Contact
• Paul D. Steele, Director
• Center for Justice Studies
• Morehead State University
• Executive Board Member
• Native American Children’s Alliance
• Society for the Study of Social Problems
• National Center on Adoption and Permanency
• pd.steele@moreheadstate.edu
“Let us put our minds together
and see what life we can make
for our children.”
--Sitting
Bull, Lakota, 1877
• Every child deserves a voice.
• Every child deserves to be heard.
• Every child deserves to be safe.
Topics for Discussion
• Prevalence of child sexual abuse (CSA) in
Indian Country
• Assault on the human rights of culturally
marginalized Indian children
• Summarizing opinions and data
• New research
• Consequences and conclusions
How much CSA?
• Very little useful direct information
• Suggestive: Native American crime data
–Native American crime rate is 2.5 times greater
than U.S. Average (USDOJ, 1999; Perry, 2004)
–Native Americans experience higher rates of
criminal victimization (Greenfield and Smith,
1999; Perry, 2004)
–1 in 7 Natives will be a victim of substantiated
abuse by age 18 (Wildeman, et al., 2014)
How much CSA?
• Native American child victimization data:
–Adult survivor studies: high prevalence of
childhood victimization of females in Indian
Country (BIA/IHS, 2003)
–Rate for Native children 153% of that for Anglo
children (NCANDS, 2007)
• Reservation estimates: 30,000 CA/N cases in Indian
Country per year
–6,000 sexual abuse cases; well above national
average (Terry Cross/NICWA: 2006)
Denying the human rights of all
culturally marginalized children…
• More likely to experience negative life
outcomes, for two reasons:
–A. Limited primary and secondary prevention:
Greater levels of social risk
–B. Limited tertiary prevention: Protective
agencies and institutions less effective in
protecting them from harm
• This is particularly obvious in cases of
Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) occurring
in Indian Country
Social risk: Opinions of elders,
authors, & scholars
• Marginalized status
• Children
• Females
• Cultural disempowerment, discrimination,
genocide
• Environmental risks
• Collateral risks
• Alcohol and drug abuse
• Social disadvantage
• poverty, under-educated, under-employed
• Mental illness/historical trauma
• Other forms of criminal victimization
Indian Country social environments:
some elements of social risk
• Poverty
– (Economic system)
• Limited educational opportunity and
attainment
– (Educational system)
• High rates of unemployment
– (Occupational system)
• Limited autonomy and authority
– (System of Governance)
Indian Country social environments:
some elements of social risk
• Strain upon traditional family units
– (Family system)
• Historical trauma
– (Cultural system)
• Elevated health risks, suicide rates
– (Medical, mental, and public health systems)
• Indications of prevalent child and famiy
abuse
– (Child and family welfare, foster care, and
adoption systems)
Failure to Protect CSA Victims in the
Criminal Justice System
• CSA cases, in general, have low
conviction rates (Ted Cross, et al., 2003)
• Because:
– Private crimes
– Little forensic physical evidence
– Reliance on testimony of individuals seen and
non-credible (particularly child victims)
– High evidentiary standard in U.S. Courts
– Problems of coordination and cooperation
Failure: The Situation is Worse in
Indian Country…
• 67% of Indian Country sexual assault cases are
declined for prosecution by federal attorneys
(GAO, 2010).
• It is estimated child victims residing in Indian
Country are roughly 5 times less likely than nonIndian Country residents to have their case
result in a criminal conviction (Ted Cross, 2003;
Terry Cross, 2006; Steele, 2008, 2009, 2011).
• Why is this the case?
Why is CSA such a problem in Indian
Country?
“49 reasons…”
HISTORICAL
TRAUMA
ACCESS TO
CHILDREN
CHILD REARING
PRACTICES
INDIGENOUS
SOCIAL
CONTROL
STRAIN AND
ALIENATION
CULTURAL
CONFLICT
FEDERAL
CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION
RESISTANCE
LOW SYSTEM
PRIORITY
TRADITIONAL
NATIVE
CULTURE
REPRESSIVE
POLICIES
FEDERALIST
GOVERNANCE
AND FORMAL
CONTROL
ANSWER
EXTENDED
FAMILY LIVING
DISCLOSURE
BEHAVIORS
?
LIMITED
PARENTAL
SUPERVISION
SYSTEM
DEFINITIONS
AND
PROCEDURES
SYSTEM
MISTRUST,
STRANGENESS
EUROCENTRIC
CULTURE
CASE FAILURE
DEVIANT
BEHAVIORS AND
RISK FACTORS
OFFENDER
MOTIVATION
AND LACK OF
PERSONAL
CONTROL
CHILD VICTIM
AMBIVALENCE
FORENSIC
INTERVIEW
CLAN/FAMILIAL
STRUCTURES
PHILOSOPHY OF
JUSTICE
CHILD
CULTURAL
IDENTIFICATION,
DEMOGRAPHICS
PARENTAL
AMBIVALENCE
CHILD SEXUAL
ABUSE EPISODE
Marginalized social environments: a
“Complexity Theory” perspective
• An alternative to reductionist, single-factor
explanations
• Linked social systems emerge in a shared
environment that is made up of many elements
(Johnson, 2001)
• When describing social issues over time, a complex
interaction develops between risk factors and
mechanisms of social control (Barabasi, 2003)
• Complex, emerging systems have semi-permeable
limits: they are largely influenced by internal elements
but occasionally are affected by agencies and
interests outside the system
Grouping the Influences into sensible,
very general, categories…
• Cultural factors
• Collective problems and personal
deviance
• Mechanisms to control the abuse
• Nature of the abuse episode(s)
• Actions and reactions in the justice
systems
Cultural context
Cultural context
EUROCENTRIC
CULTURE
• Cultural conflict
(primary cultural
conflict)
REPRESSIVE
POLICIES
• Historical subjugation
CULTURAL
CONFLICT
TRADITIONAL
NATIVE
CULTURE
HISTORICAL
TRAUMA
• Disorganization
(secondary cultural
conflict)
RESISTANCE
• Historical trauma
– Intergenerational,
collective sense of loss
and hopelessness
Social Problems and Personal Deviance
• Social Problems
STRAIN AND
ALIENATION
SYSTEM
MISTRUST,
STRANGENESS
DEVIANT
BEHAVIORS AND
RISK FACTORS
OFFENDER
MOTIVATION
AND LACK OF
PERSONAL
CONTROL
–
–
–
–
Social disorganization
Poverty
Discrimination
Mistrust of authority
• Personal deviance
– Internalized deviance
ACCESS TO
CHILDREN
CHILD SEXUAL
ABUSE EPISODE
LIMITED
PARENTAL
SUPERVISION
• Suicide
• Alcohol and drug
misuse
– Externalized deviance
• Situational violent
offending
Tribal social control
TRADITIONAL
NATIVE
CULTURE
RESTORATIVE AND
REPARATIVE JUSTICE
INDIGENOUS
SOCIAL
CONTROL
CLAN/FAMILIAL
STRUCTURES
EXTENDED
FAMILY LIVING
CHILD REARING
PRACTICES
LIMITED
PARENTAL
SUPERVISION
CHILD
CULTURAL
IDENTIFICATION,
DEMOGRAPHICS
• Based on traditional norms:
less formal and punitive
than federal justice system
• Restorative and reparative
justice perspective
• Personalized justice
• Victim and family
compensation
• Central role of family and
clan
• Self control: Child
autonomy, responsibility at
an earlier age*
*children and families vary in their level of acculturation into traditional tribal and Anglo cultures
Traditional social control in Indian
Country: Undermined by
• Federal law: absence of federalism’s guarantee of
local sovereignty
– 1830: Indian Removal Act
– 1880s: Indian Schools, Major Crimes Act, Dawes
(Allotment) Act
– 1934: Indian Reorganization Act
– 1950s: Termination and resettlement
– 1975: Indian Self-determination Act
• Tribal/clan politics in Tribal governments since 1934
– To facilitate federal relations with Indian Nations
– Clan favoritism, corruption
• Cultural conflict
– Historical trauma
– Dual identity (Native, Anglo)
Federalist social control
FEDERALIST
GOVERNANCE
AND FORMAL
CONTROL
RETRIBUTIVE AND
PROCESSUAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM
DEFINITIONS
AND
PROCEDURES
LOW SYSTEM
PRIORITY
FEDERAL
CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION
FORENSIC
INTERVIEW
 Federal authority in serious
crimes
 Imposes Anglo justice
perspective: coercive control
 Impersonal justice
 Formal forensic interviews
 (Crimes on tribal lands
given low priority)
Different Visions of Justice
Eurocentric CJS
• Law as rational
• Confrontational
• Crime against the
state/nation
• Burden of proof
• Punishment
First Nations Justice
• Balance among
family, clan, & nature
• “Talking things out”
• Reparations
• Healing (accused,
victim, & family)
• Peacemaking
Summary: CSA Influences
• Cultural context: Culture conflict, and
historical trauma increase system
mistrust
• Social and personal problems: Poverty,
substance abuse and opportunity
increase risk and fatalism
• Social control mechanisms: Traditional
vs. Federalist (Eurocentric) control
increase strangeness and offender
concern
New Research: Methodology
• Difficulties and limitations
• Records analysis
– All cases 2003-2008 in which suspected child victims
were interviewed by trained forensic specialists at a
Children’s Advocacy Center
– 459 Indian Country cases from 9 reservations in a
non PL-280 State, compared to:
• 237 metropolitan cases involving Indian children
• 3818 metropolitan non-Indian cases in the Southwest
– Federal reports and meta-analysis of system
outcome data
Patterns of Abuse: victims and
offenders
• Cases do not vary significantly in type of abuse
or physical injury to the child
• Indian Country cases more likely to involve
female child victims living out of the home at the
time of the forensic interview*
• Indian Country cases are more likely to involve
alleged offenders who are members of the
child’s extended family*
• Age of the victim is not associated with social
distance from the offender in Tribal cases, but is
associated in non-Tribal cases*
Relationship of Accused to Victim
IC
N
Immediate Family
%
Non-IC
N %
83 22.6
994 34.4
Extended family
166 45.2
583 20.2
Non-family
118 32.2
1312 45.4
Total
367 100.0
2889 100.0
x2= 115.56, df=2, p<.001
Victim’s Age By Relationship to Accused:
Immediate/Extended Family or Non-family
Indian
Country [1]
< 6 years
6 - 11 yrs
12- 17 yrs
Total
Non-Indian
Country [2]
Family
NonFamily
Family
NonFamily
82.1%
75.8%
72.3%
17.9%
24.2%
27.7%
77.1%
63.5%
56.1%
22.9%
36.5%
43.9%
255
78
1894
996
[1] n/s
[2] X2= 54.79, df=2, p<.001
Justice System Actions: Indian
Country Children in Investigations
• Indian Country children are less likely to disclose
sexual abuse
• Overall, young children seldom disclose: young
Indian children even less likely to disclose
• Male Indian Country children rarely disclose
• IC child victims are less likely to disclose when
the alleged offender is an extended- or nonfamily member
• Native children living in Indian Country are less
likely to disclose than Native children not living
in IC
Rates of Disclosure
Disclosed
Total
Indian Country
Non-Indian
Country
51.2%
65.7%
402
3006
X2 = 6.58, df=1, p<.01
Disclosure rate by child’s age
Indian Country
Non-Indian
Country
<6
6–
11
12 17
<6
611
12 17
Disclosed
31.4
61.5
80.5
48.8
67.1
79.4
Total
102
187
113
791
1375
840
X2 = 171.40, df = 1, p <.001
Disclosure rate by child’s gender
Indian Country
Disclosed
Total
Non-Indian
Country
Male
Female
Male
Female
37.3
64.2
50.4
70.7
75
327
744
2262
X2 = 102.69 df=1, p < .001
Disclosure rate by
offender-victim relationship
Indian Country [1]
Disclosed
Total
Non-Indian
Country [2]
Immed
-iate
Family
Other
Relatives
Not
Related
Immed
-iate
Family
Other
Relatives
Not
Related
56.6
65.7
66.9
58.0
69.7
75.8
83
166
118
994
523
1460
[1] Tribal, n/s [2] Non-tribal, X2 = 33.22, df=2, p<.001
Native American Child’s Disclosure by
Indian Country Residence
Lives:
Disclosed
Abuse
N
%
Did not
disclose
N
Total
%
On Tribal Land
232 59.0
161 41.0
393
Off Tribal Land
119 66.9
59 33.1
178
351 61.5
220 38.5
571
x2 = 3.164, df = 1, p < .10
All cases: disclosure
R2=.413
Indian Country case
Child female
Child’s age
Adult offender
Native American offender
Male offender
Offender extended member
Beta
-.428
.526
-.150
-.420
-.087
.997
.711
SE
.201
.117
.011
.146
.018
.168
.107
Wald
4.55
19.87
187.31
8.28
24.60
35.10
43.88
Sig.
.033
.000
.000
.004
.000
.000
.000
1.716
1.166
.657
.916
2.711
2.036
Off. not a family member
.784
.090
76.08
.000
2.191
.265
-.144
-1.662
.108
.106
.316
6.00
1.83
34.57
.014
.176
.000
1.303
.866
.156
Female interviewer
Hispanic interviewer
Constant
O.R.
.652
Differential System Outcomes
• Fewer disclosures result in higher case
failure rate
• Internal/legal vs. external/extralegal
explanations:
– CSA in Indian Country as “normal
crimes”
• Wooldrege & Thistlewaite 2004
• Spohn, et al. 2000
– Low priority cases in outside of Indian
Country
Disclosure behaviors
• Influences:
SYSTEM
DEFINITIONS
AND
PROCEDURES
FEDERAL
CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION
CASE FAILURE
SYSTEM
MISTRUST,
STRANGENESS
FORENSIC
INTERVIEW
DISCLOSURE
BEHAVIORS
PARENTAL
AMBIVALENCE
CHILD VICTIM
AMBIVALENCE
CHILD SEXUAL
ABUSE EPISODE
CHILD
CULTURAL
IDENTIFICATION,
DEMOGRAPHICS
– Child’s characteristics
– Family’s reactions
– Relationship with
alleged offender
– Nature of the abuse
episode
– Interview and
interviewer
characteristics
– Cultural influence,
system “strangeness”
Tribal Child Sexual Abuse: Limited
justice system protection
• Federal authority over serious criminal acts
in non-PL 280 jurisdictions (Major Crimes
Act, 1885). Federal justice is primarily
– Formal
– Remote
– Not victim-centered
• Child protective interventions are precluded
if federal justice evidentiary standards are
not met
• Difficult to estimate the level of protection,
but…
Estimating CSA Criminal Case
Outcomes: One Approach
• Based on federal testimony from Terry Cross,
NICWA
– Estimated 30,000 cases of child abuse and neglect/year
in Indian Country
– Estimated 20% are sexual abuse cases = 6,000
– Estimated 10% of abuse cases investigated = 600
• Based on research by Ted Cross, et al. (2003)
– Estimated CSA prosecutions (40%) = 240
– National estimates of CSA conviction rates (80%) = 192
– Result: 0.6% of all Indian Country child abuse cases
Estimating CSA Criminal Case
Outcomes: Another Approach
• Based on FBI report to Congress of
activities in 2003-5
– 78.3% of investigations of child abuse cases from Indian
Country resulted in conviction
– 93.3% of all federal convictions were for CSA
• But, very few cases are accepted for investigation
– Average 241.5 investigations/year
– Estimate 189 convictions for CSA in Indian Country per
year, of estimated 30,000 cases (Terry Cross)
– Result: 0.8% of all Indian Country child abuse cases
Putting it all together….
Child Sexual Abuse in Indian Country
EUROCENTRIC
CULTURE
FEDERALIST
GOVERNANCE
AND FORMAL
CONTROL
REPRESSIVE
POLICIES
CULTURAL
CONFLICT
TRADITIONAL
NATIVE
CULTURE
RESTORATIVE AND
REPARATIVE JUSTICE
INDIGENOUS
SOCIAL
CONTROL
LOW SYSTEM
PRIORITY
SYSTEM
DEFINITIONS
AND
PROCEDURES
FEDERAL
CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION
CASE FAILURE
STRAIN AND
ALIENATION
SYSTEM
MISTRUST,
STRANGENESS
FORENSIC
INTERVIEW
DISCLOSURE
BEHAVIORS
DEVIANT
BEHAVIORS AND
RISK FACTORS
OFFENDER
MOTIVATION
AND LACK OF
PERSONAL
CONTROL
HISTORICAL
TRAUMA
RESISTANCE
RETRIBUTIVE AND
PROCESSUAL JUSTICE
PARENTAL
AMBIVALENCE
CHILD VICTIM
AMBIVALENCE
CLAN/FAMILIAL
STRUCTURES
ACCESS TO
CHILDREN
CHILD SEXUAL
ABUSE EPISODE
EXTENDED
FAMILY LIVING
CHILD REARING
PRACTICES
LIMITED
PARENTAL
SUPERVISION
CHILD
CULTURAL
IDENTIFICATION,
DEMOGRAPHICS
Explaining Indian Country CSA:
Linking Complex Explanations
Micro/Personal
Influences
Meso/Proximal
Influences
Macro/Distal
Influences
Possible Explanations (Bronfenbrenner)
• 1. The patterns of child sexual victimization in Indian
Country (Meso/proximal) differ form those in non-IC
cases, in ways less likely to result in prosecution and
conviction
• 2. IC Native child victims respond differently in the
justice system than their non-IC counterparts, for
personal (Micro/personal) and family reasons
(Meso/proximal)
• 3. The federalist justice system handles CSA in
Indian Country less effectively due to cultural and
structural aspects inconsistent with Native values
(Macro/distal)
Takeaway messages…
• I. CSA incidents occurring in Indian Country differ in
important ways from those occurring elsewhere.
• II. Disclosure is less common among Native child
victims who reside in Indian Country, and disclosure
patterns differ between IC and non-IC children.
• III. In the study area, federal criminal justice agencies
have not effectively intervened to protect Native children.
• IV. Indian Country is a complex social system. Its parts
are interrelated: improving any aspect of the system will
benefit children, at least indirectly.
Takeaway messages…
• V. The most effective change strategy requires a
comprehensive (as opposed to a piecemeal)
approach.
• VI. Overhauling the policies and practices of justice
intervention agencies is necessary…. But it will take
time, money and coordinated political will.
• VII. In the meantime, comprehensive, culturallysensitive prevention awareness and training
campaigns for all residing and working in Indian
Country are likely to quickly produce significant
positive results.
Contact
Paul D. Steele
pd.steele@moreheadstate.edu