Native American Youth: Involvement in Justice Systems and Information on Grants to Help Address Juvenile Delinquency

Native American youth face unique challenges when it comes to their contact with justice systems. Research shows that risk factors such as high rates of poverty and substance abuse make them susceptible to being involved with justice systems at the federal, state and local, and tribal levels. GAO was asked to examine the extent of Native American youth involvement in justice systems, and federal grant programs that may help address Native American youth delinquency.

This report examines (1) what available data show about the number and characteristics of Native American youth in federal, state and local, and tribal justice systems; and (2) federal discretionary grant programs that could help prevent or address delinquency among Native American youth, and tribal government and Native American organizations' access to those grants. GAO analyzed federal, state and local, and tribal arrest, adjudication, and confinement data from 2010 through 2016 (the most recent available) from DOJ and the Department of the Interior. GAO also analyzed DOJ and HHS grant program award documentation from fiscal years 2015 through 2017, and application information for a sample of the grant programs chosen based on the amount of funding awarded and other factors. GAO also interviewed officials from DOJ, HHS, and 10 tribal governments or Native American organizations chosen to include successful and unsuccessful applicants to the grant programs, among other things.

GAO's analysis of available data found that the number of American Indian and Alaska Native (Native American) youth in federal and state and local justice systems declined across all phases of the justice process—arrest, adjudication, and confinement—from 2010 through 2016. During this period, state and local arrests of Native American youth declined by almost 40 percent from 18,295 in 2010 to 11,002 in 2016. The vast majority of Native American youth came into contact with state and local justice systems rather than the federal system.

However, more Native American youth were involved in the federal system than their percentage in the nationwide population (1.6 percent). For example, of all youth arrested by federal entities during the period, 18 percent were Native American. According to Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, this is due to federal jurisdiction over certain crimes involving Native Americans. Comprehensive data on Native American youth involvement in tribal justice systems were not available for analysis. GAO's analysis showed several differences between Native American and non-Native American youth in the federal justice system. For example, the majority of Native American youths' involvement was for offenses against a person, such as assault and sex offenses. In contrast, the majority of non-Native American youths' involvement was for public order offenses (e.g., immigration violations) or drug or alcohol offenses. On the other hand, in state and local justice systems, the involvement of Native American and non-Native American youth showed many similarities, such as similar offenses for each group.

DOJ and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) offered at least 122 discretionary grants and cooperative agreements (grant programs) from fiscal years 2015 through 2017 that could be used to address juvenile delinquency among Native American youth. DOJ and HHS made approximately $1.2 billion in first-year awards to grantees during the period, of which the agencies awarded approximately $207.7 million to tribal governments or Native American organizations. Officials from the agencies, tribal governments, and Native American organizations identified factors they believe affect success in applying for grant programs. For example, some tribal governments and Native American organizations found being able to call or meet with federal officials during the application process helpful but found that short application deadlines are a challenge.

American Indian and Alaska Native (Native American) youth face unique  challenges when it comes to their contact with justice systems. According  to recent reports and agency research, several risk factors make Native  American youth susceptible to becoming involved with justice systems at  the federal, state and local, and tribal levels. These risk factors include  exposure to violence; substance abuse; poverty; limited job market skills;  and tribal communities’ limited funding for mental health, education,  housing, and other services. Further, these reports and research note that  tribal justice systems often lack resources and programming compared  with federal and state and local justice systems, which may not have  culturally appropriate programming to meet the needs of Native American  youth.

When a Native American youth enters the federal criminal justice system,  the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of the Interior (DOI),  among others, have responsibility for investigating and prosecuting his or  her act of delinquency or crime. Additionally, federal agencies including  DOJ and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provide  funding through grant programs that could be used to help prevent or  address juvenile delinquency.

Given the severity of the issues Native American youth face, there are  questions about the percent of these youth in the justice systems,  particularly at the federal level, and about the sufficiency of resources to  address the risk factors that contribute to them becoming involved in the  justice systems.

You asked us to review information about Native American youth in the  justice systems, including demographic information about these youth;  federal grant programs that address Native American juvenile  delinquency; and tribal access to these grant programs. This report  addresses the following questions:  1.  What do available data show about the number and characteristics of  Native American youth in the federal, state and local, and tribal justice  systems?  2.  What discretionary grant programs do federal agencies fund that  could help prevent or address delinquency among Native American  youth, and to what extent do tribal governments and Native American  organizations have access to them?

For the purposes of this review, our discussion of Native American youth  in federal, state and local, and tribal justice systems generally includes  persons who (a) were under 18 years of age at the time of arrest,  adjudication, or confinement; and (b) who were identified as Native  American based on descriptions and definitions of the agency data sets  we reviewed. As described in the report, each agency data set we  reviewed used a different definition of Native American and agencies  used different methods to identify youth as Native American for those  data sets. Throughout the report, we use the term “juvenile” when  referencing justice systems and “youth” in referring more generally to  individuals under the age of 18 at the time of arrest or confinement. In  addition, we use the term “Native American” to indicate both Alaska  Native and American Indian individuals, including the youth in the data we  reviewed. However, we use the term “Indian” in reference to definitions  established by statute or law.

To address the first objective, we obtained and analyzed record-level and  summary data from federal agencies about federal, state and local, and  tribal justice systems. Specifically, we obtained and analyzed data from  five DOJ agencies and DOI’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for youth  arrested, adjudicated, or admitted to a facility (confined) during calendar  and fiscal years 2010 through 2016. The data described characteristics  such as race, age, gender, type of offense, and the year the youth came  into contact with the justice system. For purposes of our analysis, we  included Native American youth as defined by each data source and  identified by the agencies providing the data we reviewed. These data  included some youth who may have been prosecuted as adults. In regard  to type of offense, unless otherwise noted, we obtained and analyzed  information about the lead or most serious offense associated with the  youth who came into contact with the justice system, which was generally  identified in the data we obtained. We then grouped the offenses into five  broad categories—drug and alcohol, person, property, public order, and  other. We assessed the reliability of the record-level and summary data  by electronically testing the data and interviewing knowledgeable DOJ  officials and determined that the data included in this report were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. We  determined that some data related to arrests and sentencing either were  not reliable for our purposes, contained information already provided by  other data sources, or contained too few Native American youth  observations to provide reliable, reportable information. These data are  not included in our report.

Additionally, we reviewed summary data in DOJ’s Bureau of Justice  Statistics (BJS) reports, such as the Jails in Indian Country report from  2016, to describe the number of Native American youth confined in tribal  facilities. We assessed the reliability of the data we used from these  reports by reviewing related documentation and interviewing  knowledgeable BJS officials and determined that the data were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives.

We also analyzed the representation of Native American youth involved  with the federal justice system by comparing federal arrest, adjudication,  and confinement data to information provided in response to the 2010  Decennial U.S. Census, and in U.S. Census estimates from 2011 through  2016. Similarly, we analyzed the representation of Native American youth  involved with state and local justice systems by comparing state and local  arrest and confinement data to U.S. Census information.

Because there is no single, centralized data source that contains data for  youth involved in all justice systems (federal, state and local, and tribal)  and across all phases of the justice process (arrest, adjudication, and  confinement), it is not possible to track individuals through all phases of  the justice process or identify the number of unique youth who have come  into contact with the justice system. In addition, record-level data were not  available for all phases of the justice process and for all justice systems.  Further, data are not comparable across databases because databases  vary in how they define Native American and how they determine whether  youth are Native American.

In addition, we collected perspectives from agency officials and officials  from five selected Native American organizations regarding factors that  might contribute to the data characteristics we observed. We selected  these Native American organizations to include organizations whose  mission and scope of work focus on Native American juvenile justice  issues and that have a national or geographically-specific perspective.  The views of these Native American organizations are not generalizable  to all Native American organizations, but provide valuable insights.

To address our second objective on federal discretionary grant programs  that could help prevent and address delinquency among Native American  youth, and tribal governments and Native American organizations’ access  to those programs, we analyzed relevant programs available for funding  from fiscal years 2015 through 2017. For the purposes of the review, we  define “tribal governments” as the governing bodies of federally  recognized tribes. We define “Native American organizations” as  organizations affiliated with federally recognized tribes, such as tribal  colleges and universities, as well as non-tribal organizations that focus on  serving American Indian and Alaska Native populations, such as urban  Indian organizations. To identify these grant programs, we conducted a  keyword search of “youth or juvenile” in Grants.gov—an online repository  that houses information on over 1,000 different grant programs across  federal grant-making agencies. We focused on discretionary grants and  cooperative agreements (collectively referred to as grant programs  throughout our report) in this review because federal agencies generally  award discretionary grants and cooperative agreements based on a  competitive review process, whereas agencies are generally required by  statute to award other types of grants to specific entities, typically U.S.  state, local, and territorial governments. We did not include other  programs or sources of funding that could help prevent and address  delinquency among Native American youth in our review.

We reviewed the search results of the three agencies with the highest  number of grant program matches—DOI, DOJ, and HHS. We selected  programs whose activities related to the risk or protective factors  discussed in the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s  (OJJDP) Tribal Youth in the Juvenile Justice System literature review.  We also worked with DOI, DOJ, and HHS officials to identify any  additional relevant grant programs and confirmed our final list of grant  programs with agency officials. Despite these steps, it is possible that our  analysis did not identify all relevant grant programs.

We next reviewed the funding opportunity announcements of our selected  grant programs to determine which ones specified tribes or Native  Americans as a primary beneficiary and which did not. We also  categorized each program into one or more issue areas (e.g., violence or  trauma, substance abuse, mentoring) using the risk and protective factors  discussed in the OJJDP Tribal Youth in the Juvenile Justice System  literature review as the basis for our issue area determinations.

To determine the extent to which tribal governments and Native American  organizations had access to the grant programs we identified, we  reviewed the eligibility factors and award data. Specifically, we reviewed  the grant program funding opportunity announcements to determine  whether tribal governments or Native American organizations were  eligible to apply. We also analyzed fiscal year 2015 through 2017 award  data for every grant program we identified to determine the extent to  which tribal governments and Native American organizations received  funding. We also reviewed a non-generalizable sample of applications  selected to include applications to grant programs that funded a relatively  high estimated amount of awards or that specified tribes or Native  Americans as a primary beneficiary to determine the extent to which tribal  governments or Native American organizations applied for grant  programs we identified. We assessed the reliability of the data we used  by questioning knowledgeable officials and determined that the data were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting.

To understand factors that affect the ability of tribal governments and  Native American organizations to apply successfully for the grant  programs we identified, we interviewed DOJ and HHS officials, as well as  officials from a nongeneralizable sample of 10 tribal governments and  Native American organizations that applied for or received funding from  these grant programs and analyzed their responses to identify common  themes. We selected our sample to include tribal governments and  Native American organizations that received multiple awards for grant  programs we identified, and that applied unsuccessfully multiple times to  grant programs we reviewed, among other characteristics. We also  analyzed a nongeneralizable sample of peer review statements from  unsuccessful applications to understand why tribal governments and  Native American organizations were unsuccessful in applying for some of  the grant programs we identified. The information we obtained from the  officials and peer review statements cannot be generalized more broadly  to tribal governments and Native American organizations or the  applications they submit unsuccessfully for federal funding. However, the  information provides insights into the challenges these entities face in  applying for federal funding that could help prevent or address  delinquency among Native American youth, as well as some of the  common weaknesses identified in unsuccessful applications from these  entities. For further information on our scope and methodology, see  appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2016 to September  2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Native American Population and Indian Country

Over 4 million people in the United States identified as Native American  based on 2016 United States Census estimates, of which 29 percent  were youth. As of June 2018, there were 573 federally recognized Indian  tribes. According to BIA, as of June 2018, there were approximately 497  Indian land areas in the United States administered as federal Indian  reservations or other tribal lands (e.g., pueblos, villages, and  communities). These land areas, which span more than 56 million acres  and 37 states, and vary in size, can generally be referred to as Indian  country. Indian country is in remote, rural locations, and also near urban  areas. Native Americans live both inside and outside of these land areas,  and Indian country may have a mixture of Native American and non- Native American residents. Jurisdiction over crime in Indian country  differs according to several factors and affects how Native American  youth become involved with justice systems, as discussed further below.

Youth in State and Local, Federal, and Tribal Justice Systems

Youth who commit offenses can enter one or more justice systems at the  state and local, federal, and tribal levels. Although state and local, federal,  and tribal justice systems have unique characteristics, they all generally  proceed through certain phases, including arrest, prosecution and  adjudication, and in some instances, placement and confinement in a  detention facility.

State and local. State and local justice systems have specific courts–  often at the county or city level–with jurisdiction over youth alleged to  have committed an act of juvenile delinquency or a crime. This  jurisdiction can be conferred by the state’s laws and exercised by courts  at the city, county, or municipal levels, and each state and local entity’s  processing of youth is unique. There are more than 2,400 courts across  the country with juvenile jurisdiction, and a majority of these are at the  city, county, or municipal, i.e., local, level. Generally, a youth is either  referred to juvenile court or released. Juvenile courts handle two types of  petitions: delinquency or waiver. A delinquency petition is the official  charging document filed in juvenile court by the state. A juvenile’s case  may be dismissed, handled informally (without filing a petition for  adjudication), or handled through adjudication by the court. In some more  serious situations, the case can be handled by a criminal court. Juvenile  cases that are handled informally or through adjudication can result in  various outcomes, including probation, commitment to an institution or  other residential facility, another sanction (e.g., community service), or  dismissal.

Federal. Unlike state systems, the federal justice system does not have a  separate court with jurisdiction over juvenile cases. Youth that are  proceeded against in federal court are generally adjudicated in a closed  hearing before a U.S. district or magistrate judge and their cases are  either declined or they can be adjudicated delinquent. Delinquent  adjudications can result in outcomes such as probation, commitment to a  correctional facility, or the requirement to pay restitution. Youth under  the age of 18 who are confined in federal facilities, including Native  American youth, are housed in juvenile facilities overseen by the Federal  Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which contracts with other entities to manage  those facilities.

Tribal. Tribal justice systems vary. A number of tribes have tribal judicial  systems, some with separate juvenile courts, and others rely on state  courts or the federal system. As of April 2018, there were approximately  89 adult and juvenile jail facilities and detention centers in Indian country,  according to BIA officials. In addition, DOI’s BIA directly manages some  facilities, called juvenile detention centers, on tribal lands.

Jurisdiction of Federal, State, and Tribal Justice Entities Outside and Inside Indian Country

Outside Indian country. A state generally has jurisdiction to proceed  against a youth who has committed a crime or act of juvenile delinquency  outside of Indian country. This jurisdiction is generally exercised in each  state by local courts (e.g., at the county and city levels). Federal law limits  federal jurisdiction over youth if a state has jurisdiction over the youth and  has a system of programs and services adequate for their needs. Since  the passage of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act in  1974, federal law has reflected an intent to support state and local  community-level programs for the prevention and treatment of juvenile  delinquency, and to avoid referral of juvenile cases out of the state and  local systems while balancing against the need to protect the public from  violent offenders. Consistent with this, the Federal Juvenile Delinquency  Code provides that a youth alleged to have committed an act of juvenile  delinquency, with certain exceptions, will not fall under federal jurisdiction  unless (1) the juvenile court or other appropriate court of a state does not  have jurisdiction over the youth, (2) the state does not have available  programs and services adequate for the needs of the youth, or (3) the  offense charged is a violent felony or an enumerated offense involving  controlled substances and there is a substantial federal interest in the  case or the offense to warrant the exercise of federal jurisdiction.

Inside Indian country. For both youth and adults, the exercise of  criminal jurisdiction in Indian country depends on several factors. These  factors include the nature of the crime, the status of the alleged offender  and victim—that is, whether they are Indian or not—and whether  jurisdiction has been conferred on a particular entity by statute.  Additionally, the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Code generally applies to  all juveniles alleged to have committed an act of juvenile delinquency,  whether inside or outside Indian country. As a general principle, the  federal government recognizes Indian tribes as “distinct, independent  political communities” that possess powers of self-government to regulate  their “internal and social relations,” which includes enacting substantive  law over internal matters and enforcing that law in their own forums. The  federal government, however, has authority to regulate or modify the  powers of self-government that tribes otherwise possess, and has  exercised this authority to establish jurisdiction over certain crimes in  Indian country. For example, the Major Crimes Act, as amended,  provides the federal government with criminal jurisdiction over Indians in  Indian Country charged with serious, felony-level offenses enumerated in  the statute, such as murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, burglary, and  robbery. The General Crimes Act, the Major Crimes Act, and Public Law 280, which are broadly summarized in table 1, are the three federal laws  central to the exercise of criminal jurisdiction in Indian country.

The exercise of criminal jurisdiction by state governments in Indian  country is generally limited to two instances: when both the alleged  offender and victim are non-Indian, or when a federal statute confers, or  authorizes, a state to assume criminal jurisdiction over Indians in Indian  country. Otherwise, only the federal and tribal governments have  jurisdiction in Indian country. Table 2 summarizes aspects of federal,  state, and tribal jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian country.

Federal Agencies Responsible for Investigation, Prosecution, and Confinement of Youth within the Federal Justice System

Federal agencies that come into contact with youth alleged to have  committed an act of juvenile delinquency are to do so in accordance with  the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Code. When a youth enters the  federal justice system, several components within DOJ and DOI, among  others, have responsibility for investigating and prosecuting his or her  crimes. DOJ’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has investigative  responsibilities, including in Indian country, where it works with tribes to  investigate crime. The FBI refers criminal investigations to a United  States Attorney’s Office for prosecution. In the course of the federal  criminal justice process, a U.S. attorney is involved in the process of  investigating, charging, and prosecuting an offender, among other  responsibilities. Under the direction of the Attorney General, the United  States Attorney’s Office may prosecute crimes committed in Indian  country where federal jurisdiction exists, as discussed above.

DOJ’s U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) also has a role in the federal  criminal justice process. Its mission areas include fugitive apprehension  and federal prisoner security and transportation, among other  responsibilities. USMS has arrest jurisdiction for enforcing the federal  process anywhere in the United States, including Indian country.

DOJ’s BOP is responsible for the custody and care of federal inmates and  offenders, including youth. BOP works in coordination with the federal  courts to assist in locating a detention facility within the youth’s  jurisdiction, where possible. Figure 1 describes the key DOJ entities and  their respective responsibilities related to the federal criminal justice  process.

Within DOI, BIA is statutorily responsible for enforcing not only federal law  in Indian country but also tribal law, with the consent of the tribe.  However, in certain situations, a tribe may assume this function from DOI  pursuant to a self-determination contract or self-governance compact. BIA  supports tribes in their efforts to ensure public safety and administer  justice within Indian country through, for example, providing uniformed  police and criminal investigative services for a number of tribes.

Other agencies and departments with roles in the federal criminal justice  process for youth include federal courts, the Administrative Office of the  U.S. Courts, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Federal courts have  the authority to decide cases and sentence offenders, among other  things. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts provides a broad  range of support services to the federal courts, which are responsible for  adjudicating the cases of youth in the federal justice system. The U.S.  Sentencing Commission is an independent judicial branch agency  responsible for, among other things, collection, preparation, and  dissemination of information on sentences imposed across federal courts.

Data on Youth Involvement in Justice Systems

There is no single, centralized data source that contains data for youth  involved in all justice systems and across all phases of the justice  process. Rather, there are several disparate data sources at each level  (federal, state and local, or tribal) and phase (arrest, prosecution, and  confinement). Further, while some agencies, such as USMS and BOP,  share a unique identifier for an individual within the federal data sources,  there is no unique identifier across all federal and state and local data  sources. For purposes of this review, and given privacy concerns related  to juvenile data, we were unable to track individuals across all phases of  the federal justice system or identify the number of unique youth who  came into contact with federal, state and local, or tribal justice systems.

In addition to there being no single database that houses all relevant data  on youth in the tribal, state and local, and federal justice systems, each  database also varies in how it defines Native American, as well as how it  determines whether youth are Native American for purposes of the data  source. For example, some agencies define Native American broadly, as  an individual having origins in any of the indigenous peoples of North  America, including Alaska Natives. In contrast, DOJ’s Executive Office for  United States Attorneys (EOUSA), in its prosecution data, defines the  term Indian based on statute and case law, which generally considers an  Indian to have both a significant degree of Indian blood and a connection  to a federally recognized tribe. In addition, BOP determines that a youth  is Native American for purposes of its data by reviewing documentation  including charging documents, while USMS relies on individuals self- reporting their race upon being taken into custody. See appendix II for  additional information and descriptions of these differences.

Federal Grant Programs That May Address Juvenile Delinquency

Federal departments and agencies, including DOJ and HHS, provide  funding through several types of mechanisms for Native American  populations and tribal lands, including mandatory grant programs,  compacts and contracts, discretionary grants, and cooperative  agreements. As discussed above, our analysis focused on discretionary  grants and cooperative agreements.

Discretionary grants are competitive in nature, whereby the granting  agency has discretion to choose one applicant over another. DOJ’s Office  of Justice Programs (OJP) awards discretionary grants to states, tribal  organizations, territories, localities, and organizations to address a variety  of issues, including to help prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency and  victimization and improve their youth justice systems. DOJ also provides  grant funding for training and technical assistance to enhance and  support tribal governments’ efforts to reduce crime and improve the  function of criminal justice in Indian country. Cooperative agreements are  similar to discretionary grants in that federal agencies generally award  them to grantees based on merit and eligibility. However, in contrast to a  discretionary grant, federal agencies generally use cooperative  agreements when they anticipate that there will be substantial federal,  programmatic involvement with the recipient during the performance of  the financially-assisted activities, such as agency collaboration or  participation in program activities.

Task Force and Commission Reports Related to Native American Youth and Juvenile Justice

Two reports focused on Native American youth exposure to violence and  ways to address and mitigate the negative impact of this exposure when it  occurs, as well as ways to develop knowledge and spread awareness  about children’s exposure to violence. In addition, both reports  discussed factors that indicate Native American youth are uniquely  positioned in regards to their contact with the justice systems, and  included recommendations specific to Native American youth interaction  with justice systems at the federal, state, and tribal levels. Appendix III  describes actions agencies reported taking related to selected  recommendations from these reports.

Available Data Indicate Native American Youth Involvement in Justice Systems Declined from 2010 through 2016 and Differed in Some Ways from That of Non-Native American Youth

From 2010 through 2016, the number of Native American youth involved  with state and local and federal justice systems declined, according to our  analysis of available data. This decline occurred across all phases of  the justice process: arrest, adjudication, and confinement in facilities. The  involvement of these Native American youth in the state and local and  federal justice systems was also concentrated in certain geographic  areas. Further, the vast majority of these Native American youth came  into contact with state and local justice systems, not the federal system.  Analysis of available data also indicates that the percent of Native  American youth involved in the federal justice system during the period  reviewed was greater than their representation in the nationwide youth  population. In contrast, the percent of Native American youth involved in  most state and local justice systems was similar to their representation in  youth populations in those states. Moreover, the involvement of Native  American and non-Native American youth in the federal justice system  showed several differences (in types of offenses, for example), while their  involvement in state and local justice systems showed several similarities.

DOJ officials and representatives of Native American organizations we  interviewed attributed the greater percent of Native American youth  involved in the federal justice system and the differences shown by our  analysis to federal government jurisdiction over crimes in Indian country,  as well as the absence of general federal government jurisdiction over  non-Native American youth.

Involvement of Native American Youth in the Justice Systems Declined from 2010 through 2016

The number of Native American youth involved with state and local and  federal justice systems declined from 2010 through 2016 across all  phases of the justice process—arrest, adjudication, and confinement in  facilities, according to our analysis of available data. The majority of  Native American youth involved with state and local justice systems were  located in 11 of the 50 states, and all Native American youth involved with  the federal justice system were located in 5 of the 12 federal circuits.  Further, most Native American youth were involved in state and local  justice systems rather than in the federal system. Comprehensive data  from tribal justice systems on the involvement of Native American youth  were not available. However, we identified and reviewed a few data  sources that provided certain insights about the arrest, adjudication, and  confinement of Native American youth by tribal justice systems. See  appendix IV for a summary of our analysis of data from these sources.

State and local and federal. Analysis of available data indicates that  from calendar years 2010 through 2016, there were 105,487 arrests of  Native American youth by state and local law enforcement agencies  (LEAs), and over this period, arrests generally declined by 40 percent. As  shown in table 3, arrests declined from 18,295 in 2010 to 11,002 in 2016.  During the same period, there were 246 federal custodies of Native  American youth due to arrest by federal LEAs; the number of federal  custodies also generally declined during the period—from 60 in 2010 to  20 in 2016.

According to available data, the majority (about 75 percent) of Native  American youth arrested by state and local LEAs from calendar years  2010 through 2016 were located in 10 states: Alaska, Arizona, Minnesota,  Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota,  Washington, and Wisconsin. All of these ten states had a higher than  average percentage of Native Americans among the states’ overall youth  populations, according to 2016 U.S. Census estimates we reviewed. For  example, of all the states Alaska had the largest percentage of Native  Americans among its youth population, at 19 percent in 2016. In contrast,  the percent of Native American youth in the youth population in many (26)  states was less than 1 percent. In 2016, the largest number of arrests by  state and local LEAs occurred in Arizona and South Dakota, as shown in  figure 2.

All Native American youth in federal custody with USMS due to a federal  LEA arrest from fiscal years 2010 through 2016 were located in 4 of the  12 federal circuits—the 2nd, 8th, 9th, and 10th circuits (see figure 3),  according to our analysis of available data. These four circuits include 25  states.

State and local. Available data show that from calendar year 2010  through calendar year 2014, state and local courts processed fewer  cases involving Native American youth. For example, during the period,  state and local courts received about 86,400 delinquency cases involving  Native American youth, and the number of cases declined by about 19  percent from 19,200 in 2010 to 15,600 in 2014, as shown in table 4. The  number of cases petitioned, or requested that a court adjudicate, and the  number of cases adjudicated delinquent also declined, by about 20  percent and 26 percent, respectively. Among delinquency cases received  during the period, state and local courts petitioned about half (49,000  cases, or 57 percent). Among all petitioned cases, about two-thirds  (32,900 cases, or 67 percent) were adjudicated delinquent. Among youth  found delinquent during the period, more than half—65 percent  (21,300)—received probation, 24 percent (7,800) were placed in an  institution or other residential facility, and 12 percent (3,800) received  some other sanction, such as community service.

Federal. Available data show that federal courts received 349 Native  American youth suspects from fiscal years 2010 through 2014 (see table  4, above), and the annual number fluctuated over the period but declined  slightly overall (59 in 2010 compared to 57 in 2014). Of the suspects  received, federal courts declined to adjudicate 138 and adjudicated 167  youth as delinquent or guilty. The number of delinquent or guilty  outcomes declined overall from 37 in 2010 to 20 in 2014.

According to analysis of available data, all Native American youth referred  to a United States Attorney from fiscal years 2010 through 2014 were  located in 4 of the 12 federal circuits—the 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th circuits,  as shown in figure 4. These four circuits include 26 states. Annually, the  number of referrals to each circuit was similar throughout the period.

State and local. The number of Native American youth confined in state  and local residential facilities declined by about 37 percent between 2011  and 2015, from at least 861 in 2011 to at least 544 in 2015, according to  our analysis of data from the biennial Census of Juveniles in Residential  Placement survey.

The majority of Native American youth (approximately 65 percent) were  confined in 9 states when the biennial survey was taken in 2011, 2013,  and 2015. Generally, these states included Alaska, Arizona, Minnesota,  Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, and  Washington (see figure 5 for 2015 census results). All of these states had  a higher than average percentage of Native Americans among the states’  overall youth population in 2015.

Federal. From fiscal years 2010 through 2016, a total of 138 Native  American youth who had been sentenced were admitted to juvenile  facilities overseen by BOP; this number declined over the period from 37  in 2010 to 6 in 2016, according to our analysis of available data. Court  proceedings for these individuals had been finalized and the individuals  were sentenced to a juvenile facility overseen by BOP.

DOJ officials and representatives from five Native American organizations  we interviewed provided various perspectives on the decline and  geographic distribution of Native American youth in justice systems that  our analysis showed. Specifically, DOJ officials noted that the number of  youth involved in state and local, federal, and tribal systems has been  declining for several years across all races, not just Native American  youth.

However, when asked about this decline, representatives from three of  the five Native American organizations we interviewed stated that data on  the number of Native American youth in justice systems, especially at the  state level, is underreported and often inconsistent. Representatives from  two of those organizations noted that when a youth comes into contact  with state juvenile justice systems, states are not required to ask about  Native American status, which results in inconsistent tracking and  underreporting of Native American youth involved with state systems.  Representatives from one of these organizations, which provides  assistance in national policy areas, noted that states are not required to  contact a youth’s identified tribe to confirm the youth’s tribal affiliation.  These representatives also noted that some states may inquire about  tribal affiliation when youth come into contact with the state’s justice  system, but the states do not have a reliable process to identify Native  American youth. In addition, these same representatives noted that  Native American youth are often unlikely to share their ethnicity with state  officials, or anyone outside of their community. Representatives from  another organization noted that state court judges are not required to ask  about Native American status, which could also potentially result in  undercounting of Native American youth in state systems.  Representatives from another organization which commented on the  decline stated that because state and federal data only capture more  serious offenses, lesser crimes handled at the tribal level often go  unreported.

Representatives from two of the organizations we interviewed did not  question the decline in the number of Native American youth involved in  federal and state and local systems, but noted that there has been a  movement away from criminalizing youth in general. Rather, these  representatives explained that there is more of a focus on restorative  justice, diversion, and alternatives to incarceration, as well as a  movement toward more trauma-informed care. Representatives from one  of these two organizations noted that a number of states have worked out  civil diversion agreements with local tribes, which provide opportunities  for the tribe to practice restorative justice with delinquent youth instead of  confining them.

Regarding the distribution of Native American youth by state,  representatives from four of the five organizations we interviewed noted  that the number of youth involved with state justice systems is higher in  those states with a larger Native American population, and thus were not  surprised by the states our analysis showed to have the highest numbers  of Native American youth involved in their state and local justice systems.  These representatives also provided additional perspectives on why  some states might have higher numbers of youth involved with their  justice systems. For example, representatives from one organization  noted that in certain states, not all tribes have tribal law enforcement,  which could potentially lead to higher state involvement in Native  American juvenile cases that might otherwise be handled by tribes.  Representatives from another organization noted that some states have a  reputation for more aggressively adjudicating delinquent Native American  youth.

Data Show that Representation of Native American Youth in the Federal Justice System Was Greater Than Their Representation in the Youth Population, but Their Representation in Most State and Local Justice Systems Was Comparable

The percentage of youth who were Native American among those  involved with the federal justice system from 2010 through 2016 was  greater than the percent of Native American youth in the nationwide youth  population, according to analysis of available data. In contrast, state-by- state analysis showed that the percent of youth who were Native  American among those involved with state and local justice systems  during the period was similar to many states’ Native American youth  population.

Federal justice system. The percent of youth arrested, referred for  adjudication, and confined at the federal level from 2010 through 2016  who were Native American (13 to 19 percent) was greater than the  percent of Native Americans in the nationwide youth population during the  same period (1.6 percent). For example, the percent of youth in USMS  custody and arrested by federal LEAs during the period who were Native  American was 18 percent (246 Native American youth out of 1,358 total  youth arrested from fiscal years 2010 through 2016), as shown in table 5.

According to DOJ officials, the federal juvenile population of Native  Americans has historically been higher than their representation in the  nationwide population due to federal government jurisdiction over certain  crimes in Indian country, which requires the federal government to  prosecute offenses that would commonly be prosecuted by states if  committed outside of Indian country. According to DOJ officials, a small  handful of federal criminal statutes apply to all juveniles, such as  immigration and drug statutes, but the federal government has been  granted greater jurisdiction over Native American youth than non-Native  American youth by federal laws that apply to crimes committed in Indian  Country, such as the Major Crimes Act. For example, one DOJ official  noted that the Major Crimes Act gives the federal government exclusive  jurisdiction over crimes such as burglary and sex offenses committed in  Indian country. This differs from the treatment of non-Native American  youth, who are not prosecuted in the federal system for the same types of  offenses, because the federal government does not have jurisdiction over  those youth for such offenses. Non-Native American youth are instead  subject to the general juvenile delinquency jurisdiction of state and local  courts. Further, DOJ officials stated that a significant portion of Indian  country is in states where Public Law 280 does not apply, and thus the  federal government generally has criminal jurisdiction for major crimes in  Indian Country. Additionally, DOJ officials stated that tribal justice  systems are often underfunded and do not have the capacity to handle  Native American youths’ cases. Therefore, when both federal and tribal  justice systems have jurisdiction, they said that the federal system may  be the only system in which the youth’s case may be adjudicated. For  these reasons, the number of Native American youth offenders in the  federal justice system is disproportionate to non-Native American  juveniles in accordance with population size, according to DOJ officials.

State and local justice systems. State-by-state analysis of arrest data  showed some variation in the percentage of Native Americans among  youth arrested by state and local LEAs from calendar years 2010 through  2016. For example, as figure 6 illustrates, in most states, the percentage  of youth arrested by state and local LEAs in 2016 who were Native  American was similar to the percent of Native American youth in the  states’ population. However, in four states—Alaska, Montana, North  Dakota, and South Dakota—the percentage of Native Americans among  the youth arrested by state and local LEAs was at least 5 percentage  points higher. In two states—New Mexico and Oklahoma—it was at  least 4 percentage points lower.

State-by-state analysis of state and local confinement data for 2015  showed a similar pattern. As figure 7 illustrates, in most states, the  percent of youth confined at state and local facilities in 2015 who were  Native American was similar to the percent of Native American youth in  the states’ population. However, six states—Alaska, Minnesota, Montana,  North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming—the percentage of Native  Americans among the youth confined in state and local facilities was at  least 5 percentage points higher. In one state—New Mexico—it was 11  percentage points lower.

Agency and organization perspectives. According to DOJ officials, as  noted above, federal jurisdiction over crimes in Indian country results in a  higher percentage of Native American youth (compared to non-Native  American youth) involved with the federal justice system. In addition, a  DOJ official noted that that certain states may have a higher percentage  of Native Americans among youth confined in that state’s facilities if those  Native American youth reside more in urban or other areas that are not  Indian country, and are thus more likely subject to state and local  jurisdiction. Conversely, the official said that for those states with lower  Native American youth confined in state facilities compared to the Native  American youth population in the state overall, the youth may reside more  in Indian country, resulting in their contact with the federal judicial system  more than the state or local justice systems.

Representatives from four of the five Native American organizations we  interviewed noted that federal jurisdiction is a key contributor to the higher  percentage of Native American youth involved at the federal justice level.

While Involvement Declined, Available Data Indicate Several Differences between Native American and Non- Native American Youth in the Federal Justice System

Although the involvement of youth in the federal justice systems declined  for both Native Americans and non-Native Americans from 2010 through  2016, analysis of available data indicates that there were several  differences between the two groups in characteristics such as types of  offenses charged. According to DOJ officials, some of these differences  were due to federal jurisdiction over Indians for major crimes (such as  person offenses) in Indian country as well as the absence of general  federal government jurisdiction over non-Native American youth.

Involvement in the Federal Justice System Declined for Both Groups

Available data indicate that the involvement of youth in the different  stages of the federal justice system declined for both Native Americans  and non-Native Americans from fiscal years 2010 through 2016. For  example, federal custodies due to arrests by federal LEAs declined for  both groups, as shown in table 6; the number of suspects referred to  federal courts declined for both groups (table 7); and BOP confinements  declined for both groups (table 8).

Native American and non-Native American youth were involved with the  federal justice system for different offenses from fiscal years 2010  through 2016. We analyzed the types of offenses for all youth and  grouped them into five broad categories—drug and alcohol, person,  property, public order, and other. Analysis of available data indicates  that the majority of Native American youth were involved with the federal  justice system for offenses against a person. In contrast, the majority of  involvement of non-Native American youth was due to public order or  drug and alcohol offenses.

Arrests. As figure 8 illustrates, out of the broad offense categories, 49  percent of Native American youth were arrested by a federal LEA and in  USMS custody due to an offense against a person. In contrast, 5 percent  of non-Native American youth were arrested by a federal LEA for person  offenses during the period. Instead, most non-Native American youth  were arrested by a federal LEA for public order or drug and alcohol  offenses (70 percent total for both). The top two specific offenses among  Native American youth were assault and sex offenses; the top two  specific offenses among non-Native Americans were drug-related and  immigration violations, according to analysis of available data.

Federal data include youth in USMS custody after a federal arrest but  may not capture all arrests by federal law enforcement agencies. USMS  uses the race category “American Indian or Alaskan Native” and includes  persons having origins in any of the indigenous peoples of North America,  including Alaskan Natives. According to USMS officials, race is self- reported by the individual at the time of the custody intake. Non-Native  American categories in USMS data are Asian, Black, and White.

Referrals for adjudication. As figure 9 illustrates, most Native American  youth referred to federal courts were referred for the broad category of  offenses against a person (67 percent). However, most non-Native  American youth were referred to federal courts for the broad categories of  public order offenses or drug and alcohol offenses (44 and 31 percent,  respectively). Among Native American youth, the top two specific  offenses were sex offenses and assault. Among non-Native Americans,  the top two specific offenses were drug-related and immigration  violations.

EOUSA defines the term Indian based on statute and case law, which  generally considers an Indian to have both a significant degree of Indian  blood and a connection to a federally recognized tribe. According to  EOUSA officials, race is identified by the U.S. Attorney when reviewing  documentation associated with the individual, such as tribal enrollment  certifications.

Confinement. As figure 10 illustrates, out of the five broad offense  categories, 67 percent of Native American youth were sentenced and  confined by the federal justice system from fiscal years 2010 through  2016 for an offense against a person; most non-Native American youth  were confined by the federal justice system for drug and alcohol offenses  (about 39 percent) or public order offenses (also 30 percent). The top two  specific offenses among Native American youth were sex offenses and  assault. The top two specific offenses among non-Native American youth  were for drug-related and immigration violations.

Agency and organization perspectives on variations in offenses.  According to DOJ officials, the reason most Native American youth were  arrested, adjudicated, and confined for person offenses was due to  federal jurisdiction over Indians for major crimes (such as person offenses  like burglary and sex offenses) in Indian country. Specifically, officials  noted that Native American youth are arrested and confined in the federal  system for more serious offenses because the Major Crimes Act confers  jurisdiction on the federal government for person offenses. In contrast,  agency officials also noted that the federal government does not have  jurisdiction over the same types of offenses committed by non-Indian  youth and therefore those youth cannot be arrested by federal agencies  for person offenses. Rather, according to one DOJ official, the federal  government only has general jurisdiction applying to both Native  American and non-Native American youth in limited instances, such as for  certain immigration and drug offenses. The jurisdictional structure present  in Indian country requires the federal government to prosecute offenses  that would otherwise be handled in state court outside of Indian country,  according to DOJ officials.

Representatives from all of the five Native American organizations we  interviewed noted, similarly to DOJ officials, that federal jurisdiction over  crimes in Indian country is typically for more serious offenses (specifically  under the Major Crimes Act), such as person offenses. In contrast, as  noted by one organization, youth engaged in property and substance  abuse offenses are more typically brought into state custody. Two of the  organizations’ representatives we met with noted in addition that alcohol  abuse plays a role in person offenses, often co-occurring with these  offenses.

Outcomes Varied among Youth Referred for Federal Adjudication

The distribution of outcomes among youth who were referred to federal  prosecutors for adjudication in federal courts between fiscal years 2010  and 2016 was different for Native American and non-Native American  youth. For example, as figure 11 shows, a larger percentage of referrals  for adjudication involving Native American youth were declined by federal  prosecutors compared to non-Native American cases—36 percent among  Native American youth compared to 12 percent among non-Native  American. Further, a smaller percentage of Native American than non- Native American referrals resulted in delinquent or guilty outcomes—42  percent among Native American youth compared to 63 percent among  non-Native American.

Length of sentence. Native American youth who were sentenced and  confined by the federal justice system—in BOP’s custody—had longer  sentences compared to non-Native American youth from fiscal years  2010 through 2016, according to analysis of available data.  About half  (52 percent) of the Native American youth confined during the period  were sentenced for 13 to 36 months. Most non-Native American youth  (62 percent) had shorter sentences of up to 12 months. According to  DOJ officials, Native American youth had longer sentences due to federal  government jurisdiction over major crimes in Indian country. As a result of  its jurisdiction, officials said that the federal government arrests and  incarcerates Native American youth for more serious crimes, such as sex  offenses, which carry longer sentences. In contrast, non-Native American  youth served sentences for crimes which carried shorter sentences, such  as immigration and drug offenses, as noted above. The difference in  sentence length may also be attributed to a number of additional  variables that can affect the length of sentence, such as prior delinquent  or criminal history and the nature and circumstances of the offense.

Distance from residence. Among youth admitted and confined in the  federal justice system from fiscal years 2010 through 2016, data show  that Native American youth were in facilities closer to their residences or  homes compared to non-Native American youth (see table 9). For  example, on average, Native American youth who were under the  supervision of the United States Probation Office were 296 miles closer to  their residence or home compared to non-Native Americans. In addition,  on average, Native American youth who were in BOP’s custody were 175  miles closer to their residence compared to non-Native Americans.  Further, among both groups and on average, youth under the supervision  of the United States Probation Office were closer to their residence or  home compared to youth who were in BOP’s custody.

Age category and gender of youth involved in the federal justice system  from fiscal years 2010 through 2016 were similar among Native American  and non-Native American youth. Specifically:

Most youth arrested by federal LEAs and in USMS custody were male  (89 and 91 percent, respectively) and 15 to 17 years old (86 and 92  percent, respectively).

Most youth who came into contact with federal courts were 15 to 17  years old (80 and 88 percent, respectively).

Most youth confined at federal facilities were male (89 and 96 percent,  respectively) and 15 to 17 years old (93 and 99 percent, respectively).

Available Data Indicate That There Were Several Similarities between Native American and Non- Native American Youth in State and Local Justice Systems

Analysis of available data indicates that there were several similarities  between Native American and non-Native American youth involvement  with state and local justice systems over the period analyzed.

Involvement in State and Local Justice Systems Declined for Both Groups, but Extent of Decline Varied

The involvement of both Native American and non-Native American youth  in state and local justice systems declined for arrests, referrals for  adjudication, and confinements in recent years (see tables 10 through  12). However, the extent of the decline varied between the two groups.  For example, as the tables show, the declines in arrests and referrals for  adjudication were greater for Native American youth, while the decline in  confinements was greater for non-Native American youth.

The distribution of offenses for youth involved in state and local justice  systems in recent years was similar among Native American and non- Native American youth. As noted above, we analyzed the types of  offenses for all youth and grouped them into five broad categories—drug  and alcohol, person, property, public order, and other.

Arrests. Available data show that among youth arrested by state and  local LEAs between calendar years 2010 through 2016, a similar  percentage of Native American and non-Native American youth were  arrested for the five broad offense category types. For example, as figure  12 illustrates, the largest percent of offenses among both groups during  the period were in the broad category of offenses against property—with  25 percent among Native American youth and 28 percent among non- Native American youth. The next most common broad category of  offense for Native Americans arrested by state and local LEAs was drug  and alcohol offenses (23 percent); a smaller percent of non-Native  Americans were arrested for drug and alcohol offenses (16 percent). The  top four specific offenses among Native American youth arrested by state  and local LEAs during the period were larceny/theft, alcohol, assault, and  status offenses. Similarly, the top four specific offenses among non- Native American youth during the period were larceny/theft, assault,  status offenses, and drugs.

Adjudication. Generally, the offenses associated with delinquency cases  received by state and local courts between calendar years 2010 and 2014  were similar for both Native American and non-Native American youth,  according to analysis of available data. The largest percentage of  offenses among delinquency cases for both groups was for the broad  offense category of property offenses (38 and 36 percent).

Confinement. Generally, Native American and non-Native American  youth adjudicated and confined at state and local facilities were admitted  for similar offenses, according to our analysis of DOJ biennial census  data from 2011, 2013, and 2015. As figure 13 illustrates, in 2015, a  similar percentage of youth, for both groups, were confined due to three  broad categories of offenses—public order, person, and property. At least  29 percent and at most 32 percent of youth were confined for each  category of offense. A much smaller percentage of youth, for both groups,  were confined for the broad category of drug and alcohol offenses.  Some of the most common specific offenses among both Native  American and non-Native American youth in 2015 were assault, probation  or parole violation, sex offenses, and burglary.

The majority of Native American and non-Native American youth referred  to state and local courts and confined at state and local facilities were  male and 15 to 17 years old during the periods for which we obtained  data. For example, table 13 illustrates the demographics of youth  adjudicated and confined in state and local facilities.

Outcomes of delinquency cases in state and local courts were generally  similar for Native American youth and non-Native American youth  between 2010 and 2014, according to analysis of available data. For  example, more than half of all cases received by the courts for both  groups were petitioned—formally processed—as table 14 illustrates.

Facility types. Native American and non-Native American youth confined  at state and local facilities were placed in similar types of facilities. As  table 15 illustrates, the majority of youth for both groups were in private  facilities at the time of DOJ’s 2015 biennial census.

Time of confinement. Native American and non-Native American youth  at state and local facilities had similar characteristics for the length of time  they had been confined at the time of the 2015 biennial census. As table  16 illustrates, the majority of youth, for both groups, had been confined for  more than 120 days.

DOJ and HHS Offered at Least 122 Grant Programs; Tribal Governments or Native American Organizations Were Eligible for Almost All but in a Sample of Applications We Reviewed, Applied Primarily for Programs Specifying Native Americans

We identified 122 discretionary grant programs across several issue  areas such as violence or trauma, justice system reform, and alcohol and  substance abuse that DOJ and HHS offered from fiscal years 2015  through 2017 that grantees could use to help prevent or address  delinquency among Native American youth. DOJ and HHS awarded  approximately $1.2 billion in first year awards during this period, about  $207.7 million of which they collectively awarded to tribal governments  and Native American organizations. Tribal governments and Native  American organizations were eligible for almost all of these grant  programs, but we found in a sample we reviewed that they primarily  applied for those that specified tribes or Native Americans as a primary  beneficiary. Additionally, officials from selected tribal governments, Native  American organizations, DOJ, and HHS stated that certain factors affect  tribal governments and Native American organizations’ ability to apply  successfully for grant programs that awardees could use to help prevent  or address delinquency among Native American youth.

DOJ and HHS Offered at Least 122 Grant Programs That Could Be Used to Help Prevent or Address Delinquency among Native American Youth

We identified 122 discretionary grants and cooperative agreements (grant  programs) for which DOJ and HHS offered funding from fiscal years 2015  through 2017 that grantees could use to help prevent or address  delinquency among Native American youth. See appendix V for a list of  these programs. DOJ and HHS awarded approximately $1.2 billion in  first-year awards to grantees through the 122 programs over the period,  as shown in figure 14.

Of the $1.2 billion, HHS and DOJ collectively awarded $207.7 million to  tribal governments and Native American organizations. HHS awarded  $106.5 million and DOJ awarded $101.2 million. As previously discussed,  tribal governments and Native American organizations also received  other federal funding that could help prevent or address delinquency  among Native American youth.

The DOJ and HHS grant programs we identified included 27 programs  that specified tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary and 95  programs that did not specify this but that could include tribes or Native  Americans as beneficiaries. For example, the Cooperative Agreements  for Tribal Behavioral Health, which HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental  Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) offered in fiscal years 2016  and 2017, is a grant program that specified tribes or Native Americans as  a primary beneficiary. Its purpose is to prevent and reduce suicidal  behavior and substance use, reduce the impact of trauma, and promote  mental health among Native American youth. On the other hand, the  Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act grant program, which  SAMHSA offered in fiscal year 2016 to prevent and reduce alcohol use  among youth and young adults, is an example of a program that did not  specify tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary but could  nonetheless benefit them. As previously discussed, available data  indicate that alcohol offenses constitute the second-highest specific  offense for which Native American youth were arrested by state and local  LEAs from calendar years 2010 through 2016.

Within DOJ’s OJP, an example of a grant program that specified tribes or  Native Americans as a primary beneficiary is the Defending Childhood  American Indian/Alaska Native Policy Initiative: Supporting Trauma- Informed Juvenile Justice Systems for Tribes program. This grant  program was offered by OJP’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency  Prevention (OJJDP) for funding in fiscal year 2016. The goal of the grant  program is to increase the capacity of federally recognized tribes’ juvenile  justice and related systems to improve the life outcomes of youth who are  at risk or who are involved in the justice system and to reduce youth  exposure to violence. Another grant program, the Youth with Sexual  Behavior Problems Program, which OJJDP offered from fiscal years 2015  through 2017, is an example of a grant program that did not specify tribes  or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary but that could nonetheless  benefit them. As previously discussed, available data indicate that the  second-highest specific offense for which Native American youth were  arrested by federal LEAs from 2010 through 2016 was sex offenses. This  grant program provided services for youth sexual offenders, their victims,  and the parents and caregivers of the offending youth and victims.

The 27 grant programs that specified tribes or Native Americans as a  primary beneficiary awarded a total of $250.2 million over the fiscal year  2015 through 2017 period, while the 95 programs that did not were  awarded $944.4 million (see fig.15).

Of the 122 grant programs we identified, tribal governments and Native  American organizations received funding primarily from the 27 grant  programs that specified tribes or Native Americans as a primary  beneficiary. Of the $250.2 million in awards from these 27 grant  programs, tribal governments and Native American organizations  received $193.2 million, or about 77 percent of the total. Alternatively, of  the $944.4 million in awards from the 95 grant programs that did not  specify tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary, tribal  governments and Native American organizations received $14.5 million,  or 1.5 percent of the total.

The 122 grant programs focused on one or more issue areas in their  funding opportunity announcements relevant to helping prevent or  address delinquency among Native American youth. The most common  issue areas were violence or trauma (34 programs), justice system reform  (25 programs), and alcohol and substance abuse (22 programs). Table  17 lists the issue areas and the number of DOJ and HHS grant programs  that focus on each issue area.

Violence or trauma. Thirty-four of the 122 grant programs supported  activities such as researching, preventing, addressing, or providing  services related to youth violence or trauma. For example, the purpose of  the Communities Addressing Childhood Trauma grant program,  administered by HHS’s Office of Minority Health, is to test the  effectiveness of activities that seek to promote healthy behaviors among  minority or disadvantaged youth who have experienced childhood trauma  and are thus at risk for poor health and life outcomes. Another example is  DOJ’s Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation’s (CTAS) Tribal Youth  Program. One of the priority areas of this grant program is preventing,  intervening, and treating children exposed to violence through the  development and implementation of trauma-informed practices in  pertinent programs and services. DOJ’s Comprehensive Anti-gang  Strategies and Programs grant supports evidence-based strategies in  communities trying to reduce and control gang-related crime and violence  through coordinating prevention, intervention, enforcement, and reentry  programs. As mentioned earlier in the report, available data indicate the  top specific offense for which Native American youth were arrested by  federal LEAs from 2010 through 2016 was assault.

Justice system reform. Twenty-five of the 122 grant programs  supported activities such as researching and analyzing the effectiveness  of efforts to reform the youth justice system and enhancing the capacity of  justice system institutions with which youth could come into contact. For  example, one goal of the Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance  Grants, Training, and Technical Assistance grant program, administered  by DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, is to enhance tribal court systems  and improve access to them, as well as to provide training and technical  assistance related to tribal justice systems. Another example is DOJ’s  National Girls Initiative grant program. The goal of this program is to  support the engagement of stakeholders such as youth justice specialists,  law enforcement officers, advocates, and youth defenders to improve the  justice system and its responses to girls and young women.

Alcohol and substance abuse. Twenty-two of the 122 grant programs  supported activities such as preventing or reducing youth consumption of  alcohol and drugs. For example, the stated purpose of DOJ’s CTAS  Juvenile Healing to Wellness Courts grant program is to support tribes  seeking to establish new courts within their existing judicial institutions to  respond to alcohol and substance use issues among youth and young  adults. (See text box below for an example of the activities a grantee  planned to implement with this grant program.) As previously discussed,  one of the top offenses we observed of Native American youth arrested  by state and local LEAs is drug and alcohol offenses.

Department of Justice (DOJ) Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS)  Juvenile Healing to Wellness Court Grantee: Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower  Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians   In fiscal year 2015, the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw  Indians, a federally recognized tribe located within the state of Oregon, received  funding from the DOJ CTAS Juvenile Healing to Wellness Court grant program. Tribal  officials told GAO that they are in the process of growing their healing to wellness court  and aim to use this grant program to reduce the criminal penalties for substance abuse  in their community. Moreover, they said that the “peace-giving court” would look at  solutions such as treatment and restorative justice rather than focus on criminal fines  and incarceration. As of October 2017, tribal officials said they had three court  employees and were planning to use some of the program funding to hire a liaison  between other court systems to refer tribal members to their tribal court.

Mental and emotional health. Sixteen of the 122 grant programs  supported activities such as improving the mental health and wellness of  youth. For example, HHS’s Planning and Developing Infrastructure to  Improve the Mental Health and Wellness of Children, Youth and Families  in American Indian/Alaska Natives Communities grant program focuses  on increasing the capacity and effectiveness of mental health systems  serving tribal and urban Indian communities by designing a coordinated  network of community-based services and supports that address the  needs of Native American youth and their families. (See text box below  for an example of the activities a grantee planned to implement with this  grant program.)

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Planning and Developing  Infrastructure to Improve the Mental Health and Wellness of Children, Youth and  Families in American Indian/Alaska Natives Communities Grantee: Native Health  of Phoenix  In fiscal year 2017, Native Health of Phoenix—an urban Indian community health center  with a mission to increase the health and well-being of Native American and other  residents in the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area—received funding from the HHS  Planning and Developing Infrastructure to Improve the Mental Health and Wellness of  Children, Youth and Families in American Indian/Alaska Natives Communities grant  program. Native Health of Phoenix explained that the grant program would allow the  organization to work on trauma-informed care, provide counseling services through role  models (with a particular interest in using Native American veterans as mentors), and  possibly expand the age group served by an existing program, Wellness Warriors,  which currently focuses on promoting healthy living for 7- to 12-year-old youth and their  families.

Reentry and recidivism. Twelve of the 122 grant programs supported  activities such as facilitating youths’ successful reintegration into their  communities and reducing the likelihood of subsequent contact with the  criminal justice system. For example, the objective of the Second Chance  Act Technology-Based Career Training Program for Incarcerated Adults  and Juveniles, administered by DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, is to  provide career training programs for incarcerated adults and youth in the  6 to 36 months before their release and to connect them with follow-up  services after their release. Another example is DOJ’s Second Chance  Act Strengthening Relationships Between Young Fathers, Young  Mothers, and Their Children grant program offered funding in fiscal year  2016. The goal of this grant program is to reduce recidivism and support  responsible parenting practices of young fathers and mothers who were  transitioning from detention, out-of-home placement, or incarceration  back to their families and communities.

Mentoring. Eleven of the 122 grant programs supported activities such  as providing mentoring services to at-risk or high-risk youth and  researching or evaluating the impact of various mentoring programs and  practices on youth outcomes. For example, DOJ’s Mentoring for Youth:  Underserved Populations grant program supports the implementation and  delivery of various mentoring services for youth with disabilities, youth in  foster care, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning  youth. Another example is HHS’s Native Youth Initiative for Leadership,  Empowerment, and Development grant program. One area of interest in  the program includes peer role model development where young Native  American adults (18 to 24 years old) serve as role models for mid- adolescents (15 to 17 years old), who in turn serve as role models for  even younger members (younger than 15 years old) in their communities.

Suicide prevention. Seven of the 122 grant programs supported  activities such as preventing or reducing the risk of suicidal thoughts or  behavior and self-harm among youth. For example, one purpose of the  Substance Abuse and Suicide Prevention Program, formerly known as  the Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention Initiative grant program,  administered by HHS’s Indian Health Service, is to support early  intervention strategies and positive youth development to reduce the risk  for suicidal behavior and substance abuse among Native American youth.  (See text box below for an example of the activities a grantee planned to  implement with this grant program.)

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Substance Abuse and Suicide  Prevention Program Grantee: Fairbanks Native Association  In fiscal year 2016, the Fairbanks Native Association, whose officials describe it as a  Native American non-profit organization that provides social services, education, and  behavioral health services to residents of the Fairbanks and North Pole communities as  well as other residents of Alaska, received funding from HHS’s Indian Health Service’s  Substance Abuse and Suicide Prevention Program (formerly known as the  Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention Initiative grant program). According to  Fairbanks Native Association officials, one of the evidence-based practices they  implemented for the Substance Abuse and Suicide Prevention Program was Coping  and Support Training (CAST). CAST is a 12-lesson skills training program used by  schools, community centers, and other organizations for middle and high school-aged  youth whose program features include building self-esteem and creating a crisis  response plan for responding to a range of suicide-risk behavior, among other activities.

Justice system data and analysis. Seven of the 122 grant programs  supported activities such as collecting, improving the collection of, or  analyzing data related to the youth or tribal justice systems. For example,  DOJ’s Annual Survey of Jails in Indian country, 2016-2019 grant program  funded the collection of information from all known correctional facilities  operated by tribal governments or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Some of  the information the program sought to collect included the number of  adults and youth held, the gender of the inmates, and average daily  population, among other data.

Runaway and homeless youth. Six of the 122 grant programs  supported activities such as providing services to youth who have run  away from home or who are experiencing homelessness. For example,  the primary goal of HHS’s Transitional Living Program and Maternity  Group Homes grant program is to help runaway and homeless youth  establish sustainable living and well-being for them and, if applicable,  their dependent children through the provision of shelter and other  services.

Cultural identity. Four of the 122 grant programs supported activities  such as promoting and preserving Native American cultural traditions to  and for tribal youth. For example, the purpose of HHS’s Native American Language Preservation and Maintenance grant program is to  ensure the survival and vitality of Native American languages.

Other. Six of the 122 grant programs supported activities in other issue  areas above such as school safety, tribal justice infrastructure, and social  and economic development.

Tribal Governments and Native American Organizations Were Eligible for Almost All Grant Programs We Identified, But in a Sample We Reviewed, Applied Primarily for Those Specifying Native Americans

Tribal Governments or Native American Organizations Were Eligible for Almost All Grant Programs We Identified

Tribal governments or Native American organizations were eligible for  almost all of the 122 DOJ and HHS grant programs we identified from  fiscal years 2015 through 2017 that grantees could use to prevent or  address delinquency among Native American youth: they were eligible for  70 of 73 DOJ programs and 48 of 49 HHS programs.

For the 3 DOJ grant programs for which these entities were not eligible to  apply, DOJ officials explained that tribal governments or Native American  organizations were not eligible for the Smart on Juvenile Justice:  Reducing Out-of-Home Placement grant program because the funding  stream that supports the program—unallocated funds from Title II of the  Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act—can only be awarded  to states that are in compliance with the four core requirements of the  act. For the other 2 grant programs, DOJ OJP officials explained that  because the focus of these programs is statewide or countywide,  eligibility under this program was limited to states and local units of  government that have developed a statewide or countywide plan to  reduce recidivism and improve outcomes for youth in contact with the  juvenile justice system. These officials added that tribal governments  would not have the capacity to respond to the requirements of these  programs as designed since tribal juvenile justice systems operate  differently than states and counties.

The one HHS program that neither tribal governments nor Native  American organizations were eligible to apply for was the Preventing  Teen Dating and Youth Violence by Addressing Shared Risk and  Protective Factors program, administered by the Centers for Disease  Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC officials explained that this grant  program was limited to funding to local, city, and county public health  departments with a demonstrated high burden of violence and the highest  capacity to prevent teen dating violence and youth violence based on  research findings on teen dating violence and youth violence prevention,  as well as lessons learned from their previous investments in these areas.  These officials also said that CDC encourages local, city, and county  public health departments to work with tribal populations in the area.

Tribal Governments and Native American Organizations Generally Applied for Grant Programs that Specified Tribes or Native Americans as a Primary Beneficiary in Sample We Reviewed

Although tribal governments and Native American organizations were  eligible for almost all of the DOJ and HHS grant programs we identified,  we found in a non-generalizable sample of applications we reviewed that  these organizations applied primarily for grant programs that specified  tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary. Specifically, for the  applications we reviewed for 18 DOJ grant programs, tribal governments  and Native American organizations accounted for over 99 percent of the  applications for the 5 grant programs within the sample that specified  tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary and approximately 1 percent of the applications in the 13 DOJ grant programs that did not  specify them as a primary beneficiary. See figure 16.

In our review of applications for 19 HHS grant programs, tribal  governments and Native American organizations accounted for 90  percent of the applications for the 6 grant programs in the sample that  specified tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary. However,  they accounted for only 2 percent of the applications for the 13 HHS grant  programs in our sample that did not specify tribes or Native Americans as  a primary beneficiary. See figure 17.

DOJ and HHS officials identified various reasons why tribal governments  and Native American organizations might not apply for grant programs  that do not specify tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary:

Tribal governments and Native American organizations might not be  aware that they are eligible to apply for certain grant programs.

Tribal governments and Native American organizations might believe  that that their applications to a grant program that do not specify tribes  or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary will not be competitive  with other applications. For example, DOJ OJP officials told us that  tribes may have concerns about devoting resources to preparing  applications for such grant programs because they may not end up  being successful.

Tribal governments and Native American organizations might prefer to  apply for those grant programs that specify tribes or Native Americans  as a primary beneficiary. For example, DOJ OJP officials stated that  tribes might be familiar and comfortable with applying for the CTAS, a  single application for the majority of DOJ’s tribal grant programs. In  addition, HHS CDC officials stated that more tribes apply and  successfully compete for grant programs that specify tribes or Native  Americans as a primary beneficiary because they are designed  specifically for tribal populations, thus allowing for “culturally- appropriate activities,” which may include healing and religious  practices that promote wellness, language integration that promote  cultural sustainability and identity, and traditional storytelling that  promotes life lessons and teachings.

Officials from 10 tribal governments and Native American organizations  also provided perspectives on whether or not a grant program’s focus on  tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary affected their decision  to apply for the program. Officials from 6 of 10 of the tribal governments  and Native American organizations indicated that they would consider  any grant program that met the needs of their communities, although  officials from 3 of these 6 indicated a preference in some instances for  grant programs that focused on tribes or Native Americans. Officials from  the remaining 4 of 10 tribal governments and Native American  organizations indicated that a grant program’s focus or lack thereof on  tribes or Native Americans could affect their ability to apply for it.

For example, officials from one federally recognized Oregon tribe  explained that their tribe does not apply for grant programs that do not  specify tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary because their  applications are not typically competitive in a state or nationwide applicant  pool. Instead, they said that their tribe applies for funding specific to their  community because they are more likely to succeed with those  applications. These officials also said that a benefit of applying for grant  programs that specify tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary  is that technical assistance provided to grant recipients is tailored to  tribes. Officials from another federally recognized tribe in Oklahoma noted  that their tribe prefers to apply for grant programs that specify tribes or  Native Americans as primary beneficiaries due to the limited resources  they have available to prepare grant applications, as well as the high level  of competition for nationwide federal grant programs. Finally, officials  from a tribal nonprofit corporation in Alaska that represents several  federally recognized tribes explained that although their decision to apply  for any federal grant program depends on the needs of their community,  grant programs that specify tribes or Native Americans as a primary  beneficiary understand the challenges of tribal communities, particularly  living in rural environments and having to travel vast distances to  implement grant program funding.

Officials from Tribal Governments, Native American Organizations, and Agencies Noted Factors that Affect Successful Application for Grant Programs

Officials from tribal governments and Native American organizations that  applied for federal grant programs that could help prevent or address  delinquency among Native American youth, as well as DOJ and HHS  officials, identified various factors they believe affect the ability of tribal  governments and Native American organizations to successfully apply for  federal grant programs. For example, some tribal governments and  Native American organizations found being able to call or meet with  federal officials during the application process to be helpful but that short  application deadlines are a challenge. Additionally, a non-generalizable  sample of DOJ and HHS summary statements that provide peer review  comments for unsuccessful applications that tribal governments and  Native American organizations submitted for these grant programs noted  various weaknesses within these unsuccessful applications.

Perspectives from tribal governments and Native American  organizations. We collected perspectives from a non-generalizable  sample of 10 tribal governments and Native American organizations on  what federal practices they find helpful or challenging when applying for  grant programs related to preventing or addressing delinquency among  Native American youth. Regarding helpful federal practices during the  application process, the tribal governments and Native American  organizations most frequently responded that they found being able to  call or meet with federal officials if they had questions about or need help  on their application particularly helpful. For example, representatives from one federally recognized tribe in Nevada explained some agencies have  help desks that provide a systematic walkthrough of technical issues  applicants might encounter when applying for grant programs. In addition,  officials from a tribal nonprofit corporation in Alaska that represents  several federally recognized tribes stated attending grantee meetings and  having face-to-face contact with agency officials to ask questions was  very useful when applying for a particular HHS award.

Officials from 9 of the 10 tribal governments and Native American  organizations provided the following perspectives on the biggest  challenges they have faced when applying to receive federal grant  program funding.

The window available for applying for federal grant programs is too  short. Six of 9 tribal governments and Native American organizations  noted this as a challenge. For example, officials from a federally  recognized tribe based in the Southwest said that the tribe’s biggest  challenge is a short turnaround, usually 4 to 8 weeks, from a grant  program’s funding opportunity announcement to its deadline.  Similarly, officials from a federally recognized tribe in Oklahoma  suggested that federal agencies provide longer application periods for  grant programs. These officials added that more time would allow the  tribes to coordinate amongst themselves better, prepare stronger  applications, and obtain the necessary tribal approvals for a grant  program.

Collecting data for grant program applications is difficult. Four of 9  tribal governments and Native American organizations we spoke with  noted this as a challenge. For example, a representative from a  federally recognized tribe in Nevada stated that the tribe needs  accurate data for its grant applications to describe the tribe and its  needs, yet the tribe does not currently have quality data on issues  such as substance abuse or youth employment. In addition, officials  from a tribal nonprofit corporation in Alaska that represents several  federally recognized tribal governments told us that the biggest  challenge in preparing a CTAS application is collecting data specific to  their tribes’ region. These officials explained that for reports on  juvenile justice, their tribes’ region is sometimes grouped with another  area, which makes it difficult to extrapolate data specific to their tribes.  According to these officials, due to the challenges in obtaining these  data, preparing grant applications to address gaps and for services  needed is difficult.

Scarcity of grant writers and other personnel makes it difficult to  complete a quality application. Four of 9 tribal governments and  Native American organizations noted this as a challenge. For  example, officials from a federally recognized tribe in Oklahoma said  that not having a grant writer is a significant challenge for the tribe  when applying for federal grant programs. These officials mentioned  that additional training sessions on grant writing and feedback from  grant reviewers would help the tribe prepare stronger applications. In  addition, representatives from a federally recognized tribe in Oregon  stated that they encounter challenges with the research and  evaluation requirements of some grant programs because hiring  someone to fulfill this role can take 2 to 3 months and the number of  qualified individuals in their service area is limited.

Perspectives from DOJ and HHS officials. We also obtained  perspectives from officials from DOJ OJP and seven HHS operating  divisions on reasons why some tribal governments and Native American  organizations might be more successful than others in applying for federal  funding, as well as the challenges these entities face when applying for  federal funding. According to DOJ and HHS officials, some of the  reasons why some tribal governments and Native American organizations  might be more successful than others are in applying for federal funding  include the following:

Larger and better-resourced tribal governments and Native American  organizations are more successful at applying for federal funding. For  example, DOJ OJP officials explained that larger tribes with more  resources are more successful at applying successfully for grant  programs because they are able to hire grant writers to assist with  applications. In addition, officials from HHS’s SAMHSA noted that  successful applicants are usually larger tribes that have ample  resources and experienced staff to write proposals for federal funding.  HHS Centers for Disease Control officials stated that larger and  better-resourced tribes with sufficient public health infrastructure and  capacity tend to apply more and to be more competitive when they do.

Tribal governments and Native American organizations that have  received federal funding before are more likely to be successful again.  Specifically regarding the CTAS program, DOJ OJP officials explained  that once tribes are successful at one CTAS application, they are  typically successful on subsequent CTAS submissions because they  use the successful application as a template. In addition, officials from  the HHS’s Indian Health Service explained that tribes that are repeat  grantees might be more likely to submit applications to even more  grants because they are well-versed in the process. Moreover,  officials from SAMHSA explained that tribes that have previously  received federal funding might be better equipped to document their  experience in a specific area in subsequent grant applications.

According to agency officials, one of the biggest organizational  challenges that tribal governments and Native American organizations  encounter when applying to receive federal grant program funding is  obtaining and retaining staff. For example, officials from HHS’s National  Institutes of Health stated that the limited scientific and grant writing staff,  as well as high staff turnover within tribes pose the biggest challenges  they face when applying for federal funding. Officials from HHS’s CDC  and Administration for Children and Families operating divisions also  identified limited grant writing staff as one of the biggest challenges that  tribal governments and Native American organizations face when  applying to receive federal funding from grant programs. Moreover,  officials from HHS’s SAMHSA explained that tribes have difficulty finding  qualified staff to live and work in the remote areas where many tribes are  located. Finally, DOJ OJP officials explained that some tribes might not  have sufficient resources more generally to put together a competitive  application due to specific tribal government structures and justice  systems being relatively new compared to state and local governments.

Review of summary statements on unsuccessful applications. We  reviewed a sample of 29 DOJ summary statements from fiscal years  2015 through 2017 that provided peer review comments for unsuccessful  applications that tribal governments and Native American organizations  submitted for the grant programs we identified. These summary  statements most frequently cited the following overall weaknesses within  the unsuccessful applications from tribal governments and Native  American organizations:

Application contained unclear or insufficient details on how the  applicant would implement or achieve outcomes of the proposed  program (19 of 29 peer review summary statements);

Application contained unclear or insufficient details on how the  applicant would measure the success or ensure the sustainability of  the proposed program (15 of 29 peer review summary statements);

Application contained unclear or insufficient details on the budget of  the proposed program (14 of 29 peer review summary statements);

Applicant submitted a poorly written or organized application (12 of 29  peer review summary statements);

Application contained unclear or insufficient data/statistical information  to support the proposed program (12 of 29 peer review summary  statements); and

Application contained unclear or insufficient details on the goals and  objectives of the proposed program (11 of 29 peer review summary  statements).

We also reviewed a sample of 30 HHS peer review summary statements  from fiscal years 2015 through 2017 provided to tribal governments and  Native American organizations that unsuccessfully submitted applications  for the grant programs we identified. Specifically, all of these statements  contained a section that evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of the  applicant’s proposed approach or plan for implementing the grant  program funding. These 30 statements most frequently cited the following  weaknesses in that section:  Insufficient details regarding activities or strategies of proposed  approach or plan (24 of 30 peer review summary statements);  Insufficient details on the goals or objectives of the proposed  approach or plan (12 of 30 peer review summary statements);  Insufficient details on the potential partners or stakeholders involved  in the proposed approach or plan (12 of 30 peer review summary  statements);  Insufficient linkages between various elements in proposal or plan (11  of 30 peer review summary statements);  Insufficient details on the project timeline presented within the  proposed approach or plan (9 of 30 peer review summary  statements); and  Insufficient details on how the applicant organization would staff the  proposed approach or plan (8 of 30 peer review summary  statements).

We asked officials from the tribal governments and Native American  organizations from which we collected perspectives how useful they  found the feedback federal agencies provided through peer review  comments or other means on unsuccessful grant program applications  since fiscal year 2015. Some tribal governments and Native American  organizations found the feedback useful while others noted that feedback  was sometimes not particularly helpful. For example, officials from a tribal  university affiliated with a federally recognized tribe based in the  Southwest noted that they have received helpful feedback on  unsuccessful applications through e-mail correspondence. However,  officials from a tribal nonprofit corporation in Alaska that represents  several federally recognized tribes noted that the peer review feedback  they received was inconsistent year to year. Meanwhile, officials from a  federally recognized tribe in Oklahoma noted that they have found the  peer review feedback to be helpful overall and that they use the feedback  to improve their weaknesses and reinforce their strengths when  submitting future applications.

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ, HHS, DOI, the Administrative  Office of the United States Courts, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and  the Department of Education for review and comment. DOJ, DOI, and the  Administrative Office of the United States Courts provided technical  comments that we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees and the Attorney General, Secretary of Health and Human  Services, Secretary of the Interior, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  Gretta L. Goodwin at (202) 512-8777 or GoodwinG@gao.gov. Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made significant  contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report addresses (1) what available data show about the number and  characteristics of Native American youth in the federal, state and local,  and tribal justice systems; and (2) what discretionary grant programs  federal agencies fund that could help prevent or address delinquency  among Native American youth, and the extent to which tribal  governments and Native American organizations have access to them.

To address the first objective, we obtained and analyzed record-level and  summary data from federal, state and local, and tribal justice systems  from 2010 through 2016. Figure 18 illustrates the data sources we  included in our report for each phase of the justice process (arrest,  adjudication, and confinement) in each justice system (federal, state and  local, and tribal). Generally, state and local entities include those  managed by states, counties, or municipalities.

As figure 18 illustrates, we utilized a number of data sources. When  analyzing the data, certain characteristics and a number of  methodological decisions were applicable to multiple data sources:

Generally, state and local data we obtained were maintained by  calendar year. In contrast, federal data were maintained by fiscal  year. For purposes of this report, we refer where appropriate to  calendar years or fiscal years in presenting the results of our analysis.

Generally, the record-level and summary data we analyzed included  information about youth who had come into contact with the justice  systems, such as their age, race, gender, type of offense, and the  year they came into contact with the justice system.

For purposes of our analysis, we defined youth to include persons  who were under 18 years of age at the time of arrest, adjudication, or  confinement, unless otherwise noted. In many instances, the  agencies calculated the youth’s age for us and placed the record in  one of the following age categories: under 13, 13-14, and 15-17.

For purposes of our analysis, we identified Native American youth as  defined by each data source and identified by the agencies providing  the data. For example, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Federal  Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)  Summary Reporting System (SRS) data uses the race category  “American Indian or Alaska Native” and includes persons having  origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America  (including Central America) and who maintain tribal affiliation or  community attachment. In comparison, the Executive Office for United  States Attorneys (EOUSA), in its prosecution data, defines the term  Indian based on statute and case law, which generally considers an  Indian to have both a significant degree of Indian blood and a  connection to a federally recognized tribe. If a record did not contain  race information we did not include the record in any our analysis.

In regard to type of offense, unless otherwise noted, we obtained and  analyzed information about the lead or most serious offense  associated with the youth who came into contact with the federal or  state and local justice systems. The data sources contained hundreds  of specific offenses, such as simple assault, illegal entry, and rape. To  assist our analysis of the data, we took the following steps:  1.  We categorized specific offenses for all data sources into 1 of 22  offense categories, such as assault, immigration, and sex offense.  To determine the 22 categories we considered categories used in  our prior work and consulted FBI’s UCR offense codes. The  placement of specific offenses into offense categories was carried  out by an analyst, reviewed by additional analysts, and confirmed  by an attorney.  2.  We grouped the offense categories into five broad categories— drug and alcohol, person, property, public order, and other. To  determine the five broad categories we considered categories  presented in National Center for Juvenile Justice’s (NCJJ) annual  Juvenile Court Statistics reports. The placement of offense  categories into a broad category was carried out by an analyst  and confirmed by an attorney.

Table 18 describes the five broad categories and 22 offense categories.

Some data sources contained additional information about youth, such as  the youths’ geographic location (i.e., state or U.S. Circuit), outcome of the  youths’ involvement with the justice system (e.g., adjudicated delinquent;  placed in a facility or on probation), type of facility where the youth was  placed (e.g., private, state, tribal), length of sentence, distance between  youth’s residence and facility, and time in confinement.

Generally, record-level information contained in these data systems are  collected when the youth comes into contact with the justice system. In  some instances, youth provide certain information (e.g., gender and race)  to justice system officials. In other cases, justice officials obtain  information from documentation associated with the youth, such as  identification documents (e.g., tribal enrollment certifications) or pre- sentence investigation reports. Several of the record-level data sets we  obtained were administrative data maintained by agencies. These data  generally included information generated as cases are handled and are  used to help the agency manage its operations.

In particular, we obtained and analyzed record-level and summary data  from the following federal, state and local, and tribal data sources:

Record-level data from four DOJ agencies:  1.  The United States Marshals Service’s (USMS) Justice Detainee  Information System. This data system is USMS’s case  management system for prisoners in custody, among other things.  USMS provided us a data set with 1,589 records for youth  admitted into USMS custody after being arrested by a law  enforcement agency (LEA). Our analysis focused on the following  key variables: fiscal year of custody start date, race, gender, age  category, original offense description, arresting agency, and  circuit. USMS collects information about individuals admitted into  custody. USMS receives youth from various LEAs and collects  information on the LEA that arrests the individual. We limited our  analysis to youth arrested by federal agencies (e.g. FBI) and did  not include youth who had been arrested by non-federal LEAs  (e.g., municipalities). USMS custody data may not represent all  individuals arrested by federal agencies, but identifies a minimum  number of arrests for a given period. We used USMS custody  data because we did not identify a data source for all federal  arrests. The data USMS provided us was limited to individuals  who were under 18 when they were admitted to USMS custody  and USMS determined the age category for each record.  2.  EOUSA’s Legal Information Office Network System. This data  system was the EOUSA’s case management system for tracking  declinations and litigation in criminal matters and cases, among  other things. EOUSA provided us a data set with 2,361 records  for suspects received. Our analysis of EOUSA data focused on  the following key variables: fiscal year suspect was received,  Native American status, age category, lead charge, circuit, and  disposition.

EOUSA used multiple variables from its Legal Information  Office Network System to confirm that the individual was  under 18. However, for 25 percent of the records (583 of  2,361), EOUSA could not provide an age category for the  juvenile because the age was either unknown or EOUSA  officials questioned the age information. When we analyzed  the data by age categories, we excluded records with  unknown or unreliable age categories. However, we included  all EOUSA records when we analyzed other variables  contained in the EOUSA data (e.g., offense).

To analyze the offense associated with the individual, we  used EOUSA’s “lead charge” variable which consists of  statutory citations. To identify the offense, we researched  each statutory citation.  3.  The Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) Census of Juveniles in  Residential Placement (CJRP). This data source contains data  collected through a biennial census of state and local (not federal)  residential facilities housing youth in 2011, 2013 and 2015 that  was administered by the United States Census Bureau on behalf  of OJP. OJP provided us a data set with 165,141 records. Our  analysis of CJRP data focused on the following key variables:  calendar year, age group, race, facility state, gender, most serious  offense, agency type (who placed the individual), facility type, and  time in placement.

State and local facilities include those managed by states,  counties, municipalities, and tribal governments as well as  private facilities, among others. CJRP has historically achieved  response rates near or above 90 percent. However,  participation in the CJRP is voluntary and response rates from  tribal facilities have been lower. The source for the information  collected by the census, such as age, were administrative  records maintained by individual residential facilities. These  data include youth who were in custody on the day of the  census.

We limited our analysis of the CJRP data to (1) individuals  who were under the age of 18 on the date of the census and  (2) youth who had been adjudicated—we did not include youth  who were awaiting a trial or whose adjudication was  pending. Finally, we excluded youth who were located in the  Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico because no other data set  appeared to include data for these geographic areas. The data  set we analyzed contained 98,830 records.  4.  Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) SENTRY data system. This  system is BOP’s case management system for tracking  information (e.g., admission type and sentencing) about prisoners  in BOP’s custody. For this review, BOP provided two data sets.

One data set was limited to youth who were adjudicated and  sentenced to a facility overseen by BOP and contained 1,324  records. Our analysis of these BOP data was focused on the  following key variables: fiscal year sentenced, age category,  race, offense, and sentence length. BOP determined the age  category for each record and the data were limited to  individuals who were under 18.

The second data set included youth who were admitted into a  facility overseen by BOP but were not necessarily adjudicated  and contained 925 records. Our analysis of these BOP data  was focused on the following key variables: fiscal year  admitted, race, distance, and admission assignment. BOP  ensured the data were limited to individuals who were under  18. BOP provided the distance information by calculating the  distance between a juvenile’s residence and the facility where  a juvenile was placed. To analyze the distance information we  created two categories of admission types: juveniles under the  supervision of the United States Probation Office and juveniles  in custody of BOP.

Our analysis of these four DOJ data sources was limited through 2016  because when we initiated our analysis in April 2017 it was the most  current data available.

Record-level data from the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Bureau  of Indian Affairs (BIA) for youth arrested and admitted to three BIA- operated juvenile detention centers. We reviewed juvenile detention  documents maintained by the three centers: Northern Cheyenne,  Standing Rock, and Ute Mountain Ute. The types of documents  included admission sheets and arrestee custody receipts, among  others. We created a data set of admissions to the three centers using  information contained in the documents provided. Our data set  contained 956 records and included the following variables: unique ID,  admission date, and charges (offense). Documents contained  information about multiple offenses for individual admissions and did  not identify the most serious or lead offense. As such, we included all  offenses in our analysis of the centers’ information. Our analysis of  this information was limited to 2012 through 2016 because records  prior to 2012 were not available for any center when we initiated our  analysis in April 2017. However, our data set does not contain records  for 2012 for the Ute Mountain Ute center because that center did not  have any of the source documents before 2013. Also, our data set did  not contain records for 2012 through 2015 for the Standing Rock  Youth Services Center because that center opened in May 2016.

Summary data from DOJ’s FBI UCR SRS. The FBI’s primary objective  is to generate a reliable set of crime statistics for use in law  enforcement administration, operation, and management. FBI  provided us with 7 years of data in separate annual files, which initially  contained 1,529,736 gender-specific records. To analyze race, we  summarized the data across gender. In addition, the records included  summary records for drug and gambling offenses as well as records  for specific drug offenses (e.g., sale, possession) and gambling  offenses (e.g., bookmaking, lottery). To prevent over-counting, we  excluded records with specific information from our analysis. These  steps reduced our data set to 582,089 records with which we  performed our analysis of UCR SRS data, which focused on the  following key variables: calendar year, race, state, and offense.

The majority of law enforcement agencies submit arrest data to the  FBI through the UCR program. In 2016, about 90 percent of city,  county, university and college, state, tribal, and federal agencies  eligible to participate in the UCR Program submitted data (16,782 of  18,481). Although UCR SRS predominantly contains data from state  and local LEAs, some federal and tribal LEAs report data into SRS.  Agencies submit data monthly that must meet UCR’s data quality  guidelines, such as using uniform definitions. There is no available  data for the state of Florida because, according to DOJ officials,  Florida does not follow UCR guidelines and reports only arrest totals  which cannot be housed in the UCR SRS database. Further, a few  states reported limited arrest data during the scope of our review  (e.g., Illinois). Our analysis of these data was limited through 2016  because when we initiated our analysis in April 2017 it was the most  current data available.

Summary data from the NCJJ Easy Access to Juvenile Court  Statistics (NCJJ’s juvenile court data) which is supported through  funding from DOJ’s OJP. NCJJ obtains case-level and court-level  data from state and local juvenile courts. This online juvenile court  data is an interactive web-based application that allows users to  analyze the actual databases that NCJJ uses to produce its annual  Juvenile Court Statistics reports. The summary data available  represents national estimates of delinquency cases handled by U.S.  courts with juvenile jurisdiction. Our analysis of these data was limited  to 2010 through 2014 because this was the most current data  available when we conducted our analysis. The summary data we  downloaded contained 86,400 cases spanning calendar years 2010  through 2014. Our analysis of NCJJ’s juvenile court data online  focused on the following key variables: calendar year, race, offense,  gender, and age.

Summary data included in DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reports,  such as the Jails in Indian Country report from 2016. This report  provides information gathered from Bureau of Justice Statistics’  annual survey of Indian country jails, and includes all Indian country  correctional facilities operated by tribal authorities or BIA. Our analysis  of these data was limited to the survey reports covering years 2014,  2015, and 2016, and contained the number of Native American youth  confined in tribal operated jails in Indian country as of June each year.

We assessed the reliability of the record-level and some of the summary  data by conducting electronic testing of the data and interviewing  knowledgeable agency officials about the data systems. We assessed the  reliability of the remaining summary data by interviewing knowledgeable  agency officials about the summary data. We determined that the record-level and summary data sources included in this report were sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. We determined that  some record-level and summary data sources, such as certain data  related to arrests and sentencing information, contained information  already provided by other data sources or contained too few Native  American youth observations to provide reliable, reportable information.  We did not include these data sources in our report. We also determined  that some data variables in certain data sources were not reliable for our  purposes. For example, two data sources did not contain reliable  information for the race of individuals. We did not include these data  sources in our report.

For each data source, we calculated the number and percent of Native  American and non-Native American youth involved at each phase of the  justice process (arrest, referral for adjudication, and confinement) for all  three justice systems (federal, state and local, and tribal), where data  were available. Generally, non-Native American records included Asian,  Black, and White. Some data sources included other race categories— such as Pacific Islander and Hispanic. We then analyzed the  characteristics of youth involvement with the justice system, such as the  youths’ race, age category, gender, type of offense, geographic location,  outcome of the youths’ involvement with the justice system, type of facility  where the youth was placed (e.g., private, state, tribal), length of  sentence, distance between youth’s residence and facility, and time in  confinement, where data were available. If a record was missing a value  for the characteristic we were analyzing (e.g., race, offense, gender, or  age)—for example, the value was either blank or was “unknown”—we did  not include the record in the analysis of that characteristic.

We also analyzed the representation of Native American youth involved  with the federal and state and local justice systems by comparing justice  system data to 2010 U.S. Decennial Census information and U.S. Census  estimates from 2011 to 2016. Specifically, for the federal system, we  identified the representation of Native American youth in USMS’s custody  data, EOUSA’s adjudication data, and BOP’s confinement data for fiscal  years 2010 through 2016. We then identified the representation of Native  American youth among the total youth population for the United States  from the 2010 U.S. Decennial Census (as of April 1, 2010) and its  updated estimates from 2011 through 2016 (as of July 1 for each year).  Using these data, we compared the representation of Native American  youth among each component of the federal justice system (i.e., USMS  custody, EOUSA adjudication, and BOP confinement) to the total youth  population for the United States.

Similarly, we also compared the representation of Native American youth  by individual states. To do this, we identified the representation of Native  American youth in FBI’s UCR SRS arrest data as well as CJRP’s  confinement data for individual states. We then identified the  representation of Native American youth among the youth population for  individual states from the U.S. Census’s 2010 decennial data and its  updated estimates from 2011 through 2016. Using these data, we  compared the representation of Native American youth among state and  local justice systems (i.e., FBI’s UCR SRS arrest and CJRP’s  confinement data) to the representation of Native Americans among the  youth population for individual states.

Because there is no single, centralized data source that contains data for  youth involved in all justice systems (federal, state and local, tribal) and  across all phases of the justice process (arrest, adjudication,  confinement), it is not possible to track individuals through all phases of  the justice system or identify the number of unique youth who have come  into contact with the justice systems. Further, data are not comparable  across data sources because data sources vary in how they define Native  American and how they determine whether youth are Native American.  Some federal agencies, such as USMS and BOP, share a unique  identifier for an individual within the federal data sources. However, for  purposes of this review and given privacy concerns related to juvenile  data, we were unable to track individuals across phases of the federal  justice system.

We also collected perspectives from agency officials and five Native  American organizations regarding factors that might contribute to the data  characteristics we observed. We selected the five Native American  organizations to include organizations whose mission and scope focuses  in whole or in part on Native American juvenile justice issues and that  have a national or geographically-specific perspective. The views of these  organizations are not generalizable to all Native American organizations  but provide valuable insights.

To address our second objective on discretionary grant programs that  federal agencies fund that could help prevent or address delinquency  among Native American youth, we analyzed discretionary grants and  cooperative agreements available for funding from fiscal years 2015  through 2017. To identify the discretionary grants and cooperative  agreements, we conducted a keyword search of “youth or juvenile” in  Grants.gov—an online repository that houses information on over 1,000  different grants across federal grant-making agencies. For the purposes  of this review, we define “discretionary grant programs” to include both  discretionary grants and cooperative agreements. We focused on  discretionary grants and cooperative agreements because federal  agencies generally award them to an array of entities based on a  competitive review process, whereas federal agencies are generally  required by statute to limit awards from the other types of grants to  specific entities, typically U.S. state, local, and territorial governments. We  then reviewed the search results of the three agencies with the highest  number of grant program matches—DOI, DOJ, and the Department of  Health and Human Services (HHS). Two analysts independently read  the Grants.gov summary descriptions of the programs included in these  search results and selected programs for which the description related to  risk or protective factors discussed in the DOJ Office of Juvenile  Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Tribal Youth in the  Juvenile Justice System literature review;  risk or protective factors identified in the July 2015 Technical  Assistance Network for Children’s Behavioral Health brief on  American Indian and Alaska Native Youth in the Juvenile Justice  System;  juvenile justice system reform principles, findings, or  recommendations identified in Chapter 4 of the November 2014  Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on American Indian/Alaska  Native Children Exposed to Violence report, Ending Violence so  Children Can Thrive;or proposals to reform the juvenile justice system identified in Chapter 6  of the November 2013 Indian Law and Order Commission Report to  the President and Congress of the United States, A Roadmap for  Making Native America Safer.

We also used the following principles to identify and select relevant grant  programs:

We excluded grant programs that focused specifically on victims as  opposed to at risk youth or offenders.

We included grant programs that specify tribes or Native Americans if  the program’s funding opportunity announcement mentioned youth  explicitly.

We included grant programs that do not specify tribes or Native  Americans as a primary beneficiary if the program’s funding  opportunity announcement mentioned youth explicitly and if the  program focused primarily on serving youth populations.

After two analysts independently completed their initial determinations of  which grant programs they considered relevant, they either confirmed  their agreement or discussed any differences of opinion until they reached a consensus. If they could not reach agreement on whether a  given program was relevant, a third, supervisory analyst made the final  determination.

We also reviewed the grant program funding opportunity announcements  on HHS and DOJ’s websites and worked with officials from these  agencies to identify any additional grant programs that could be relevant  for the purposes for our review. We provided a list of the grant programs  that we identified to DOJ and HHS for confirmation both during and after  fiscal year 2017. Our final list of grant programs includes 122 programs.  Despite these steps, it is possible that our analysis did not identify all  relevant grant programs.

We next determined which of 122 grant programs we identified specified  tribes or Native Americans as a primary beneficiary and which did not by  reviewing funding opportunity announcements for the programs to  determine if the funding opportunity announcement’s title, executive  summary, overview, or purpose specifically referenced tribes or Native  Americans as the main or one of few beneficiaries of the proposed grant  program funding. After a first analyst completed initial determinations of  which of the grant programs specified tribes or Native Americans as a  primary beneficiary, a second analyst reviewed those determinations and  either confirmed agreement or discussed any differences of opinion until  both analysts reached a consensus. We categorized each program into  one or more issue areas (e.g., violence or trauma, substance abuse,  mentoring, etc.). We used the risk and protective factors discussed in the  OJJDP Tribal Youth in the Juvenile Justice System literature review as  initial issue areas and added additional areas, as needed, for programs  that did not fit within the initial areas.

To determine the extent to which tribal governments or Native American  organizations had access to the 122 grant programs, we reviewed both  the eligibility of those organizations to apply for the grant programs and  their level of success in applying for the grant programs. We defined  “tribal governments” as the governing bodies of federally recognized  tribes. We defined “Native American organizations” as organizations  affiliated with federally recognized tribes, such as tribal colleges and  universities, as well as non-tribal organizations that focus on serving  Native American populations, such as urban Indian organizations.

To determine whether tribal governments or Native American  organizations were eligible to apply for the grant programs we identified,  an analyst first reviewed the eligibility information within each of the grant  program’s funding opportunity announcements. In instances where the  analyst could not definitively determine whether tribal government or  Native American organizations were eligible to apply for a given grant  program, the analyst reviewed the program’s Grants.gov synopsis or  followed up with agency officials. After the analyst made an initial  determination of eligibility, a second analyst reviewed those  determinations and either confirmed agreement or discussed any  differences of opinion until both analysts reached a consensus. We also  consulted with DOJ and HHS officials regarding those grant programs for  which tribal governments or Native American organizations were ineligible  to apply to determine the reasons why.

To determine tribal governments and Native American organizations’  level of success in applying for the grant programs, we analyzed fiscal  year 2015 through 2017 award data for the programs to determine the  extent to which tribal governments and Native American organizations  received funding from them. We also reviewed a non-generalizable  sample of applications from 37 grant programs to determine the extent to  which tribal governments and Native American organizations applied for  these grant programs. Specifically, we requested the sample of  applications from each of the five DOJ OJP offices and bureaus and  seven HHS operating divisions from which we identified the 122 grant  programs that either had a relatively larger estimated total program  funding amount on Grants.gov for fiscal years 2015, 2016, or 2017 than  other grant programs within the same OJP offices or HHS operating  divisions or had specified tribes or Native Americans as a primary  beneficiary. We assessed the reliability of the data we used by  questioning knowledgeable officials. We determined that the data were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

To determine some of the factors that affected the ability of tribal  governments and Native American organizations to apply successfully for  grant programs that could help prevent or address delinquency among  Native American youth, we:  interviewed or received written responses from DOJ and HHS officials  to obtain their perspectives,  interviewed or received written responses from representatives from a  non-generalizable sample of 10 tribal governments and Native  American organizations that applied for or received funding from one  or more of the 122 grant programs, and  reviewed a non-generalizable sample of 29 DOJ and 30 HHS peer  review summary statements from unsuccessful applications that tribal  governments and Native American organizations submitted for  selected grant programs that we identified as relevant for the  purposes of this review.

We selected our non-generalizable sample of tribal governments and  Native American organizations to include those that received multiple  awards from relevant grant programs; tribal governments and Native  American organizations that applied unsuccessfully for more than one  relevant grant program; tribal governments with juvenile detention centers  with the highest average daily populations in 2016; and tribal  governments located in the states with the largest number of juvenile  offenders in residential placement per 100,000 juveniles for American  Indians according to the 2015 Easy Access to the Census of Juvenile  Residential Placement. We analyzed the results of our interviews with  representatives of the tribal governments and Native American  organizations as well as with agency officials to discern possible themes  regarding factors that affect tribal governments and Native American  organizations’ ability to apply successfully for the relevant grant programs  we identified.

We selected the non-generalizable sample of peer review summary  statements from grant programs that had a larger estimated total program  funding amount on Grants.gov for fiscal years 2015, 2016, or 2017 than  other grant programs within the same OJP offices or HHS operating  divisions or had specified tribes or Native Americans as a primary  beneficiary. However, if we could not identify an application from a tribal  government or Native American organization from a given grant program  from which we requested applications, we did not request peer review  summary statements from that program. We then conducted a content  analysis of the weaknesses noted in the statements submitted by tribal  governments or Native American organizations in order to discern  common themes.

The information we obtained from the agency officials as well as  representatives of the tribal governments and Native American  organizations cannot be generalized more broadly to all tribal  governments and Native American organizations or the applications they  submitted for federal funding from fiscal year 2015 through 2017.  However, the information provides important context and insights into the  challenges tribal governments and Native American organizations face in  applying for federal funding that could help prevent or address  delinquency among Native American youth, as well as some of the common weaknesses that DOJ and HHS peer reviewers identified in  unsuccessful applications from tribal governments and Native American  organizations.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2016 through  September 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Definitions and Agency Determinations of Native American Status in Data Sources

Appendix III: Actions Agencies Reported Taking Related to Selected Task Force and Commission Recommendations

The 2014 Attorney General Task Force report, Ending Violence so  Children Can Thrive and the 2013 Indian Law and Order Commission  report, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer, both recommended  actions related to Native American youth and youth justice issues. These  recommendations included actions federal agencies could take to  address some of the challenges noted in the reports, such as exposure to  violence, abuse and neglect, and poverty. Table 20 provides examples of  actions relevant federal agencies reported taking related to these  recommendations.

Appendix IV: Native American Youth Involvement with Tribal Justice Systems

Comprehensive data from tribal justice systems on the involvement of  Native American youth were not available. However, we identified and  reviewed a few data sources that provided certain insights about the  arrest, adjudication, and confinement of Native American youth by tribal  justice systems. Following is a summary of our analysis of data from  these sources.

Arrests. Although comprehensive data on the number of tribal law  enforcement agency (LEA) arrests were not available, we obtained and  reviewed admission records from three juvenile detention centers in  Indian country managed by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of  Indian Affairs (BIA). Based on those records, at least 388 Native  American tribal youth were admitted to these three facilities in 2016, as  shown in table 21. In the Northern Cheyenne facility for which we  obtained records for 5 years, the number of youth admitted increased  yearly between 2012 and 2016, from 14 to 204.

According to BIA officials, this growth in the number of youth admitted to  the Northern Cheyenne facility likely reflects an increase in admissions of  Native American youth from surrounding tribes. Specifically, because the  Northern Cheyenne facility is centrally located, they said it admits youth  from other tribes which have grown accustomed to sending their youth to  the facility. BIA officials also noted that the Northern Cheyenne facility  services an area where there is a high rate of delinquency among youth,  and because the facility works well with Native American youth struggling  with delinquency issues, many tribes elect to send their delinquent youth  to the facility. Further, since 2012, the Northern Cheyenne facility  increased its bed space and staff, thus increasing its capacity to admit  more youth, according to BIA officials.

Even though comprehensive tribal arrest data are not available, DOJ’s  Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is currently undertaking an effort to  increase collection of arrest data from tribal LEAs. Specifically, this data  collection activity is the Census of Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies.  This collection activity, which BJS plans to conduct in 2019, is to capture  information including tribal LEA workloads and arrests, tribal LEA access  to and participation in regional and national justice database systems,  and tribal LEA reporting of crime data into FBI databases.

Adjudication. Comprehensive data were not available to describe the  extent to which tribal courts processed Native American youth, or  adjudicated them delinquent or found them guilty. However, BJS  concluded a tribal court data collection effort—the National Survey of  Tribal Court Systems—in 2015. Through this survey, BJS gathered  information from more than 300 tribal courts and other tribal judicial  entities on their criminal, civil, domestic violence and juvenile caseloads,  and pretrial and probation programs, among other things. DOJ officials  told us that BJS has analyzed the data, and plans to release results in the  future.

Confinement. According to data published by DOJ’s Bureau of Justice  Statistics, the number of youth in Indian country jails declined from 190 in  2014 to 170 in 2016 (about an 11 percent decrease).

Appendix V: Selected Grant Programs That Could Help Prevent or Address Delinquency among Native American Youth

Appendix V: Selected Grant Programs That  Could Help Prevent or Address Delinquency  among Native American Youth Department of Justice (73 grant programs)

Office of Juvenile Justice  and Delinquency  Prevention (OJJDP)

Grant program specified  tribes or Native  Americans as a primary  beneficiary (Yes/No)?

Tribal government  or Native American  organizations  eligible to apply  (Yes/No)?

Office of Sex Offender  Sentencing, Monitoring,  Apprehending,  Registering, and Tracking  Department of Health and Human Services (49 grant programs)

Substance Abuse and  Mental Health Services  Administration  (SAMHSA)

Administration for  Children and Families  Administration for  Children and Families  Office of Minority Health  Yes  Office of Minority Health  Yes  Office of Minority Health  Yes  Office of Minority Health  Yes  Centers for Disease  Control and Prevention  (CDC)

For the purposes of the review, we define “tribal governments” as the governing bodies of federally  recognized tribes and “Native American organizations” as organizations affiliated with federally  recognized tribes, such as tribal colleges and universities, as well as non-tribal organizations that  focus on serving Native American populations, such as urban Indian organizations.  According to DOJ officials, the National Intertribal Youth Leadership Development Initiative grant  program had no successful applicants in fiscal year 2017.  grantees. Tribal governments and Native American organizations are eligible to apply for the Drug- Free Communities Support Program, thus making them potentially eligible for the Sober Truth on  Preventing Underage Drinking Act Grants program.  Health Resources Services Administration issued a fiscal year 2017 Behavioral Health Workforce  Education and Training for Paraprofessionals and Professionals funding opportunity announcement,  but according an agency official the fiscal year 2017 funding opportunity announcement does not  focus on professionals who provide services to youth, whereas the fiscal year 2016 funding  opportunity does.

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact name above, Taylor Matheson, Assistant  Director; Tonnye’ Conner-White, Analyst-in-Charge; Anne Akin; Steven  Rocker; and Emily Flores made key contributions to this report. Also  contributing were Jessica Ard; Melinda Cordero; Elizabeth Dretsch; Eric  Hauswirth; Kristy Love; Grant Mallie; Amanda Miller; Heidi Nielson; and  Claire Peachey.

Federal reports on Native American youth found challenges—such as poverty and exposure to violence—that can make them susceptible to being arrested, charged, or sentenced in the justice system.

Overall rates of Native American juvenile delinquency declined 2010-2016.

While most of the Native American youth in the system were at the state or local level, they were overrepresented in the federal system—likely due to federal jurisdiction on tribal lands.

We also found 122 federal grant programs to help address underlying challenges. Many factors affect grant application success, such as short deadlines.