Selection and Analysis of the Questions
The interviews lasted from 1-3 hours, and elicited both narrative (qualitative) and
numeric (quantitative) responses. Each of the interviewees was provided with and signed
a consent form. A copy of this form is attached toward the end of this Report as
Appendix C. All the narrative responses were recorded, transcribed, and coded using the
software program HyperResearch. This program enabled us to identify themes that
occurred throughout interviews and to determine and compare how certain groups
responded to similar or paired questions.
The interview instruments for each category of interviewee were similar and
designed to facilitate comparisons. We did make slight changes to adapt the instruments
for the reservation residents, the state or federal law enforcement personnel,
and the state
or federal criminal justice personnel. More significant differences in the interview
instruments were required to take into account the different jurisdictional arrangements
and attendant issues for Public Law 280 versus non-Public Law 280 tribes. For example,
for the non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions, we asked reservation residents questions about
the quality and availability of federal, rather than state or county, law enforcement and
criminal justice. Nonetheless, we strove to keep the instruments comparable. Copies of
the instruments used for reservation residents in Public Law 280 states and for law
enforcement officials in non-Public Law 280 states are attached as Appendices D, E and
F to provide illustrations of the types of instruments employed in the study.
45
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The interview questions were designed to help us determine the following:
• the availability of law enforcement services (patrolling, response time);
• the responsiveness of such services to community priorities;
· whether crime is reported, and, if it’s not regularly reported, the reasons
for the unwillingness to report;
• the nature and extent of communication between law enforcement officials
and tribal members about the law enforcement needs of the community;
• the quality of investigations;
• the nature and extent of respondents’ confusion or understanding about PL
280;
• any problems with “jurisdictional vacuums” because of PL 280;
• whether state law enforcement and criminal justice systems have been
insensitive, harassing, discriminatory, or overstepping jurisdictional limits;
• whether law enforcement problems have been especially acute about
certain types of crimes, such as homicide, domestic violence, or driving
under the influence;
· the degree of tribal members’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the
quality of law enforcement and criminal justice;
· funding and other resource problems associated with reservation law
enforcement and criminal justice;
• whether they believe that tribally based justice systems would do a better
job of achieving peace on the reservation.
Questions were formulated to enable the reservation residents to comment on law
enforcement and criminal justice personnel’s understanding and assessment of Public
Law 280, as well as vice versa. Such crossover questions also allowed us to explore the
possibility that different categories of respondents had substantially different perceptions
about the law and how it functions.
We then analyzed data from each tribal condition or situation under Public Law
280 (see Figure 3.1) to determine the source and nature of problems in achieving
effective law enforcement and criminal justice administration.
These analyses have
enabled us to determine which problems are present only under certain Public Law 280
conditions, and which ones are present in all Public Law 280 tribes compared with nonPublic Law 280 tribes. Likewise, through these comparisons among Public Law 280
tribes and non-Public Law 280 tribes, we can determine whether Public Law 280
contributes to successful, effective Indian country law enforcement, and, if so, under
what situations and conditions. These analyses contributed to answering three of our
research questions: Is law enforcement reasonably available or well funded in PL 280
states versus non PL 280 states and elsewhere in PL 280 states? What is the quality of
state law enforcement (e.g., cultural sensitivity, fairness of treatment)? Does state
jurisdiction inhibit or impair tribal legal development?
46
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Further questions were added for tribes exercising concurrent criminal
jurisdiction, to explore whether such overlapping authority creates new problems (such as
community dissatisfaction with tribal justice or coordination issues) or ameliorates
problems that otherwise would exist under Public Law 280 (for example, by affording
tribal communities greater control over law enforcement and criminal justice). For tribes
that had undergone the retrocession process, questions were added to determine the
circumstances that created the desire for retrocession, the actions taken to achieve
retrocession, and before and after comparisons regarding law enforcement and criminal
justice. Considering the interview results and additional research in secondary sources,
we produced case studies of concurrent tribal jurisdiction, cooperative agreements, and
retrocession as options to alleviate problems associated with Public Law 280. In the case
of cooperative agreements and retrocession, these studies went beyond the 17 tribes
included in our site visits.
These case studies are designed to provide answers to our fifth
research question: How effective have cooperative agreements, concurrent jurisdiction,
and retrocession efforts been to alleviate problems that may be associated with Public
Law 280?
All the interview instruments included quantitative questions (using a rating
system of 1-5), corresponding to the most important qualitative or narrative questions.
These quantitative questions allowed us to conduct statistical analyses. These analyses
included:
· comparisons between the types of respondents (reservation residents, law
enforcement personnel, criminal justice personnel) in Public Law 280
jurisdictions with their counterpart types in non-Public Law 280
jurisdictions;
· two-way comparisons of reservation residents with law enforcement
personnel and criminal justice personnel according to whether they are in
Public Law 280 jurisdictions;
· comparisons of each type of respondent in mandatory Public Law 280
jurisdictions with their counterpart types in optional Public Law 280
jurisdictions;
·
comparisons of each type of respondent in the three different kinds of nonPublic Law 280 jurisdictions (“pure,” excluded, retroceded);
· comparisons of types of respondents within individual states, where
sample sizes permitted;
· comparisons of each type of respondent in different mandatory Public Law
280 states, where sample sizes permitted;
· comparisons of each type of respondent about conditions before and after
retrocession.
47
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Reports of these analyses are woven together with our accounts of the corresponding
qualitative or narrative responses.
Our comparative method is driven by an appreciation
for the real differences that exist when states exercise criminal jurisdiction under Public
Law 280, as opposed to the more limited power that the federal government exercises
when it has criminal jurisdiction. However, we also undertake comparisons to determine
whether there are other factors — such as resource levels and the extent of accountability
to the tribe — that affect tribal satisfaction and the quality of reservation law
enforcement and criminal justice.
In addition to the rating questions, we also asked respondents to rank the offenses
appearing on a list we provided to them, according to two criteria: first, which offenses
occur most frequently in the community; second, which offenses receive the highest
priority from reservation law enforcement (state or county in the Public Law 280
jurisdictions, federal or tribal in the non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions). These
quantitative measures in turn enabled us to gauge the extent to which different types of
law enforcement and criminal justice personnel share the perceptions and priorities of
reservation residents. Also, comparisons of quantitative measures reporting on crime
occurrence and law enforcement crime priorities were analyzed to determine whether any
differences were statistically significant.
