.19
SD
Minnehaha County
25.96
SD
Pennington County
11.86
SD
Todd County
10.49
UT
Iron County
62.7
UT
San Juan County
9.67
WA
Ferry County
32.79
WA
Okanogan County
8.73
WA
Pierce County
19.32
WA
Snohomish County
4.89
WA
Spokane County
6.7
WA
Yakima County
20.72
WI
Brown County
14.09
WI
Forest County
39.14
WI
Menominee County
10.49
WY
Fremont County
11.47

27
NONFATAL VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION

Despite over twenty years of research, the magnitude of nonfatal violence against women
is still frequently disputed. For many reasons that include the stigma often attached to intimate
partner violence, the fear of retaliation from their perpetrators, and numerous other safety
concerns, estimating incidence rates of this violence has always been a difficult task and cannot
be appropriately discussed without adequate attention given to the methodologies used to collect
the data. Scholars and activists typically rely on a number of different sources of data for
information on the nature and scope of violence, particularly violence perpetrated by intimate
partners. Each of them, however, has significant deficiencies that affect the quality of the
information gathered.

Police Reports

Uniform Crime Reports (UCR): Relying on police reports, such as those used by the
UCR to estimate incidence rates of violence is especially problematic for intimate partner
violence. The primary reason is that a large percentage of these crimes are never reported to
police. For example, survey data reveals that, at best, only about 50% of intimate partner assaults
are reported to police and, at worst, less than one in four are ever reported (Bachman, 2000;
Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998a). Another problem with using police report data is that, except for the
crime of homicide, the current UCR program does not include information on the
victim/offender relationship within its reports. Thus, it is not even possible to determine the
magnitude of violence perpetrated by specific offenders such as intimates within UCR data. To
remedy this problem, in 1988 the FBI implemented a change in its collection of crime
information that includes more characteristics of the incident and is appropriately called the
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

28
National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS).
NIBRS data is very specific and includes many more offenses for which local agencies
must report including many details of an incident such as the age, gender, race, ethnicity, and
resident status, of victims and offenders. In total, NIBRS categorizes each incident and arrest in
one of 22 basic crime categories that span 46 separate offenses. A total of 53 data elements about
the victim, property, and the offender are collected under NIBRS. Because of the resources
involved in gathering this much detail, just over half of all States currently use the NIBRS format
for collecting information about reported crimes. This deficiency is further exacerbated by the
fact that most of those American Indian and Alaska Native women living on tribal lands do not
fall under the jurisdiction of state or local jurisdictions for crimes of violence (see section on
Criminal Justice Responses to Violence, pp. 67-78). However, in the end, NIBRS data suffer the
same fundamental problem as the UCR data – a crime has to be reported to police to be counted.

Victimization Surveys
Both the UCR and the NIBRS data collection methods are problematic when estimating
incidence rates of violence. If victimizations are not reported to police, they are never counted in
either data collection effort, particularly rapes and violence that occurs between intimates.
Because of this weakness in police reports, random sample surveys of the population are
typically the social science tool of choice for uncovering and measuring incidents of violent
victimization. However, surveys employing diverse methodologies (e.g. different sampling
techniques, different questions to uncover victimization) and different definitions of violence
have resulted in tremendously diverse estimates, especially for small populations like American
Indian and Alaska Natives. For example, for the general population of women, survey estimates
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

29
of how many women experience violence by an intimate partner annually range from 9.3 per
1,000 women to 116 per 1,000 women. Further, the methodological differences across survey
methodologies often preclude direct comparison across studies (Bachman, 2000).
One of the most important distinctions across survey methodologies has to do with how
samples are selected. To accurately estimate incidence rates of violence against American Indian
and Alaska Native women, surveys must be based on probability sampling methods, meaning
that they must be randomly selected (Bachman & Schutt, 2007). Probability sampling is a
systematic way to select respondents from a target population so that every person (or other
element such as school, prison, etc.) has an equal, independent and known probability of being
selected. Only in this way can the information (e.g. rates of victimization) be generalized to some
larger population. Unfortunately, much of the research investigating violence against women in
the general population, and violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women in
particular is based on convenience samples. These samples are simply available to researchers,
such as samples of women who go to a clinic, women who seek help at shelters, women who are
involved in some community group, and so on. Information obtained from these types of non-
probability samples cannot be generalized to any population. In reality, because of the diversity
in the American Indian and Alaska Native population already discussed, obtaining a
representative sample of American Indian and Alaska Native women is especially problematic.

A nationally representative sample of American Indian and Alaska Native women has the
advantage of illuminating the patterns and magnitude of violence against this group overall, but a
national sample will not capture the tribal-to-tribal variation that exists in victimization. On the
other hand, while representative samples of specific tribes may be able to capture the unique
vulnerabilities that exist across certain tribes, they would not be able to measure the general
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

30
vulnerability of all American Indian and Alaska Native women compared to other women, nor
would they be able to measure victimization against American Indian and Alaska Native women
residing in urban locations, which as stated above, comprise over half of the American Indian
and Alaska Native population. As such, both national level data and local surveys provide us
with important insight into the magnitude of violence against American Indian and Alaska
Native women.

In the sections that follow, we will describe what is known about rape and sexual assault,
physical assault, and stalking from surveys at both the national and local levels. Because
estimates of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women are inextricably related
to sample selection and the screening questions used, these methodological details will be
highlighted. Before we continue, it is important to underscore a few issues. First, the definitions
of violence used in the studies reviewed in this report for each offense varied. More importantly,
even when researchers were purporting to measure the same offense (e.g. rape), the questions
used to uncover these victimizations also varied. For example, two studies may attempt to be
measuring rape victimization but one may ask respondents, “Have you been a victim of a sexual
attack in the last 12 months?” and the another may ask, “Have you been forced or coerced to
engage in sexual intercourse (vaginal, anal or oral) against your will by someone, even someone
you know, in the last 12 months?” Clearly, the types and number of victimizations obtained from
each of these questions would be different, even though results of both would be purported to
measure “rape.” This variability is question wording is true for studies attempting to measure
intimate partner assault and stalking as well. Consequently, it is extremely important to
remember that the numbers of victims uncovered in each survey for various types of crimes is
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

31
inextricably tied to the methodologies used. Throughout our discussion, we will highlight the
methodologies associated with each study and, in addition, they are summarized in Appendix A.

Second, many state rape statutes have replaced the label of “rape” with a gradation of
offenses, typically labeled as “sexual assaults,” which are ordered according to severity with the
most serious offense typically reserved for those involving forced or coerced intercourse, either
vaginally, orally, or anally (Bachman & Paternoster, 1993). This most severe offense, regardless
of its label across states, is what the criminal justice system typically defines as rape. However,
many studies described in the next section may purport to measure rape, when in fact it is
impossible to determine from the questions asked of respondents whether the victimization
involved “sexual intercourse” or involved some other sexual offense. Because of these issues, we
use the term “rape and sexual assault” throughout the report as a global category of sexual
violence, unless we are referring specifically to study findings that could validly isolate incidents
of “forced or coerced sexual intercourse” from other sexual assaults. In this case, we use the term
“completed rape.”

RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT
National Surveys
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS): The only survey that monitors rape
and sexual assault on an annual basis is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The
NCVS relies on a nationally representative sample of American households. The data used for
the contextual analyses presented here were obtained from the NCVS for 1992-2005, Study
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

32
Number 4699, which is publicly available at the Inter-University Consortium for Political and
Social Research6.
During 1992-2005, the NCVS annually interviewed an average of 80,000 individuals 12
years of age and older, asking them about their victimization experiences during the six months
prior to the interview. Importantly, because of funding cuts, the sample size for the NCVS has
been significantly reduced for the past several years. For example, in 1992, there were
approximately 100,000 individuals interviewed, but by 2005, the sample size had been cut to
67,000 individuals7. These sample cuts have had serious implications for the estimation of
victimization for the population in general, but particularly for subsets of the population like
American Indian and Alaska Natives. If these cuts continue, it will no longer be possible to use
the NCVS to monitor victimization against populations such as American Indian and Alaska
Natives and other subsets of the population (e.g. other race/ethnic groups, the elderly). The low
base rate of victimization for rapes and sexual assaults combined with the sample cuts and small
population size required us to aggregate all available data (1992-2005) for the NCVS.
The NCVS has the capacity to estimate rates of both completed and attempted rape in
addition to other sexual assaults. In addition to directly asking respondents if they have
experienced “Any rape, attempted rape, or other type of sexual attack,” NCVS interviewers also
ask the following question:
Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual acts are often difficult to talk about. Have you
been forced or coerced to engage in unwanted sexual activity by:
a. Someone you didn’t know before?
b. A casual acquaintance?
c. Someone you know well?

6 Available at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR/STUDY/04699.xml.
7 See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/cvus05mt.pdf for a detailed list of sample sizes from 1996 in the
NCVS statistical tables listed on the Bureau of Justice Statistics Website.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

33
If respondents reply “Yes” to one of these questions, they are then asked, “Do you mean forced
or coerced sexual intercourse?” to determine whether the incident should be recorded as a rape or
as another type of sexual attack. After we present annual victimization rates from published
reports, we will present an original data analysis of the NCVS to explore how the contextual
characteristics of rape and sexual assault victimization of American Indian and Alaska Native
women differ from those of white, African American, and Asian/Pacific Islander women.

Table 2 below presents of the combined rates of rape and sexual assault victimization by
race for 1992 through 2001 that were obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Perry,
2004). As can be seen, American Indian and Alaska Native women are almost 3 times as likely
to experience a rape or sexual assault compared to either white, African American or Asian
American women. To reiterate, these are national estimates and include American Indian and
Alaska Natives who reside both on and off tribal lands.

Table 2:
Average annual rates of rape and sexual assault victimizations by race, NCVS 1992-
2001.

Average Annual Rate per 1,000 persons
Age 12 and over
All races
2

American Indian and Alaska Native
5
White
2
African American
2
Asian American
1
Source: To be consistent with Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates of victimization, this table was obtained from Perry (2004), Table 7.

Next, we present our own analysis of the NCVS rape and sexual assault data for 1992
through 2005. The tables that follow are original data analyses generated from the ICPSR public
use data tape for the National Crime Victimization Survey, 1992-2005: Concatenated Incident-
Level File (ICPRS 4699). These tables are based on weighted sample estimates and are meant to
be used for descriptive purposes only. As Table 3 illustrates, while males also experience rape
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

34
and sexual assault, they comprise a very small percentage of all victims. In the subsequent
analyses, we restrict our sample to female victims only.

Table 3:
Average annual number of rape and sexual assault victimizations by race, and
gender of victim, NCVS 1992-2005.

Average Annual
Number
% Female
Victims
% Male
Victims
All races
342,420
91
9

American Indian and Alaska Native
6,956
87
13
White
272,866
91
9
African American
56,146
93
7
Asian American
6,454
82
18
Source: Original data analysis.

Table 4 presents the percent of rapes and sexual assaults that were completed rapes by
race/ethnicity; victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native women were more
likely to result in a completed rape compared to other women.

Table 4:
Average annual percent of rape and sexual assault victimizations against females by
race, and completed status, NCVS 1992-2005.

Percent Completed
Rape
All races
36

American Indian and Alaska Native
40
White
36
African American
38
Asian American
30
Source: Original data analysis.

Variables Used in the NCVS Contextual Analysis

Legally, rapes and sexual assaults can involve force or the threat of force. To examine the
extent of physical force used in incidents of sexual violence, we looked at several variables that
were intended to measure the severity of the victimization. First, victims were asked, “Did the
offender hit you or knock you down?” The second variable measured the extent to which victims
sustained other injuries in addition to the rape and sexual assault injuries including gun shot or
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

35
stab wounds, broken bones, internal injuries, chipped teeth, bruises, black eye, cuts, or swelling.
In addition to injuries, victims were also asked if they “were injured to the extent that you
received any medical care, including self treatment?” And finally, weapon presence was
measured by asking victims, “Did the offender have a weapon such as a gun or knife, or
something to use as a weapon, such as a bottle or wrench?”

Offender information was also examined insofar as the victim could recall them. The
victim/offender relationship was aggregated into four categories, which included intimate
(spouse or ex-spouse, boy/girlfriend or ex-boy/girlfriend), other family member (sibling, parent
including step-parent, aunt/uncle, grandparent including step-grandparent), other known, and
stranger. Victims were also asked the perceived race of the offender, which could include white,
African American, or other, which could include American Indian and Alaska Native or Asian
American. The final variable regarding offenders was whether victims perceived that the
offender was under the influence drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense.

In addition to these contextual characteristics of the offense, we also examined the police
reporting behavior of victims and whether an arrest or charge was made after a report. Victims
were asked if the police were “informed or did they find out about this incident in any way?” If
they said “Yes”, they were asked, “How did the police find out about it?” To ascertain if an
arrest was made, for those victimizations reported to police, victims were also asked, “As far as
you know, was anyone arrested or were charges brought against anyone in connection with this
incident?”

Results of NCVS Contextual Analysis for Rape/Sexual Assaults

Table 5 presents the distribution of rape and sexual assault victims that were hit or
knocked down during the attack by race of the victim. As can be seen, American Indian and
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

36
Alaska Native women were much more likely to be hit during the commission of their sexual
victimization compared to all other women.
Table 5:
Average annual percent of rape and sexual assault victimizations against females by race, in
which the victim was hit, 1992-2005.

Percent of Victimizations
in which the Victim was Hit
All races
72

American Indian and Alaska Native
91
White
71
African American
78
Asian American
62
Source: Original data analysis .

By NCVS definition, all rapes are categorized as resulting in physical rape injuries. In
addition to the rape related injuries victims sustained, we next examined the percent of
victimizations that resulted in other physical injuries, such as cuts and bruises and broken bones,
and the percent of these injuries that required medical care, as presented in Table 6. American
Indian and Alaska Native women were more likely to be injured than either white or African
American women. Moreover, injured American Indian and Alaska Native women were more
likely to require medical care compared to injured victims of all other races.

Table 6:
Average annual percent of rape and sexual assault victimizations against females by race, in
which the victim sustained injuries in addition to rape injuries and percent of injuries
requiring medical care, 1992-2005

Percent of Victimizations in
which Victim was Injured
Percent of Injuries
Requiring Medical Care
All races
17
34

American Indian and Alaska Native
20
47
White
16
33
African American
16
35
Asian American
24
36
Source: Original data analysis.

Weapon presence, of course, is also an indicator of violence present in the victimization.
Table 7 presents the percent distribution of victimizations in which the offender brandished a
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

37
weapon. Again, American Indian and Alaska Native women were more likely to face an armed
offender than women of other races. In fact, American Indian and Alaska Native women were
over two times as likely to face an armed offender compared to other women.

Table 7:
Average annual percent of rape and sexual assault victimization against females in
which the offender had a weapon, 1992-2005

Percent of Victimizations
in which Offender Had Weapon
All races
9

American Indian and Alaska Native
25
White
9
African American
9
Asian American
6
Source: Original data analysis.

We next examined other contextual characteristics of the rape and sexual assault
victimizations by looking at the victim and offender relationship, the race of the offenders
involved, and perceived drug and alcohol usage by offenders.

Table 8 presents the percentage distribution for the victim and offender relationship
categories of intimate (spouses, boy/girlfriends, and exes), other family members (e.g. parents
and step parents, siblings, other extended family), other known (e.g. friends and acquaintances),
and strangers. As can be seen in Table 8, the majority of all rape and sexual assaults against
women, regardless of race, are committed by known offenders. Of the known offenders, a larger
percent of these victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native women are
committed by intimate partners compared to other women. Consistent with this, data also
indicate that the majority of sexual assaults occurred in private compared to public locations.
Sixty-five percent of sexual assaults against American Indian and Alaska Native women
occurred at or near their private residence.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

38
Table 8:
Average annual percent of rape and sexual assault victimizations against females by
race and perceived relationship status of offender(s), NCVS 1992-2005.

Intimate
Other
Family
Other
Known
Stranger
All races
24
5
45
26

American Indian and Alaska Native
38
0
33
29
White
24
5
44
27
African American
23
6
47
25
Asian American
20
4
45
31
Source: Original data analysis.

The percentage distribution of the racial identity of offenders is presented in Table 8.
While the majority of rapes and sexual assaults against other women were intra-racial,
victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native women were more likely to be inter-
racial. That is, a larger percent of victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native
women are committed by white offenders compared to American Indian and Alaska Native
offenders. However, based on the data from the last table, it cannot be inferred that these white
offenders are necessarily strangers since the majority of victimizations are committed by known
offenders. About one-third of victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native women
were committed by other American Indian and Alaska Native offenders.

Table 9:
Average annual percent of rape and sexual assault victimization against females by
race, and perceived racial/ethnicity status of offender(s), NCVS 1992-2005.

White
Offender(s)
African
American
Offender(s)
Other*
Offender(s)
All races
63%
25%
13%

American Indian and Alaska Native
57
10
33
White
76
12
12
African American
6
88
7
Asian American
35
13
52
Source: Original data analysis.

* Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native and Asian American

Alcohol and drugs appear to play a larger role in the sexual attacks of American Indian
and Alaska Native women compared to other women. Over two-thirds (68%) of American Indian
and Alaska Native sexual assault victims believed their attackers had been drinking and/or taking
drugs before the offense compared to 34% of white victims, 35% of African American victims,
and 27% of Asian American victims.

To determine the extent of police involvement in rape and sexual assault victimizations,
victims were asked if the police were notified about the victimization. Table 10 presents the
percentage distributions of those victimizations in which police were notified and the percent of
these notifications in which the victim, herself, reported the incident to police. As can be seen, a
greater percent of sexual assaults against American Indian and Alaska Native women were
reported to police compared to other women, however, less than one in five (17%) of victims
made the report herself. In the other cases, another household member, some official, or some
other person reported the incident to police. This low percent of victim reporting is consistent
with percentages for all women.

Table 10:
Average annual percent of rape and sexual assault victimization against females by
race, in which the victimization was reported to police and the percent of these
reports that were made by the victim herself, 1992-2001.

Percent of Victimizations
Reported to Police
Percent of Reports that
were Reported by Victim
All races
34%
21%

American Indian and Alaska Native
49
17
White
34
21
African American
35
21
Asian American
27
13
Source: Original data analysis.

Clearly, if a sexual assault is not reported to police, there is no opportunity for the
victimization to be adjudicated and for punishment to be handed down. However, when rape and
sexual assault victims who reported their victimization to police were asked whether an arrest
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

40
was made in their cases, it appears arrest was a rare event for these reports regardless of racial
status. While American Indian and Alaska Native victims were less likely to report an arrest
being made in their cases (6%) compared to other women, women of other races were also very
unlikely to report an arrest being made. Only 10% of white, 12% of African American, and 10%
of Asian American women who reported their victimizations to police reported that an arrest had
been made.

The National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS)

Conducted in 1995 through 1996, the NVAWS relied on a nationally representative
sample of 8,000 women. Unlike the screening questions used by the NCVS, the instrument used
to uncover rape victimizations in the NVAWS utilized very behavior-specific questions that
solicited information about all forms of rape including vaginal, anal, and oral penetration. These
questions are provided in Table 11 and are intended to measure both completed and attempted
rapes, but not other forms of sexual assault.

Table 11.
Questions Used in the National Violence Against Women Survey to uncover
incidents of rape and sexual assault.

1. Has a man or boy ever made you have sex by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to
you? Just so there is no mistake by sex we mean putting a penis in your vagina.

2. Has anyone, male or female, ever made you have oral sex by using force or threat of force? Just so there is
no mistake, by oral sex we mean that a man or boy put his penis in your mouth or someone, male or female,
penetrated your vagina or anus with their mouth.

3. Has anyone ever made you have anal sex by using force or threat of harm? Just so there is no mistake, by
anal sex we mean that a man or boy put his penis in your anus.

4. Has anyone, male or female, ever put fingers or objects in your vagina or anus against your will or by using
force or threats?

5. Has anyone, male or female, ever attempted to make you have vaginal, oral, or anal sex against your will,
but intercourse or penetration did not occur?

As can be seen from Table 11, these questions provide many more cues for respondents
to recall incidents of rape that they may have experienced. In addition, to asking respondents
about their victimization experiences in the “previous 12 months,” the NVAWS also asked
respondents about victimizations that occurred “during their lifetime.”

According to the NVAWS, 34% of American Indian and Alaska Native women had
experienced a completed or attempted rape in their lifetimes compared to 18% of white, 19% of
African American, and 7% of Asian and Pacific Islander women. Because of the small number
of American Indian and Alaska Native women in the sample, annual victimization rates could
not be reliably calculated. However, it is important to note that a recent version of the NVAWS
that is currently in the field intends to conduct an over-sample of American Indian and Alaska
Natives so more reliable annual victimization estimates can be produced.

Both of these national surveys provide important information about the magnitude of rape
and sexual assaults against American Indian and Alaska Native women and how this
vulnerability compares to other women. However, it does not provide information about the
unique vulnerabilities American Indian and Alaska Native women who reside in specific
locations face. For this, local surveys are needed.

Local Surveys

Consistent with the findings from these national studies, the majority of local studies
have found a moderately high prevalence of rape and sexual assault against American Indian and
Alaska Natives. To reiterate, we have provided a table listing the methodological details
including the sample and screening questions of these local surveys in Appendix A.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The most extensive and rigorous study at the local level to date was conducted by Yuan,
Koss, Polacca and Goldman (2006). Participants from six tribes were randomly selected from
tribal enrollment lists, voting registers, or health service registries. Respondents of the survey
were personally interviewed by American Indian and Alaska Natives of the same tribe or a
different tribe. A total of 1,374 respondents 18 years of age or older were interviewed, 575 men
and 793 women. This rigorous sampling strategy is important; it allows the findings of the study
to be generalized to the larger tribes. Although the specific tribes were not released to protect
confidentiality, three tribes were from the Southwest, one was from the Northwest, one was from
the Northern Plains, and one was from the Northeast. All participants were living on or near
tribal lands. These researchers used questions modeled after the NVAWS to solicit incidents of
rape, however, the reference period for victimization was since “you were 18.” As such, annual
incidence rates could not be completed from this survey.

Yuan et al. (2006) found that across all six tribes, 14% of respondents reported
experiencing a completed or attempted rape since the age of 18. It is not possible to make
comparisons of this rate with those from the NVAWS because the NVAWS uses “in your
lifetime” as the reference period, which may include incidents that occurred before respondents
reached the age of 18. In fact, NVAWS data indicate that the vast majority of these “lifetime”
reports were, in fact, for victimizations that occurred in childhood.

Yuan and her colleagues also found that the majority of these victims were raped by a
male relative, followed by romantic partners and other known persons. There was variation in the
rate of rape across the six tribes with the lowest lifetime prevalence of rape being 4% and the
highest being 29%. Researchers cautioned that respondents from the tribe with the 4% lifetime
prevalence rate were interviewed by tribal members from the same tribe and that the tribe that
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

43
was “characterized by social unrest and political infighting among tribal members at the time of
data collection” (Yuan et al. 2006, p.1586). It is logical to assume that rates of disclosure about
victimizations committed by a family member may be reduced if respondents knew the
interviewers, as known interviewers could not reasonably be expected to provide them with
anonymity or even confidentiality. This coupled with the social unrest and political infighting
among tribal members at the time of the interviews may have contributed to a low rate of candor
by respondents when disclosing incidents of victimization.
Another recent study of violence against American Indian females was conducted by
Zahnd, Holtby, Klein and McCain (2002), who interviewed American Indian women residing in
California. Because the majority of American Indians reside in urban areas in California, they
primarily recruited a convenience sample of women from American Indian service agencies in
several urban areas of California, but also included women residing in rural tribal lands (total
n=110). Although the women lived in urban areas, 71% of them reported having a reservation
and 42% reported living on a reservation at some time during their childhood. Zahnd et al. asked
respondents about childhood experiences with victimizations (before the age of 18), about
experiences they had since the age of 18, and about experiences they had in the past 12 months.
Their focus was also limited to victimizations by known offenders. They did not utilize behavior-
specific questions to uncover victimizations, but instead, for childhood victimizations, asked
respondents if they had experienced a “sexual incident” including sexual touching, unwanted
sexual force, penetration or rape (p.40). The question about adulthood rape was, “ever forced to
have sex by any adult, including anyone who was a member of your family, or anyone outside
your family” (p.42). Over one in four of the women (26%) reported being forced to have sex and
58% reported some other type of sexual incident before the age of 18. Since becoming an adult
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

44
(18 years of age), 26% reported being forced to have sex (because of the small sample size,
results were not reported for previous 12 month rape victimizations separately). Despite the
general question on rape, this prevalence rate is much higher than either that reported by the
NVAWS or the study conducted by Yuan et al. Almost three in four (73%) of all victimizations
perpetrated were by intimate partners. It is important to note, however, that it was not a random
sample.
Another study focused on American Indian women residing in the New York City area.
Simoni, Sehgal and Walters (2004) examined the prevalence of rape and sexual assault among a
convenience sample of female American Indians recruited from an American Indian community
center in New York City. Respondents were asked if they had ever been “sexually abused” by a
spouse or sexual partner or by someone other than a spouse or sexual partner. Results showed
that 20% of respondents reported being sexually abused by an intimate partner, 34% reported
sexual abuse perpetrated by a non-partner, 15% of respondents had been sexually victimized by
both an intimate and non-partner at least once during their lifetime. Unfortunately, because of
question wording, it is not clear what behaviors constituted “sexual abuse.”
There have been other local attempts to measure rape and sexual assault against
American Indian and Alaska Native women, but they have focused specifically on victimizations
perpetrated by intimate partners. For example, Robin, Chester and Rasmussen (1998) examined
the prevalence of intimate partner perpetrated rape and sexual assault in a southwestern
American Indian tribe. A questionnaire was administered to a convenience sample of 104 male
and female tribal members over the age of 21. When asked if they had ever “been forced to have
sex” by their intimate partners, 28.6% of female respondents reported that they had at least once
in their life. Another study by Fairchild, Fairchild and Stoner (1998) conducted a convenience
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

45
survey of 341 American Indian women who obtained routine ambulatory care at a Navajo Indian
Health Service (IHS) center. They found that 12.1% of respondents had experienced “sexual
abuse” by a domestic partner during their lifetime. Unfortunately, the exact questions used to
solicit information on these incidents of “sexual abuse” were not reported in the study so it is
unclear what victimizations were actually measured.
Another study examining intimate partner perpetrated rape was performed by Malcoe and
Duran (2004) who examined the prevalence of lifetime and recent violence among a convenience
sample of 422 American Indian women who were patrons or volunteers at a tribally operated
clinic in Oklahoma. Respondents were asked if their intimate partners had “insisted on any type
of sex with you, when you did not want to, but did not use physical force,” “used verbal threats
to make you have sex with him,” or “used force, like hitting you, holding you down, or using a
weapon, to make you have any type of sex with him.” Their sample reported higher rates of rape
and sexual assault; about one in five respondents (20.9%) reported they had been a victim of at
least one of these incidents in their lifetime.
When samples of even more “captive” populations such as women seeking help in
domestic violence shelters or substance abuse treatment are used, higher estimates of
victimization are usually obtained. Adding even more uncertainty to these studies is the
ambiguous nature of the questions used, which typically asked respondents about “sexual abuse.”
In their convenience sample of respondents at a domestic abuse shelter in the Rocky Mountain
Region, Norton and Manson (1995) found that 38% of respondents had experienced completed
partner rape and 12% reported attempted partner rape within the previous year. An even higher
prevalence of sexual abuse was found when Saylors and Daliparthy (2006) investigated the
victimization experiences of American Indian women in substance abuse treatment centers in
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

46
California. The authors found that over two-thirds (67%) of respondents had been a victim of
sexual abuse during their lifetime. Of these women, 77% reported that the abuse had occurred
multiple times. Again, estimates from convenience samples of this kind cannot be generalized to
the larger population of American Indian and Alaska Native women.

Although we will discuss physical assault in the next section, it is important to note here
that several researchers have found a strong relationship between sexual and physical violence.
That is, forms of victimization are generally not mutually exclusive; women who are victims of
rape and sexual assault are also often victims of physical assault (Hamby, 2004). For example,
Saylors and Daliparthy (2006) found that over 96% of American Indian respondents who had
been a victim of rape or sexual assault had experienced other physical abuse as well. Similarly,
Malcoe and Duran (2004) found that women who reported being severely physically abused by a
partner were much more likely to be sexually assaulted by a partner, compared to women who
were not severely physically abused.

PHYSICAL ASSAULT

Similar to rape and sexual assault victimizations, researchers interested in estimating
magnitude estimates of physical assault against women, particularly intimate partner assaults,
typically rely on survey methodology. In this section, we will again describe what is known
about assault victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native women at both the
national and local levels, however, we will not reiterate the sampling methodologies of those
surveys highlighted above. In the next section examining the NCVS, we will also provide a
contextual analysis of assault victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native women
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

47
and how they compare to victimizations of other women, using the same variables described
earlier.

National Surveys

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS): To measure incidents of violence, the
NCVS asks the following questions:
Other than any incidents already mentioned, has anyone attacked or threatened you in any of these ways:
a. With any weapon, for instance, a gun or knife
b. With anything like a baseball bat, frying pan, scissors, or a stick –
c. By something thrown, such as a rock or bottle –
d. Include any grabbing, punching, or choking –
e. Any rape, attempted rape or other type of sexual attack –
f. Any face-to-face threats –
g. Any attack or threat or use of force by anyone at all? Please mention it even if you are not
certain it was a crime.
To further cue respondents about incidents of victimization not perpetrated by strangers,
they are then asked:
3) People often don't think of incidents committed by someone they know. Did you have something stolen
from you OR were you attacked or threatened by –
a. Someone at work or school –
b. A neighbor or friend –
c. A relative or family member –
d. Any other person you've met or known?

4) Did you call the police to report something that happened to you which you thought was a crime?

5) Did anything happen to you which you thought was a crime, but did NOT report to the police?

NCVS rates of intimate partner violence, which includes all forms of violence measured
by the NCVS including rapes, robberies, and assaults (the majority are assaults), indicate that
American Indian and Alaska Native women have the highest rate of victimization (18.2)
compared to either African American (8.2), white (6.3), or Asian American (1.5) women
(Catalano, 2007).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Using the same NCVS 1992-2005 data that was used in the previous section, we will
provide a descriptive analysis of the contextual characteristics of physical assaults against
American Indian and Alaska Native women and how they compare to victimizations against
white, African American, and Asian American females.

Results of NCVS Contextual Analysis for Physical Assaults

As shown in Table 12, almost half of all assault victimizations (47%) against American
Indian and Alaska Natives are against females.

Table 12:
Average annual number of assault victimizations by race, and gender of victim,
NCVS 1992-2005.

Average Annual
Number
% Female
Victims
% Male
Victims
All races
6,241,382
42%
58%

American Indian and Alaska Native
98,830
47
53
White
5,188,657
41
58
African American
854,266
50
50
Asian American
99,627
39
61
Source: Original data analysis.

We begin our contextual analysis of NCVS assault data by looking at indicators of
severity, beginning with the attack. Table 13 presents the percent distribution of assault
victimizations in which female victims were hit by race/ethnicity. As can be seen, American
Indian and Alaska Native females, followed closely by African American females, were more
likely to be hit, compared to white or Asian American females.
Table 13:
Average annual percent of assault victimizations against females by race, in which
the victim was hit by the offender, NCVS 1992-2005.

Percent of Victimizations
in which Victim was Hit
All races
45%

American Indian and Alaska Native
51
White
44
African American
50
Asian American
43
Source: Original data analysis.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

49
We next examined the percent victimizations that resulted in injuries and the percent of
these injuries that required medical care, as presented in Table 14. American Indian and Alaska
Native women were more likely to be injured than women of all other groups and more of these
injuries required medical care.

Table 14:
Average annual percent of assault victimizations against females by race, in which
the victim sustained injuries, NCVS 1992-2005

Percent of Victimizations in
which Victim was Injured
Percent of Injuries
Requiring Medical Care
All races
61%
41%

American Indian and Alaska Native
70
56
White
60
38
African American
63
49
Asian American
53
53
Source: Original data analysis.

Table 15 presents the percent distribution of victimizations in which the offender
brandished a weapon. Although American Indian and Alaska Native women were more likely to
face an armed offender compared to either white or Asian American women, African American
women were the most likely to be assaulted with a weapon.

Table 15:
Average annual percent of assault victimizations against females in which the
offender had a weapon, NCVS 1992-2005.

Percent of Victimizations
in which Offender Had Weapon
All races
18%

American Indian and Alaska Native
21
White
17
African American
27
Asian American
22
Source: Original data analysis.

We next examined other contextual characteristics of assault victimizations by looking at
the victim and offender relationship, the race of the offenders involved, and perceived drug and
alcohol usage by offenders.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 16 presents the percentage distribution for the victim and offender relationship
categories of intimate (spouses, ex-spouses, boy/girlfriends, and ex-boy/girlfriends), other family
members (e.g. parents and step parents, siblings, other extended family), other known (e.g.
friends and acquaintances), and strangers. As can be seen, the majority of assaults against
women regardless of race were committed by known offenders. Of the known offenders, a larger
percent of assaults against American Indian and Alaska Native women were committed by
known offenders such as friends and acquaintances followed by intimate partners. A higher
proportion of American Indian and Alaska Natives were also assaulted by other family members
compared to other women and less likely to be assaulted by strangers. Data also indicate that the
majority of assaults against American Indian and Alaska Native women occurred in private, at or
near a private residence (59%) compared to public locations.

Table 16:
Average annual percent of assault victimizations against females by race and
perceived relationship status of offender(s), NCVS 1992-2005.

Intimate
Other
Family
Other
Known
Stranger
All races
26%
9%
34%
30%

American Indian and Alaska Native
28
14
35
23
White
26
9
35
30
African American
26
9
36
29
Asian American
17
11
25
47
Source: Original data analysis.

The percentage distribution for the racial identity of offenders is presented in Table 17.
The majority of assaults against white and African American women were intra-racial. However,
similar to sexual violence, assault victimizations against American Indian and Alaska Native
women were more likely to be inter-racial; a larger percent of victimizations against American
Indian and Alaska Native women were committed by white offenders compared to American
Indian and Alaska Native offenders. However, because less than one in four of these
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

51
victimization are perpetrated by strangers (Table 16), we cannot infer that these white offenders
are all strangers to the victim.

Table 17:
Average annual percent of assault victimization against females by race and
perceived racial/ethnicity status of offender(s), NCVS 1992-2005.

White
Offender(s)
African
American
Offender(s)
Other*
Offender(s)
All races
63%
25%
11%

American Indian and Alaska Native
55
8
36
White
74
14
12
African American
11
84
5
Asian American
45
23
33
Source: Original data analysis.

* Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native and Asian American

Similar to rape and sexual assault victimizations, alcohol and drugs appear to play a
larger role in the assaults of American Indian and Alaska Native women compared to other
women. Over one in three (38%) of American Indian and Alaska Native assault victims believed
their attackers had been drinking and/or taking drugs before the offense compared to 29% of
white victims, 27% of African American victims, and 19% of Asian American victims.

To determine the extent of police involvement in victimizations, victims were asked if the
police were notified of the victimization. Table 18 presents the percentage distributions of those
victimizations in which police were notified and the percent of these notifications in which the
victim, herself, reported the incident to police. Over half (53%) of all assaults against American
Indian and Alaska Native women were reported to police. As can be seen, a greater percent of
assaults against American Indian and Alaska Native women were reported to police compared to
white or Asian American women, but only 32% of these were made by the victim herself. Only
about a third of reports made to police were made by the victim herself. This low percent of
victim-reporting is consistent with percentages for all women.

52
Table 18:
Average annual percent of assault victimization against females by race, in which
the victimization was reported to police, NCVS 1992-2001.

Percent of Victimizations
Reported to Police
Percent of Reports that
were Reported by Victim
All races
47%
30%

American Indian and Alaska Native
53
32
White
45
29
African American
56
34
Asian American
35
24
Source: Original data analysis.

Overall, assault victimizations reported to police were more likely to result in an arrest
compared to rape and sexual assault victimizations. American Indian and Alaska Native women
who reported their victimizations to police were slightly more likely to report that an arrest had
been made (18%), followed closely by African American women (16%), white women (14%),
and Asian American women (13%).

The National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS): The NVAWS measured
physical assault by using a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (Strauss & Gelles,
1990). Respondents were asked about assaults that occurred as a child and as adults using the
following screening questions:
“Not counting any incidents you have already mentioned, after you became an adult did any other adult,
male or female ever...
a. Throw something at you that could hurt?
b. Push, grab or shove you?
c. Pull your hair?
d. Slap or hit you?
e. Kick or bite you?
f. Choke or attempt to drown you?
g. Hit you with some object?
h. Beat you up?
i. Threaten you with a gun?
j. Threaten you with a knife or other weapon?
k. Use a gun on you?
l. Use a knife or other weapon on you?”
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Respondents were also asked about victimization in relation to both current and former
intimate partners. Because of the small number of American Indian and Alaska Natives
interviewed for the NVAWS, published documents only report lifetime prevalence estimates of
victimization by intimate partners. Lifetime prevalence rates of both assaults in general and
assaults perpetrated by intimate partners are both higher for American Indian and Alaska Native
women compared to women of other racial groups. Almost two-thirds (61.4%) of American
Indian and Alaska Native women have been assaulted in their lifetimes compared to 51.3% of
white women, 52.1% of African American women, and 49.6% of Asian American women
(Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998a). A higher percent of American Indian and Alaska Native women
(30.7%) had also experienced intimate partner assault in their lifetimes compared to white
women (21.3%), African American women (26.3), or Asian or Pacific Islander women (12.8%)
(Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).

The National Family Violence Survey (NFVS): Bachman (1992) examined 204
American Indian and Alaska Native couples who were interviewed in the 1985 NFVS. The
majority of the sample resided in urban or suburban settings, and 41% lived in rural areas, but
respondents were not asked whether they resided on or off tribal lands. This survey used the
original Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) (Straus, 1979) to measure a variety of behaviors used in
conflicts between family members during a reference period of “the past year.” It asked
respondents to recall the times “in the past year” when they and their partner “disagree on major
decisions, get annoyed about something the other person does, or just have spats or fights
because they’re in a bad mood or tired or for some other reason.” The instructions went on to
say: “I’m going to read a list of some things that you and your partner might have done when
you had a dispute and would like you to tell me for each one how often you did it in the past
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

54
year.” The list spans many techniques including reasoning, verbal aggression, and finally
physical aggression or “violence.” The CTS items are often subdivided into “minor” and
“severe” violence. The minor violence items include: threw something at the other family
member; pushed, grabbed, or shoved; and slapped. The severe violence index measures assaults
that have a relatively high likelihood of causing injury and include: kicked, bit, or punched; hit or
tried to hit with an object; beat up; choked; threatened with a knife or gun, or used a knife or gun.
Results from Bachman’s (1992) analyses indicated that compared to white couples, American
Indian and Alaska Native couples were more likely to experience all forms of violence, including
incidents of severe violence. More than 1 in 12 American Indian and Alaska Native women
(12.2%) experienced some form of violence by their husbands in the past year (Bachman, 1992).

Local Surveys of Assaults Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women
Since many of the studies examining sexual violence also measured incidents of physical
assault, the table in Appendix A also provides detailed methodological information about the
studies presented in this section. As noted above, the most extensive research at the tribal level to
measure violence against women was recently conducted by Yuan, Koss, Polacca and Goldman
(2006) (see previous section on p. 42 for sampling methodology). To measure incidents of
physical assault, screening questions from the NVAWS were used. Results indicated that 45% of
the female respondents reported experiencing a physical assault since the age of 18; and that
intimate partners perpetrated the vast majority of these assaults. Similar to rape victimizations,
there was a great deal of variability across the six tribes. The same tribe with the lowest
prevalence of rape also had the lowest prevalence of physical assault (27%) compared to the high
percent of women experiencing assault since the age of 18 for Tribe Six (65%). Again,
comparisons to the national average of American Indian and Alaska Native women assaulted in
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

55
their lifetime cannot be made since the reference period used in the Yuan et al. (2006) research
was “since the age of 18.”
Zahnd et al. also conducted an in-depth study of violence against American Indian
women living in California (2000) (see previous section p. 43 for a discussion of their sampling
methodology). To uncover incidents of violence, respondents in this convenience sample
(N=110) were asked questions modeled after the NVAWS. With perhaps the largest prevalence
rate found across all studies, Zahnd and her colleagues found that 81% of women in their sample
had experienced some form of violence in childhood (under the age of 18), and 80% of women
had experienced some form of violence since adulthood (after the age of 18). These incidents
were frequently severe and included such victimizations as kicking, biting, choking, attempting
to drown, hitting with an object, beating up, threatening with a weapon, or using a weapon. As
stated above, the majority of all victimizations were perpetrated by intimate partners.

The majority of the other local studies of assault against American Indian and Alaska
Native women have primarily focused on intimate partner assaults and also relied on
convenience samples. For example, using questions similar to those on the NVAWS but cued for
intimate partners only, Malcoe, Duran and Montgomery (2004) investigated the prevalence of
intimate partner violence among 312 American Indian women who utilized the services of a
Women, Infants and Children (WIC) clinic in southwest Oklahoma during the summer of 1997.
Nearly 60 percent (58.7%) of respondents reported being victims of physical or sexual intimate
partner violence during their lifetime, with 26.3% reporting that this violence had occurred
during the previous 12 months. Indicators of severity for these physical assaults were fairly
high. For example, over half of the sample (57.8%) indicated that they had been punched or hit
with a fist, been thrown against a wall (49.3%), thrown across a room (40.3%), kicked (39.1%)
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

56
and choked (35.4%). The severe abuse reported often resulted in visible injuries. Nearly half of
the respondents (49.9%) reported having a black eye, while 18.6% sustained a broken nose or
bone. The most startling finding involved the prevalence of repeated injuries. Almost one-quarter
(22.2%) of the respondents reported being injured on 20 or more occasions, and 6.6% of the
sample reported sustaining injuries in excess of 50 times at the hands of an intimate partner.

Fairchild, Fairchild and Stoner (1998) conducted a survey of 341 women who obtained
routine ambulatory care at an Indian Health Service (IHS) center that provided services to a large
Navajo reservation in the southwest United States. Results indicated that 41.9% of respondents
had experienced partner-perpetrated physical violence at least once in their lifetime and 16.4%
were victims of intimate partner violence in the previous 12 months. Even higher prevalence
rates were found from a sample of tribal members from a Southwestern tribe by Robin, Chester,
& Rasmussen (1998). Using a version of the CTS similar to that used by the NVAWS, these
researchers found that nearly equivalent percentages of American Indian men and women (75%)
reported physical abuse in their lifetimes and in the recent 12 months (32%). However, this
gender symmetry in victimization is misleading as a majority of female offenders reported that
their assaultive behavior was in self-defense to an attack by their partners. Moreover, female
victims from this sample were almost ten times more likely to require medical care for injuries
sustained during their victimizations compared to American Indian male victims.

Not all local level studies have found high rates of assault victimization for American
Indian and Alaska Native women. For example, Harwell, Moore and Spence (2003) found low
rates of intimate partner violence in a convenience sample from Montana. A total of 1,006
surveys of American Indian adults living on or near a reservation in Montana were completed.
Surprisingly, the authors found no difference between rates of past-year IPV for men and
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

57
women. Additionally, contrary to the findings of most other studies, the authors found that
annual rates of intimate partner violence for American Indian and Alaska Native women (3%)
were consistent with the findings for women in Montana overall (2%).

DATING VIOLENCE

An emphasis on dating violence was added to the 2005 VAWA and was defined as
follows: violence that is committed by a person— “(A) who is or has been in a social
relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the victim; and (B) where the existence of such
a relationship shall be determined based on a consideration of the following factors: (i) The
length of the relationship; (ii) The type of relationship; (iii) The frequency of interaction between
the persons involved in the relationship” (VAWA, 2005, §40002 (a) (8)).

There were no published studies found that were devoted exclusively to dating violence.
While there are no age parameters set for victims of dating violence in the general literature nor
in the above definition, it is typically assumed that dating violence occurs in adolescence and
young adulthood. It is possible, therefore, to use the NCVS examine the extent to which assaults
against American Indian and Alaska Native women were perpetrated by boy/girlfriends or ex-
boy/girlfriends across age groups. Table 19 reports the percent distribution of assaults against
American Indian and Alaska Native women by age and victim/offender relationship.

Table 19:
Average annual percent of assault victimization against American Indian and Alaska
Native females by age and specific victim/offender relationship, NCVS 1992-2005.
Victim Age Group
Intimate
Other
Family
Other
Known
Stranger
12-17
3
6
60
30
18-29
40
16
21
23
30-39
26
14
38
22
50 and older
11
16
47
26
Source: Original data analysis.

Results from the NCVS indicate that, compared to other American Indian and Alaska
Native women, young adolescent American Indian and Alaska Native women are the least likely
to experience intimate partner assault followed by those aged 50 and older. Those most likely to
assault young American Indian and Alaska Native adolescents are other known offenders such as
friends and acquaintances.

STALKING

Only recently has stalking been addressed as a critical social problem. Stalking literature
evolved from “celebrity stalking” (see Dietz et al. 1991), which influenced the development of
anti-stalking legislation in California in 1990 (Goode, 1995; Fischer, Cullen & Turner, 2002;
Mullen & Pathe, 2002), now addresses legal, social, economic, and health concerns. More
specifically, “star stalking” became a “women’s issue” alongside domestic violence (Lowney &
Best, 1995; Mullen & Pathe, 2002). However, while stalking is viewed today as an issue of
increasing importance, there has been very little research investigating this type of victimization
and virtually no quantitative or qualitative data collected on how this affects American Indian
and Alaska Native women.

National Studies

The NCVS conducted a supplemental survey to their larger study to examine the
prevalence of stalking in 2006. However, results are not yet available. The only published
national study to date that has measured stalking victimizations has been the NVAWS (Tjaden &
Thoennes, 1998b). The survey defined stalking as “a course of conduct directed at a specific
person that involves repeated visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or
verbal, written or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

59
person fear,” with repeated meaning on two or more occasions. Because it was the first, the
NVAWS has set the standard for screening questions used to uncover stalking victimizations. As
with all of its questions, the NVAWS avoided the term “stalking” in favor of several
behaviorally specific questions that, together, constituted the definition of stalking in most state
statutes. Respondents were asked the following questions:
“Not including bill collectors, telephone solicitors, or other sales people, has anyone, male or female,
ever…
a. Followed or spied on you?
b. Sent you unsolicited letters or written correspondence?
c. Made unsolicited phone calls to you?
d. Stood outside your home, school, or workplace?
e. Showed up at places you were even though he or she had no business being there?
f. Left unwanted items for you to find?
g. Tried to communicate in other ways against you?
h. Vandalized your property or destroyed something you loved?”

Respondents who answered “Yes” to one or more of these questions were asked whether anyone
had ever done any of these things to them on more than one occasion. Because stalking involves
repeated behaviors, only respondents who answered in the affirmative were considered possible
stalking victims. Because stalking must also include an element of fear by victims, respondents
who reported being victimized on more than one occasion were then asked how frightened the
victimizations made them feel and whether they feared the offender would seriously harm them
or someone close to them. ONLY those respondents who were very frightened or feared bodily
harm were counted as stalking victims. This methodological rigor is important when attempting
to measure stalking because unlike other violent victimizations, the “fear element” is necessary
to constitute stalking in most state criminal codes.

Consistent with other prevalence rates of victimization for rape and physical assault, the
NVAWS found that American Indian and Alaska Native women were more likely to have
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

60
experienced stalking in their lifetimes compared to women of other racial groups. The percentage
of women experiencing stalking in their lifetimes from each group are as follows: American
Indian and Alaska Native 17%, white 8.2%, African American 6.5%; Asian American 4.5%.
Although the results were not broken down by race, Tjaden and Thoennes (1998b) found that
stalking victimizations were most likely to be perpetrated by intimate partners.
Using the NVAWS data, Dietz and Martin (2007) examined the impact of eliminating the
“fear” requirement in the definition of stalking among female victims. They found that when
fear is not required in the definition of stalking, the levels of lifetime victimization increase
dramatically from 8 to 17 percent in the national sample, and from 17 to 27 percent among
American Indian and Alaska Native women.

Local Studies
We could find only one published local study that provided an estimate of stalking for
American Indians, however, this was not for a local tribe, but for the state of Texas. Kercher and
Johnson (2007) evaluated the stalking supplement of the Crime Victims’ Institute Telephone
Victimization Survey in 2006, which was generated through random digit dialing (CATI
system). Respondents in the study were asked about stalking experiences, which were defined as
“deliberate but unwanted acts by a person to get your attention because he or she wants to have a
relationship with you, has a relationship with you, or assumes there is a relationship with you
when there is not” (Kercher & Johnson, 2007, p.6). Based on the series of questions, 128 of the
701 respondents reported at least one form of stalking behavior in the past 24 months
(approximately 18%). It is important to note that these questions did not require a pattern of
conduct or an element of fear on the part of the victim. Results indicate that American Indians,
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

61
both male and female, who comprised 1.4% of the study population, accounted for 2% of
stalking victimizations. Unfortunately, results were not presented by the gender of the victim.

REASONS FOR VARIABILITY IN ESTIMATES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST
AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALAKSA NATIVE WOMEN

As the previous sections have blatantly illustrated, there is extreme variability in
prevalence rates of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women across studies.
As noted earlier, it is not surprising that research employing diverse methodologies and samples
will obtain such diverse estimates of victimization. While there is undoubtedly variability across
local tribal communities, much of the variability in estimates is related to methodological
differences across studies. We will highlight these methodological issues in greater detail below.
We want to begin with the assumption that underreporting plagues our ability to obtain estimates
of all victimizations for a number of reasons, regardless of the rigor of a particular survey and
sampling methodology. Victims are not only reluctant to report their experiences to law
enforcement, but may also be reluctant to report to survey interviewers for a number of reasons
including fear that their reports will not remain anonymous, shame and embarrassment, and fear
of reprisal from the offender.

Screening Questions

Regardless of the definitions of violence stated by researchers in published reports, these
conceptual definitions are essentially meaningless when divorced from the operational
definitions and screening questions used to measure an incident. For example, regardless of how
broadly a researcher defines rape (e.g. including anal, oral, and vaginal penetration), unless they
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

62
ask specifically about each manifestation of rape, they will not be measuring all manifestations
of rape.

At the national level, the screening questions used by the NCVS and the NVAWS vary
considerably in the behavior-specific language and also in the number of questions asked.
Regarding physical assault, although many of the behaviors used in the screening instruments are
the same across surveys (e.g. grabbing, choking, throwing something), there are a few behavioral
cues present in the NVAWS (pulled hair, slapped, bit) that are not present in the NCVS.
Importantly, however, the manner in which the questions are asked across surveys is quite
different. Lynch (1996) describes the NCVS questions as a “short cue” strategy, in which “a
single syntactically correct question is followed by a large number of short cues. This approach
maximizes the number and types of cues that can be asked, and at the same time, minimizes the
time required to administer the cues” (Lynch, 1996, p. 420). In contrast, the NVAWS uses
several syntactically correct questions to elicit reports of victimizations that were perpetrated by
a number of different offenders including current and former spouses, boy/girlfriends and former
boy/girlfriends, and so on. The NCVS does not cue respondents about such specific relationship
types, but rather with general categories like “a relative or family member.” Undoubtedly, the
number and specificity of relationship and behavioral cues will serve to increase recall of reports
from respondents.

The differences in screening questions used in the NCVS and the NVAWS to measure
incidents of rape and sexual assault are more evident. As displayed in Table 11 the NVAWS uses
several behaviorally specific questions to uncover a wide range of victimizations that meet the
legal definition of rape in most states. These questions are further cued by specific relationship
categories. It is logical that multiple behaviorally specific cues such as these will be associated
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

63
with a greater disclosure by survey respondents compared to the one question about sexual
intercourse posed by the NCVS. In fact, Fisher et al (2000) have demonstrated that when sub-
samples from the same population are given the two different sets of rape screening questions,
estimates obtained using the NVAWS questions result in higher prevalence rates of
victimization. Research shows that when sample parameters are made as similar as possible
across the NCVS and the NVAWS (e.g. victims 18 years of age or older and single offender
victimizations), the NVAWS screening questions still estimate a higher number of intimate
partner violence incidents (Bachman, 2000).

Differences in screening questions also affect the magnitude and quality of estimates
obtained from local surveys. While being sensitive to cultural differences across tribes, it is
important for researchers interested in obtaining estimates at the local tribal level to seek
guidance from research that has already been done on measuring violence against women. For
example, Yuan et al (2006) relied on questions already developed by the NVAWS, as did
Malcoe and Duran (2004) and Zahnd and her colleagues (2002). Using survey questions that
have a national equivalent also allows researchers to make comparisons across local and national
estimates of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women.

Reference Period Used

In many published reports and literature reviews therein, estimates of violence against
American Indian and Alaska Native women are provided without regard to the screening
questions and without regard for the various types of “reference periods” utilized across studies.
Prevalence rates are very different for those estimating victimization in a respondent’s
“lifetime,” or since a respondent turned “18 years of age,” or “during the past 12 months.” A
glance across surveys conducted at the local level show a wide range of reference periods
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

64
employed and attention to this detail is important when making estimate comparisons across
studies. There are other differences between the NCVS and other surveys regarding the accuracy
of appropriately placing a victimization within a specified period of time (e.g. last six months)
that requires eliminating victimizations reported in the first interview (called bounding) that also
serve to decrease NCVS estimates relative to survey estimates that are not bounded (see
Bachman, 2000 for a detailed discussion).8

Sampling Differences
Random versus Availability Samples: One of the most important sampling distinctions
across surveys is whether the sample was obtained through a random sampling procedure or was
based on a nonrandom procedure such as a convenience sample that was simply available to the
researcher (Bachman & Schutt, 2007). This latter type includes “captive samples” obtained from
programs such as substance abuse treatment centers or domestic violence shelters. Not
surprisingly, these populations are at an increased risk of being victimized. As a result, findings
from these studies would represent an inflated prevalence of violence and abuse compared to the
general population (Wahab & Olson, 2004; Hamby, 2000). Although these captive samples
probably pose the greatest threats to the generalizability of samples, nonrandom samples also
include those obtained from other “available” groups such as those who are involved in a social
group, who go to the hospital, and so on. Although these samples are easier to obtain in terms of
time and money than a random sample, there is no way to ensure that the respondents obtained
from these samples are representative of the larger American Indian and Alaska Native

8 Bounding is best explained by example, during each interview, respondents are asked about any victimization they
may have experienced within the past 6 months. Interviews then focus on the specific period during which the
incident occurred. Incidents reported in that interview are compared with incidents reported in a previous interview.
When a report appears to be a duplicate of an earlier reported incident, respondents are reminded of the earlier repot
and are asked whether the new report represents the incident mentioned previously or a different incident. The sole
purpose of the first interview in the NCVS, then, is to set an initial time reference (bounding). Data collected at the
first interview are not included in published NCVS estimates of violence by BJS or in the public-use data tapes.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

65
population, regardless of whether the target population is a small local tribe or the entire
American Indian and Alaska Native population nationally.

Random Digit Dialing Versus In Person Solicitation: The way that researchers obtain
survey participants can also alter the findings of studies. In order to save money and include a
large sample size, many studies, such as the NVAWS utilize a sampling strategy that uses
random digit dialing of telephone numbers to obtain the sample. In contrast, the NCVS relies on
census addresses as the sampling frame, and the first interview is usually conducted in person.
This in-person-solicitation is undoubtedly responsible for the high response rate (number of
individuals originally asked who actually agree to complete the survey) obtained by the NCVS
(94%) compared to the NVAWS (72%). The Census sampling frame used by the NCVS contains
households that may or may not have telephones. This is important, especially in Indian Country,
where many poor or isolated individuals do not have telephone access and lack specific mailing
addresses. These individuals would not be captured in random digit dialing sampling strategies.
This is especially problematic because individuals with lower incomes are generally more at risk
of violence compared to their more affluent counterparts. As such, surveys that do not attempt to
represent all people from a selected population, both those with telephones and those without,
will not obtain a representative sample (Wahab & Olson, 2004; Hamby, 2000; Yuan et al., 2006).
To date, the only study examining violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women
conducted at the local level to utilize a rigorous random sampling design was Yuan et al. (2006).

Cultural Sensitivity of Interviewers
Survey interviewers, especially those interviewing respondents in person, can also have a
major impact on the results of studies. Often interviewers are not knowledgeable of the distinct
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

66
aspects of tribal culture and language. As a result, participants may be less open to sharing
intimate aspects of their lives, such as abuse, with someone that they consider to be an outsider.
Additionally, interviewers may be less likely to understand the unique features and language of
the American Indian and Alaska Native community, which can lead to incorrect findings and
conclusions (Wahab & Olson, 2004; Hamby, 2000).
Researchers such as Yuan et al. (2006) and Zahnd et al. (2002) went to great lengths to
ensure that American Indian interviewers were used and appropriately trained in interviewing
techniques for sensitive topics such as victimization. Yuan et al. (2006) state, “We selected and
trained five American Indian interviewers, based on their experience with unbiased interviewing,
their familiarity with American Indian culture, their concern with confidentiality, and their
sensitivity.” When tribal communities are small, it is probably best to use interviewers from a
different tribe in order to ensure confidentiality to respondents (Bachman & Schutt, 2007).
Is it a necessity that interviewers be of the same and ethnicity as respondents? The
empirical literature is fairly equivocal on this topic with some contending that interviewers of the
same race (just like interviewers of the same gender) are more likely to obtain honest disclosures
from respondents if the questions are about issues relevant to gender and race (Davis, 1997).
Others, however, contend that provided interviews are sensitive and trained in the art of
developing rapport with their respondents there is no difference in rates of disclosure (Reese &
Brown, 1995; Tate, 1994).

67
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM’S RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST
AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN

Although American Indian and Alaska Native women share most of the same obstacles
that women of the general population face when seeking protection from the criminal justice
system, in many cases the criminal justice system’s response to American Indian and Alaska
Native is complicated by a variety of legal, social, economic and political barriers. This section
describes both the shared experiences and unique conditions American Indian and Alaska Native
women face when seeking justice through federal, state and tribal justice systems.

Historical Context
Scholars often suggest that violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women
directly relates to historical victimization (BigFoot, 2000; Bubar & Thurman, 2004; Poupart,
2002; Smith, 2003). According to proponents of this idea, domination and oppression of native
peoples increased both economic deprivation and dependency through retracting tribal rights and
sovereignty. Consequently, American Indian and Alaska Natives today are believed to suffer
from internalized oppression and the normalization of violence (Bubar & Thurman, 2004;
Peacock et al., 2002; Perry, 2002; Poupart, 2002). Colonization aided a breakdown of traditional
support systems through intergenerational trauma and the forced removal of tribal communities
to reservations and more recently, the removal of American Indian and Alaska Native children
into boarding schools (BigFoot, 2000; Bubar & Thurman, 2004; Magen & Wood, 2006).
Historical and ongoing marginalization in terms of social, economic and political rights places
American Indian and Alaska Natives at greater risk for victimization than other groups who did
not share similar historical inequalities (Perry, 2002; Poupart, 2002). And importantly for this
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

68
report, scholars have also argued that the methods of colonization encouraged male authority and
gender dominance (Berger, 2004; Bubar & Thurman, 2004; Coker, 1999; Hamby, 2000; Smith,
2003).
Supreme Court decisions passed by the Marshall courts in the middle of the nineteenth
century established the United States government’s “paternalistic” attitude toward indigenous
Americans (Poupart, 2002, p. 149). While American Indian and Alaska Native tribes are
sovereign nations,9 they still bear the relationship as a domestic dependent to the United States
federal government.10 Indian Nations are neither extra-national powers nor states. Only the
federal government, not individual states can intervene in tribal affairs.11 Importantly, this unique
relationship created significant problems in the criminal justice system, particularly in how law
enforcement responds to crimes involving American Indian and Alaska Natives on and off
designated tribal lands, and what jurisdiction holds authority to prosecute offenders.

The foundation of the American legal system and that of most tribal legal systems also
differ in perspective. The American legal system typically views justice as a system based on
deterrence, which seeks retribution and punishment. Addressing problems under Western
concepts of law focuses on individual cases, while indigenous views of law and order are based
on communal values (Deer, 2005; Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). Traditional American Indian
and Alaska Native judicial systems emphasize healing the victim and offender’s relationship and
the restoration of harmony within the community (Gray & Lauderdale, 2006; Peacock et al.,
2002). Many traditional tribal judicial procedures address the victim’s needs through allowing
their story to be shared. Unlike Western systems of justice, which concentrate on punishing the
offender, native traditions typically encouraged the victim to actively participate in the criminal

9 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, US (5 Pet.) 1, 16 (1831).
10 Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 574 (1823).
11 Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

69
justice process (Deer, 2004a; Poupart, 2002; Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). Some contend that
tribal systems of justice offer women more protection (Deer, 2004a; Poupart, 2002; Valencia-
Weber & Zuni, 1995), and that American Indian and Alaska Native women do not feel that
Westernized criminal justice systems sufficiently address the needs of the victim (Peacock et al.,
2002).
The impact of federal intervention in tribal affairs may have served to hinder the ability of
tribal governments to effectively address violence against American Indian and Alaska Native
women (BigFoot, 2000). In addition to practical problems of funding, training, coordination, and
jurisdictional complexities, tribal governments suffer from an inability to use what sovereignty
duties they are realistically allowed to implement. Researchers such as Peacock et al. suggest that
the erosion of the tribal government’s ability to address crime significantly harms American
Indian and Alaska Native women in particular. They argue that policies such as the Indian
Reorganization Act of 193412 removed power from American Indian families in addition to
spiritual and community leaders in tribal justice systems. Moreover, through integrating
American Indians into American law in the earlier twentieth century, Peacock et al. argue that
American Indian women thus, “received the same protection that non-Indian women in non-
Indian communities received”(Peacock et al., 2002, p. 324).

Federal Indian Law
Several notable federal laws regulate violence within sovereign borders of Indian
Country. While federal restrictions may have intended to protect American Indian and Alaska
Native women (Berger, 2004), some researchers contend that federal intervention actually
inhibits the ability to effectively punish offenders by restricting maximum penalties under tribal

12 Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act, 25 U.S. C.A. §461 et seq.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

70
law, prohibiting American Indians to prosecute non-Indians, and not following traditional tribal
peacemaking (Berger, 2004; Christofferson, 1991; Deer, 2004a; Radon, 2004; Waheed, 2004).
Moreover, the unique position of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes as both sovereign
and dependent creates a problematic legal structure with jurisdictional barriers (Bubar &
Thurman, 2004; Deer, 2005; Peacock et al., 2002; O’Brien, 1991; Tatum, 2002; Valencia-Weber
& Zuni, 1995).

As we have seen, violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women is not
entirely bound to incidents within Indian Country. As we noted at the beginning of this report,
contrary to typical conceptions of American Indian and Alaska Natives residing solely on rural
reservations, many live outside reservation boundaries in urban and suburban locations.
American Indian and Alaska Native victims who are members of tribes living on reservations,
however, face the greatest barriers to prosecution.
In the following sections, we will highlight the laws established by Congress that limit
tribal government’s power to prosecute offenders (a) if the offender or victim is Non-American
Indian or Alaska Native, (b) if the victim is American Indian or Alaska Native but was assaulted
outside Indian Country, and (c) if the offense is a particular violent crime noted in the Major
Crimes Act (1885).

Major Crimes Act13
The federal government asserted jurisdiction over certain crimes committed in Indian
Country under the Major Crimes Act (1885). Responding to demands from the Non-American

13 Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153)
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

71
Indian and Alaska Native population after Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883),14 Congress declared
authority over “major crimes,” even if the offense was between two American Indian and Alaska
Natives within Indian Territory (Deer, 2004a, p. 20). Major crimes under the U.S. Code include
murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, incest, assault with intent to commit murder,
assault with a dangerous weapon, assault against an individual under sixteen including felony
child abuse and neglect, arson, burglary, robbery, any felony under section 661 of the title within
Indian Country, and felonies under chapter 109A.15 Violent crimes against women in non-PL-
280 states (discussed on page 75) such as aggravated assault, rape and homicide are also
prosecuted at the federal level.
The passing of the Major Crimes Act restricts the power of tribal governments to address
serious crimes within Indian Country. Crimes against women such as murder, rape and
aggravated assault must be prosecuted by the federal government. Tribes are not, however,
prohibited from engaging in simultaneous prosecution of such cases if only American Indian and
Alaska Native parties are involved.16 Nonetheless, other legal barriers restrict the power of tribal
courts in matters involving serious crimes to enact adequate punishment for violent offenders,
which we highlight next.

Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA)17
The Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) of 1968 generally sought to limit abusive power of tribal
governments and was intended to mimic provisions listed under the United States Bill of Rights

14 Ex Parte Crow Dog (109 U.S. 556, 3 S.Ct. 396, 27 L.Ed. 1030 (1883)). In Ex Parte Crow Dog, the Supreme
Court recognized the sovereignty of the Lakota Indian tribe and placing jurisdiction to address the murder of one
Lakota tribe member by another Lakota tribe member.
15 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (a); section 661 deals with embezzlement and theft; chapter 9 involves sexual assault as well as
child abuse and neglect (18 U.S.C. § 1162 2246)
16 United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004); The Supreme Court found that the Double Jeopardy clause does not
apply prosecution in the United States and Indian Country.
17 Indian Civil Rights Act (25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1303)
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

72
(Deer, 2004a). However, while the IRCA was intended to “protect” American Indian and Alaska
Natives from themselves, in reality it degraded the ability of tribal courts to provide adequate
punishment for serious offenders (Christofferson, 1991, note 109). According to William Canby
(1988), American Indian and Alaska Natives saw this effort as an intrusion on their sovereignty.
Although the federal government intended to improve individual rights and protections, they
removed the collective right of American Indian and Alaska Natives to regulate their own
people.
For the first twenty years, tribal courts were not permitted to punish offenders with more than
$500 in fines, six months in jail, or both (Deer, 2004a, p. 21). This increased to $5000, one year
in jail, or both in 1986, and these remain the limits today (ICRA 25 U.S.C. § 1302 (7)). These
enhanced penalties arose primarily from efforts to deter drug use on reservations (Deer, 2005).
While Indian Nations did not traditionally punish offenders with incarceration, scholars suggest
that federal limitations on tribal sentencing fueled the belief that tribes were unable to prosecute
serious crimes (Deer, 2004a; Waheed, 2004). Clearly, these punitive restrictions are inadequate
to fit the severity of major crimes committed by offenders within Indian Country. Thus, even
though tribes are allowed dual jurisdiction for major crimes (see United States v. Lara for
example), in reality they are unable to enact punishments that fit the severity of these crimes.

Prosecuting Non-American Indian and Alaska Native Offenders in Tribal Courts
Another jurisdictional issue concerns a tribe’s ability to prosecute based on the identity of the
offender and the victim. As Waheed (2004) notes, “the distinction between reservation and non-
reservation dwelling Indians is important because tribal sovereignty exists only in Indian
country” (Waheed, 2004, p. 289). However, according to Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

73
(1978),18 American Indian and Alaska Natives do not have jurisdiction over Non-American
Indian and Alaska Natives, even in tribal territory. Sarah Deer argues that tribal government’s
inability to prosecute non-American Indian and Alaska Natives attracts offenders of various
crimes to Indian Country (Deer, 2004a; 2005). Oliphant does not, however, limit tribal
governments ability to impose civil sanctions on non-American Indian and Alaska Natives
(Stetson, 1981 cited in Deer 2003/2004).
Shortly after Oliphant, the Court took a different stance on sovereignty. In Santa Clara
Pueblo v. Martinez (1978),19 Martinez, a female member of the Santa Clara Pueblo tribe, claimed
that her relationship with the tribe had changed as a result of marriage to a non-member.
According to Santa Clara laws, males could retain membership with the tribe, but the status of
females changed through marriage outside the tribe. The Supreme Court affirmed that the Court
did not have jurisdiction to regulate rules of membership based on tribal rules, thus affirming
sovereignty, but denied equality to American Indian and Alaska Native women who sought equal
protection (Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995).
In Duro v. Reina (1990),20 the Supreme Court declared that tribal governments could not
prosecute non-member American Indian and Alaska Natives in criminal courts. However, this
decision was overturned by Congress who amended the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) to grant
tribal courts jurisdiction over all American Indian and Alaska Natives who have any federally
recognized tribal affiliation21 (Burelson, 2007). Today, tribal justice systems have criminal
jurisdiction in cases that involve American Indian and Alaska Natives as both the victim and
offender. Again, however, while tribal courts may prosecute serious offenses under the Major

18 Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435 U.S. (1978)
19 Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 US 49 (1978).
20 Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990)
21 The "Duro Fix," was enacted through congress in the Criminal Jurisdiction Over Indians Act of 1991, Public Law
No 102-137, amended to the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. §1301(2) (2000).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

74
Crimes Act, the limitations under the ICRA strictly curtail the punishment of violent offenders,
and only if both parties are American Indian and Alaska Natives.
As we discussed in the introduction, another legal issue is how “American Indian” is defined.
U.S. code defines American Indians as those who are members of politically affiliated tribes,22
however, research often uses self-reported data on census information, crime reports, or
victimization surveys.23 For example, virtually all surveys described in this report have relied on
respondents’ self-reporting of their racial status. The difference between racial identity and
political identity adds extra complexity for research involving legal issues and victimization.
For many American Indian and Alaska Natives who do reside in Indian country, the complex
jurisdictional maze is further complicated by the initiation of Public Law 280 (PL-280).

Public Law 28024
Passed in 1953, Public Law 280 gave state governments jurisdiction over offenses committed
in Indian Country or involving American Indian and Alaska Natives in PL-280 states. Six
“mandatory” states were required to adopt PL-280, including Alaska, California, Minnesota,

22 25 U.S.C § 1603 (c) “Indians” or “Indian”, unless otherwise designated, means any person who is a member of an
Indian tribe, as defined in subsection (d) of this section, except that, for the purpose of sections 1612 and 1613 of
this title, such terms shall mean any individual who (1), irrespective of whether he or she lives on or near a
reservation, is a member of a tribe, band, or other organized group of Indians, including those tribes, bands, or
groups terminated since 1940 and those recognized now or in the future by the State in which they reside, or who is
a descendant, in the first or second degree, of any such member, or (2) is an Eskimo or Aleut or other Alaska Native,
or (3) is considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be an Indian for any purpose, or (4) is determined to be an
Indian under regulations promulgated by the Secretary. For criminal justice, American Indians are defined through
political status, not as a racial or ethnic group (Burelson, 2007). Also see United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641
(1977) (stating that while many individuals may be racially classified as ‘Indians,’ it is proof of membership that
differentiates Indians from non-Indians under criminal law).
23 US Census 2000 information asks respondents what they identify as their tribal membership or primary tribal
membership, but does not distinguish between state and federally recognized tribes. Of those who reported
themselves as American Indian, approximately 21 percent did not report a specific tribal membership (Perry, 2004).
The National Crime Victimization Survey and the National Violence Against Women Survey ask respondents their
racial identity, but does not ask about tribal membership or Indian Country residency.
24 Public Law 83-280 (18 U.S.C. § 1162, 28 U.S.C. § 1360)
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

75
Nebraska, Oregon and Wisconsin.25 PL-280 also applies to “optional” states that could choose to
assume part or total jurisdictional authority over American Indian and Alaska Native affairs
within their state.26 Importantly, creation and implementation of PL-280 did not include
permission or input from any American Indian and Alaska Native tribe (Goldberg & Singleton,
2005).
In 1968, the law was amended to allow states to return jurisdictional duties to the federal
government. Again, tribes were not given voice in the retrocession process. However, the
revision required the consent of American Indian tribes in any additional states that wished to
adopt PL-280. Since this amendment, no tribe has consented. In addition, several states
consequently retroceded authority to specific tribes within PL-280 jurisdiction (Goldberg &
Singleton, 2005).27
In addition to bolstering jurisdictional confusion, PL-280 created problems for American
Indian and Alaska Native tribal justice systems through the withdrawal of federal funding.
While many tribes can receive assistance by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), a division of the
federal government, tribes in PL-280 states often remain unfunded. Furthermore, PL-280 itself is
an unfunded mandate (Goldberg & Singleton, 2005). Clearly, funding deficiencies impact the
ability of laws to be carried out through law enforcement and prosecution. Several studies
indicate that funding issues, particularly in PL-280 states, have a significant negative impact on

25 State Jurisdiction Over Offenses Committed by or Against Indians in the Indian Country, 18 U.S.C. § 1162; State
Civil Jurisdiction in Actions to Which Indians Are Parties, 20 U.S.C. § 1360. The Red Lake Reservation in
Minnesota and the Warm Springs Reservation in Oregon are not included.
26 Optional states included; Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
and Washington.
27Sole jurisdiction was allocated to several tribes in some mandatory (Nebraska, Wisconsin, Oregon and Minnesota),
and some optional (Washington, Nevada and Montana) PL 280 states.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

76
the efficacy of law enforcement (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002; Peacock et al., 2002; Wakeling et
al., 2001).28
In sum, not only did PL-280 bestow some states jurisdiction in American Indian and Alaska
Native affairs, but it also damaged the trust relationship between the federal government and
“sovereign” Indian Nations (Deer, 2003/2004). Although concurrent jurisdiction still existed, the
practical reality added even greater barriers for tribal ability to criminally sanction offenders.
Critics contend that PL-280 further weakens tribes’ ability to respond to criminal behavior in
general, and violence against women in particular (Deer, 2004a).

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

Congress implemented the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as part of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.29 It was amended and reauthorized under the
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000,30 and most recently as the Violence Against
Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005.31 VAWA criminalizes interstate
violence against women, provides funding for education, training and shelters, and requires
courts to give full faith and credit to enforce foreign state or tribal laws.32 This Act demonstrates
a government interest to address not only violence against women, but violence against specific
vulnerable populations (e.g. immigrant and minority women, and those with limited resources).

28 The effects of PL-280 and other legal barriers will be discussed later in further detail.
29 H.R.3355.
30 Public Law 106-386.
31 H.R. 3452.
32 Violence Against Women Act, Title IV of the Violent Crime Control Enforcement Act of 1994. Provision include,
but are not limited to: Gender bias (42 U.S.C. 104002 (2000); Provides funding for education, training and shelters
(42 U.S.C. 10402(a)(1); Criminalizes interstate domestic violence (18 U.S.C. 2262 (2000); Excludes victims sexual
history (Federal Rules of Evidence 412); Requires courts to give full faith (18 U.S.C. 2265); Civil remedy to sue
based on gendered-violence (42 U.S.C. 13981) [May 2000 civil remedy turned down in the interstate commerce
clause]
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

77
Nonetheless, VAWA faces significant challenges for victims in Indian Country because the legal
constraints33 described earlier limit tribal authority to prosecute offenders.

VAWA (1994) included provisions for safe streets for women, safe homes for women,
civil rights for women, equal justice for women in the courts, improvements to previous
strategies that address violence against women, reducing stalking and domestic violence, and
enhancing protections for battered immigrant women and children. VAWA increased penalties
for domestic violence and other forms of intimate partner abuse through federalization (Raeder,
2006). The Violence Against Women Act was the first national legislation for domestic violence,
which addressed gender-based crimes, created new penalties for offenders, and provided a “civil
rights” cause of action (Crais, 2005, p. 407). However, the civil rights remedy was found
unconstitutional in United States v. Morrison (2000) because congress exceeded their power
under the Commerce Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.34
Subsequent renewals of VAWA included more funds for educational programs to combat
violence against women and for both criminal and non-criminal justice response services (see
VAWA 2000, 2005). Other federal initiatives35 increased penalties for offenses involving
weapons in misdemeanor domestic violence offenses, including law enforcement officers, from
buying, owning or possessing firearms (Crais, 2005). These actions impact American Indian
women in the same manner as the protection of women in interstate travel. Because American
Indian women living in Indian Country do not reside in specific states, these laws enhance
protection beyond state law, which generally holds jurisdiction in misdemeanor offenses.

VAWA’s reauthorization in 2005 specifically addresses violence against American
Indian and Alaska Native women in Title IX of the Act. Under Title IX, provisions include

33 See Major Crimes Act; Indian Civil Rights Act, Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe (1978); Public Law 280 (1953)
34 United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)
35 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

78
annual consultations between the United States and tribal governments about the distribution of
funds and program evaluations among others. The Act also grants tribal access to national
criminal databases, creates a national tribal sex offender registry, and mandates national studies
to examine violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women and the effectiveness of
federal, state and tribal responses to this violence. VAWA grants such as STOP (Services-
Training-Officers-Prosecutors) VAIW (Violence Against Indian Women) provide grant funding
to improve law enforcement, establish victim services, and enhance coordination between
jurisdictions and various agencies (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). VAWA focuses on four central
types of violence against women, including domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,
and stalking. We will discuss each in greater detail next as they pertain to particular areas of the
criminal justice response and grant evaluations.
The following sections will outline issues in law enforcement, courts and corrections.
The subsequent section will focus on protection orders and “full faith and credit” and addresses
issues in the judicial process and law enforcement. Next, a brief overview outlines alternative
tribal justice programs. Finally, the last sections will cover laws as they relate to intimate partner
violence (including domestic violence, stalking, and non-domestic intimate partner violence;
both misdemeanors and felonies), and sexual assault and rape (both misdemeanor and felony
charges.

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Because of the legal statutes outlined above, fundamental law enforcement problems
arise because of jurisdictional complexities, insufficient funding, inadequate training, and
victims’ perceptions of law enforcement. To reiterate, jurisdiction over law enforcement varies
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

79
by the location of the offense (on or off reservation land), what parties are involved (the
race/ethnicity of the victim and offender), the nature of the crime (major crime or misdemeanor),
and if the tribe resides in a PL-280 state. As such, officers who have jurisdiction on reservations
include Federal Bureau of Investigation officers, Bureau of Indian Affairs officers, tribal
government police, and in PL-280 states, state police officers. While the recent Amnesty
International report (2007) brought media attention to the problems with law enforcement on
some reservations, others have illuminated these problems as well (Dupree, 2000; International
Association of Chiefs of Police, 2001; Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002; Luna-Firebaugh, 2006;
National Sexual Violence Resource Center, n.d.; Peacock et al., 2002; Reina, 2000; Wakeling et
al., 2001).
In addition to the jurisdictional confusion and lack of funding, other issues plaguing the
efficacy of law enforcement to combat violence against American Indian and Alaska Native
women include inadequate training, limited specialized officers for particular types of
victimization including rape and intimate partner violence, high turnover and low morale among
officers, geographic and natural barriers, social, cultural and economic conditions, and
underreporting of victimization (see Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002; Wakeling et al., 2001 for
example). Research on law enforcement in Indian Country ranges from jurisdictional analyses
(Radon, 2004; Ritcheske, 2005; Tatum, 2002; 2003a; 2003b), demographics of law enforcement
(Hickman, 2003; Perry, 2005; Wakeling et al., 2001), victim experiences (Amnesty International,
2007; Peacock et al., 2002; Shepherd, 2001; Thurman et al., 2003), or grant and policy
evaluations (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002; Luna-Firebaugh, 2006). Many scholars have focused
on the impacts of various law enforcement provisions of the Violence Against Women Acts
(Crais, 2005; King-Reis, 2005; Lininger, 2003; Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002; Luna-Firebaugh,
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

80
2006; McKinley, 1996; Stevenson, 1997), with particular focus on the role of law enforcement
with protection orders and “full faith and credit” (Fine, 1998; Schmieder, 2003; Tatum, 2002;
2003b). Others have focused on tribal law enforcement and tribal justice systems (Coker, 1999;
Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). These studies suggest that significant improvements are needed
to protect American Indian and Alaska Native women.

Police Department Characteristics and Problems

There are over 170 law enforcement agencies operated by tribal law enforcement, and 37
operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (Hickman, 2003). Like many rural law enforcement
agencies, these officials suffer from departmental and administrative problems in addition to
geographical, social and economic barriers to connect with victims. Although these issues are not
unique to American Indian and Alaska Native women, scholars frequently argue that problems
are intensified on tribal lands due to cultural insensitivity, jurisdictional confusion and the
extreme isolation of many reservations. Jurisdictional confusion and funding deficiencies in turn
lead to other problems in inadequate training, absence of specialized officers, archaic or
nonexistent data collection, understaffing and general dissatisfaction among officers.
In addition to these issues, there is also variation between each tribe’s relationship to state
and federal governments through contracts or agreements. For example, some tribes are
supported solely by tribal funds, while others receive assistance through grants and contracts
with federal and state authorities. As part of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act of 1975 (Public Law 93-638), tribes can agree to oversight by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs in exchange for funding (Luna, 1998). Public Law 93-638 is the most common
administrative arrangement of police departments (Wakeling et al., 2001). Other tribes are
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

81
funded solely by tribal means, which allows them to control and develop their own model of law
enforcement (Luna, 1998; Wakeling et al, 2001).
Federal law enforcement officers are rarely the first to respond to a violent crime in
Indian Country. Their role is to enforce the Major Crimes Act,36 and respond to situations that
require federal intervention. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), under the department of the
Interior also represents law enforcement in Indian Country. The role of BIA officers is to
enforce federal and tribal laws. Depending on the relationship to the tribe and availability, BIA
officers may respond before local tribal police (Tatum, 2003a).
Except in PL-280 states, state officers generally do not have jurisdiction in Indian
Country. In PL-280 states, tribal and state officers generally work concurrently in law
enforcement (Luna, 1998). Tribal and state governments can also enforce laws through cross-
deputization (Tatum, 2003a). While some tribes receive financial assistance from the BIA, PL-
280 tribes are not eligible for these benefits (Goldberg-Ambrose, 1997). The Supreme Court
recently affirmed37 that state officers (regardless of PL-280 status) are allowed to investigate
crimes that were committed off tribal lands (Tatum, 2003a). This creates a significant barrier for
tribes to realistically enforce laws where they are legally permitted, but are unable in terms of
resources. Moreover, tribal police are not permitted the same authority to investigate offenses
against tribal members that occurred off tribal lands.
These jurisdictional issues may sometimes lead to slow responses or no response at all by
law enforcement (Amnesty International, 2007; Wakeling et al., 2001). Studies have found that
officers may hesitate because they believe the crime should be addressed by a different agency
(Amnesty International, 2007; Luna-Firebaugh, 2002; Wakeling et al., 2001) which sometimes

36 Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153).
37 Nevada v. Hicks (121 S. Ct. 2304 2001).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

82
results in cases “fall[ing] through the cracks” (Amnesty International, 2007, p. 62). The process
of law enforcement is illuminated in the anecdote described in the Final Report of the Ninth
Circuit Gender Bias Task Force:
The first enforcement officials called to the scene may be tribal police of BIA
[Bureau of Indian Affairs] officers, and these officers may initiate investigation
and/or detain a suspect. Then a decision has to be made whether the crime is of
the type warranting federal intervention, and then federal law enforcement
officials (usually the FBI) needs to be notified. These officers then decide if they
will refer the case to the U.S. Attorney’s office. After referral, the U.S. Attorney
may call for further investigation, pursue prosecution, or dismiss the case
(O’Connor, 1994).
Clearly, criminal cases in Indian Country must follow many steps before proper jurisdiction is
decided.
Tracking cases through the adjudication process and creating sustainable data collection
efforts is also hindered by jurisdictional issues (Amnesty International, 2007; Wakeling et al.,
2001). As of 2001, 75% of tribes recorded crimes within reservations manually and/or
electronically, but fewer than 12% were electronically linked to share data with other agencies.
A slight majority of tribes had access to the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC)
(Perry, 2005).
According to Goldberg and Valdez Singleton (2005), most tribes in PL-280 states do not
report crime to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In a study by Mending the Sacred Hoop that
surveyed 131 STOP VAIW programs, it was found that over a dozen different agencies were in
charge of collecting data for their tribe (National Sexual Violence Research Center, n.d.).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

83
Statistical analysis is problematic even when data is collected because of missing or
underreported cases.

Efforts to improve police administration as well as police responses include increased
funding through grant projects, and cross-deputization agreements between tribes, states, and
federal authorities. Of the 314 responding tribes in the 2002 census of tribal justice agencies,
almost all (99%) had cross deputization with other tribal or public agencies. Fifty three percent
of the tribes employing one or more full-time sworn officers were recognized by states with
arrest authority (Perry, 2005). While these agreements between agencies have shown to be
effective to overcome some jurisdictional barriers, the process to organize cross-deputization is
highly complex.

Funding is also a central concern for law enforcement. Limited resources affect salaries
and how many officers can be hired. Inadequate funding also contributes to poor training,
absence of specialized training, inability to collect and share data, and overall dissatisfaction.
There are often relatively few officers who cover a wide region, particularly on large isolated
reservations. Clearly, a limited number of available responding law enforcement agents create
delays in response to victimization (Wakeling et al., 2001). Aside from a deficiency in number
of officers, law enforcement agents have also been found to have high turnovers and low
employee morale (Wakeling et al., 2001). Turnover may be less apparent for BIA officers
compared to local tribal officers because under a division of the US government, the BIA
provides “job security, livable salaries, competitive retirement packages, and protection from
undue political pressure in the uncertain political environment typical of many tribes” (Wakeling
et al., 2001, p. 43).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Other issues related to turnover have been found in extremely remote regions. For
example, a study of Alaskan Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs)38 found that employee
turnover was not always the result of low pay or job related stress, but because of a lack of
support from other officers, or because they held jurisdiction in unfamiliar communities (Wood,
2001).
Understaffed federal, state, and tribal police forces often do not receive adequate training
for cultural sensitivity (Luna Firebaugh et al., 2002; Wakeling et al., 2001). Moreover, tribal
police are typically trained through state police academies, which place little focus on specific
cultural, social, economic and geographic features of Indian Country (Wakeling et al., 2001).
When cultural sensitivity training is available, it is often not mandatory (Wakeling et al., 2001).
Most tribal police departments do not have enough officers to specialize in intimate partner
violence or rape/sexual assault, and are thus unable to provide the best assistance for these
victimizations (Reina, 2000). In sum, funding not only affects the number of responding officers,
but the quality of policing and the ability to upkeep efficient data collection and sharing.

Cultural and Social Barriers to Effective Law Enforcement

Geographic, social, cultural and economic barriers limit an officer’s ability to help
victims. Geographic distance is problematic for victims in need of immediate assistance, and for
officers with limited staff, which often results in a delay time before the victim can be reached.
According to Wakeling et al., some tribal police departments are significantly hampered by the
huge area they must cover. For example, some police departments cover a landmass of 500,000
acres and serve several thousand individuals with only a handful of officers. This would equal

38 VPSO’s are local foot police who enforce a wide range of public safety services in Alaskan Native villages,
including law enforcement.

85
an area the size of Delaware, with 10,000 residents covered by three or fewer patrolling officers
(Wakeling et al., 2001).

Additional factors such as poverty, language barriers, cultural insensitivity and alcohol
abuse also affect law enforcement’s capacity to respond. For example, those who are poor are
less likely to have telephone access, be educated about legal remedies, or be able to afford and
develop their own criminal justice system (Wakeling et al., 2001). Peacock et al. (2002) also
found that some tribal officers may marginalize the needs of indigenous women who recently
experienced physical or sexual assault by threatening women to extract information or coerce
them into pressing criminal charges – even against the victim’s desire. Some American Indian
and Alaska Native women believe non-native officers hold racial prejudices or stereotypes of
American Indian and Alaska Native people (Ewing & Guadalupe, 2001; Reina, 2000). These
beliefs may also encourage officers to charge offenders with more serious crimes (Erwin &
Vidales, 2001).
Finally, several studies suggest that law enforcement officers can be abusers themselves
(Deer, 2004a). In Luna-Firebaugh et al.’s (2002) STOP VAIW evaluation, many tribes noted the
issue of “cops who batter,” meaning police officers who are themselves, known instigators of
domestic violence. While this is an issue for non-American Indian and Alaska Native
communities as well, it is particularly difficult to combat in small, integrated tribal communities
(Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002).

In sum, administrative problems and poor relations with victims can obviously lead to
ineffective responses to violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women, as they can
with all women regardless of their race or ethnicity. For victims, law enforcement may be slow
or unable to respond, or incapable of addressing their needs through assisting and informing
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

86
them about access to other resources such as shelters and medical facilities. American Indian and
Alaska Native women who do not respect or trust law enforcement are less likely to report their
victimization. Promising legislation such as VAWA, which has provided funding to many tribal
governments and other VAWA funded-grant projects can successfully improve law enforcement
through training, and creating task forces to alleviate jurisdictional issues (Luna-Firebaugh et al.,
2002). Some researchers contend that more authority to administer, police and prosecute cases
must be granted to tribes (Wakeling et al., 2001) while others acknowledge that any
consolidation of services would improve coordination of the criminal justice systems involved
(Reina, 2000).
COURTS & PROSECUTION
Tribal Judicial Systems
As with law enforcement, prosecution also varies by type of crime, the race/ethnicity of
the victim and offender, and the location of the offense. Of the 314 reporting tribes in the 2002
census, approximately 59% had some type of tribal judicial system (Perry, 2005)39. These
systems varied greatly in how much influence Western ideals had on resolution and punishment
(Amnesty International, 2007; Jones, 2000; Perry, 2005). The Court of Indian Offenses was
established after Ex Parte Crow Dog40 to address criminal matters and disputes among American
Indian and Alaska Natives on reservations. The intent was to assimilate American Indian and
Alaska Natives into American society (Jones, 2000). The Indian Reorganization Act of 193441
was the first time that tribes could establish and run their own tribal governments under U.S.
policy (Jones, 2000). This helped tribal nations in the short run to regain land and financial

39 According to the report, the majority of the 314 responding tribes were in PL-280 states (123 in mandatory states;
81 in optional states). The remaining tribes were located in non-PL-280 regions. Only those tribes in the lower 48
states were included for this analysis.
40 Ex Parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 566 (1883)
41 Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act, 25 U.S. C.A. § 461 et seq.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

87
responsibilities, but also imposed Western frameworks of government in tribal practices as most
tribal courts were restructured according to Western standards (Peacock et al., 2002). The
reorganization of Indian Country and tribal courts contributed to dissolving traditional tribal
roles in families and the community for many tribes (Peacock et al., 2002).
Some tribal courts are managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), while others are
operated solely by tribes themselves. Courts operated by the BIA adhere by the Code of Indian
Offenses in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These courts offer features that tribal
governments lack. The benefit is that the system is run entirely on BIA funds, which also provide
public defenders. The downside is that tribes who use CFR courts cannot establish their own
laws and policies (Jones, 2000).
As noted earlier, all tribal courts can run concurrent prosecution on major crimes,42 but
the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) restricts their ability to carry out strict penalties. Tribal courts
cannot prosecute non-American Indian and Alaska Natives in criminal cases,43 but have some
leeway in civil cases (Jones, 2000). Legal actors in tribal courts are not always attorneys or
judges, but “lay advocates” who are knowledgeable about tribal law (Jones, 2000). Additionally,
tribal courts are not required to provide defense attorneys (Jones, 2000).

State Judicial Systems
In PL-280 states, state courts have the authority to prosecute both American Indian and
Alaska Natives and non-American Indian and Alaska Native offenders. Although they are
legally entitled to have dual jurisdiction, tribes may not operate their own judicial system
(Goldberg-Ambrose, 1997; Jones, 2000) and hear limited types of cases (Jones, 2000). The
degree of activity by tribal judicial systems varies across each PL-280 state. Important factors in

42 States v. Wheeler, 435 US 313 (1978)
43 See Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435 U.S. (1978)
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

88
this variation include the state’s willingness to support tribal governments, federal assistance,
and each tribe’s ability to work alongside the state’s system (Goldberg & Valdez Singleton,
2005). Although preliminary qualitative studies have shown dissatisfaction with the relationship
between state and tribal governments, according to Goldberg and Valdez Singleton (2005),
researchers have yet to examine the “practical operation of concurrent jurisdiction in order to
determine its effectiveness” (p. 17).

Federal Judicial Systems
When intimate partner violence falls under the Major Crimes Act44 or an offender is non-
American Indian and Alaska Native, the federal government has jurisdiction to arrest and
prosecute offenders. In contrast to PL-280 states that address misdemeanor crimes involving
American Indians, cases involving Indians in non PL-280 are prosecuted in the federal courts.
Due to heavy workloads and limited resources at the federal level, violence by an intimate
partner may be plead to a lesser penalty, or not prosecuted at all (Radon, 2004). As with all
prosecutors, after investigating a crime, the U.S. attorney may decline prosecution. For non-
American Indian and Alaska Native crimes, criminal charges are addressed at lower courts, or
state jurisdictions (Perry, 2004). However, as decided in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe,
tribal governments cannot prosecute crimes involving non-American Indian and Alaska
Natives.45
Radon (2004) argues that an American Indian and Alaska Native woman abused by a
Non-American Indian and Alaska Native man has less protection against intimate partner
violence than women in the general population. Compared to major crimes, intimate partner

44 Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153).
45 Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), (stating that Congress allocated jurisdiction for Federal
courts to prosecute Indian offenders who commit serious offenses under the Major Crimes Act of 1885)
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

89
violence may not be considered a priority for federal prosecutors. Therefore, misdemeanor cases
involving non-American Indian and Alaska Native offenders may not receive sufficient attention
(Radon, 2004). At the time of Radon’s (2004) legal critique, there were no data available to
accurately determine the number of prosecutions for violence against American Indian and
Alaska Native women specifically. However, between 2000 and 2001 federal authorities
declined to prosecute 42.9% of assault cases in total (Radon, 2004).46 Radon infers that through
the disproportionate cases involving American Indian and Alaska Natives coupled by the number
of declined prosecutions, American Indian and Alaska Native victims of intimate partner
violence may likely find their cases declined.
Another problem with prosecution at the federal level is that resources to prosecute cases
of domestic violence are often limited (Radon, 2004). For example, according to a study
supported by Mending the Sacred Hoop, prosecutors lacked the resources to handle cases
through hearings, even in cases where intimate partner violence was severe (Peacock et al.,
2002).
Peacock and his colleagues (2002) also found that as victims moved through federal and
state justice systems, “[their] voices are increasingly muffled, their experiences are increasingly
fragmented and their agency is steadily diminished by institutional protocols and legal
processes” (p. 306). The American Indian and Alaska Native women in their study reported that
courts, lawyers and other legal actors failed to respect and trust victims; these women felt
uncomfortable with others who did not understand tribal culture. As a result, their needs were not
satisfied through the impersonal nature of the legal system (Peacock et al., 2002). While this is

46 Violent offenses were defined as threatening, attempting, or actually using physical force against a person,
including murder, negligent manslaughter, assault robbery, sexual abuse, kidnapping, and threats against the
President; assault was defined as intentionally inflicting or attempting or threatening to inflict bodily injury to
another person.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

90
often a problem for victims of intimate partner violence in the general population, Erwin and
Vidales (2001) similarly report that minority women find the prosecution process complex,
lengthy and unclear.

Peacemaking and Tribal Justice
Tribal courts often resemble federal and state models, but they may also represent more
traditional systems of tribal adjudication (Coker, 1999; Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002; O’Connor,
1997; Ritcheske, 2005; Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). Most Westernized courts represent
government models from the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (O’Connor, 1997; Peacock et al.,
2002). Tribal courts can also act more quickly than their federal and state counterparts, provide
informal solutions, and reflect unique values of individual tribal beliefs (O’Connor, 1997).
According to the former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, “the role of tribal
courts continues to expand, and these courts have an increasingly important role to play in the
administration of the laws [in America]” (p. 5).
Some scholars suggest that tribal responses are more effective to combat intimate partner
violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women than Western forms of justice
(Coker, 1999; Radon, 2004; Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). After comparing laws, procedures
and punishments among several American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, Valencia-Weber and
Zuni (1995, p.112) concluded, “The majority of the tribal codes reviewed provide greater or
equal protection to victims of domestic violence when compared to the states in which these
tribes are located.” They explain that tribes often include more expansive definitions of
violence, and a variety of means to resolve domestic disputes including formal and informal
intervention (Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

91
The Navajo Peacekeeping method of justice is an example of a hybrid model that
combines methods of peacekeeping with formal justice systems. Peacemakers are community
leaders who work with Navajo nation courts to help resolve domestic abuse by “talking things
out” (Valencia-Weber & Zuni 1995, p. 113). Unlike Western mediation and arbitration,
peacemaking involves not only the immediate parties involved, but their family and other
members of the community (Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). Similarly, the Pueblo Indians give
plaintiffs the option of using traditional methods of healing or going to court to intervene in cases
of domestic assault.
Donna Coker (1999) reviewed the Navajo Peacemaking system of justice and suggests
that peacemaking addresses the needs of the victim and the community by acknowledging the
crime and providing material assistance for the victim. Coker argues that, “Peacemaking, unlike
Anglo adjudication, allows parties to reach the underlying problems, diminishes the ability of the
offender to deny and minimize his abuse or his responsibility for the abuse, and provides support
for the victim” (Coker 1999, p. 8). Victims and offenders are able to share their stories under
watch of the peacemaker, whose role is to mediate the conversation, and not to make judgments
of guilt. As such, the offender cannot escape guilt because they are forced to have direct contact
with their victim, and in turn, the victim is given voice. Coker believes that federal and state
systems, based on Westernized concepts of justice could benefit from the restorative qualities
found in Navajo Peacemaking. We will return to these and other alternatives later.
It is important to note that other studies have shown that, in addition to traditional
methods, Westernized law enforcement and judicial systems are also widely supported by
victims (Magen & Wood, 2006). According to Magen and Wood (2006), as long as law
enforcement effectively detains offenders and respects victims, both tribal and non-tribal officers
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

92
can be legitimate response mechanisms. Of course, issues of procedural justice are important for
all victims of crime. If American Indian and Alaska Native women view law enforcement
positively, they will be more likely to report victimization and seek help from outsiders (Magen
& Wood, 2006).
Prosecution under tribal judicial systems, similar to tribal law enforcement, also suffers
from a range of jurisdictional and financial complications. First, tribes often suffer from
insufficient resources to sustain sophisticated judicial systems. As mentioned earlier, tribes have
traditionally supported peacemaking and informal resolutions, rather than formal processes and
sentencing. Radon (2004) argues that although not all tribes can afford to develop and maintain
judiciary systems, it does not mean that they will not want or be able to do so in the future.
Moreover, some tribes, such as the Navajo nation, have developed highly advanced judiciary
systems comparable, and in some cases superior, to the American judicial system (Valencia-
Weber & Zuni, 1995). Other tribes such as the Pueblo Indians have also successfully integrated
peacemaking alongside formal judicial systems (Radon, 2004; Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995).
Although some tribal laws may interpret intimate partner violence more expansively than
state law, and provide a variety of methods to address the needs of victims, not all tribes include
specific codes that address violence against women (Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). Sanctions
also vary between tribes. For tribes that prosecute criminal offenses, the process is often similar
to Western judicial systems. Once guilt has been determined, tribal codes generally prescribe
incarceration, fines, probation or counseling (Valencia-Weber & Zuni 1995). Tribes also
provide civil remedies, and for many, these may be the only means to address misdemeanor
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

93
violence against women (Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995). Civil codes often include protection
orders47 and sometimes include counseling.
Second, tribal prosecution is limited by federal law that restricts who can be prosecuted,
and to what extent they can be punished. As noted earlier, due to limitations placed on
sentencing in the Indian Civil Rights Act,48 tribes cannot exceed punishments beyond $5000
fine, one year in jail, or both. Tribes are also prohibited from prosecuting non-Indians in
criminal cases.49 Therefore, even if tribes had sufficient resources to develop formal justice
systems, their ability to prosecute offenders is still limited to minimum penalties and restricted to
American Indian offenders.
In sum, tribal concepts of justice are sometimes more effective in addressing the needs of
American Indian and Alaska Native women through informal justice, where victims and
offenders confront one another through a peacekeeping process. However, tribes are typically
limited by federal laws and lack sufficient resources and may therefore be unable to address
violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women. Scholars suggest that tribes must
be granted more authority to govern their own people through either formal or informal justice to
ensure American Indian women the best protection from violence (Deer, 2004a; Radon, 2004;
Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995).

47 See the section on Protection Orders and Full Faith and Credit below.
48 Indian Civil Rights Act (25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1303)
49 Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

94
PROTECTION ORDERS & FULL FAITH & CREDIT

Obtaining Protection Orders

While tribal governments do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-American Indian and
Alaska Natives in criminal courts, they do have some authority to enact civil orders against non-
American Indian and Alaska Native offenders (Ritcheske, 2005). Although civil remedies do not
have the same deterrent effect or extensive penalties as criminal orders, civil protection orders
are better than no remedy at all (Ritcheske, 2005).
Personal protection orders (PPOs) provide injunctive relief for petitioners who seek to
use legal remedies to end threatening behavior, cease contact with another individual, or to alter
custody arrangements. Protection orders vary in duration (temporary or permanent) and are
issued through a variety of means; in either civil or criminal courts, as part of release or bond, or
in conjunction with criminal parole conditions (Tatum, 2002). While PPOs are generally civil
remedies, the violation of a PPO may lead to criminal sanctions (DeJong & Burgess-Proctor,
2006).
Protection orders generally fall under state or tribal legal jurisdiction. However, federal
laws also address protection orders under the Violence Against Women Act of 199450, which
established federal criminal penalties for PPO violations or interstate domestic violence crimes
(DeJong & Burgess-Proctor, 2006). VAWA contains several provisions including “Full Faith
and Credit” and provides for the invalidation of mutual protection orders where sufficient
evidence shows violence has been committed by both parties.

50 Domestic violence crimes (U.S.C 18 § 2261); PPO violations (U.S.C 18 § 2262).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

95
Under full faith and credit, states and tribal governments must enforce the protection
orders of other state and tribal jurisdictions.51 While the interstate enforcement addresses
interstate enforcement of protection orders, several barriers affect the actual employment of
VAWA’s full faith and credit provision. For example, VAWA does not require its language be
translated in state and tribal codes (DeJong & Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Tatum, 2002). Significant
variation also exists across state and tribal laws and increases the complexity in enforcing the
laws of other regions. Differences exist in who is eligible to petition for a PPO, the process of
filing PPOs and the penalties attached for PPO violations, and law enforcement and legal actors
may be unfamiliar with the differences in the PPO laws in other jurisdictions (DeJong &
Burgess-Proctor, 2006). Importantly, tribal courts have full civil jurisdiction to enforce
protection orders.52
Unfortunately, victims often find that the process to obtain protection orders at federal,
state and tribal levels does not help, and in some cases, makes situations worse. Although
VAWA (2000) attempts to make the process of obtaining protection orders easier, research
indicates that American Indian and Alaska Native women experience significant problems
including delays and excessive paperwork (Peacock et al., 2002). In addition, before VAWA
2002, victims would also frequently have to pay the costs associated with applying for a PPO.

51 U.S.C 18 § 2265, mandates that protection orders under “one State, Indian tribe, or territory (the issuing State,
Indian tribe, or territory) shall be accorded full faith and credit by the court of another State, Indian tribe, or territory
(the enforcing State, Indian tribe, or territory) and enforced by the court and law enforcement personnel of the other
State, Indian tribal government or Territory as if it were the order of the enforcing State, Indian tribe, or territory” (§
2261a, italics added). The law further defines protection order as fulfilling two criteria; first, “such court has
jurisdiction over the parties and matter under the law of such State, Indian tribe, or territory;” and second,
“reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard is given to the person against whom the order is sought sufficient to
protect that person's right to due process. In the case of ex parte orders, notice and opportunity to be heard must be
provided within the time required by State, tribal, or territorial law, and in any event within a reasonable time after
the order is issued, sufficient to protect the respondent's due process rights.” (U.S.C 18 § 2265(b)(1)(2), emphasis
added).
52 Under U.S.C 18 § 2265(e), “For purposes of this section, a tribal court shall have full civil jurisdiction to enforce
protection orders, including authority to enforce any orders through civil contempt proceedings, exclusion of
violators from Indian lands, and other appropriate mechanisms, in matters arising within the authority of the tribe.”
Subsection (e) was added as an amendment in 2000.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

96
However, VAWA 2002 mandated that for state, tribal or local governments to receive federal
funding, its laws, policies, and practices must not “require, in connection with the prosecution of
any misdemeanor or felony domestic violence offense, or in connection with the filing, issuance,
registration, or service of a protection order, or a petition for a protection order,” that victims of
violence bear the cost of associated with processing their case.53

Enforcing Protection Orders
VAWA (1994) requires that PPOs within the United States and Indian Country “shall be
afforded full faith and credit by the court of another state or Indian tribe” (18 U.S.C. § 2265).
Protection order violations should be punished according to the laws of the state or tribe where
the violation occurred (DeJong & Burgess-Proctor, 2006). However, the Act did not provide
details of how law enforcement should enforce this provision.
While VAWA requires “full faith and credit,” tribal court orders and judgments do not
uniformly embrace this terminology (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). Some scholars, such as
Schmieder (2003), argue that American Indian and Alaska Native tribes refuse to create statutes
supporting full faith and credit. Schmieder (2003) goes so far as to argue that Congress should
force tribes to adopt the Violence Against Women Act. Tribal refusal to adopt VAWA arises
from the belief that any outside law infringes tribal sovereignty (Schmeider, 2003). In contrast,
other scholars explain that it is not refusal to comply, but complications arising from funding and
the way legal initiatives are imposed on tribal governments that create the problems (Deer &
Tatum, 2003).54
In reality, the types of orders, legal punishments and understanding of the intent of the
order vary by each state and tribal government. Scholars suggest that legal barriers of the law,

53 42 U.S.C § 3796gg-5(a)(1)
54 For further discussion of Protection Orders, see Tatum 2002.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

97
and status of Indian lands as similar to “states” or “territories” contribute to this variance (Deer
& Tatum, 2003; Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002; Tatum, 2002; 2003b). Deer and Tatum (2003)
suggest that while tribes may wish to enforce protection orders with “full faith and credit,” their
ability to prosecute non-American Indian and Alaska Natives restricts their ability to do so.
The confusion over tribal jurisdiction under full faith and credit was clarified under
VAWA 2000. In the revised statute, tribal governments are allowed to enforce civil protection
orders, not criminal, when the case involves non-American Indian and Alaska Natives (Tatum,
2002). As mentioned earlier, the U.S. code § 2265(e) grants tribes “full civil jurisdiction to
enforce protection orders.” The code allows tribes to “enforce any orders through civil contempt
proceedings, exclusion of violators from Indian lands, and other appropriate mechanisms, in
matters arising within the authority of the tribe.”55
Other problems with implementing full faith and credit still persist. For example, some
state courts have found that tribes are ‘territories’ of the U.S. government. This suggests that
tribal law may be enforced through “comity,”56 which is not mandatory (Luna-Firebaugh et al.,
2002, p. 80). Little recourse exists for tribal victims of domestic violence when an off-
reservation law enforcement agency fails to recognize and enforce a tribal court order. Comity,
unlike full faith and credit, cannot be claimed as a right, but only as a favor or courtesy. (Luna-
Firebaugh et al., 2002). Amnesty International (2007) received many anecdotal reports that state
law enforcement agencies refused to act on protection orders issued by tribal courts. There is
often no system to alert other jurisdictions of a protection order, particularly in many tribal courts
where computer systems are not available. In addition, there is no uniform law across states and

55 U.S.C.§ 2265(e), italics added.
56 Comity refers to “the cordial recognition given by the courts of one state or jurisdiction of the laws and judicial
decisions of another” (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002, p. 80). Some states have used this notion similar to enforcing
laws in other countries, in that law enforcement is not required, but instead is discretionary.

98
tribal governments defining protection order features and penalties. Because of this
discontinuity other jurisdictions may find the protection order unclear (Luna-Firebaugh et al.,
2002).

INCARCERATION & CORRECTIONS
Federal Prisons
Because a large percentage of major crimes against American Indian and Alaska Natives
are prosecuted by federal courts, American Indian and Alaska Natives are disproportionately
represented in federal prisons. According to the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), in 2001
American Indian and Alaska Natives represented 16% of all violent crime offenders entering
Federal prisons (Perry, 2004). While statistics provide information about how many American
Indian and Alaska Natives are incarcerated in the federal system, it is unclear how many
individuals are in federal prisons for violent crimes against American Indian and Alaska Native
women, regardless of the race of the offender.

Tribal Correctional Systems

Incarceration is not typically a traditional means to punish offenders in American Indian
and Alaska Native justice systems. This feature was integrated through Western ideals of justice
and punishment (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003). Communities that follow traditional interventions of
violent offenders, such as the Navajo Peacekeeping program, (Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995;
Coker, 1999; Ritcheske, 2005) often do not use formal incarceration as punishment, but instead
aim to resolve disputes through alternative programs or sentencing circles (Luna-Firebaugh,
2003). Other alternate programs include electronic monitoring, home detention, community
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

99
service, or daily check-ins with authorities (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003). Luna-Firebaugh et al.’s
(2002) evaluation of STOP VAIW, found that of the 123 tribes in the study, 68% had non-jail
options available to the court judge; 79% percent of courts utilized sanctions for non-compliance
with court orders or probation, and 60% had tracking systems to increase accountability.
Similar to law enforcement and courts, funding and jurisdiction issues affect tribal
corrections. Luna-Firebaugh (2003) explained that tribal prisons suffer from similar problems
throughout tribal justice responses, such as requirements to comply with federal laws and
guidelines, high costs to run jail facilities, and staffing shortages. Tribal jails are often
overcrowded, especially in smaller facilities (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003). These problems are
echoed in a report by the U.S. Department of the Interior (2004) that concluded, “The BIA has
failed to provide safe and secure detention facilities throughout Indian Country” (p. 3). Some
specific problems the report cites include inadequate reporting and accountability of BIA offices,
understaffing of facilities, mismanaging financial resources, inconsistent training, and failure to
keep the facilities consistent with health and safety requirements (US Department of the Interior,
2004). In response to this report, the BIA will receive aid through the Safe Indian Communities
Initiative, including $5 million of additional funding for FY 2008. This funding will be
distributed based on financial need to increase and train staff, and for improving the operation
and maintenance of the detention centers (US Department of the Interior, 2007).
Despite these problems, tribal jails may offer benefits to American Indian and Alaska
Natives such as locations closer to tribes and families, cultural sensitivity, and affirming tribal
power to hold offenders accountable (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003). Tribal jails may have greater
emphasis on religious and cultural activities, as well as race and gender sensitive informal
intervention services (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

100
As of 2002, tribal governments and the Bureau of Indian Affairs operated 70 jails in
Indian Country. Of those imprisoned, the most common crimes were misdemeanors (86%),
followed by non-domestic violent offenses (20%) and drug & alcohol convictions (11%) (Perry,
2004). Because the Indian Civil Rights Act mandates that tribal courts can only hold offenders
for up to one year, sentences in tribal courts are relatively short compared to state and federal
prison stays.

LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING PHYSICAL ASSAULT AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN
AND ALAKSA NATIVE WOMEN

The original 1994 Violence Against Women Act addressed physical assault through
provisions regarding domestic violence,57 stalking,58 and protection order violations59 across
jurisdictional boundaries. An addition, VAWA (2000) mandated that dating partners60 may also
seek remedies through VAWA. Specifically, VAWA (2000) addresses offenses in which an
offender who travels “in interstate or foreign commerce or enters or leaves Indian country or
within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States with the intent to kill,
injure, harass, or intimidate a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner, and who, in the course
of or as a result of such travel, commits or attempts to commit a crime of violence against that

57 18 USC § 2261. Offenders may be either spouses or intimate partners. More specifically, under 18 USC §
2266(7), this includes, “(I) a spouse or former spouse of the abuser, a person who shares a child in common with the
abuser, and a person who cohabits or has cohabited as a spouse with the abuser; or (II) a person who is or has been
in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the abuser, as determined by the length of the
relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the
relationship; and (ii) section 2261A, a spouse or former spouse of the target of the stalking, a person who shares a
child in common with the target of the stalking, and a person who cohabits or has cohabited as a spouse with the
target of the stalking; and (B) any other person similarly situated to a spouse who is protected by the domestic or
family violence laws of the State or tribal jurisdiction in which the injury occurred or where the victim resides.”
58 18 USC § 2261(A)
59 § 2262. (see also p. 87 of this report, “Protection Orders and Full Faith and Credit”)
60 “Dating partner” is defined as “a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate
nature with the abuser and the existence of such a relationship based on a consideration of— (A) the length of the
relationship; and (B) the type of relationship; and (C) the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in
the relationship. (18 USC § 2266 (a)(10))
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

101
spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner.”61 The law also applies to offenders who cause their
victim to travel interstate or to enter or leave Indian Country “by force, coercion, duress, or
fraud, and who, in the course of, as a result of, or to facilitate such conduct or travel, commits or
attempts to commit a crime of violence.”62

Tribal codes vary in how they define physical assault in intimate relationships.
According to Valencia-Weber and Zuni (1995), some tribes describe victims and offenders in
narrow terms that limit abuse to spousal relationships, while others uphold more extensive codes,
which include extended family members or use gender-neutral language. Some codes, such as
that of the Navajo nation, extend victim protection to other intimate partners, past or present
(Valencia-Weber & Zuni, 1995).

Stalking

In 1996, VAWA extended interstate violence to include stalking (Fine, 1998). The Act
prohibits offenders from traveling across state lines or entering or leaving Indian Country, “with
the intent to injure or harass another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel
places that person, a member of the immediate family… of that person, or the spouse or intimate
partner of that person.”63 The statute also prohibits stalking in the form of mail, or any facility of
interstate or foreign commerce under the same course of conduct.64 Offenders who violate this
statute can be punished by fine, imprisonment, or both.65

In 2005, VAWA improved stalking intervention by adopting surveillance technology
(such as Global Positioning Systems [GPS]), or other computer services to increase

61 18 USC § 2261 (a)(1)
62 18 USC § 2261(a)(2)
63 18 USC § 2261(A)
64 18 USC § 2261(a)(2)(B)
65 18 USC § 2261(b)
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

102
accountability. Minimum stalking penalties double when the offender has committed prior
violations.66 While VAWA stresses stricter penalties for stalking crimes, many tribes still do not
have codes prohibiting stalking. In some cases, however, stalking behavior may be seen in other
types of violation such as harassment (Luna-Firebaugh, 2002).

Dating Violence

The definition of intimate partner violence has expanded tremendously in recent years.
This is evident with the addition of dating violence to domestic violence crimes under VAWA
2000. Under Section 2261(a) of Title 18, provisions listing “intimate partner” were changed to
include “intimate partner, or dating partner.” “Dating partner” could be a person who is, or has
been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the abuser and the existence of
such a relationship based on the consideration of (A) the length of relationship, and (B) the type
of relationship, and (C) the frequency of interactions between the persons in the relationship.67
This includes individuals in dating relationships that have sought protection orders under 18
USC § 2261(a).

Law Enforcement & Intimate Partner Violence

While many tribal laws address intimate partner violence, Federal laws and insufficient
funding limit their power to enforce legal codes and arrest offenders. As described earlier, tribal
law enforcement is only allowed to detain non-American Indian and Alaska Natives for a limited
time68 before they are transferred to federal authorities (or state officers in PL-280 regions)
(Radon, 2004). Jurisdictional issues may limit the ability of law enforcement to protect victims
and prosecute offenders (Goldberg-Ambrose, 1997; Tatum, 2002). These factors may contribute

66 18 U.S.C. § 2265A(a)
67 18 U.S.C. § 2266(10)
68 See Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435 U.S. (1978).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

103
to an environment in which tribal police and prosecutors cannot effectively address violence
against American Indian and Alaska Native women (Goldberg-Ambrose, 1997). This is
especially critical with interracial domestic situations (Tatum, 2002).

In a recent evaluation of the STOP VAIW grant program, Luna-Firebaugh and her
colleagues (2002) found that of the 123 programs studied, 25% of Tribal Police Departments had
sole responsibility to respond to domestic violence, while the remaining 75% had multiple law
enforcement responses, which included a combination of tribal, local, state or federal officers.
For example, responses in Alaska may include Village Public Safety Officers (VPOs), Village
Police, and State Troopers. Despite many scholars’ suggestions that jurisdictional problems have
harmed criminal justice responses, a significant number of interviewees found that multiple
agencies had a positive influence, in that they could “back each other up” until jurisdictional
matters were resolved (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002, p. 63). Fifty percent of programs had cross-
deputization agreements with other law enforcement agencies, with an additional 8% in process
of development (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002).
Because of jurisdictional problems with the arrest and prosecution of non-American
Indian and Alaska Native offenders, tribes reported that cross-deputization “really helped [the
tribal police] because of the inter-racial marriages on the reservations” (Luna-Firebaugh et al.,
2002, p. 66). Even when tribes did not have jurisdiction they pursued cases anyway, especially
where American Indian and Alaska Native women were involved (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002).
Funding from the STOP VAIW grant program has significantly improved law enforcement
responses to domestic violence calls. Such funds have been used to improve the documentation
of evidence and report writing through training officers about domestic violence, as well as
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

104
increasing communication between responding jurisdictions. As a result, the number of offender
arrests also has increased (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002).

Reporting to Police
As presented earlier, the NCVS estimates that a similar percent of women who are
assaulted report their victimization to police regardless of race. American Indian and Alaska
Native women may not report victimization for many of the same reasons given by other women.
Research indicates that women may distrust police (Thurman et al., 2003; Wakeling et al., 2001),
believe they will take too long to respond (Wakeling et al., 2001), or overall do not feel the law
will be enforced (Radon, 2004). They may also fail to report incidents because of shame or
humiliation (Magen & Wood, 2006; Wakeling et al., 2001), fear of retaliation from the offender
(Wakeling et al., 2001), or view the offense as a one-time minor occurrence (Magen & Wood,
2006). Perry (2002) suggests that victimization is not reported because victims feel they are
targets of verbal and physical abuse by police, do not want outside interference in personal
problems, or feel “powerless” to address their victimization (p. 242). Moreover, rural women in
particular may suffer from geographic barriers, such as distance from police stations or lack of
phone access69 (Wakeling et al., 2001). American Indian and Alaska Native women may also be
hesitant to report to federal powers because they believe that it infringes their sovereignty
(Reina, 2000). In more general terms, American Indian and Alaska Natives may simply reject
any outsider’s help (Thurman et al., 2003).70

69 Wakeling and his colleagues noted that compared to the majority of Americans, American Indian and Alaska
Natives living on reservations were far more likely to be without phones.
70 Thurman et al (2003) used quantitative and qualitative data, including in-depth interviews and focus groups.
Fifty-four respondents were surveyed among 15 communities. Three were chosen for semi-structured interviews.
The goal was to establish the level of “community readiness” through asking about awareness, VAIW programs and
resource use.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

105
In the STOP VAIW assessment (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002), the most prominent
reasons why women did not report to police were because they feared retaliation (31%), loss of
spousal income (30%), and shame or embarrassment (29%). Other reasons included fear of
losing custody of children (25%), didn’t want law enforcement to become involved (22%), lack
of faith in courts (19%) and pressure from family (19%). Using NCVS data, Rennison (2001)
also found that reasons why victims did not report intimate partner violence to authorities were
similar across racial/ ethnic groups. The most common reasons included that the offense was a
“private or personal matter,” they “feared reprisal,” or the victim wished to “protect the
offender” (Rennison 2001, p. 9).
Thus, although researchers often assume that American Indian and Alaska Native women
have greater barriers to report intimate partner violence than other racial/ethnic groups for
example historical victimization (Reina, 2000; Smith, 2003), or barriers caused by location or
lack of economic resources (Wakeling et al., 2001), their reasons for not reporting victimization
reflect the same beliefs held by the vast majority of female victims. Intimate partner victims
often do not report because they fear their offender, because they feel shame or embarrassment,
or they do not want the criminal justice system involved.

Criminal Justice Response to Dating Violence

Intimate partner violence scholars began to look at “dating” or “courtship” violence in the
1980s (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). While the law does not suggest that dating violence relates
only to adolescent and young adult relationships,71 the majority of social research uses this term

71 Dating Violence means; violence committed by a “dating partner” who is (or has been) in a social relationship of
a romantic or intimate nature with the victim. A relationship is defined by the type, length, and frequency of contact
between dating partners (18 USC § 2266 (10)).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

106
for violence among younger populations. Prior to the Violence Against Women Act of 2000,
there was no specific federal law prohibiting dating violence.
Victims of dating violence may seek justice by obtaining protection orders, or filing
charges based on specific types of dating violence (e.g. physical assault, sexual assault, stalking).
As of 2005, thirty-three states and the District of Columbia permit victims of dating violence to
obtain protection orders regardless of the nature of the dating relationship. All 50 states allow
individuals access to protection orders where the parties involved have children together (Green
& Mohlhenrich, 2005). Among mandatory PL-280 states, Alaska, California, Minnesota and
Wisconsin have protection orders that cover dating violence. Of these states, California and
Wisconsin allow petitioners to apply for protection without adult consent (Green & Mohlhenrich,
2005).

While the research on dating violence is growing, there has been little evaluation of the
criminal justice response to this violence in general, and none that could be found on dating
violence among American Indian and Alaska Native women.

LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT AGAINST AMERICAN
INDIAN AND ALAKSA NATIVE WOMEN

According to survivors of rape, sexual assault is much more than a physical attack.
Women suffer from psychological and spiritual ramifications (Deer, 2004b), which in turn
impacts the community as a whole. Deer (2004b) explains that “rape is conceived as a violation
of a person’s humanity” (p. 137). Some scholars explain that sexual abuse of indigenous women
has existed through colonization (Smith, 2003 for example). Historically, rape was a much more
common crime against American Indian and Alaska Native women by European men than
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

107
indigenous men (Deer, 2004b). Sexual violence is also used as a weapon of war (Deer, 2004b).
According to Deer (2004b), “Colonization and sexual violence… share a common history and a
common language of dehumanization, power, dominance, and conquest… Although women of
all races experience sexual violence, the high rate and elevated violence experienced by Native
women (and other indigenous women) indicate that the history of conquest and seizure has a
disparate impact on the indigenous populations” (p. 131). This contention has recently been
supported by the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously voted in favor of a
resolution classifying rape as a weapon of war (“UN Classifies rape a war tactic”, 2008).

Federal & State Response to Sexual Assault
Rape law reforms during the late 1970s and early 1980s varied in their
comprehensiveness across jurisdictions, however, there were generally four common reform
themes: 1) many states replaced the single crime of “rape” with a series of offenses graded by
seriousness, which are typically gender- and relationship-neutral; 2) many laws have modified or
eliminated the requirement that the victim resist the attacker; 3) most laws now eliminate the
corroboration requirement because victimizations most often take place in a private place
without a witness; and 4) most states have enacted rape shield laws that placed restrictions on the
introduction of evidence of the victim’s prior sexual conduct. Unfortunately, research indicates
that the efficacy of these reforms in increasing both reporting of rape cases and the adjudication
of cases that are reported to police has been mixed at best (Bachman & Paternoster, 1993;
Horney & Spohn, 1991). To address the inadequacies of the criminal justice system’s response to
rape, VAWA (1994) created programs for victim services and training programs for law
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

108
enforcement in addition to funds for prevention and education. The Act also established that law
enforcement was responsible to pay for, and hold forensic evidence in rape cases.72
Of course, legislation does not always translate into action, and problems still persist in
the adjudication of rape and sexual assault cases across all levels of government, particularly for
American Indian and Alaska Native women. One of the primary concerns for VAWA was to
address the improper handling of sexual assault cases in law enforcement and prosecution.
VAWA allocated funding for training law enforcement and prosecutors to effectively identify
and respond to sexual assault, for law enforcement departments to develop policies, protocols
and services specifically dedicated to preventing sexual assault, and to develop and install more
efficient and effective data collection and communication systems. In addition, VAWA
increased penalties for sex offenders and sexual assault crimes, and created procedural reforms
that would encourage victims to report victimization (Roe, 2004).

Law Enforcement of Rape and Sexual Assault
The same problems that plague the law enforcement response to intimate partner violence
among American Indian and Alaska Native women also plague their responses to victims of rape
and sexual assaults. Many federal sexual abuse cases involve children as victims, so it is difficult
to measure the actual response of federal authorities in sexual assault cases in general (Deer,
2004b). For major crimes like rape, victims must often travel great distances to appear in federal
or state courts, even if the state is under PL-280. Anecdotally, Amnesty International (2007)
found frequent delays of federal law enforcement (FBI) to investigate sexual assaults against
American Indian and Alaska Native women.

72 42 USCS § 3796gg-4
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

109
Reporting Rape
The NCVS data presented above indicates that rape and sexual assault victimizations
against American Indian and Alaska Native women were more likely to be reported to police
than victimizations against women of other racial groups, but less than one in five were actually
reported by the victim herself. Similar to intimate partner assaults, researchers find that reasons
for not reporting sexual assault vary, but maintain central themes such as fear of the offender,
shame or embarrassment, lack of faith in the criminal justice system (Clairmont, 1999; Luna-
Firebaugh et al., 2002; National Sexual Violence Resource Center, n.d.; Tjaden & Thoennes,
2006). Others suggest pressure from family (Clairmont, 1999; Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2000), fear
of past legal problems or that reporting will be generally counterproductive (Clairmont, 1999;
Kerstetter, 1990). It is clear that while women choose not to report sexual assaults for a variety
of reasons, the belief that formal justice is unhelpful presents significant problems. Drawing
from Roe’s (2004) critique, improvements in VAWA may be better suited to address sexual
assault through awareness and prevention.

Courts & Prosecution
Amnesty International’s recent report (2007) highlighted some of the problems in
prosecuting rapes against American Indian and Alaska Native women in federal courts. For
example, they found that federal prosecutors did not pursue 60% of rape and sexual assaults in a
one-year period (October 1st 2002- September 30th 2003). While these data did not distinguish
cases against American Indian and Alaska Native women, they discovered that the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), which governs many tribal lands, typically had the highest percentage of
cases declined at the federal level (Amnesty International, 2007). Amnesty International also
investigated sexual violence cases from Indian Country through the Executive Office for US
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

110
Attorneys. Of the 84 cases provided, only 20 involved adult women. The majority of victims
were children, eight were males, non-American Indian and Alaska Natives or did not have age
included (Amnesty International 2007). The report concluded that there was little accountability
for failure to investigate or prosecute, which could mean months or years living in “fear and
insecurity” (Amnesty International 2007, p. 9).
There are many reasons that cases do not go forward in the adjudication process
including lack of evidence, which may be the reason for a large percentage of these dropped
cases. For example, prosecutors at all levels reported to Amnesty International (2007) that they
frequently received inadequate cases reports, including missing information such as the name or
address of the victim or witnesses. Peacock and his colleagues (2002) also found that for both
misdemeanor and felony charges across different jurisdictions, police reports significantly
impacted the prosecution of the victim’s case. They found that some reporting styles
reconstructed incidents through very descriptive narratives, while others followed a “checklist”
format that frequently overlooked details of the victimization (Peackock et al., 2002).
Importantly, analysis of the NCVS data reported earlier revealed that rape and sexual
assault victimizations that were reported to police were extremely unlikely to result in an arrest,
regardless of the race of the victim (6% for victimizations against American Indian and Alaska
Native women, and 10%, 12%, and 10% for whites, African American, and Asian American
victims respectively). This national data, however, masks the variation that exists across local
jurisdictions. Moreover, it is important to remember that an arrest has a zero probability of
occurring unless a report is made to police.

111
Protection Orders & Sexual Assault
While tribes may be restricted in their ability to prosecute criminal cases against non-
American Indian and Alaska Natives, they may use civil sanctions, such as protection orders.
Obtaining protection orders in tribal courts have increased in recent years for intimate partner
violence, but these codes are often specific to domestic cases where a history of victimization
exists. Therefore, victims of sexual assault without a pattern of previous violence may not be
able to receive protection orders. Also important is the relationship between the victim and the
offender. Under many tribal protection order codes, victims of sexual assault who are not
intimately related to the offender may not be able to obtain protection orders (Deer, 2003/2004).
Deer (2003/2004) contends that to adequately address sexual assault of American Indian and
Alaska Native women, it is important to recognize and restore the dignity of victims. This would
best be carried out by American Indian and Alaska Native communities and tribal governments
where restoring strength resides in the community. Because VAWA’s full faith and credit section
does not explicitly require protection orders for intimate partner assaults only, tribes are in a
“unique position” to adopt these progressive remedies for rape victims (Deer, 2003/2004).

Tribal Response to Rape and Sexual Assault
As we have already discussed, tribes can prosecute all criminal cases, but only under
restrictions of the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA). This is also true in PL-280 states, where both
tribal and state governments may process rape cases (Deer, 2004b). To reiterate, while tribal
justice systems may prosecute felonies, their ability to bestow adequate punishments is unlikely.
When cases involve non-American Indian and Alaska Natives, tribal governments may only use
alternate responses, such as civil remedies (Deer, 2004b). Tribal governments also lack adequate
resources to revise their systems of justice (Deer, 2005). For example, tribes that have adopted
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

112
Western government styles do not necessarily reflect the rape law reforms that have been
implemented in most states. For example, tribal laws often require physical proof of violence or
force, in contrast to viewing rape as an issue of lack of consent (Deer, 2003/2004; Amnesty
International, 2007). Tribes also may have laws with “marital rape” exceptions (Deer, 2004b),
and some tribes do not address sex crimes at all (Amnesty International, 2007; Deer, 2003/2004).
In Luna-Firebaugh and her colleague’s (2002) evaluation of STOP VAIW, only 61% of
tribes reviewed had codes to address sexual assault. This is problematic when federal and state
authorities fail to successfully prosecute sexual assault cases (Burelson, 2007). Of the tribes
evaluated in the STOP VAIW grant project, sexual assault, rape or attempted rape was classified
at a variety of levels; as a misdemeanor (50%), a felony (25%), or both (23%). In four percent of
tribal codes, sexual violence was not addressed (Luna-Firebaugh, 2002).
With VAWA 2005, tribes have opportunities to enhance data collection and coordination
with other jurisdictions. Some tribes have adopted sex offender registries, or sex offender
notification (Megan’s) laws (Deer, 2004b). The adoption of sex-offender registries for American
Indian and Alaska Natives has, in part, been related to tribal frustration with the lack of
prosecution at the state and federal levels (Deer, 2003/2004). Currently, the Adam Walsh Child
Protection & Safety Act of 2006 (Title I), also known at the Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act (SORNA) required tribes to comply with its provisions for sexual offender
registration by July 27, 2007 or cede authority to states for a new sex offender registration and
notification system.

Tribal and State Courts & Prosecution
Although sexual assault is a major crime, and tribes are limited in their ability to prosecute
felony offenses by legal barriers, some tribes do take action against sexual assault offenders. For
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

113
example, the Navajo nation Department of Public Safety investigated 99 cases of rape in 2002,
which led to 58 charges (Amnesty International 2007). Tribes can also alternatively establish
penalties such as terminate employment if the offender is an employee of the tribal nation
(Amnesty International, 2007; Deer, 2003/2004).73

NONCRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSES TO VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICAN
INDIAN AND ALAKSA NATIVE WOMEN

As this report has shown, violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women is
a complex problem requiring a multifaceted approach in criminal justice responses. Although
seeking relief through the criminal justice system has served as the main vehicle in a
community's formal response to domestic violence for the general population, many
communities, including many American Indian and Alaska Native communities, are trying to
incorporate other interventions into their response services. Unfortunately, documentation and
evaluation of such programs is limited (Norton & Manson, 1997; Wahab & Olson, 2004).
A report published by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) investigating the tribal
responses to violence against women (Thurman et al., 2003) revealed there are many tribal
communities that doubt they possess satisfactory efforts or resources to address family violence,
much less effective intervention programs. Those communities that reported they had an
availability of services were generally referring to shelters in larger communities at some
distance or services that are non-native focused.

73 Banishment was recently approved through the Alaska Superior Court (Amnesty International, 2007).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

114
Barriers to the Utilization of Services
We have already noted a number of legal barriers that may impede American Indian and
Alaska Native females from obtaining justice, but there are several other barriers that we will
briefly describe here. The social isolation of many American Indian and Alaska Native
reservations provides a significant geographical barrier to American Indian and Alaska Native
women residing on these reservations from obtaining many services that may be available to
urban women. In some of these communities, transportation and telephone services are difficult
to access. A recent study of remote American Indian communities in Arizona, Oklahoma, North
Dakota, and South Dakota found only 43% to 72% of households had telephones (Stoddardt et
al., 2000).
American Indian and Alaska Native women who reside on very rural and isolated
reservations must often travel great distances to obtain medical care. This is extremely
problematic for a rape victim who requires a rape kit be performed by a qualified nurse or
practitioner in a timely manner. A final report evaluating the effectiveness of the STOP VAIW
Discretionary Grant Program stated that in 63 communities interviewed through site visits and
phone interviews, rides to medical care for victimized women were most often provided by an
STOP program advocate (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). The second most common means of
transportation was by ambulance followed by tribal police, city and county police, and finally
family and friends of the service recipient.
As we noted earlier, confidentiality remains a very serious and valid concern for women
survivors of physical violence and sexual assault. Norton and Manson (1997) reported that some
Alaskan Native women refused to participate in a domestic violence support group due to
confidentiality concerns. Similar to confidentiality issues in all small communities, on
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

115
reservations, clients fear their problems will be broadcast along the “tribal telegraph” (Norton &
Manson, 1997). These fears are also shared in the urban setting where a local urban American
Indian and Alaska Native community may be similar in closeness to a rural village.
Qualitative data from interviews with health care providers also supports this notion. For
example, one service provider mentioned that domestic violence survivors choose to go to a
regional hospital some distance from their community in order to remain anonymous (Luna-
Firebaugh et al., 2002). The mandatory reporting requirements in some jurisdictions also prohibit
some women from seeking medical care. For example, some states have laws that mandate
reporting to police any injuries that were caused through non-accidental means or through
violence, and at least six states (New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Kentucky, California, Colorado,
and New Mexico) explicitly address reporting of intimate partner violence, although they vary in
their provisions (Hyman, 1997). Shepherd (2001) noted an Alaskan village health aid who said
that many battered women do not come to the clinic because health aides have to report the
inflicted injuries to the state troopers. Women are afraid that state troopers will arrest the
perpetrator even if they [women] choose not to press charges. Unfortunately, this threat is very
real. In his study of Indian Health Service facilities, Clark (2001) found that 31 different tribes
mandated reporting of domestic violence.
American Indian and Alaska Native women may also be reluctant to leave their tribal
lands to seek assistance, even if intimate relationships become dangerous (Shepherd, 2001).
Traveling substantial distances to an urban area with a shelter may not only be overwhelming
and expensive, but also unwanted. Moving away from family, friends and traditions may create
additional stress.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

116
Language barriers may also present problems. For example, Hamby (2004) maintains that
some American Indian and Alaska Native women might not be easily fluent in English and the
subtleties of languages spoken by the victim and the service providers might impede
communication. Furthermore, recommendations made by the service providers who are not
steeped in the realities of life of American Indian and Alaska Native women might not be
compatible with their cultural values.

CULTURALLY SENSITIVE INTERVENTIONS

American Indian and Alaska Native women who have suffered violent or sexual
victimization often rely on their own communities for help and support. For example, in Alaskan
villages, Shepherd (2001) found that family members provided the primary source of strength
and help for battered women. However, other research indicates that American Indian and
Alaska Native women are reluctant to go to family members if they require help or assistance in
abusive situations (Thurman et al., 2003). Some women believed that to do so would ostracize
their spouse/partner from their families.
Many American Indian and Alaska Native communities have unique cultural ceremonies
that can be important resources for women healing from victimization. Such traditional practices
as talking circles, naming ceremonies, and sweat lodge ceremonies have been recognized for
their therapeutic and curing potential for centuries. In contrast to law-enforcement strategies,
some advocacy groups have developed holistic programs that use tradition to "heal" the impacts
of intimate partner violence. For example, Pamela Risling, an advocate with Niwhongwh xw
E:na:wh (Stop the Violence Coalition) in Hoopa, California, said that her group’s education
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

117
programs focus on "retraditionalization" – reestablishing the "old, traditional style of family, and
protecting the family, and taking care of one another" (Chen, 2006).
American Indian and Alaska Native women can also turn to available native healers for
help in dealing with violent victimization as well as other problems. Despite the fact that
Western health and social service providers might espouse philosophies quite different from that
of native healers, Kim and Kwok (1998) report that American Indian and Alaska Natives are
comfortable seeking both types of counsel. They found that 62% of Navajo patients had used
native healers and 39% used native healers on a regular basis. They also found that the victim’s
age, education, income, and fluency in English had no effect on the likelihood to use native
healers. However, Christian Pentecostal patients used native healers less than patients of other
faiths. Patients were rarely cognizant of the potential conflict between native healers and
conventional medicine. The most serious barrier for seeking help from a healer was the cost
associated with the healer’s services.
The STOP program Evaluation Report also cites the importance of traditional healers and
natural helpers in physical and emotional healing. Respondents were specifically asked if they
had sought help from traditional healers (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). It was not uncommon for
survivors to mention seeking help from native healers, even when service providers had not
brought up the presence of this type of help. In one of the cases the healer also testified in the
tribal court in support of the victim. Another survivor indicated that she was referred to a healer
by an advocate for emotional counseling. In another community, the service providers and the
survivors recognize the important work of the traditional healer in helping women through one
on one interaction and in women’s groups. Having a traditional healer on staff in a STOP victim
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

118
assistance program has permitted the use of cultural aspects, art, and culturally specific and
appropriate counseling methods.
There are also alternative tribal justice forums in some American Indian and Alaska
Native communities (Hamby, 2004). These family or community forums emphasize restorative
and reparative approaches to justice rather than the adversarial system found in the US court
system. As we briefly described earlier, one indigenous form of dispute resolution that has
recently become an increasingly popular example of restorative justice, has transcended the US
boundaries and received extensive international attention is Navajo Peacemaking (Grohowski,
1995; Zion, 1998). Peacemakers have been a part of traditional Navajo justice for centuries. In
1982 the first formal peacemakers courts were established, turning peacemaking into a formal
part of the Navajo legal system, developed and overseen by the Navajo nation judiciary. Cases
are either referred to peacemaking by the court or are initiated by the aggrieved party. In 2003,
peacemakers were further directed by the Navajo Nation Council to offer traditional counseling,
education and advice to judges, clients of the courts, and the general public.
In contrast with a “vertical” Anglo version of justice, which is adversarial, the Navajo
concept of "horizontal" justice has a much wider "zone of dispute" and relies on healing (Coker,
1999). The Honorable Robert Yazzie, Chief Justice for the Supreme Court of the Navajo Nation
has stated that the goal of the Navajo law is nourishment of the “ongoing relationships with the
immediate and extended family, relatives, neighbors and community" (Coker 1999, p. 33).
As the name implies, in a peacemaking process, parties meet with a peacemaker. A
peacemaker is a highly respected member of the community, a community leader whose
leadership does not depend on a position of power and authority. He or she must be someone
who possesses the power of persuasion, and knowledge of traditional Navajo stories. Other
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

119
individuals, who either have a special relationship to the parties (e.g., family and friends) or
possess relevant expertise (e.g., alcohol treatment counselors and hospital social workers) may
be present during the peacemaking session. All participants are treated as equals with the
purpose of preserving ongoing relationships and restoring harmony among involved parties. In
peacemaking there is no coercion, and no adversarial process. That is, the parties are not labeled
as the offender or the victim, the plaintiff or the defendant (Zion, 1998). Peacemaking consists of
a number of procedural steps. Each participant is given a chance to describe the problem that the
petitioner has identified as the reason for the session. The peacemaker then guides the group in
developing suggestions and agreements intended to ameliorate or resolve the problem.
Coker (1999) argues that peacemaking offers several potential benefits for battered
women. First, peacemaking has the ability to attend to both systemic and personal aspects of
battering and thus disrupt the familial and social supports for battering. Second, it has the
potential to promote social and personal change through the use of traditional Navajo creation
narratives based on gender-egalitarian perspectives on male and female relations. Finally,
women's multiple loyalties, including their commitment to relationships with men who have
been abusive, are not regarded as aberrant. Importantly, some scholars contend that restorative
justice approaches, such as the Navajo Peacemaking program, ignore the fact in cases of intimate
partner violence, the offender is often a major source of oppression and domination who will
ultimately affect the choices, opportunities, and resources that are available to their victims
(Hopkins & Koss, 2005). As such, unlike violence perpetrated by strangers, restorative justice
approaches may not be appropriate for intimate partner violence. Hopkins and Koss (2005)
argue, “The simple and real fear of future violence alone may cause a victim of ongoing violence
to accede to terms to which she would not otherwise agree…these power dynamics can skew
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

120
bargaining power… and yield an agreement that does not adequately or accurately reflect the
survivor’s interests or wishes (Hopkins & Koss, 2005, p. 712).
Still, the importance of adopting culturally sensitive practices by various intervention
programs dealing with victimized American Indian and Alaska Native women have been
numerously stressed both by scholars and practitioners (E. Duran et al., 1998; Hamby, 2004;
Thurman et al., 2003; Shepherd, 2001). While some scholars maintain that it would be wrong to
automatically assume that American Indian and Alaska Native women will prefer traditional
cultural services over mainstream interventions (Groginsky & Freeman, 1995), the general
tendency has been to integrate culturally appropriate elements into intervention programs
designed to mitigate the problem of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native
women.
Other researchers argue that community-level interventions are the most appropriate
strategies in American Indian and Alaska Native communities to respond to the problem of
violence against women (B. Duran et al., 1998; McEachern et al., 1998, Oetzel & Duran, 2004).
Community-level interventions may not only help the victims of violence, but prevent the
violence from occurring in the first place. For example, McEachern and colleagues (1998)
discuss how a “dialogue group” approach, which is consonant with American Indian and Alaska
Native cultural values, could help American Indian and Alaska Native men understand how
different forms of oppression have shaped their position in life and potentially contributed to the
prevalence of violence in their household. Another illustration of a community level approach is
the use of healing rituals to address historical trauma in general, which also helps to prevent
violence in general and intimate partner violence in particular (B. Duran et al., 1998). The
authors used a memorial ceremony for the massacre at Wounded Knee in the Lakota community
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

121
to illustrate. This Lakota ritual revolves around facilitating mourning, embracing the effects that
accompany trauma, and validating and normalizing the traumatic response. According to the
authors, all participants who participated in the ceremony felt better about themselves after the
intervention with 75% expressing high agreement that the intervention helped them overcome
feelings of cultural shame (B. Duran et al., 1998).
Durst (1991) presents a dichotomy of responses to intimate partner violence in Alaskan
Native communities. He maintains that interventions to the problem can contain the elements of
both a privatization and communitarian response. Privatization is a characteristic of most social
work strategies, and includes such things as having a professional therapist privately and
separately counsel the perpetrator and the victim. Communitarian responses involve the larger
community. Durst found that social work interventions that focused on the community at large
have a positive impact on changing attitudes about intimate partner violence and thus promote
community-wide action against the problem.
Another community approach is the Kanuhkwene project (Hagen & House, 1995). This
project was developed by Oneida women on their Wisconsin reservation to address certain
critical social issues including domestic violence. The women consistently reported gaps in the
delivery system of other interventions, such as the lack of transportation, lack of childcare, and
lack of programs to serve pregnant women. Their meetings to discover causes of problems
gradually evolved into circles of mutual assistance wherein women themselves took care of one
another. They also returned to traditional methods of help: using herbs for medicine rather than
pharmaceuticals, natural childbirth techniques, sweat lodge cleansings, and others. An
organization of women based on Oneida values of community and connection with the social and
natural world was born. “Kanuhkwene” means "women's dance" and refers to a ceremonial
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

122
dance in which women's feet massage the back of Mother Earth to relieve Her stress. Although
the evidence is anecdotal, the Kanuhkwene project demonstrates the possibilities for women to
create a network of support for themselves to deal with important social issues in a culturally
appropriate manner. Programs such as this, of course, would be beneficial for all female victims
of violence, regardless of race.
It is imperative to point out that while community-based approaches and culturally
sensitive practices are important to incorporate into the non-criminal justice interventions of
violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women, the efficacy of these approaches
and strategies should not be generalized across all American Indian and Alaska Native
populations (Hamby, 2004; Oetzel & Duran, 2004; Norton & Manson, 1997). Each approach
might be appropriate and/or inappropriate for a particular American Indian and Alaska Native
community. Thus, interventions have to be created for specific communities.

Health Care-Based Interventions
Interventions occurring in healthcare settings that address IPV and rape and sexual assault
within American Indian and Alaska Native communities primarily revolve around screening and
referral practices. Typically, healthcare interventions do not engage in remediation interventions
like offering victims counseling services and advocacy (Wahab & Olson, 2004). Many of the
healthcare interventions are designed to identify the occurrence of physical violence and sexual
assault in the lives of their patients, as well to provide resources and referrals when appropriate.
Access to medical care might be problematic for American Indian and Alaska Native women due
to insurance coverage requirements (Zuckerman et al., 2004) and due to the relative isolation of
many tribal communities (Katz, 2004). The STOP program evaluation report found that although
there may be more than one service facility per area, most often the choice victims are given is
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

123
restricted to only Indian Health Service facilities or to a tribal health center (Luna-Firebaugh et
al., 2002). Norton and Manson (1997) contend that the instability of programs in urban American
Indian and Alaska Native health centers is a major barrier to the provision of services to
American Indian and Alaska Native community.
Members of federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes are entitled
to services at Indian Health Service (IHS) facilities or at tribal facilities that receive IHS funding.
IHS services are administered through a system of 12 area offices and 163 IHS and tribally
managed service units. In fact, 70% of IHS employees are American Indian and Alaska Native,
but it is unclear what percent of these are professional medical staff and what percent are
custodial and clerical (IHS, 2008). In IHS facilities, American Indian and Alaska Native women
can get treatment for injuries, sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, and other consequences
of sexual victimization with fewer financial concerns than many non-American Indian and
Alaska Native women. They also have access to free psychotherapy, if they can locate an IHS
therapist with expertise in dealing with victimization and trauma (Norton & Manson, 1997).
However, as we have already noted, the lack of anonymity in these facilities sometimes prohibits
American Indian and Alaska Native women from seeking care.
The efficacy of health services in Indian Country remains unknown. For example, a
report by the US Commission on Civil Rights in 2003 found that federal spending on health
services for American Indian and Alaska Natives via the IHS was far below spending on all other
groups (US Commission on Civil Rights, 2003). The report also suggests that services for
survivors of sexual violence – such as testing and prophylaxis for transmitted infections
including HIV, pregnancy testing, emergency contraception and culturally appropriate support
services were inadequate. Similar to most rural health centers, IHS facilities suffer from
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

124
problems of understaffing, high turnover rate and poor facility conditions (US Commission on
Civil Rights, 2004). The average IHS facility is 40 years old. The STOP program evaluation
report found that many of the IHS facilities were not equipped with emergency technology
required to treat seriously injured survivors (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). Most of the IHS
facilities only offer services in the daytime. One service provider explained, “In some cases, they
(survivors) may have to wait until Monday morning to receive direct medical care if the health
clinic is closed on weekends.” In some areas, it is necessary to go to a regional hospital for
evidence collection for sexual assault cases.
Many IHS facilities do not have standardized policies and protocols when it comes to
dealing with domestic violence cases. Clark (2001) looked at screening rates of domestic
violence cases in a sample of IHS facilities and found that screening for domestic violence is
promoted by the presence of relevant policies. Where these policies and procedures for handling
domestic violence exist, screening is more likely to occur. Sixty-four percent of sites had policies
and procedures for domestic violence, however, less than half of these sites evaluated the use of
these policies and procedures. Hospitals were more likely to have policies and procedures than
clinics, as were sites administered by the IHS rather than those administered by a tribal contract.
This lack of screening was also found in another study of hospital records; Martins et al. (1992)
found that physicians’ files recorded only one percent of possible cases in a population with an
intimate partner violence prevalence of 30% (including physical and emotional violence).
These problems filter down from the institutional level to the individual level as well. For
example, in a qualitative study of patient perceptions of health care providers on one reservation,
Fifer (1996) found that some patients had negative experiences with providers. Patients stated
that providers showed superior attitudes, used confusing terminology, and avoided the
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

125
reservation outside of working hours. In one study of women and domestic violence in rural
Alaska, Shepherd (2001) also reported comments on the existing dichotomy between Native
residents and professional non-Native service providers that resided in the area. All the medical
personnel at the regional center hospital and all but one counselor at the mental health center
were non-Native and had moved to the area for employment.
A number of scholars and practitioners point out that healthcare interventions should also
target clinicians (Wahab & Olson, 2004; Hamby, 2004; Oetzel & Duran, 2004; Bohn, 1993). The
Amnesty International (2007) report on the response to sexual violence against American Indian
and Alaska Native women stresses the importance of increasing the cultural sensitivity of
medical staff. Oetzel and Duran (2004) argue that healthcare providers need training on how to
screen and talk about intimate partner violence with patients to increase the honesty of
disclosure. In addition, medical practitioners need to be aware of social and cultural norms,
traditional healing practices and medicines, and economic and geographical conditions of the
patients. Some rituals carried out by American Indian and Alaska Native patients (e.g. having an
item that carries a special curative meaning on their bodies) or certain customs (e.g. being
surrounded by many family members while one is sick) may be misunderstood by medical
personnel and not taken seriously or treated with respect (Bohn, 1993; Primeaux, 1977). The
extent of culturally sensitive training or training related to violence against women offered in
IHS and non-IHS facilities remains largely unexplored.
Finally, while some of the more than 50% of American Indian and Alaska Natives who
reside in urban and suburban areas have access to IHS facilities, many do not. According to a
study by the Seattle Indian Health Board’s Urban Indian Health Institute (2004), American
Indian and Alaska Natives living in urban areas suffer from poorer health than the general United
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

126
States population. Most urban American Indian and Alaska Native women living far from
reservations do not have access to IHS facilities and full provision of free services. The IHS does
help to pay for selected health services provided at non-IHS facilities, however, state and local
facilities are less likely to be culturally appropriate and familiar with traditional forms of care.

Victim Services Interventions
There are a number of community-based interventions that serve American Indian and
Alaska Native individuals and groups at the tribal and regional (state) levels that are focused on
remediation. Many of these initiatives are non-profit organizations and stem from grass roots
efforts (Wahab & Olson, 2004). The types of services provided by these community based-
interventions vary tremendously – from 24-hour crisis hotlines and crisis interventions to shelters
and legal support and mental health therapy. Programs may also provide victim advocacy,
individual and group counseling, help with victim relocation, in-patient drug/alcohol treatment,
assisting women with filing restraining orders, providing court accompaniment and liaison
services, and other services.
One the most widespread forms of victim-services organizations designed for female
victims of physical violence and rape and sexual assault are shelters. The first shelter on an
Indian reservation was open in 1977 by the White Buffalo Calf Women’s Society of the Rosebud
Reservation (DeBruyn et al., 1990). Since then, a number of reservation and urban communities
have started local programs in response to the problem of violence against American Indian and
Alaska Native women. According to the STOP program Evaluation report, shelters may be of
three types:
1) Tribally-affiliated non-profit shelters: These most often house American Indian and Alaska
Native women on community premises and are chartered by American Indian and Alaska
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

127
Native community members. Grantees of the STOP program have reported 23 of these
facilities.
2) Tribal collaborative shelters: These facilities may be located in mainstream areas, or on the
reservation, but they are chartered by a non-profit or another agency that cultivates an
effective working relationship with the tribe. Twenty-seven tribal-collaborative shelters were
reported among the STOP grant recipients.
3) Mainstream shelters: These shelters are situated in off-reservation rural or urban areas, and
are usually county or city affiliated. Grantees of the STOP program have reported utilizing 33
of these facilities.
One of the most serious problems currently facing victim services programs and shelters
run by tribal communities is a lack of funding (Office for Victims of Crime, 2004; Amnesty
International, 2007; Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). These programs usually operate with a mix of
federal, state and tribal funds as well as private donations. But this funding is often limited. For
example, one director of a STOP program commented, “There’s such a lack of resources. The
available shelters are so full so she [the survivor] ends up going home” (Luna-Firebaugh et al.,
2002, p. 138). These factors, of course, affect non-native shelter services for the general
population as well.
Another serious concern revolves around the provision of culturally appropriate,
supportive and non-discriminative environments in shelters servicing American Indian and
Alaska Native women. Amnesty International (2007) reported that shelters sometimes fail to
provide such an environment. One anecdotal report received by Amnesty International concerns
a shelter located between several reservations that required a signed statement from the IHS that
American Indian and Alaska Native women and their children had been checked for lice and
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

128
were “clean” upon arriving at the shelter; the shelter did not require this of non-American Indian
and Alaska Native residents.
Shelters designed specifically for American Indian and Alaska Native victims are very
few. For example, as of 2004 the Osage Nation Counseling Center in Pawhuska, OK was the
only such domestic violence shelter (Office for Victims of Crime, 2004). Emmonak Women’s
Shelter in Alaska is the only completely Native-operated and managed facility that serves Native
and non-Native Alaskan victims. It is also the only shelter in the state that is in a village setting.
Established in 1984, the shelter epitomizes a culturally appropriate victim services facility
(Shepherd, 2001). The building, provided by the village government, is designed and decorated
to look and feel like a Yup’ik home. Traditional foods are provided to the residents, and one
employee’s job description includes subsistence hunting and fishing for the shelter. A fish camp
is built for the residents to spend time at in the summer.
The Two Feathers Native American Family Services in McKinleyville, California
represents another example of incorporating culturally appropriate practices into the victim
services program curriculum. The program holds a Native Women’s Healing Group for adult
women, which combines therapy and basketry. A therapist and a cultural expert are co-leaders of
these activities (Office for Victims of Crime, 2004). Another program run by the Sault Ste. Marie
Tribe Victim Services Program also maintains the teaching of Chippewa culture. Victimized
women attend a women’s talking circle, and educational groups for victims of domestic violence,
sexual assault, and stalking. Native teachings are incorporated into the group process. Other
cultural activities include arts and crafts, sweat lodge ceremonies, and seasonal women’s
ceremonies.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

129
Literature on the provision of culturally sensitive counseling (Trimble & Fleming, 1989;
Norton & Monson, 1997) reiterates the importance of flexibility and trust for the counselor-client
relationship. Norton and Manson (1997) describe a domestic violence program located in an
urban Indian Health Services center. The program was staffed by two American Indian and
Alaska Native women, and provided a range of social service interventions such as housing,
emergency clothing, and transportation to appointments. Most of the clients of the program were
referred by the nurse practitioner in the medical clinic. Drop out in the program emerged as a
problem; most clients would only attend a few individual sessions at the health center, and not
return for scheduled appointments. Many clients also seemed distant and disconnected during the
counseling sessions. Attempts to conduct an educational domestic violence group with the victim
advocate were not successful due to minimal attendance. The program advocates began
exploring alternatives to traditional office-based interventions with their American Indian and
Alaska Native clients. Traveling to the clients’ homes proved to be more successful in
establishing an emotional connection with women. Another attempt was made at a domestic
violence group, but this time over a potluck dinner, which created an informal atmosphere to
share problems and concerns. Initially the women did not interact with one another directly, but
slowly became more comfortable and responded with advice and support. The authors argue that
this setting was more consonant with American Indian and Alaska Native traditions (such as the
sharing of meals) and reminiscent of a traditional healing practice – the talking circle.
In addition to shelters, “safe houses” are also available in several American Indian and
Alaska Native communities. Over 20 years ago, Shinkwin (1983) found that American Indian
and Alaska Native women in her sample often fled to the homes of other women when being
abused. This is consistent with the strong tradition of taking others in times of crisis. Perhaps
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

130
similar to women in the general population, American Indian and Alaska Native women often
flee to a relative or a friend who will give them shelter. Safe houses are housing options
volunteered by a private household, which may be mainstream affiliated or located in American
Indian and Alaska Native homes. There were 14 safe house networks reported in use by the
STOP grant recipients (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). Similarly, hotels and motels used as safe
houses may be on-reservation or off-reservation. In one STOP program community, the
survivors preferred to use motels or off-reservation shelters rather than safe homes due to privacy
concerns.

Offender-Oriented Interventions
A vital component of responding to the problem of violence against women is direct
intervention with offenders. The NIJ VAIW report noted a concern among American Indian and
Alaska Native women that there were virtually no batterer-treatment programs available in tribal
communities (Thurman et al., 2003). Very little is known about individual counseling or general
programs that exist for American Indian and Alaska Native men in the community. While some
efforts have been made to help American Indian and Alaska Native men change their behavior,
such as workshops for batterers to help them “unlearn” abusive behavior, and in some cases,
come to terms with past trauma from their own abuse experiences, the efficacy of these programs
remains unknown.
Shepherd (2001), noting the connection between family abuse and alcohol in rural
Alaska, stated that lack of social services and treatment for abusers is a serious problem. In the
regional center, a residential alcohol treatment program and an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
group were available, but in the surrounding villages, these services were very limited. For
example, mental health counselors visit villages for a few days a month or every two months,
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

131
and there were no AA support groups. An anger management class was periodically offered in
the regional center that some abusers are court mandated to attend, but such services were not
available in the villages.
As part of the Tribal Strategies against Violence (TSAV) initiative in Grand Traverse
Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, in 1999 the Tribe’s Substance Abuse program assumed
responsibility for establishing a men’s anger management group (Nichols et al., 2002a). The
purpose of forming this group was to assist abusers in better handling their stress and anger and
to help them learn conflict resolution skills. Participation in this group occurs through Tribal
Court referrals. Similarly, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians (North Dakota) also
designed specific activities to address rehabilitation of perpetrators of domestic violence
(Nichols et al., 2002b). The tribe has utilized TSAV funds for the formation of both teen and
men’s anger management groups. The tribe also has a local Fifth Generation Center – an
outpatient referral and treatment center for substance abuse.
Zellerer (2003) examined the presence of programs for abusers in prison. She contacted
the central departments of the Bureau of Prisons in Washington, DC, all regional offices, and
state departments of corrections with a comparatively high proportion of American Indian and
Alaska Natives among their inmate population. Zellerer (2003) could not locate any family
violence programs for American Indian and Alaska Native inmates that were culturally specific.
Contacted agencies suggested that specific issues concerning American Indian and Alaska
Native offenders might be addressed within the framework of general programs (e.g. substance
abuse or anger management) or in individual counseling. However, as we have seen with victim
interventions, offender treatment programs may be more effective if traditional interventions
such as spiritual teachings or ceremonies are used in combination with contemporary
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

132
approaches. Thus, service providers should strive to make treatment programs culturally specific.
Shepherd (2001) similarly argued that it would be beneficial if intervention programs for men
incorporated elements of basic belief systems concerning male-female relationships.

Education and Community Awareness
Public outreach and education are an important element in creating an environment in
which survivors feel able to report victimizations. Community-wide awareness of violence
against women in all populations empowers victims, informs them of their options, and helps
secure potential resources to address the problem (e.g. people would volunteer at the local
shelter). Some shelters are involved in bringing education and awareness to the community.
Other communities utilize federal and state funds for special educational programs. For example,
the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians used a portion of the TSAV grants to
institute an annual Women’s Wellness Conference to develop community-wide awareness of
family violence and related issues (Nichols et al., 2002a). This conference also serves to
familiarize local families with the range of potential tribal/local programs available for assisting
victims of family violence.
The Tribal Law and Policy Institute is in the process of designing, developing, and
implementing a violence against Indian women course for tribal colleges (Office for Victims of
Crime, 2004). An accompanying textbook with instructor guides and student workbooks will be
published and agreements will be established with tribal college partners to provide college
credit for existing violence against Indian women trainings and conferences. The Institute also
envisions development of a feasible distant learning component for this course.
Many domestic violence programs are receiving extensive community support in the
form of volunteers who serve as shelter workers and victim advocates. It is common to find
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

133
specialized training for volunteers. The STOP program evaluation final report refers to one
community where twenty village-based volunteers in twelve villages were trained through STOP
grant funds (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). During the first year of the STOP grant, this program
presented four sub-regional training sessions for volunteers. Once the training was completed,
these volunteers were certified as Crisis Intervention Advocates. Volunteers reported that they
felt the training was effective and prepared them to better perform their duties in the villages.
Some programs interviewed during the STOP site visits have urged their tribal council
members to attend domestic violence training sessions and guarantee that domestic violence
educational information is made available to council members (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002).
Other communities have created cultural competency training for local physicians and state
police. Shepherd (2001) advocates for educational programs to be delivered through distance
education and other innovative means that offer site-bound students in rural regions access to
mental health training. Such programs could increase the number of culturally sensitive
practitioners in rural regions.

FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES

The Federal government and other national organizations play a vital role in creating and
facilitating the provision of services that target the problem of violence against American Indian
and Alaska Native women. Another function federal agencies and national organizations serve is
to address macro-level issues that set the context for the problem of female victimization -
including sexism and institutionalized oppression (Wahab & Olson, 2007).

As noted in the introduction, the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW), created in
1995, is the government branch of the Department of Justice (DOJ) that attends to the legal and
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

134
policy matters concerning violence against women. The office also manages the DOJ’s formula
and discretionary grant programs authorized by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of
1994 and the Act’s revisions. Currently there are 12 grant programs administered by OVW that
are designed to help communities to decrease the incidence of domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault and stalking. In 2007, DOJ announced that tribal communities received
more than $82.7 million in grant funds and assistance to improve their criminal justice systems
(Department Of Justice Press Release, November 28, 2007).
One of the most significant and long-running initiatives administered specifically for
American Indian and Alaska Native communities has been the Services-Training-Officers-
Prosecutors (STOP) Violence Against Indian Women (VAIW) program, which was initiated in
1995. Authorized by VAWA 1994, the primary purpose of the STOP VAIW Discretionary
Grants Program was to reduce violent crimes against American Indian and Alaska Native
Women. Tribal governments were given federal financial assistance to reform the response of
American Indian and Alaska Native justice systems to violent crimes against women. According
to a review of 123 grantees that received STOP VAIW funding from 1996 to 2001, prior to this
initiative a majority (56%) of the tribes did not have any domestic violence programs (Luna-
Firebaugh et al., 2002). The evaluation report of the STOP discretionary grant program
highlights a number of specific programs and services that were supported by STOP funds.
Among the services that have received priority attention from the majority of grantees was
victim advocacy (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). Other emphasized services included public
outreach, agency training and legal advocacy. Fewer participating sites have utilized the STOP
funds to provide shelter services and other emergency services (e.g. food, clothing, childcare). In
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

135
2006 alone over $ 6.7 million was awarded74 to 35 American Indian and Alaska Native
communities, but it is important to stress that most of the programs were not supported solely
through STOP funds (Luna-Firebaugh et al., 2002). Additional funding has been obtained from
many other sources including Alaska Native Corporations, tribal governments, or the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, as well as various federal, state, county, and municipal grants, and individuals or
private organizations.
Prior to the adoption of VAWA 2005, in addition to the STOP VAIW grant program,
American Indian and Alaska Native tribes were eligible to apply to OVW for funding from other
grant programs, four of which contained a special five-percent set-aside for tribal governments.
The Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders program (often
referred to as the Arrest Program) is designed to promote a perspective that crimes of domestic
violence, sexual assault and stalking deserve serious treatment and coordinated response of the
whole criminal justice system.75 In 2006 and 2007, over $5 million was awarded to a number of
American Indian and Alaska Native communities under this grant program to develop,
implement and strengthen various pro-arrest policies, educational programs and training meant to
reinforce services to victims and hold offenders accountable (OVW, 2006a).
American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments and tribal associations may also
apply for funding under the Legal Assistance for Victims Grant Program. This initiative is
designed to improve civil and criminal legal assistance for victims of domestic and dating
violence, as well as sexual assault and stalking.76 In 2007 grants averaging $400,000 were
allocated to several tribes (Sitka Tribe of Alaska, the Hopi Tribe, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of

74 Unless specified otherwise, award amounts for the respective programs and initiatives were obtained from the
OVW’s State-by-State Grant Activities webpage located at http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/grantactivities.htm. Data is
available for years 2004-2007.
75 Program Brief available at http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/arrest_grant_desc.htm
76 Program Brief available at http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/lav_grant_desc.htm
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

136
Chippewa Indians, and several others) and American Indian and Alaska Native organizations
(e.g. Cangleska, Inc in South Dakota and DOVES in Montana) for these purposes.
The third discretionary grant program is the Rural Domestic Violence, Dating Violence,
Sexual Assault, and Stalking Assistance Grant Program. It is intended to promote community
involvement in extending a coordinated response to crimes against women.77 Almost $15 million
has been awarded in the past two years (2006/2007) under this initiative to a number of tribal
governments and American Indian and Alaska Native non-profit organizations. This funding is
utilized to establish new or support existing counseling, treatment and advocacy centers, develop
various education programs and prevention strategies in the communities, as well as develop
approaches to strengthen the cooperation between the criminal justice agencies, victim advocacy
groups and the community in responding to these crimes (OVW 2006a).
Finally, American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments can receive funding
under the Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Grant Program (also known as Safe Havens).
The purpose of this initiative is to help communities establish and maintain “supervised
visitation and safe exchange of children … in situations involving domestic violence, dating
violence, child abuse, sexual assault, or stalking” (OVW, 2006, p. 1). In the last two years
(2006/2007), four tribal governments and one non-profit organization (the Alaska Native
Women’s Coalition) have received funding through this program, with grants ranging from
$200,000 to $600,000. These sites have utilized the funds to establish or expand the services of
supervised visitation and safe exchange services, increase staff and improve technical assistance
of these centers, as well as develop training programs for the centers’ staff and volunteers.
Title IX of VAWA 2005 has introduced significant changes in the way OVW makes
grant award funds available to American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments and

77 Program Brief available at http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/rural_grant_desc.htm
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

137
organizations. In addition to previously existing set-asides, which have been increased to 10%,
two new 10% set-asides were created within the Transitional Housing Assistance Program and
the Court Training and Improvements Program (OVW, 2007). These set-asides have been
consolidated78 to create a new initiative - the Tribal Governments Program, which has replaced
the STOP VAIW program in the fiscal year of 2007. There are a number of differences between
the two programs, including the fact that the Tribal Government Program offers grantees a
longer list of options on how funds can be utilized in a way that combines the purpose areas of
respective grant programs with tribal set-asides (OVW 2007, p 4). In addition, American Indian
and Alaska Native tribal governments can still apply for other OVW grant programs. As a result,
there are no longer set-asides assumed within these general solicitations.
It is important to note that a significant role in the effort to reduce violence against
American Indian and Alaska Native women is played by tribal coalitions. The Amnesty
International (2007) report lists 16 coalitions that are working together to advance the goal of
combating domestic and sexual violence across the country. In 2007 a little over $3 million were
allocated to eight American Indian and Alaska Native non-profit organizations under the OVW’s
Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions Grant Program. Typically the resources
are used to fund staff working for sexual and domestic violence coalitions (OVW, 2006a). The
second most common activity is the provision of training to a broad spectrum of professionals:
from law enforcement officials to victim advocates and health professionals (OVW, 2006a).
A recent DOJ project that focuses on violence against American Indian and Alaska
Native women is the Safety for Indian Women from Sexual Assault Offenders Demonstration

78 Seven percent of the Legal Assistance for Victim Program has been consolidated to fund the Tribal Governments
Program, while the remaining three percent is reserved to be used to support Indian country projects (OW 2007).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

138
Initiative. In 2006 four tribes79 selected under this initiative have received over a million dollars
to improve the manner in which federal and tribal agencies respond to the problem of sexual
assault against American Indian and Alaska Native women (DOJ Press Release September 21,
2005). Among some of the reported objectives of this year-long initiative is the provision of
sexual assault victims with an increased level of advocacy and services, as well as increase in
coordination of efforts between the tribal and federal agencies that are involved in responding to
crimes of sexual assault.
American Indian and Alaska Native tribes also can receive financial assistance directly
from the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC). The Victim Assistance in Indian Country (VAIC)
Discretionary Grant Program was established in 1988, and has focused on supporting remote
tribal communities in launching victim assistance programs on the reservations where these types
of services were either scant or non-existent. The VAIC program in 2003 was replaced by the
Tribal Victim Assistance (TVA) discretionary grant program. The latter currently finances a
number of direct services to the tribes ranging from emergency shelters and crisis intervention to
court advocacy and bilingual counseling services. Recently, the amount of funding allocated
through the TVA program has steadily increased – from $1.3 million in 1999 to $2.5 million in
2003 to $3.5 million in 2006 (Office of the Inspector General, 2006). In addition to federal
compensation grants, states also have victim’s compensation programs. The types of reparations
victims can seek include health-related expenses (for medical, dental, and mental healthcare) and
costs of funerals, lost wages, eyewear, and, in some states (e.g. New Mexico and Arizona),
traditional Native healing ceremonies.

79 Navajo Nation (Window Rock, Arizona); Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Rosebud, South Dakota); Red Lake Band of
Chippewa Indians (Red Lake, Minnesota); and Hannahville Indian Community (Wilson, Michigan).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

139
CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL THOUGHTS

The Violence Against Women Act and its reauthorizations have made some important
advances in what we know about violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women
and how we respond to this violence. Moreover, it has undoubtedly helped to bring awareness to
the issue and helped to change antiquated ideals that tolerate violence against women in the
population in general, and in the American Indian and Alaska Native population in particular.
We have already highlighted the problems associated with measuring violence against American
Indian and Alaska Native women and the problems associated with interventions designed to
respond to and ameliorate the consequences of this violence, however, we provide a few
additional recommendations below.

Measuring the Magnitude of Victimization

Valid and reliable statistical data on violence against American Indian and Alaska Native
women are essential in formulating policies and procedures likely to prevent this violence and to
respond effectively. Not only are valid estimates important for informing policy and allocating
service resources, but without solid baseline rates of violence both nationally and locally, there is
no way to assess the overall effectiveness of interventions. Using police data to determine the
efficacy of new policies is problematic for several reasons. First, in addition to any new policy
being evaluated, police reporting by female victims can be influenced by a number of factors
including procedural changes in the department (e.g. taking violence against women more
seriously in general), any event or news that draws attention to the issue of violence against
women (e.g. the Amnesty International Report), or another initiative implemented at either the
local or national level. Similar to the general population, obtaining rates of victimization against
American Indian and Alaska Native women at the local level is more problematic than tracking
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

140
victimization at the national level. As noted earlier, surveys provide the most accurate estimates
of victimization compared to estimates based on police reports only. Unfortunately, the very high
cost of random sample surveys makes them extremely prohibitive for most large jurisdictions
including states, and even more so for small rural American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. As
such, official data from police will likely remain the principal means to monitor levels of
violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women at the local level. As such, it is
important that efforts be made to improve the official databases that exist at the local tribal
levels.

The database system used to record characteristics of victimizations for the National
Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) is the best method available for police report data.
Using the NIBRS template allows the collection of detailed information about incidents of
violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women including the victim/offender
relationship, the age of the victim and offender, race of the offender, etc. This system would also
allow comparisons to be made across tribes and other jurisdictions. Of course, there would need
to be a uniformity of definitions of crime (e.g. rape, sexual assault) across tribal jurisdictions to
make such comparisons meaningful. It is important to note that the problems of jurisdiction
when prosecuting offenders that were described earlier in this report should not prevent tribes
from creating databases from initial victim reports.

At the national level, the only data available on an annual basis remains the National
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Unfortunately, the significant sample size reductions made
to the NCVS in the past ten years makes it virtually impossible to reliably estimate incidence
rates of violence against smaller populations including American Indian and Alaska Native
women. For example, the annual unweighted number of American Indian and Alaska Native
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

141
victims of rape for the past two years has been less than two individuals. Even when a number of
years are aggregated together, annual sample sizes this small make reliable estimation almost
impossible. One cost-effective avenue available would be to over-sample American Indian and
Alaska Native respondents in the NCVS in order to obtain more reliable estimates. At this time,
this strategy is being used by the Second National Violence Against Women and Men Survey.
Ultimately, however, the slashing of the NCVS sample that has occurred and its continued
decrease will completely eviscerate our ability to measure victimization rates for all small
populations such as racial/ethic minorities and other groups such as the elderly as well as for less
frequent crimes like rape and robbery.

Do we need more baseline data at the local tribal level? For tribes interested in assessing
the effectiveness of new policies or programs, baseline information about victimization prior to
program implementation is imperative. However, from a purely epidemiological standpoint, it is
clear that results from all national surveys and the vast majority of local tribal surveys have
shown that American Indian and Alaska Native women experience extremely high rates of
violence. In addition, all surveys indicate that American Indian and Alaska Native women are
more likely to be victimized by people they know and often love compared to strangers.
Moreover, from a recent study utilizing random sampling from six tribes, we know that there is
some variation in rates of victimization against American Indian and Alaska Native women
across tribes, but even the lowest rates obtained were higher than national averages for the
general population. Different research designs and samples will continue to produce disparate
findings in the future. But resources directed at counting “how many” American Indian and
Alaska Natives are victims, we contend, is misguided. Even the most conservative estimates
indicate that it is an extremely serious problem. The limited funds available for protecting
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

142
American Indian and Alaska Native women from violence would be better invested in
developing interventions and prevention programs, scientifically evaluating their efficacy for
protecting American Indian and Alaska Native women, and making sure all female victims of
violence have safe havens in the meantime. Future research should also combine efforts at
enumeration with efforts aimed at explaining and understanding the causes of violence against
American Indian and Alaska Native women. To do this, data collection efforts must be
theoretically guided so researchers can begin to build a knowledge base for understanding the
correlates of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women.

Effectiveness of Interventions

Research examining the efficacy of programs and policies created to protect American
Indian and Alaska Native women is still very much in its infancy. As the National Research
Council Panel on Violence Against Women noted more than a decade ago, “significant gaps
exist in understanding…the impact and effectiveness of preventive and treatment interventions”
(Crowell & Burgess, 1996, p.2). Unfortunately, the term “impact” is somewhat ambiguous and is
used in several different ways by practitioners, policy makers, and researchers. For example, law
enforcement officials may perceive their mandatory arrest policies to be effective simply because
they are implementing the policies as prescribed by VAWA (e.g. by making arrests). However,
this evaluation does not begin to answer the extent to which the arrests are actually protecting
women from future violence.

Some evaluations may, in fact, be conducted to assess whether programs and policies are
being implemented as intended. Sometimes referred to as “process evaluations,” questions
answered under this type of research include whether a program or policy is reaching the target
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

143
individuals, whether it is actually operating as expected, and what resources are being expended
(Bachman & Schutt, 2007).

In contrast to process evaluations, “impact evaluations” from a research perspective are
generally interested in whether the program or policy had the intended consequences or impacts.
Did arrest decrease incidents of future offending? Do American Indian and Alaska Native
women perceive programs that combine both traditional and mainstream interventions more
effective compared to programs that use either approach alone? Many of the research studies
conducted in Indian Country have generally been restricted to describing the process of
implementation only, even though the term “impact” may be used to describe such studies. For
example, Luna-Firebaugh et al. (2002) described their evaluation of STOP Grant Programs for
reducing violence against women among Indian tribes as an “impact” evaluation because it
examined the success of tribes in implementing promised justice interventions. Although this is a
system impact and is a very important first step to evaluating the efficacy of such programs,
research of this nature does not determine if such programs, in fact, had the intended
consequence of protecting American Indian and Alaska Native women.

To determine the effectiveness of programs and policies aimed at preventing and
ameliorating the consequences of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women,
future research must employ scientifically rigorous standards. The National Research Council
Committee on the Assessment of Family Violence Interventions similarly identifies “improving
the standards of evidence used in the evaluation of family violence” as “one of the most critical
needs in this field” (Chalk & King, 1998, p. 59). After reviewing over 2,000 evaluation studies,
these authors found only 33 designed and implemented with sufficient rigor “to provide insights
on the effects of specific interventions” in the area of domestic violence. They described
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

144
“scientific rigor” as evaluations that “employed an experimental or quasi-experimental research
design” using reliable instrumentation and including a control or comparison group (p. 68).
Accordingly, future evaluation research of policies and programs directed toward American
Indian and Alaska Native women should meet fundamental standards of scientific inquiry.
Measurement tools should be clearly defined, should meet acceptable standards of reliability and
validity, and be culturally sensitive to the population under study. Every attempt should be made
to ensure samples are representative of the relevant population, and that sampling procedures are
explicitly described.

Clearly, results evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for violence against
American Indian and Alaska Native women are only as good as the methods on which they are
based. To accept research findings uncritically is, at best, implementing ineffective policies, and
at worst, “implementing policies that might do more harm than good in protecting women” (Ford
et al., 2002). In sum, it is hoped that this report will be used to refine future research and that it
will be a catalyst for other empirical investigations into ways to prevent violence against
American Indian and Alaska Native women and policies designed to ameliorate this violence
when it does occur.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

145
REFERENCES
Alvarez, A. & Bachman, R. (2007). Explaining individual and collective violence. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Amnesty International. (2007) Maze of injustice: The failure to protect indigenous women from
sexual
violence
in
the
USA.
Report.
Retrieved
October
04,
2007
from
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510352007
Bachman, R. (1992). Death & violence on the reservation: Homicide, family violence, and
suicide in American Indian populations. New York: Auburn House.
Bachman, R. (2000). A comparison of estimates of violence against women from the national
crime victimization survey and the national violence against women survey. Violence Against
Women, 6(8), 839-867.
Bachman, R., & Paternoster, R. (1993). A contemporary look at the effects of rape law reform:
how far have we really come? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 84(3), 554-
574.
Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. (2007). The practice of research in criminology and criminal justice
(3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Berger, B. R. (2004). Indian policy and the imagined Indian woman [Electronic version]. Kansas
Journal of Law & Public Policy, 14, 103-115. Retrieved June 05, 2007.
BigFoot, D. S. (2000). History of Victimization in Native Communities. University of Oklahoma
Health Sciences Center, Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, grant number 97-VI-GX-0002
(NCJ
213165).
Retrieved
October
04,
2007
from
http://devbehavpeds.ouhsc.edu/assets/pdf/pmm/History%20of%20Victimization%20Issues.
pdf
Bohn, D.K. (1993). Nursing care of Native American battered women. AWHONNS Clinical
Issues in Perinatal & Women’s Health Nursing, 4(3), 424-436.
Bubar, R., & Thurman, P.J. (2004). Violence against Native women. Social Justice, 31(4), 70-86.
Burelson, E. (2007). Tribal, state, and federal cooperation to achieve good governance,
[Electronic version]. Akron Law Review, 40, 207-253. Retrieved June 05, 2007.
Canby, W.R. (1988) American Indian law in a nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
Catalano, S. (2007). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Webpage accessed August 6, 2008 at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/intimate/victims.htm.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

146
Chalk, R., & King, P.A. (1998) Violence in families: assessing prevention and treatment
programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Chen, M. (2006, November 7). Rising violence against Native women has “colonial roots”. The
New Standard.
Christofferson, C. (1001). Tribal courts' failure to protect Native American women: A re-
evaluation of the Indian Civil Rights Act [Electronic version]. The Yale Law Journal, 101,
169-185. Retrieved October 04, 2007.
Clairmont, B. (1999, September). Non-stranger sexual assault in Indian Country. Paper
presented at the National Non-Stranger Sexual Assault Symposium, Estes Park, CO.
Clark, D.W. (2001). Domestic violence screening, policies, and procedures in Indian Health
Service facilities. The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 14(4), 252-258.
Coker, D. (1999). Enhancing autonomy for battered women: Lessons from Navajo Peacemaking.
UCLA Law Review, 47, 1-112.
Crais, L.E. (2005). Domestic violence and the federal government [Electronic version]. The
Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 6, 405-430. Retrieved June 05, 2007.
Crowell, N.A. & Burgess, A.W. (1996). Understanding violence against women. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Davis, D.W. (1997). The direction of race of interview effects among African Americans:
Donning the black mask. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 309-322.
DeBruyn, L.M., Wilkins, B. & Artichoker, K. (1990, November). “It's not cultural”: Violence
against American Indian women. Paper presented at the 89th American Anthropological
Association meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Deer, S. (2003/2004). Expanding the network of safety: tribal protection orders for survivors of
sexual assault [Electronic version]. Tribal Law Journal, 1-28. Retrieved June 23, 2007.
Deer, S. (2004a). Federal Indian law and violent crime: Native women and children at the mercy
of the state. Social Justice, 31(4), 17-30.
Deer, S. (2004b). Toward an indigenous jurisprudence of rape [Electronic version]. The Kansas
Journal of Law & Public Policy, 14, 121-154. Retrieved June 23, 2007.
Deer, S. (2005). Sovereignty of the Soul: Exploring the Intersection of Rape Law Reform and
Federal Indian Law. Suffolk University Law Review, 38, 455-466.
Deer, S., & Tatum, M.L. (2003). Tribal efforts to comply with VAWA's Full Faith and Credit
requirements: A response to Sandra Schmieder. Tulsa Law Review, 39, 403-418.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

147
DeJong, C., & Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006). A summary of personal protection order statutes in
the United States. Violence Against Women, 12(1), 68-88.
Dietz, N.A., and Martin, P.Y. (2007). Women who are stalked: Questioning the fear standard.
Violence Against Women, 13(7), 750-776.
Dietz, P.E., Matthews, D.B., Duyne, C.V., Martell, D.A., Parry, C.D.H. & Stewart, T.M.
Threatening and otherwise inappropriate letters to Hollywood celebrities. Journal of
Forensic Sciences, 36(1), 185-209.
Dupree, C. (2000). First Judicial District Arrest Policies Project: Santa Fe, New Mexico. Final
Report, grant number 98-WE-VX-0012 (NCJRS 201887). Washington, DC: National
Institute of Justice.
Duran, E., Duran, B., Woodis, W. & Woodis, P. (1998). A postcolonial perspective on domestic
violence in Indian Country. In R. Carrillo & J. Tello (Eds.), Family Violence and Men of
Color. New York: Springer.
Duran, B., Duran, E., & Brave Heart, M.Y. (1998). American Indian and/or Alaska Natives and
the trauma of history. In R. Thornton (Ed.), Studying Native America: Problems and
prospects. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Durst, D. (1991). Conjugal violence: Changing attitudes in two northern Native communities,”
Community Mental Health Journal, 27(5), 359-373.
Erwin, P.E., & Vidales, G. (2001). Domestic violence, people of color and the criminal justice
system – A case for prevention [Electronic version]. Washington, DC: Family Violence
Prevention
Fund.
Retrieved
October
6,
2007
from
www.endabuse.org/programs/children/files/prevention/DomesticViolenceResearch.pdf
Evans-Campbell, T., Lindhorst, T., Huang, B. & Walters, K.L. (2006). Interpersonal violence in
the lives of urban American Indian and Alaska Native women: Implications for health,
mental health, and help seeking [Electronic version]. American Journal of Public Health, 96
(8), 1416-1422.
Fairchild, D.G., Fairchild, M.W., & Stoner, S. (1998). Prevalence of adult domestic violence
among women seeking routine care in a Native American health care facility. American
Journal of Public Health, 88(10), 1515-1517.
Fifer, S. (1996). Perceptions of caring behaviors in health providers. The Indian Health Service
Primary Care Provider, 21(7), 89-95.
Fine, D.M. (1998). The Violence against Women Act of 1994: The proper federal role in
policing domestic violence [Electronic version]. Cornell Law Review, 84, 252-303.
Retrieved June 05, 2007.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

148
Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T., & Turner, M.G. (2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a
national study of college women. Criminology and Public Policy, 1(2), 257-308.
Ford, D. A., Bachman, R., Friend, M., & Meloy, M. (2002). Controlling violence against
women: A research perspective on the 1994 VAWA’s criminal justice impacts. Final Report,
grant number 2000-WT-VX-0008 (NCJ 197137). Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice.
Goldberg, C., & Singleton, H.V. (2005). Public Law 280 and law enforcement in Indian
Country—research priorities. Research in Brief (NCJ 209839). Washington, DC: U.S.
National Institute of Justice.
Goldberg-Ambrose, C. (1997). Planting tail feathers: Tribal survival and Public Law 280. Los
Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles American Indian Studies Center.
Goode, M. (1995). Stalking: Crime of the '90s? Criminal Law Journal, 19(1), 21-31.
Gray, B., & Launderdale. P. (2006). The web of justice: Restorative justice has presented only
part of the story. Wicazo Sa Review: A Journal of Native American Studies, 21(1), 29-41.
Green, C., & Mohlhenrich, L.M. (2005). Dating violence: Can teens access protection orders?
Washington, DC: National Center for Victims of Crime.
Groginsky, L., & Freeman, C. (1995). Domestic violence in Native American Indian and Alaska
Native communities. Protecting Children, 11(3), 13-16.
Grohowski, L.M. (1995). Cognitive-affective model of reconciliation. Yellow Springs, OH:
Antioch University.
Hagen, J.W., & House, T. (1995). Kanuhkwene: An empowering concept by and for Oneida
women. Journal of Humanistic Education & Development, 33(3), 123-130.
Hamby, S.L. (2000). The Importance of community in a feminist analysis of domestic violence
among Native Americans. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(5), 649-669.
Hamby, S.L. (2004). Sexual victimization in Indian Country: Barriers and resources for Native
American women seeking help [Electronic version]. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Coalition
against
Domestic
Violence.
Retrieved
June
24,
2007
from
http://new.vawnet.org/category/index_pages?category_id=695.
Harwell, T. S., Moore, K.R., & Spence, M.R. (2003). Physical violence, intimate partner
violence, and emotional abuse among adult American Indian men and women in Montana.
Preventive Medicine, 37, 297-303.
Hickman, M. (2003, January). Tribal law enforcement, 2000. Fact sheet (NCJ 197936).
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

149
Hopkins, C.Q. & Koss, M. (2005). Incorporating feminist theory and insights into a restorative
justice response to sex offenses. Violence Against Women, 11(5), 693-723.
Horney, J. & Spohn, C. (1991). Rape law reform and instrumental change in six urban
jurisdictions. Law and Society Review, 117, 119-131.
Hyman, A. (1997). Mandatory reporting of domestic violence by health care providers: A policy
paper. San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund. Retrieved June 24, 2007 from
http://www.endabuse.org/health/mandatoryreporting/policypaper.pdf.
Indian Health Service. (2008). Year 2008 profile. Fact sheet accessed February 8, 2998 at
http://info.ihs.gov/Profile08.asp.
International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2001). Improving Safety in Indian Country:
Recommendations from the IACP 2001 Summit. Alexandria, VA: International Association
of
Chiefs
of
Police.
Retrieved
June
24,
2007
from
http://www.theiacp.org/documents/pdfs/Publications/ACF1262%2Epdf
Jones, B.J. (2000). Role of Indian tribal courts in the justice system. Washington, DC: US
Department of Justice.
Johnson, M.P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of
violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 283-294.
Johnson, M.P., & Ferraro, K.J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making
distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 948-963.
Katz, R.J. (2004). Addressing the health care needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives.
American Journal of Public Health, 94(1), 13-14.
Kercher, G., & Johnson, M. (2007). Stalking in Texas. Final Report. Huntsville, TX: Crime
Victims’ Institute, Sam Houston State University.
Kerstetter, W.A. (1990). Gateway to justice: Police and prosecutorial response to sexual assaults
against women. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81(2), 267-313.
Kim, C., & Kwok, Y.S. (1998). Navajo use of native healers. Archives of Internal Medicine,
158(9) 2245-2249.
King-Reis, A. (2005). Crawford v. Washington: The End of Victimless Prosecution? [Electronic
version]. Seattle University Law Review, 28, 301-328. Retrieved July 6, 2007.
Klein, C.F., & Orloff, L.E. (1993). Providing legal protection for battered women: An analysis of
state statutes and case law [Electronic version]. Hofstra Law Review, 21, 801-1189.
Retrieved June 10, 2007.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

150
Lininger, T. (2003). Evidentiary issues in federal prosecutions of violence against women.
[Electronic version]. Indiana Law Review, 36, 687-717. Retrieved June 05, 2007.
Lowney, K.S., & Best, J. (1995). Stalking strangers and lovers: Changing media typifications of
a new crime problem. In J. Best (Ed.) Images of issue: Typifying contemporary social
problems (2nd Ed.). New York: A. De Gruyter.
Luna, E.M. (1998). The growth and development of tribal police: Challenges and issues for tribal
sovereignty. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 14(1), 75-86.
Luna-Firebaugh, E.M. (2002). Women in tribal policing: An examination of their status and
experiences. Social Science Journal, 39(4), 583-592.
Luna-Firebaugh, E.M. (2003). Incarcerating ourselves: tribal jails and corrections. Prison
Journal, 83(1), 51-66.
Luna-Firebaugh, E.M. (2006). Violence against American Indian women and the Services-
Training-Officers-Prosecutors Violence against Indian Women (STOP VAIW) Program.
Violence Against Women, 12(2), 125-136.
Luna-Firebaugh, E.M., Lobo, S., Hailer, J., Barragan, D., Mortenson, M., & Pearson, D. (2002).
Impact Evaluation of STOP Grant Program for Reducing Violence against Women among
Indian Tribes. Final Report, grant number 98-WT-VX-K010 (NCJ 195174). Washington,
DC: National Institute of Justice.
Lynch, J.P. (1996). Clarifying divergent estimates of rape from two national surveys. The Public
Opinion Quarterly, 60(3), 410-430.
Magen, R.H., & Wood, D.S. (2006). Intimate partner violence against Ahtna (Alaskan Native)
women in the Copper River Basin. Final Report, grant number 2000-WT-VX-0013 (NCJ
215350). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Malcoe, L.H., & Duran, B. (2004). Intimate partner violence and injury in the lives of low-
income Native American women. In B. Fisher (Ed.) Violence against women and family
violence: Developments in research, practice, and policy (NCJ 199703). Washington, DC:
National Institute of Justice.
Malcoe, L.H., Duran, B. & Montgomery, J.M. (2004). Socioeconomic disparities in intimate
partner violence against Native American women: A cross-sectional study [Electronic
version]. BMC Medicine, 2, 20. Retrieved July 16, 2007.
Martins, R., Holzapfel, S., & Baker, P. (1992). Wife abuse: Are we detecting it? Journal of
Women's Health, 1(1), 77-80.
McEachern, D., Van Winkle, M., & Steiner, S. (1998). Domestic violence among the Navajo: A
legacy of colonization. Journal of Poverty, 2, 31-46.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

151
McKinley, S.L. (1996). The violence against women act after United States v. Lopez: Will
domestic violence jurisdiction be returned to the states? [Electronic version]. Cleveland
State Law Review, 44, 345-380. Retrieved June 05, 2007.
Minton, T.D. (2005, April). Jails in Indian country, 2004. Research Bulletin (NCJ 214257).
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Mullen, P.E., & Pathé, M. (2002). Stalking. Crime and Justice, 29, 273-318.
National Sexual Violence Resource Center (no date). Confronting Sexual Violence: Sexual
Assault in Indian Country. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services,
National Sexual Violence Resource Center.
Nichols, R.V., Litchfield, A., Holappa, T., & Van Stelle, K. (2002a). Tribal Strategies against
Violence: Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Case Study. Final Report,
grant number 99-DD-BX-0031 (NCJ 206035). Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice.
Nichols, R.V., Litchfield, A., Holappa, T., & Van Stelle, K. (2002b). Tribal Strategies against
Violence: Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians Case Study. Final Report, grant
number 97-DD-BX-0031 (NCJ 206036). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Norton, I.M., & Manson, S.M. (1995). A silent minority: Battered American Indian women.
Journal of Family Violence, 10(3), 307-318.
Norton, I.M., & Manson, S.M. (1997). Domestic violence intervention in an urban Indian Health
center. Community Mental Health Journal, 33(4), 331-337.
O’Brien, S. (1991). Tribes and Indians: With whom does the United States maintain a
relationship? Notre Dame Law Review, 66, 1461-1494
O'Connor, S. D. (1997). Lessons from the third Sovereign: Indian tribal courts [Electronic
version]. Tulsa Law Journal, 33, 1-6. Retrieved on July 1, 2007.
Office of Inspector General. (2006, February). Effectiveness of the Office for Victims of Crime
Tribal Victim Assistance Program. Audit Report. Washington, DC: US Department of
Justice,
Office
of
Inspector
General.
Retrieved
June
10,
2008
from
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0608/index.htm
Office for Victims of Crime. (2004). Victim services: Promising practices in Indian country.
Report (NCJ 207019 ). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs.
Retrieved
July
15,
2007
from
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/victimsrvsindian_country2004/729404.pdf.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

152
Office on Violence Against Women (2007). A Guide to Understanding the FY Grants to Indian
Tribal Governments Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved June
8, 2008 from http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/fy2007_guidebook.pdf.
Office on Violence Against Women. (2006a). 2006 Biennial Report to Congress on the
Effectiveness of Grant Programs under the Violence Against Women Act. Washington, DC:
Department
of
Justice.
Retrieved
June
10,
2008
from
http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/vawamei/attachments/pdf/OVWsRptToCongress/2006Biennia
l_ovw-measuring-effectiveness-report.pdf.
Office on Violence Against Women. (2006b). 2006 Report to Congress on the Safe Havens
Supervised Visitation Program. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, (2006b). Retrieved
June
10,
2008
from
http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/vawamei/attachments/pdf/OVWsRptToCongress/2006SafeHa
vensReport_finalv2.pdf
Oetzel, J., & Duran, B. (2004). Intimate partner violence in American Indian and/or Alaska
Native Communities: A social ecological framework of determinants and interventions.
American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research: The Journal of the National
Center, 11(3), 49-68.
Peacock, T., George, L., Wilson, A., Bergstrom, A., & Pence, E. (2002). Community-based
analysis of the US legal system’s intervention in domestic abuse cases involving indigenous
women.” Final report, grant number 1999-WT-VX-K007 (NCJ 199358). Washington, DC:
National Institute of Justice.
Perry, B. (2002). From ethnocide to ethnoviolence: Layers of Native American victimization.
Contemporary Justice Review, 5(3), 231-247.
Perry, S.W. (2004, December). American Indians and crime. A BJS statistical profile, 1992-
2002. (NCJ 203097). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Perry, S.W. (2005, December). Census of tribal justice agencies in Indian Country, 2002. (NCJ
205332). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Poupart, L.M. (2002). Crime and justice in American Indian communities. Social Justice, 29(1-
2), 144-159.
Primeaux, M. (1977). Caring for the American Indian patient. The American Journal of Nursing,
77(1), 91-94.
Radon, A. (2004). Tribal jurisdiction and domestic violence: The need for non-Indian
accountability on the reservation. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 37, 1275-
1312.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

153
Raeder, M.S. (2006). Domestic violence in federal court: Abused women as victims, survivors,
and offenders [Electronic version]. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19, 91-104. Retrieved June
05, 2007.
Reese, L.A. & Brown, R.E. (1995). The effects of religious messages on racial identity and
system blame among African Americans. Journal of Politics, 57, 24-43.
Reina, E. (2000). Violence against women in Indian country. Domestic Violence Report, 5(33),
47.
Rennison, C. (2001, March). Violent victimization and race 1993-98. (NCJ 176354).
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Riedel, M. (1999). Sources of homicide data: A review and comparison. In M.D. Smith & M.A.
Zahn (Eds.) Homicide: a sourcebook of social research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Ritcheske, K.A. (2005). Liability of non-Indian batterers in Indian Country: A jurisdictional
analysis. Texas Journal of Woman & the Law, 14(2), 201-227.
Robin, R.W., Chester, B., & Rasmussen, J.K. (1998). Intimate violence in a southwestern
American Indian tribal community. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 4(4), 335-344.
Roe, K.J. (2004). The Violence against Women Act and its impact on sexual violence public
policy: Looking back and looking forward. Enola, PA: National Sexual Violence Research
Center.
Retrieved
July
7,
2007,
from
http://www.nrcdv.org/docs/Mailings/2004/NRCDVNovVAWA.pdf.
Saylors, K., & Daliparthy, N. (2006). Violence against Native women in substance abuse
treatment. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research: : The Journal of
the National Center, 13(1), 32-51.
Schmieder, S.J. (2003). The failure of the Violence against Women Act's Full Faith and Credit
Provision in Indian Country: An argument for amendment. University of Colorado Law
Review, 74, 765-794.
Shepherd, J. (2001). Where do you go when its 40 below? Domestic violence among rural
Alaska Native women. Journal of Women and Social Work, 16(4), 488-510.
Shinkwin, A. (1983). Homes in disruption: Spouse abuse in Yupik Eskimo society. Fairbanks,
AK: University of Alaska Press.
Simoni, J. M., Sehgal, S., & Walters, K.L. (2004). Triangle of risk: Urban American Indian
women's sexual trauma, injection drug use, and HIV sexual risk behaviors. AIDS and
Behavior, 8(1), 33-45.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

154
Smith, A. (2003). Not an Indian tradition: The sexual colonization of Native Peoples [Electronic
version]. Hypatia, 18, 70-85. Retrieved June 16, 2007.
Stevenson, G.B. (1997). Federal antiviolence and abuse legislation: Toward elimination of
disparate justice for women and children. Willamette Law Review, 33, 848-903.
Stoddardt, M.L., Jarvis, B., Blake, B., Fabsitz, R.R., Howard, B.V., & Lee, E.T. (2000).
Recruitment of American Indians in epidemiologic research: The Strong Heart study.
American Indian & Alaska Native Mental Health Research: The Journal of the National
Center, 9(3), 20-37.
Straus, M.A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics scales.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 41, 75-88.

Straus, M.A., & Gelles, R.J. (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and
adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications.

Tate, K. (1994). From protest to politics: The new Black voters in American Elections.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tatum, M.L. (2002). A jurisdictional quandary: Challenges facing tribal governments in
implementing the Full Faith and Credit provisions of the Violence against Women Acts
[Electronic version]. Kentucky Law Journal, 90, 123-227. Retrieved June 05, 2007.
Tatum, M.L. (2003a). Law enforcement in Indian Country. Tribal Law Journal, 4, 3.
Tatum, M.L. (2003b). Establishing penalties for violation of protection orders: What tribal
governments need to know. Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, 13, 125.
Thurman, P.J., Bubar, R., Plested, B., Edwards, R., LeMaster, P. Bystrom, E., Hardy, M., Tahe,
D., Burnside, M., and Oetting, E.R. (2003). Violence against Indian Women, Final revised
report. Final report, grant number 99-WT-VX-K007 (NCJ 198828). Washington, DC:
National Institute of Justice.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998a). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence
against women: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. Research in
Brief (NCJ 172837). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998b). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence
Against Women Survey. Research in Brief (NCJ 169592). Washington, DC: National
Institute of Justice.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences
of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey.
Research Report, grant number 93–IJ–CX–0012 (NCJ 181867). Washington, DC: National
Institute of Justice.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

155
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, nature, and consequences of rape victimization:
Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. Special Report, grant number
93–IJ–CX–0012 (NCJ 210346). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Trimble, J. E., & Fleming, C.M. (1989). Providing counseling services for Native American
Indians: Client, counselor, and community characteristics. In P. B. Pederson, J. G. Draguns,
W. J. Lonner & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures. Honolulu, HI: University
of Hawaii Press.
Urban Indian Health Institute. (2004, March). The health status of urban American Indians and
Alaska Natives. An analysis of select vital records and census data sources. Report. Seattle,
WA: Seattle Indian Health Board, Urban Indian Health Institute.

UN classifies rape a ‘war tactic’. (2008, June 20). BBC News. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7464462.stm.
United States Bureau of the Census. (2002). The American Indian and Alaska Native Population
2000. Census 2000 Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census.
United States Commission on Civil Rights. (2003). A quiet crisis: Federal funding and unmet
needs in Indian Country. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Retrieved October 6, 2007 from http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/na0703/na0204.pdf
United States Commission on Civil Rights. (2004). Broken promises. Evaluating the Native
American health care system. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Retrieved October 6, 2007 from http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/nahealth/nabroken.pdf
United States Department of the Interior. (2007). Safe Indian Communities Fact Sheet, 2007.
Webpage
available
online
at:
http://www.doi.gov/news/07_News_Releases/070205a_FACTSHEET.html.
United States Department the Interior. (2004). Neither safe nor secure: an assessment of Indian
detention facilities, Report number 2004-I-0056. Washington DC: Inspector General of the
Department of the Interior.
United States Department of Justice. (2005, September 21). Justice department announces safety
for Indian Women from sexual assault offenders demonstration initiative sites. Press
Release. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved June 9, 2008 from
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/September/05_crt_496.html.
United States Department of Justice. (2007, November 28). $82.7 Million provided to tribal
communities for law and justice system improvements. Press Release. Washington, DC:
U.S.
Department
of
Justice.
Retrieved
June
9,
2008
from
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2007/TRIB0801.htm.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

156
Valencia-Weber, G., & Zuni, C.P. (1995). Domestic violence and tribal protection of Indigenous
women in the United States [Electronic version]. St. John's Law Review, 69, 69-135.
Retrieved June 05, 2007.
Wahab, S., & Olson, L. (2004). Intimate partner violence and sexual assault in Native American
communities. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(4), 353-366.
Waheed, S. (2004). Domestic violence on the reservation: Imperfect laws, imperfect solution
[Electronic version]. Berkeley Women's Law Journal, 19, 287-298. Retrieved June 05, 2007.
Wakeling, S., Jorgensen, M., Michaelson, S., & Begay, M. (2001). Policing on American Indian
reservations. Research Report, grant number 95–IJ–CX–0086 (NCJ 188095). Washington,
DC: National Institute of Justice.
Wood, D. (2001). Police turnover in isolated communities: The Alaska experience. National
Institute of Justice Journal, 247, 17-23
Yuan, N. P., Koss, M.P., Polacca, M., & Goldman, D. (2006). Risk factors for physical assault
and rape among six Native American tribes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(12),
1566-1590.
Zahnd, E., Holtby, S., Klein, D., & McCain, C. (2002). American Indian women: Preventing
Violence and Drinking (PVD) Project. Final Report, grant #5 Ro1 AA11821-02.
Washington, DC: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Office for Research
on Women’s Health.
Zellerer, E. (2003). Culturally competent programs: The First Family Violence Program for
Aboriginal men in prison. The Prison Journal, 83(2), 171-190.
Zion, J.W. (1998). The dynamics of Navajo Peacemaking. Journal of Contemporary
Criminology, 14(1), 58-74.
Zuckerman, S., Haley, J.M., Roubideaux, Y. & Lillie-Blanton, M. (2004). Health service access,
use and insurance coverage among American Indians/Alaska Natives: What role does the
Indian Health Service play. American Journal of Public Health, 94(1), 53-59.

157

APPENDIX A:
METHODOLOGICAL DETAILS OF STUDIES CONDUCTED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

Study
Data Collection Methods
Sample
Demographics
Questions/ Definitions
Results
National
Crime
Victimization
Survey
(NCVS)
Relies on a nationally
representative sample of
American households. For the
1992 through 2005 data the
NCVS annually interviewed
an average of 80,000
individuals 12 years of age
and older, asking them about
their victimization
experiences during the 6
months prior to the interview.
Varies annually
- Rape: rates of both completed and
attempted rape are estimated as well as acts
of other sexual assault. In addition to being
directly asked if they have experienced
“Any rape, attempted rape, or other type of
sexual attack,” respondents are also asked:
Incidents involving forced or unwanted
sexual acts are often difficult to talk about.
Have you been forced or coerced to engage
in unwanted sexual activity by:
a. Someone you didn’t know before
b. A casual acquaintance?
c. Someone you know well?
If respondents reply yes to one of these
questions, they are then asked, “Do you
mean forced or coerced sexual intercourse?”

- Incidents of violence are measured via
following questions: Other than any
incidents already mentioned, has anyone
attacked or threatened you in any of these
ways:
a. With any weapon, for instance, a gun
or knife
b. With anything like a baseball bat,
frying pan, scissors, or a stick
c. By something thrown, such as a rock
or bottle
d. Include any grabbing, punching, or
choking

- AIAN women are almost 3 times as
likely to experience a rape or sexual
assault compared to either White,
African American or Asian American
women
- AIAN women were much more likely
to be hit during the commission of their
sexual victimization compared to all
other women
- AIAN women were more likely to be
injured than either White or African
American women. Moreover, injured
AIAN women were more likely to
require medical care compared to
injured victims of all other races
- Of the known offenders, a larger
percent of rape and sexual assaults
against AIAN women are committed by
intimate partners
- Compared to other women
Sexual and physical victimizations
against AIAN women were more likely
to be inter-racial
- A greater percent of sexual assaults
against AIAN women were reported to
police compared to other women,
however, less than 1 in 5 (17%) of
victims made the report herself.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

158
National
Crime
Victimization
Survey
(NCVS)

e. Any rape, attempted rape or other type
of sexual attack
f. Any face to face threats
g. Any attack or threat or use of force by
anyone at all?
Please mention it even if you are not certain
it was a crime.
To further cue respondents about incidents
of victimization not perpetrated by
strangers, they are then asked:
1) People often don't think of incidents
committed by someone they know. Did
you have something stolen from you OR
were you attacked or threatened by
a. Someone at work or school
b. A neighbor or friend
c. A relative or family member
d. Any other person you've met or
known?
2) Did you call the police to report
something that happened to you which you
thought was a crime?
3) Did anything happen to you which
you thought was a crime, but did NOT
report to the police?

- Stalking: a supplemental survey to
examine the prevalence of stalking was
conducted in 2006. “unwanted contacts or
harassing behavior… that frightened,
concerned, angered, or annoyed you” The
behavioral-specific screening questions are
almost identical to the ones used in
NVAWS with the addition of “posting
information or spreading rumors about you
on the internet, in a public place, or by word
of mouth.”

- AIAN women have the highest rate of
IPV victimization (18.2) compared to
either African American (8.2), White
(6.3), or Asian American (1.5) women
- A higher proportion of AIANs were
physically assaulted by other family
members compared to other women and
less likely to be assaulted by strangers.
- The majority of physical and sexual
assaults against AIAN women occurred
in private, at or near a private residence
(59%) compared to public locations.
- Results from the 2006 Stalking
Supplement are not yet available
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

159
National
Violence
Against
Women
Survey
(NVAWS)
Conducted in 1995 through
1996, the NVAWS relied
on a nationally
representative sample of
8,000 women drawn by
random-digit dialing from
households with a
telephone in the 50 US
states and DC.
Respondents age 18 and
older were interviewed
using a computer-assisted
telephone interviewing
(CATI) system.
Female
Demographics:
- Age:
18-24 – 9.8%
25-29 – 9.6%
30-39 – 24.6%
40-49 – 22.5%
50-59 – 14.4%
60-69 – 9.9%
70-80+ - 9.3%
- Racial
Composition:
86.6% White
10.5% African-
American
1.2% AIAN
1.8%Asian-Pacific
Islander
- Hispanic Origin
7.9% Hispanic
92.1% Nonhispanic
- Education:
10.7% Less than
high school
34.6% High school
and equivalent
45.7% Any college
9.0% Advanced
degree
- Rape: very behavior-specific questions
that are intended to measure both completed
and attempted rapes, but not other forms of
sexual assault. Respondents were asked
both about their victimization experiences
in the “previous 12 months,” and those that
occurred “during their lifetime.”
1) Has a man or boy ever made you have
sex by using force or threatening to harm
you or someone close to you? Just so there
is no mistake by sex we mean putting a
penis in your vagina.
2) Has anyone, male or female, ever made
you have oral sex by using force or threat of
force? Just so there is no mistake, by oral
sex we mean that a man or boy put his penis
in your mouth or someone, male or female,
penetrated your vagina or anus with their
mouth.
3) Has anyone ever made you have anal sex
by using force or threat of harm? Just so
there is no mistake, by anal sex we mean
that a man or boy put his penis in your anus.
4) Has anyone, male or female, ever put
fingers or objects in your vagina or anus
against your will or by using force or
threats?
5) Has anyone, male or female, ever
attempted to make you have vaginal, oral,
or anal sex against your will, but intercourse
or penetration did not occur?

- Due to a small number of AIAN
interviewed, published documents only
report lifetime prevalence estimates of
victimization by intimate partners.
- Lifetime prevalence rates of both
assaults in general and assaults
perpetrated by intimate partners are
both higher for AIAN women compared
to women of other racial groups.
Almost two-thirds (61.4%) of AIAN
women have been assaulted in their
lifetimes compared to 51.3% of White
women, 52.1% of African American
women, and 49.6% of Asian American
women
- 34% of AIAN women had
experienced a completed or attempted
rape in their lifetimes compared to 18%
of White, 19% of African American,
and 7% of Asian and Pacific Islander
women
- AIAN women were more likely to
have experienced stalking in their
lifetimes (17%) compared to women of
other racial groups. White (8.2%),
African American (6.5%); Asian
American (4.5%).
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

160
National
Violence
Against
Women
Survey
(NVAWS)

- Physical Assault: measured by a modified
version of the Conflict Tactics Scale.
Respondents were asked about assaults
which occurred as a child and as adults:
“Not counting any incidents you have
already mentioned, after you became an
adult did any other adult, male or female
ever...”
a) Throw something at you that could hurt?
b) Push, grab or shove you?
c) Pull your hair?
d) Slap or hit you?
e) Kick or bite you?
f) Choke or attempt to drown you?
g) Hit you with some object?
h) Beat you up?
i) Threaten you with a gun?
j) Threaten you with a knife or other
weapon?
k) Use a gun on you?
l) Use a knife or other weapon on you?

- Stalking: defined as “a course of conduct
directed at a specific person that involves
repeated visual or physical proximity,
nonconsensual communication, or verbal,
written or implied threats, or a combination
thereof, that would cause a reasonable
person fear,” with repeated meaning on two
or more occasions. The survey asks several
behaviorally-specific questions:
Not including bill collectors, telephone
solicitors, or other sales people, has anyone,
male or female, ever…

161
National
Violence
Against
Women
Survey
(NVAWS)

a. Followed or spied on you?
b. Sent you unsolicited letters or written
correspondence?
c. Made unsolicited phone calls to you?
d. Stood outside your home, school, or
workplace?
e. Showed up at places you were even
though he or she had no business being
there?
f. Left unwanted items for you to find?
g. Tried to communicate in other ways
against you?
h. Vandalized your property or destroyed
something you loved?
Respondents who answered “yes” to one or
more of these questions were asked whether
anyone had ever done any of these things to
them on more than once occasion. Those
who answered positively were then asked
how frightened the victimizations made
them feel and whether they feared the
offender would seriously harm them or
someone close to them.

162
Maxwell and
Maxwell
(1992)
IHS records, naturalistic
observation and interviews
with elders, families,
community leaders and health
providers were used to collect
data about elder abuse on the
Lone Mountain and Abundant
Lands reservations.
-Lone Mountain:
Little workable land
and no local industry
led to high
unemployment rates
and poverty on the
reservation. Elders
are often more
financially stable than
younger generations
because they own
much of the land and
receive government
pensions.
-Abundant Land:
More industry and
workable land on
reservation provided
jobs to members and
made the tribe
economically stable
-Questions were not focused on the rate or
prevalence of elder abuse, but rather on the
social significance and consequences of the
problem
-Physical Elder Abuse: occurs when
customs involving physical relationships
between generations are broken such that
the actions of the younger generation are
viewed as “inflicting personal harm” on
members of the older generation
-The Lone Mountain (LM) Reservation
had several reports of physical elder
abuse; Abundant Lands (AL) members
denied the presence of any physical
abuse
-Lower rates of abuse on AL were
attributed to greater opportunities and
financial independence of youth on the
reservation. The most ambitious youth
on LM moved off reservations for better
jobs leaving the less motivated to care
for elderly. Often youth left on the
reservation were financially dependent
on elders because of lack of industry
surrounding the reservation.
Norton and
Manson
(1995)
Interviews were conducted
with 16 American Indian
women from nine different
tribes during an initial intake
for IPV counseling at an
urban IHS in the Rocky
Mountain Region.
-Mean Age: 28.1
years
-69% were
unemployed
-50% had a annual
household income of
$5,000 or less
-69% had a high
school degree or less

-Interviews used procedures adapted from
the Second Family Violence Survey
-The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) was used
to evaluate violence in intimate
relationships
-The CTS violence score was 25.2 for
wives and 49.7 for husbands
-The severe violence score was 12.0 for
wives and 22.6 for husbands
-38% of women reported marital rape in
the last year
-12% reported attempted marital rape in
the previous year
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

163
Robin, Chester
and
Rasmussen
(1998)
A semi-structured psychiatric
interview and a measure of
IPV were administered to 104
tribal community members of
a Southwestern tribe.
-53.9% female (n =
56)
-Age Range: 21 – 88
years (mean = 37.5)
-34.6% had an
income between
$12,001 and $20,000
-0% had a 4 year
college degree
-Questions pertaining to IPV were
developed using a modified version of the
CTS
-Tribal focus group suggestions led to the
addition of questions about threats to
children and other family members, battery
while pregnant, destruction of property,
forced sex and use of a weapon in self-
defense
-The initial CTS question was changed from
“Are you living with someone now, or have
you lived with someone in the past year?” to
“Have you ever lived with someone [in an
intimate relationship] for a year or longer?”
-78.6% of females participants reported
physical violence
-28.6% of women experienced forced
sex by a partner
-Women were 9.53 times more likely
than men to require medical attention
for injuries caused by partner-
perpetrated violence
-Although 30% of both male and female
respondents reported perpetrating IPV
in the past year, 76% of women
reported that their violence was a
reaction to abuse by their partners
Fairchild,
Fairchild and
Stoner
(1998)
Surveyed 341 women who
presented for care at the
general medical clinic or the
maternal-child clinic at an
IHS facility located near a
Navajo Reservation in
Southwestern U.S.
-Age range: 18-80
years (mean = 39.3)
-97.7% Navajo
-55.4% had less than
$1,000 monthly
household income
-73% had 12 years of
education or less
Physical violence included being:
-Pushed, grabbed or slapped
-Objects thrown at you
-Punched or kicked
-Choked or strangled
-Hit with an object
-Threatened with a knife or gun
-Injured with a knife or gun
-41.9% experienced physical violence
perpetrated by a male partner during
their lifetime
-31.7% experienced “severe” physical
violence80
-12.1% experienced sexual abuse during
their lifetime

80 Severe violence, as defined by Straus and Gelles, includes being punched or kicked, choked or strangled, hit with an object, threatened with a knife or gun, or injured by a knife
or gun
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

164
Zahnd, et a.
2002
Interviews with 110
American Indian women who
were clients or visitors at 5 (2
urban and 3 rural) American
Indian service agencies in
California.
Age range: 18-44
years, majority
receiving TANF
assistance (70&),
60% employed, and
76% had children.
71% had a
reservation and 42%
had lived on a
reservation in their
lifetimes. 43% were
married.
Questions from the NVAWS were used to
measure physical assault. Sexual Assaults
were measured with the question, “have you
ever been forced to have sex by any adult,
including anyone who was a member of
your family, or anyone outside your
family.”
- 80% of respondents had experienced
physical assault in their lifetimes
- 26% had experienced forced sex in
their lifetimes
- 32% of the women had experienced
either a physical and/or sexual
victimization within the past 12 months.
Bohn
(2003)
Thirty pregnant American
Indian women were recruited
during routine prenatal visits
at an urban, Midwestern
Indian clinic. Data collection
included a review of prenatal
medical record, an interview
and a postpartum hospital
record review
-Age range: 14-37
years (mean = 24.3)
-80% were from the
Woodland and
Northern Plains
nations
-70% were poor and
single
-70% had not
completed high
school

-The Index of Spousal Abuse (ISA)81, The
Danger Assessment82 and the Abuse
Assessment Screen (ASA)83 were used to
garner abuse information during the
interview
-Adult sexual abuse: physically or verbally
forced or unwanted physical contact of a
sexual nature (e.g. fondling, penetration)
-Current partner abuse: any acts of physical
violence included in the ISA or other acts of
physical aggression (e.g. pushed, choked,
hit, kicked, beat up)
-Previous partner abuse: Acts of physical
aggression
-83% experienced partner perpetrated
physical abuse during their lifetime
-40% experienced partner perpetrated
sexual abuse as an adult
-54% experienced both sexual and
physical abuse during their lifetime

Dugan and
Apel
(2003)
Aggregated over eight years
(1992 – 2000) of NCVS data
resulting in 709,235 cases.
The sample was restricted to
only cases involving female
respondents. The larger
sample size allowed the
victimization of smaller racial
and ethnic groups to be
compared.
Racial and Ethnic
Composition:
-75.9% White
-11.3% Black
-9.0% Hispanic
-3.3% Asian
-0.5% Native American
-All interviews were conducted using
NCVS questions and format
-The prevalence of violence
victimization was highest among Native
Americans at 3.88%, a rate that almost
twice the rate of black women
-Native American females are most
likely to be victimized by an
acquaintance and least likely by a
stranger

81 Hudson & McIntosh (1981)
82 Campbell (1986)
83 Soeken, Parker, McFarlane & Lominak (1998)
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

165
Harwell,
Moore and
Spence
(2003)
The Montana Department of
Health and Human Services
conducted a random sample
telephone survey of 1,006
adult American Indians living
on or near Montana’s seven
reservations.
Female
Demographics:
-n = 588 (58%)
-Mean Age: 46 years
-55% were employed
at the time of the
study
-51% had a
household income of
$20,000 or greater
-81% had 12 years of
education or greater
-An adapted Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance System (BRFSS) Survey was
used
-To assess recent personal violence
participants were asked, “In the past 12
months, have you been hit, slapped, kicked,
forced to have sex, or otherwise physically
hurt by someone?”
-5% of women reported personal
violence (PV) in the past year
-3% of women reported IPV in the past
year
-Men reported more PV than women
(9%), but there was no difference in
prevalence of IPV in the past year
-The prevalence of IPV among
American Indian women was similar to
the prevalence among Montana women
overall in 1998 (2%)
Malcoe and
Duran
(2004)
Cross-sectional interviews
were conducted with 431
American Indian women.
Participants were recruited
from both a tribally-operated
WIC clinic in Western
Oklahoma and by fliers
describing the study which
were placed in tribal facilities
and at the local vocational
school
-Age range: 14 – 45
years (mean = 28.8)
-76.5% had at least a
high school degree,
but only 6.2% had
earned an Associates
of Bachelor’s degree
-53.9% lived below
the federal poverty
line
-58.3% were clients
of WIC; 41.7% were
part of a non-WIC
convenience sample
-A modified 16-item revised CTS was used
to measure lifetime IPV
- Physical and sexual assault items were
divided into minor or severe as defined by
Straus
-‘Being dragged or thrown across the room’
was added to the physical assault scale
items
-The sexual coercion scale was reduced to a
three-item scale that asked if a partner
EVER ‘Insisted on any type of sex with
you, when you did not want to, but did not
use physical force’, ‘Used verbal threats to
make you have sex with him’ or ‘Used
force, like hitting you, holding you down, or
using a weapon, to make you have any type
of sex with him’
-Used 3 items from the sexual coercion
scale from the CTS 2
-81.3% experienced physical IPV, with
66.6% experiencing severe physical
IPV
-49.1% experienced sexual IPV, with
25.1% experiencing severe sexual IPV
-A strong association was found
between lifetime experiences of severe
physical and severe sexual IPV
-Women who received TANF benefits
during the year prior to the interview
had significantly higher rates of lifetime
severe physical and sexual IPV than
those who did not receive TANF
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

166
Malcoe, Duran
and
Montgomery
(2004)
Surveyed 312 American
Indian women who visited a
tribally-operated WIC clinic
in southwest Oklahoma to
pick up food vouchers
Age range: 14 – 48
years (mean = 26.2)
-62% of respondents
were members of one
of two local tribes
-73.4% of women
lived at or below the
federal poverty line
and 30.1% lived in
severe poverty
-A modified 18-item version of the CTS
was used to measure IPV. The most critical
change was the addition of a question on
forced sex
-Aggression items asked whether a partner
‘insulted or swore at her’, ‘did or said
something to hurt her’, ‘threatened to hit or
throw something at her’, or ‘threw,
smashed, hit, or kicked something’
-Physical assault items were divided into
minor or severe as defined by Straus
-Sexual assault asked whether a partner had
‘forced her into sexual activity’
-Lifetime prevalence of severe partner-
perpetrated violence was 39.1%
-12.2% of women experienced forced
sexual activity by a partner during their
lifetime
-88% of women who reported a spouse
or boyfriend during the prior year
reported experiencing physical or
sexual IPV during the past 12 months
Simoni,
Sehgal and
Walters
(2004)
Anonymous surveys were
mailed to all members of an
American Indian community
center in New York. A
sample of 155 female
respondents was included in
the analysis.
-Age range: 18 – 87
years (median = 44.0)
-41% had at least a
bachelor’s degree
-53% had a monthly
income of $1,500 or
less
-11% lived on a
reservation or tribal
lands within the past
year
To ascertain prevalence of abuse
respondents were asked to specify whether
or not they had even in their lifetime been:
-Sexually abused by a spouse or sexual
partner
-Sexually abused by someone other than a
spouse or sexual partner
-Physically abused by a spouse or sexual
partner
-Physically abused by someone other than a
spouse or sexual partner
-52% of all participants reported they
had been physically or sexually abused
by someone during their lifetime
-20% were sexually victimized by a
sexual partner during their lifetime,
34% by a non-partner, 15% by both and
39% by either
-31% were physically abused by a
sexual partner during their lifetime,
20% by a non-partner, 14% by both and
37% by either
Rivers
(2005)
Seven Navajo women from
the Four Corners area of the
Navajo Nation in New
Mexico were interviewed by
a researcher who spent 7
months living on the
reservation.
-Age range: 20 – 60
years
-4 of the 7
participants were
students at Dine
College; the other
three were employees
of the college
-All were born and
currently living on
the reservation
-Interviews centered on childhood, adult
and Navajo experiences
-All participants were asked the same
questions, but were allowed leeway in depth
of answers
-Violence against Native women was never
directly asked about, yet it came frequently
in the answers and life stories of
participants
-6 of the women told stories involving
physical and sexual violence during
their lifetime
-Stories involved first and second hand
abuse
-Perpetrators of violence included
intimate partners, parents and other
family members
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

167
Saylors and
Daliparthy
(2006)
Case managers interviewed
283 American Indian women
in residential and outpatient
substance abuse treatment at
the Native American Health
Center (NAHC) in Oakland
and San Francisco, CA.
Follow-up data was taken at 6
and 12 months after intake.
No demographical
information provided.
-Participants were interviewed using the
Government Performance Results Act
(GPRA) data collection instrument
developed by the Center for Substance
Abuse Treatment (CSAT), along with a
supplemental HIV risk assessment and
Native supplement which examined
potentially relevant sociocultural factors
-84% experienced physical abuse
during their lifetime
-75% had been hit or beaten up as
adults. Of those who experienced
physical violence, 67% said that it was
perpetrated by a partner
-67% experienced sexual abuse in their
lifetime
-A strong relationship between physical
and sexual abuse was found; 96.7%
who were sexually abused were also
physically abused
Magen and
Wood
(2006)
Face-to-face interviews and
telephone surveys were
administered to 91 Ahtna
women in the Copper River
basin of Alaska. Subjects
were identified using a list of
Ahtna shareholders and
snowball sampling.
-Age Range: 18 – 90
years (mean = 38.7)
-7.7% identified as
Indian only, 30.8% as
mainly Indian, 36.3%
as equally Indian and
“white” and 25.3% as
mostly white
-66.2% had less than
a $30,000 household
income
-78.4% had a least a
high school degree
-Screening and follow-up questions were
taken from the NVAW survey
-It was considered physical assault if
someone: ‘threw something that could hurt
you, pushed’, ‘grabbed or shoved’, ‘pulled
hair’, ‘slapped or hit’, ‘kicked or bit’,
‘choked or tried to drown’, ‘hit with an
object’, ‘beat up’, ‘threatened with a gun’,
‘threatened with a knife’, ‘used a gun’ or
‘used a knife’
-63.7% had been physically assaulted
during their lifetime
-18% had been physically assaulted
during the previous year
-Of those physically assaulted in the
past year 18% were perpetrated by an
intimate partner
-Of those physically assaulted in their
lifetime 64% were perpetrated by an
intimate partner
Yuan, Koss,
Polacca and
Goldman
(2006)
Data used was from the Ten
Tribes Study. A total of
1,368 male and female
respondents from six tribes
were interviewed.
Participants were randomly
selected from tribal
enrollment lists, voter
registers or health service
registries.
-58% female
-Female age range:
20 – 88 years (mean
= 40)
-42% of respondents
had a household
income of less than
$15,000
-76% of respondents
graduated high school
-Tribes 1, 5 and 6
were from the
Southwest; Tribes 3,
4 and 7 were from the
Northwest, Northern
Plains and Northeast
-Interview questions were modeled after
NVAW Survey questions
-Physical Assault: behaviors that occurred
since age 18 years, including being
threatened and attempted or actually
inflicted physical harm during adulthood
-Rape: experienced that occurred without
the victim’s consent since age 18 years,
involving actual or threatened physical
force to penetrate the victim’s vagina or
anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or object, or
the victim’s mouth by penis, including
attempts
-45% of women experienced at least
one incident of physical assault since
age 18
-80% of adult female physical assault
victims identified a romantic partner as
the perpetrator of their abuse
-14% of women reported being raped
since the age of 18
-55% of females who had been sexually
assaulted during their life identified a
male relative as the perpetrator
-There were significant tribal
differences in rates of physical and
sexual assault for women
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

168

Metadata

Resource Type:: Document
Rights:: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Date Uploaded:: March 6, 2024

Using these materials

Access:: The archives are open to the public and anyone is welcome to visit and view the collections.

Collection restrictions:: Access to this collection is unrestricted.
Collection terms of access:: The Department of Special Collections and Archives is eager to hear from any copyright owners who are not properly identified so that appropriate information may be provided in the future.

About the Archives

Access options

Ask an Archivist

Ask a question or schedule an individualized meeting to discuss archival materials and potential research needs.

Ask a Question Book a Meet

Schedule a Visit

Archival materials can be viewed in-person in our reading room. We recommend making an appointment to ensure materials are available when you arrive.

Schedule a Visit Hours

Collection

Society of Indian Psychologists Records, 1976-2020

Collection ID	apap390
Total components	523
Items available online	489
Last indexed	2025-07-30

Schedule a Visit

Collections

Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and the Criminal Justice Response: What is Known, 2008 August

Online content

Metadata

Using these materials

About the Archives

Access options

Ask an Archivist

Schedule a Visit

Collection

Society of Indian Psychologists Records, 1976-2020

Collection contents