Social and Economic Challenges on American Indian Reservations: Recent Statistical Study

October 24, 2017 Comments Off on Social and Economic Challenges on American Indian Reservations: Recent Statistical Study

Social and economic development on tribal land has always been difficult. The reasons for this are complex and rooted in historical and cultural conflict. But census and other survey data show that Indian tribes have made some gains in recent decades, while still lagging other minorities in the United States.

In 2014, Randall K.Q. Akee and Jonathan B. Taylor published a study entitled, Social and Economic Change on American Indian Reservations: A Databook of the U.S. Census and the American Community Survey, 1990-2010. Akee and Taylor concluded that, although American Indians living on reservations have a per capita income that is less than half the U.S. average, tribes have experience an increase in income and in other areas. A brief summary of their findings are:

  • By 2010, most tribes could be considered gaming tribes, and some 92% of Indians lived on reservations with gaming operations.
  • Per capita income and median household income increased in the 1990s, but slowed in the 2000s.
  • Gains in family and child poverty improved in the 1990s, but the improvement slowed in the 2000s.
  • Unemployment among Indians on tribal land fell in the 1990s and fell only slightly more in the 2000s, while labor force participation remained about the same from 1990 to 2010.
  • Housing improved on most Indian reservations, but remain worse than housing in the U.S. overall.
  • The number of Indians on tribal land with high school and college degrees has increased since 1990, but is not at parity with the U.S. average.

A summary of the Databook is available here. The full Databook is available here.

The improvement in these statistical measurements may well have been fostered by the policy of self-determination and the development of Indian gaming, but additional gains are necessary to improve social and economic conditions for Indians living on tribal land to a level on par with the U.S. average.

If you have any questions about federal Indian law, tribal law, or general business or employment law, please contact me at Mangum, Wall, Stoops & Warden, PLLC by using the contact information provided below.

James D. Griffith is an Associate Attorney at Mangum, Wall, Stoops & Warden, PLLC. He is licensed as an attorney in Arizona, the Navajo Nation, and the Hopi tribal courts. For information on the legal services offered by Mr. Griffith, please call (928) 779-6951 or toll free at (800) 514-6064 or through the “Contact Us” page at the website for Mangum, Wall, Stoops & Warden.

Advertisements

INDIAN COUNTRY INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS, 2011-2012: Annual Report to Congress by the U.S. Department of Justice

July 4, 2013 Comments Off on INDIAN COUNTRY INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS, 2011-2012: Annual Report to Congress by the U.S. Department of Justice

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently issued its first annual report on Indian Country Investigations and Prosecutions as required by the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010. The Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) is broad legislation designed to improve and enhance law enforcement in Indian country. Among many other measures to improve law enforcement, the TLOA seeks to hold federal agencies accountable by requiring the Department of Justice to file an annual report with Congress on criminal investigations and prosecutions in Indian country.[1]

The DOJ’s report, which covers only criminal matters reported to federal (and not tribal or state) agencies, reflects the increased priority placed on law enforcement efforts in Indian country and provides data showing an increase in the criminal caseload of federal agencies of 54% between 2009 and 2012. The report’s executive summary sets forth several major points based on the data:

  1. The FBI referred a “substantial majority” of Indian country criminal investigations to the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) for prosecution.
  2. The USAO prosecuted a “substantial majority” of the Indian country criminal cases it opened.
  3. When the FBI did not refer a case to the USAO (but instead closed its investigation), the most common reason was the FBI’s conclusion that no federal crime had occurred.
  4. When the FBI investigated a death, but closed the investigation without a referral to the USAO for prosecution, the primary reason was a conclusion that the death was due to an accident, suicide, or natural causes.
  5. In 2011, the USAO declined to prosecute just under 37% of Indian country criminal cases submitted to it for prosecution. In 2012, the USAO declined to prosecute approximately 31% of Indian country cases submitted. The two most common reasons for declining to prosecute were insufficient evidence (61% of cases in 2011 and 52% in 2012) and referral to another prosecuting authority (19% in 2011 and 24% in 2012).

A copy of the DOJ’s report is available here.

For more information on the legal services offered by the Law Office of James D. Griffith, P.L.L.C., please call (480) 275-8738 or use the “Contact Us” page on our website.

[1] Other steps to improve law enforcement under the TLOA include increased training and funding for Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal law enforcement officers, improved communication and coordination of efforts between the U.S. Attorney’s Office and tribal officials, increased sentencing authority granted to tribal courts, deputization of tribal prosecutors that allows prosecution in federal court, and prevention and treatment programs focusing on at-risk youth and drug and alcohol problems.

NAVAJO NATION HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MEETS WITH UN WORKING GROUP

June 9, 2013 Comments Off on NAVAJO NATION HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MEETS WITH UN WORKING GROUP

Earlier this month, Indian Country Today reported on a meeting between the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights and the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission (NNHRC). On April 27, the UN Working Group and NNHRC met to discuss the effects of two (non-Indian) business activities on the human rights of Navajos. First, the meeting addressed the use of treated wastewater to make snow at Arizona Snowbowl on the San Francisco Peaks. Second, the meeting examined the predatory auto sales and lending practices of Santander Consumer USA in light of language and cultural barriers.

The UN Working Group met with the NNHRC while on an official visit to the United States. After visiting other countries, the UN Working Group will prepare and publish a report, which is expected in June of 2014.

As part of an initial response to the meeting with NNHRC, the UN Working Group identified both governmental and business sector deficiencies with regard to the human rights of indigenous peoples. The initial response states:

While several federal initiatives and measures to protect the rights of indigenous peoples have been put in place in the United States in recent years, many stakeholders have indicated that more needs to be done to … protect the rights of indigenous peoples with regards to impacts of business activities . . . . We notice that when it comes to contexts such as those of the Native Americans, the weakness of protection afforded by the state against human rights violations is often regrettably reciprocated by commensurately poor understanding of the intent of corporate responsibility in respecting human rights. This results in significant challenges to turn appropriate human rights policies into effective practice.

In other words, the Working Group suggested that poor efforts by the federal government to protect the human rights of Native Americans are compounded by a poor understanding of the questionable (if not irresponsible) lending practices of some non-Indians businesses.

Although the federal government has some responsibility, could tribes also take steps to protect tribal members from predatory lending practices by non-Indians? Perhaps, yes. For example, a tribe could form a tribal corporation that offers auto and other loans to its members, thereby removing the non-Indian lender from the loan transaction. Existing tribal laws governing secured transactions, or adoption of the Model Tribal Secured Transactions Act (discussed here), could be used to enforce the loans while also protecting tribal members from non-Indian predatory lenders. Some means of regulating the tribal corporation (the lender) would be necessary, but that would be under the control of the tribe.

For more information on the legal services offered by the Law Office of James D. Griffith, P.L.L.C., please call (480) 275-8738 or use the “Contact Us” page on our website.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the Human Rights category at James D. Griffith, Associate Attorney.