Quality of Court Services In this chapter we investigate several measures of quality of services by court and legal personnel serving triba...
Quality of Court Services In this chapter we investigate several measures of quality of services by court and legal personnel serving tribal communities. The study has better data for and concentrates on communication, understanding tribal cultures, and overall quality or effectiveness of services. In addition, we ask some questions about how to improve cultural understanding, communication, and the delivery of court services. The focus of the analysis is on determining jurisdiction effects: Are there differences between Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions. The research design also features analysis of group effects, differences between criminal justice personnel and reservation residents, which serves as an alternative hypothesis. There is a mix of quantitative and qualitative questions, but the main analyses are derived from the qualitative questions, which are coded inductively into groups or types of responses that lend themselves to quantification and statistical analysis. In addition, the qualitative answers provide supplemental information about how to interpret the quantitative and statistical results. The respondent groups are reservation residents and criminal justice personnel.
Most respondents work with crime-related issues and are generally well informed about crime and court issues on Indian reservations. Reservation-resident respondents are individuals who are employed on the reservation, an Indian person living on the reservation, or a tribal member. Most reservation residents are tribal members on the reservation in question, but non-Indian tribal employees and non-tribal member Indian employees and residents are also part of the reservation-resident sample. Reservation residents are chosen because they are community elders or leaders, or their work is engaged with police, court, social services, or related crime issues. Law enforcement personnel generally are police officers and related personnel who work for county or BIA police departments. Tribal police officers who work for and are funded by a tribal government are classified as reservation residents in the Public Law 280 jurisdictions, while police officers who work for the BIA or federal government, as well as tribal police in nonPublic Law 280 jurisdictions, are classified as law enforcement personnel. Criminal justice personnel are judges, attorneys, public defenders, probation officers and other related personnel who work as county, federal, or in the non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions, tribal employees or who work in the courts, such as legal advocates, public defenders, and attorneys. Tribal judges and tribal court personnel who work for the tribal government in Public Law 280 jurisdictions are classified as reservation residents, and reservation court and legal personnel who work for the tribe, the BIA or the federal government in non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions are classified as criminal justice personnel. The key to the distinction between reservation residents and criminal justice personnel is who has responsibility for criminal jurisdiction. In the Public Law 280 jurisdictions, where tribal police and court personnel exist, they are treated as reservation residents because they are not generally exercising criminal jurisdiction. They may be enforcing state/county law under crossdeputization agreements or enforcing civil laws. However, where questions ask reservation 205 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. residents in Public Law 280 jurisdictions to evaluate tribal police and courts, the respondents in those categories are excluded from the reservation-resident sample. In the non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions, in contrast, there are crimes over which the tribe has exclusive jurisdiction, and, therefore, where tribal police and courts exist, they are generally exercising criminal jurisdiction. Thus, in these jurisdictions the tribal police are treated as law enforcement personnel, and the tribal court and related staff are treated as criminal justice personnel. Our assumption in constructing the reservation-resident category is that reservation residents will have different work, community, and government experiences than criminal justice personnel, and they may express these views and orientations with reference to their understandings and experiences with courts. The groupings of reservation residents and criminal justice personnel are not based on racial or tribal membership. Many non-Indians work for tribal governments and they are classified as reservation residents,
except where they are administering justice in non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions. Many tribal members work for county police departments, some are county judges, or work for BIA police departments or courts. The latter tribal members are classified as law enforcement or criminal justice personnel because their occupations are outside of tribal government management, and these tribal members are entrusted to carry out county, state, or federal laws and procedures, and not tribal government law and policing practices. Communication Criminal justice personnel in both Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions were asked to rank on a 5-point scale how well court and legal personnel communicate with tribal members. In this self-evaluation, 47 criminal justice workers in Public Law 280 jurisdictions provided rankings with an average of 3.1.
The medium score on the scale is 3.0, so Public Law 280 criminal justice workers gave themselves about-average, or medium, rankings only slightly above the medium score on the scale. Public Law 280 criminal justice workers believe they communicate with tribal members neither very well nor very poorly, but slightly above medium. Non-Public Law 280 criminal justice workers (n=24) provided an average group evaluation of 2.7, indicating that federal-justice workers communicated with tribal members less well than the medium scale score and less well than Public Law 280 state/county criminal justice and legal workers. The difference between Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 criminal justice worker self-evaluations of how well court and legal personnel communicate with tribal members is not statistically significant. Court and legal workers in PL 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions believe they communicate with tribal members about the same, about average or slightly below average. Besides the rankings, some respondents were asked the open-ended question: Do court and legal personnel communicate with community members regarding court and legal needs? The results of this qualitative analysis are represented in the figure below. One hundred fortyeight Public Law 280 reservation residents answered the question, and 104 made comments 206 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. negatively (70.3%), saying that criminal justice personnel in county courts do not communicate well or do not communicate at all with tribal communities. Thirty-seven Public Law 280 reservation residents (25%) said that county court personnel communicate well or to some substantial degree with reservation communities. Forty-two Public Law 280 criminal justice workers answered a similar question: Do court and legal personnel communicate with community members on the reservation regarding court and legal needs? Twenty-three Public Law 280 criminal justice workers (54.8%) say that county court personnel do not communicate well with tribal community members. Seven reservation-resident respondents say they could not answer the question. Eighteen Public Law 280 criminal justice workers (42.9%) say that county court personnel have good communication with tribal communities. One criminal justice worker said they could not answer the question. In Public Law 280 jurisdictions, court personnel agree that most county courts do not have good communication with tribal community members, while only 1 in 4 Public Law 280 reservation residents thought that county courts communicate well enough with tribal members. Fifty-one non-Public Law 280 reservation residents answered an analogous question about communication: Do federal court and legal personnel communicate with community members regarding court and legal needs? Twenty-six non-Public Law 280 reservation residents (51%) say that federal court and legal personnel do not communicate well with reservation residents. Eighteen non-Public Law 280 reservation residents answered affirmatively (35.3%), although most answers were accompanied by qualifying remarks suggesting that federal court and legal personnel only partially communicate with tribal communities.
The most frequent affirmative response suggested that federal court and legal personnel communicate only in professional capacities or with the tribal council (n=15, 27.5%), but do not generally communicate with tribal members on a regular basis. Only 3 (5.9%) of non-Public Law 280 reservation residents gave unqualified affirmative responses that federal court and legal personnel have good communication with tribal community members. Seven non-Public Law 280 reservation residents said they could not answer the question. Very few non-Public Law 280 reservation residents fully affirm that federal court and legal personnel communicate well with tribal members about court or legal issues. Forty-nine non-Public Law 280 reservation residents, minus the tribal court workers in that group, answered an analogous question about whether tribal court and legal personnel communicate with community members about court and legal issues. Twenty-three non-Public Law 280 reservation residents (46.9%) say that tribal court workers do not communicate well with tribal community members. Seven non-Public Law 280 reservation residents (14.3%) say that communication is mixed between tribal court personnel and community members. There are some meetings but not directly with reservation residents, and more contact is needed. Seventeen non-Public Law 280 reservation residents (34.7%) say that tribal court and legal personnel communicate well with reservation residents. 207 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. Twenty-one non-Public Law 280 criminal justice personnel made comments about communication between tribal court/legal personnel and tribal community members. Six nonPublic Law 280 criminal justice workers (28.6%) say that tribal court and legal personnel do not communicate well with tribal community members. Four non-Public Law 280 criminal justice court and legal personnel (19%) say that communication is mixed between tribal courts and tribal members. Six non-Public Law 280 criminal justice workers (28.6%) say that communication is good between tribal courts and tribal members. Five respondents say they cannot answer the question. Somewhat more non-Public Law 280 reservation residents say that communication between tribal courts and tribal community members is good than is expressed by non-Public Law 280 criminal justice court and legal personnel.
No comments