Detailed Information on the
Bureau of Indian Affairs - Tribal Courts Assessment
- View this program’s assessment summary.
- Visit ExpectMore.gov to learn more about how Federal Government programs are assessed and their plans for improvement.
- Learn more about detailed assessments.
| Program Code | 10001091 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program Title | Bureau of Indian Affairs - Tribal Courts | ||||||||||
| Department Name | Department of the Interior | ||||||||||
| Agency/Bureau Name | Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education | ||||||||||
| Program Type(s) |
Direct Federal Program |
||||||||||
| Assessment Year | 2003 | ||||||||||
| Assessment Rating | Results Not Demonstrated | ||||||||||
| Assessment Section Scores |
|
||||||||||
| Program Funding Level (in millions) |
|
- Ongoing Program Improvement Plans
- Completed Program Improvement Plans
- Program Performance Measures
- Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)
Ongoing Program Improvement Plans
| Year Began | Improvement Plan | Status | Comments |
|---|
Completed Program Improvement Plans
| Year Began | Improvement Plan | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 |
Reevaluate program capabilities, goals, and targets for the Bureau's strategic plan. |
Completed | Completed in FY2006 and FY2007. Measures were recorded in the DOI strategic plan and have recently been entered into PARTweb during the FY2007 Spring update, with minor changes. The efforts were coordinated with OMB in a series of meetings with Jim Kasel and finally with Brian Sodergren. |
| 2004 |
Develop baseline data and targets for performance measures. |
Completed | Measures were adopted in FY2006. Definitional issues for templates were finalized in FY2007. Measures were discussed and approved with OMB during a meeting on approximately March 25, 2007. The performance measures adopted in FY06, were slightly redefined by the Department in FY 07. Data in support of these measures was collected and baselines were established with final 07 reporting in November 2007. Targets are in place and data is being collected for FY 2008 performance reporting. |
| 2004 |
Encourage Tribal courts to participate in the collection of data in support of the performance measures. |
Completed | Meetings with Tribal Justices, AS-IA, DOI-PPP and OMB have been held. Many outreach meetings were held with tribes in a variety of venues in FY 2005, 2006 and 2007. |
| 2004 |
Work with the Tribal courts to clarify program goals and measures. |
Completed | Meetings with Tribal Justices, AS-IA, DOI-PPP and OMB have been held. Many outreach meetings were held with tribes in a variety of venues in FY 2005, 2006 and 2007. As a result, language of measures and definitions was refined. Consensus with Tribes/Tribal Justices on the nature and scope of performance measures has been gradual. Many Tribes continue to assert that due to the provisions of Indian Tribal Justice act, their participation is voluntary in measure collection. |
| 2004 |
Develop a process for and schedule independent program evaluations. |
Completed | A process has been established through an independent association of judges to evaluate tribes annually. A contract was initiated to conduct evaluations during FY 2006. 20 evaluations are expected during the first year. |
| 2006 |
Use the results of scheduled independent program evaluations to help make better informed decisions about the program. |
Completed | Recently, a decision by BIA's Office of Justice Services director expanded the use of coorective action plans with Tribal Justice Systems that have undergone review. This method is expected to ensure a more positive and direct follow-up for areas found to required improvement during independent reviews. |
Program Performance Measures
| Term | Type | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Annual | Outcome |
Measure: Tribal Courts: Percent of BIA-funded Tribal judicial systems receiving an acceptable rating under independent Tribal judicial system reviews.Explanation:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Long-term/Annual | Outcome |
Measure: Percent of Tribal Courts with unacceptable ratings that were provided with detailed corrective action plans.Explanation:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Long-term/Annual | Efficiency |
Measure: Percent of Tribal courts reviewed, having criminal jurisidication and receiving Federal government funding, that comply with speedy trial process requirements. (New measure, added August 2007)Explanation:
|
Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)
| Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Question | Answer | Score |
| 1.1 |
Is the program purpose clear? Explanation: BIA's Tribal Courts program has no specific, statute-based goals or purposes. GPRA performance objectives are limited to tribal codes/training to implement specific IIM trust regulations. Evidence: Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-176) [25 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.] directs BIA to survey tribal court systems to determine conditions, caseloads, capabilities, and needs for a Report to Congress by July 1994. A survey report was published in 2000 (see section 1.2). |
NO | 0% |
| 1.2 |
Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need? Explanation: Indian reservations have violent crime rates (657 per 100,000 residents) higher than national average (506 per 100,000 residents), higher aggravated assault rates (600 vs. 324), and lower property crime rates (1,083 vs. 3,618). Based on a 1998-99 survey, about 42% of tribal court cases were criminal with potential jail time. Other caseloads included: traffic (26%), juvenile (15%), family (7%), housing/land use (3%), and commercial (3%). Evidence: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Fact Sheet (January 2003). Survey of Tribal Justice Systems & Courts of Indian Offenses, American Indian Law Center, Inc. (May 2000). The final survey report was not approved by DOI and OMB prior to release by the Center. |
YES | 20% |
| 1.3 |
Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, state, local or private effort? Explanation: Jurisdiction: BIA has no current inventory of tribal courts, but estimates about 275 general, special (i.e. traffic, juvenile, family) and appellate courts serve about 40 tribes. Tribal courts have primary jurisdiction on civil and criminal crimes committed on Indian lands by a tribal member against other members. Some tribal courts adjudicate matters between members of different tribes within jurisdiction. Federal and state courts serve about 522 tribes that have not established tribal courts. Most tribes have adopted modern and customary codes; modern codes are usually based on federal and state statutes. Federal Assistance: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) provides discretionary grant assistance to develop and improve tribal justice systems. DOJ grants are intended to supplement BIA's support for tribal court operations and improvements. Evidence: Jurisdiction: Felix S. Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law, 1982 Edition (pp. 250-265) for general discussion and legal citations. Financial Assistance: Indian Tribal Justice and Technical Assistance Act of 2000 (25 U.S.C. 3651 et seq.) authorizes DOJ to award grants to (1) Indian tribes for development/operation of judicial systems, (2) national/regional organizations to provide training/tecnical assistance to tribes, and (2) non-profit entities to provide criminal/civil legal assistance to tribes and tribal members. DOJ grants are available for tribal courts assistance ($8 million); adult, juvenile, family drug courts; alcohol/substance abuse demonstration project; and technology/information sharing outreach. |
NO | 0% |
| 1.4 |
Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency? Explanation: BIA operates 22 Courts of Indian Offenses. Tribes operate others under contract/compact agreements, with performance monitoring subject to negotiation with each tribe. BIA's statute precludes imposing federal standards on tribal court administration and conduct. DOJ's grant program authorities cannot encroach upon, diminish, impair the rights of each tribal government to determine its judicial system. Evidence: Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993 [25 U.S.C. 3611(d) and (e)(1)(E)]. Indian Tribal Justice and Technical Assistance Act [25 USC 3665] |
NO | 0% |
| 1.5 |
Is the program effectively targeted, so program resources reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly? Explanation: Within BIA's Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) program, tribal governments determine annual allocations among over 35 programs, including tribal court operations. In FY 2003, TPA funds total $772 million, of which $26 million is available for tribal courts. BIA plans to target $5.5 million on Probate and Supervised IIM Account (25 CFR 15/115) codes and cases. Evidence: Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 22, pp. 37857-8 (June 25, 2003). BIA to provide information on TPA reprogrammings to/from tribal court subprogram since FY 1999 (due by 7/11/03) for further analysis. |
YES | 20% |
| Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design | Score | 40% | |
| Section 2 - Strategic Planning | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Question | Answer | Score |
| 2.1 |
Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program? Explanation: BIA is reevaluating program capabilities, goals and targets for the new DOI Strategic Plan. The BIA will work with OMB and the Tribal Courts program manager to clarify program goals and measures. Evidence: |
NO | 0% |
| 2.2 |
Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures? Explanation: BIA is reevaluating program capabilities, goals and targets for new DOI Strategic Plan. Evidence: BIA's FY 2004 Budget Justifications (p. 36). OMB may consider new information submitted prior to/with the FY 2005 budget estimates. |
NO | 0% |
| 2.3 |
Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term measures? Explanation: Annual number of tribal codes/court procedures and training sessions for enforcing recent changes in Indian Probate (25 CFR 15) and Supervised IIM Accounts (25 CFR 115) regulations. Evidence: FY 2003 targets are number of tribal codes/court procedures (3) established and training sessions (10) conducted on 25 CFR 15/115 regulations. |
YES | 12% |
| 2.4 |
Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures? Explanation: FY 2002 annual targets were estimated without baseline data for reliable projections. Evidence: BIA's FY 2004 Budget Justifications (p. 36). OMB may consider new information submitted prior to/with the FY 2005 budget estimates. |
NO | 0% |
| 2.5 |
Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program? Explanation: Program lacks long-term goals and annual performance measures. Evidence: Tribal courts not required to report on staffing, caseloads, time for adjudication, appeals to non-tribal courts, case dispositions, or other performance indicators. |
NO | 0% |
| 2.6 |
Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need? Explanation: No credible independent evaluations have been conducted or are planned. Evidence: Survey of Tribal Justice Systems & Courts of Indian Offenses, American Indian Law Center, Inc. (May 2000) published without proper review/approval by DOI and OMB. Recently, the BIA/Tribal Budget Advisory Council established a Judicial Subgroup to conduct a survey of tribal court funding needs for FY 2005 budget planning. In May 2003, the National Tribal Justice Resource Center published the survey results on its website without proper review/clearance by DOI and OMB. |
NO | 0% |
| 2.7 |
Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget? Explanation: In 2003, about 20% of tribal court funds are targeted for Supervised IIM accounts (25 CFR 115) or for other priority or backlog cases. No status/progress report is available. Evidence: In FY 2002, BIA targeted $1.5 million for tribal court enforcement of 25 CFR 15/115. Thirteen tribal courts applied for and received awards. In FY 2003, $5.5 million is targeted for these caseloads. |
YES | 12% |
| 2.8 |
Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies? Explanation: DOI/BIA are reevaluating program capabilities, goals and targets for new DOI Strategic Plan. Evidence: OMB may consider new information submitted prior to/with the FY 2005 budget estimates. |
NO | 0% |
| Section 2 - Strategic Planning | Score | 25% | |
| Section 3 - Program Management | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Question | Answer | Score |
| 3.1 |
Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance? Explanation: See section 2.5 Evidence: |
NO | 0% |
| 3.2 |
Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results? Explanation: See sections 1.5 and 2.5. Evidence: |
NO | 0% |
| 3.3 |
Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose? Explanation: See sections 1.5 and 2.5. Evidence: |
NO | 0% |
| 3.4 |
Does the program have procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, approporaite incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution? Explanation: Tribal courts are an inherently governmental function, not subject to competitive sourcing. BIA's statute precludes imposing federal standards on tribal court administration and conduct. Evidence: Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-176) [25 U.S.C. 3601, 3611(d) and 3631.] |
NA | 0% |
| 3.5 |
Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs? Explanation: BIA and DOJ do not coordinate on technical/financial assistance programs, including oversight to assure that DOJ grant awards supplement BIA funding. Evidence: BIA to provide information on TPA reprogrammings to/from tribal court subprogram since FY 1999 (due by 7/11/03) for further analysis. |
NO | 0% |
| 3.6 |
Does the program use strong financial management practices? Explanation: See sections 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5. Evidence: |
NO | 0% |
| 3.7 |
Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies? Explanation: DOI/BIA are reevaluating program capabilities, goals and targets for new DOI Strategic Plan. Evidence: |
NO | 0% |
| Section 3 - Program Management | Score | 0% | |
| Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Question | Answer | Score |
| 4.1 |
Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome performance goals? Explanation: BIA is reevaluating program capabilities, goals and targets for new DOI Strategic Plan. Evidence: |
NO | 0% |
| 4.2 |
Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals? Explanation: BIA is reevaluating program capabilities, goals and targets for new DOI Strategic Plan. Evidence: |
NO | 0% |
| 4.3 |
Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program performance goals each year? Explanation: See sections 1.5, 2.5, 3.1 - 3.3. Evidence: |
NO | 0% |
| 4.4 |
Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., that have similar purpose and goals? Explanation: See sections 1.5, 2.5, 3.1 - 3.3. No performance data on tribal courst available to compare with U.S. court or state court systems. No study located that compares Indian reservations served by tribal courts to those served by federal/state courts on operational efficiency, cost effectiveness, or quality of services. Evidence: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts issues periodic performance reports on district and appellate courts. Trend indicators include: civil and criminal cases filed, pending, terminated; civil cases by nature of suit; civil cases over 3 years old; criminal cases by major offenses; judgeships filled and vacant; court support staffing and workloads. |
NO | 0% |
| 4.5 |
Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results? Explanation: No GAO, IG or other credible independent evaluations have been conducted or are planned. Evidence: |
NO | 0% |
| Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability | Score | 0% | |
- View this program’s assessment summary.
- Visit ExpectMore.gov to learn more about program assessment and improvement by the Federal Government.
- Learn more about detailed assessments.
