U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Census of Tribal Justice Agencies in Indian Country, 2002 December 2005, NCJ 205332 -------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ctjaic02.htm -------------------------------------------------------- By Steven W. Perry BJS Statistician Contents Lawrence A. Greenfeld, Director Steven W. Perry, BJS Statistician, wrote the report under the supervision of Steven K. Smith. Mark Motivans provided the statistical review. Also at BJS, Thomas Cohen, Matthew Hickman, and Stephanie Ross commented on drafts of the report. Tina Dorsey, Tom Hester and Marianne Zawitz produced and edited the report. Jayne Robinson prepared the report for final publication. Valuable comments were contributed by Norena Henry, American Indian/Alaska Native Affairs Desk in the Office of Justice Programs. Also, Stella Ogunwole of the Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, provided a special tabulation of Indian country residents based on Census 2000 data used in this report. Highlights Introduction Table 1-- American Indian and Alaska Native(AIAN)population, by place of residence, 2000 Figure 1 -- Map of States, by Public Law 83-280 Status Table 2 -- Number of tribes, by State, Public law 280 status, and court systems Law Enforcement Table 3 -- Tribal law enforcement Table 4 -- Tribal cross deputization and authority recognition on and off reservation Courts Figure 2 -- Federal, State, and tribal court systems Table 5 -- Tribal court systems Table 6 --Type of separate courts Table 7 -- Tribal justice system full-time staff Corrections Table 8 -- Tribal criminal detentions Table 9 -- Tribal court intermediate adult sanctions Criminal history records Table 10 -- Tribal law enforcement criminal justice data access Table 11 -- Tribal offender, incident data, and measuring tribal crime Table 12 -- Tribal justice agencies electronically networked Table 13 -- Tribal justice criminal statistics electronic sharing Appendix * 2002 Census of Tribal Justice Agencies non-participants * Questionnaire Highlights Census of Tribal Justice Agencies, 2002 * Over 92% (314) of the 341 federally recognized American Indian tribes in the lower 48 States participated in the Census of Tribal Justice Agencies, 2002. (See respondent description below). * Public Law 280 establishes criminal justice responsibilities among American Indian tribes with tribal land, the States in which tribes are located, and the Federal Government. Public Law 280 is mandatory or optional for 204 tribes, about two-thirds of the total in the lower 48 States. * During 2000 an estimated 44% (1,021,747) of all American Indians resided in Indian Country -- reservations, trust land, and/or communities. ------------------------------------------------ Census respondents American Indians in the United States belong to approximately 562 federally recognized tribes -- as well as bands and clans -- that have a distinct history, culture, and often a separate language (Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 234, December 5, 2003). Three hundred forty-one federally recognized American Indian tribes are located in the lower 48 States. This report summarizes results of the 2002 Census of Tribal Justice Agencies. Participation by Alaska Native tribes or villages was not extensive enough to enable their inclusion. Thus, this report provides data for Indian tribes located in the lower 48 States of the continental United States. ---------------------------------------------- Law enforcement * 165 of the 314 responding tribes employed 1 or more full-time sworn officers with general arrest powers. * Almost all (99%) had cross deputization agreements with another tribal or public agency. * 56% (93) of the tribes that employed 1 or more full-time sworn officers with general arrest powers were also recognized by their State to possess arrest authority. Courts and administration * An estimated 59% (188) of the 314 tribes had some form of judicial system. * Eighty-four percent of the tribal justice systems operating in Indian Country handled misdemeanor cases. * 175 tribes had a formal tribal court. Of these: -- About 174 had a separate, general jurisdiction tribal court, -- 91 had an appellate court, -- 80 had a juvenile court, -- 51 had a family court, and -- Over 60% (112) provided victim services. * Sixty percent of the tribes had written family codes for: -- establishing paternity, -- issuing a child support order, -- enforcing a child support order, -- modifying or adjusting a child, and support order. * Nearly a third (97)of the tribes had a child support enforcement program. Corrections and intermediate sentences * About 23% (71) of the responding tribes provided their own detention function. About two-thirds relied on local or county agencies to provide a jail or detention facility. * 24 of the 314 tribes had their own residential juvenile facility available for placing juveniles who committed offenses on tribal lands. An estimated 68% (119) of tribes placed juveniles in neighboring county or nontribal agency residential facilities. * About 44% of all tribes(314)imposed some type of intermediate sanction for offenses. * At least three-fourths of the 175 tribes that operated tribal courts could order: -- monetary fines without, incarceration (84%), - alcohol rehabilitation (79%), -- counseling/therapy (79%), -- community service (78%), -- drug rehabilitation (74%), and -- restitution without incarceration (74%). * Over two-thirds of the tribes with a tribal judicial system imposed probation for adults (130)or juveniles (124). Criminal history records and justice statistics * 75% of the tribes recorded crime incidents on the reservation manually and/or electronically. * Over half of the tribes had access to the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC). * An estimated 54 tribes submitted information on tribal sex offenders to the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR). * Less than 12% of the tribes reported their justice agencies were electronically networked with other justice agencies on or off the reservation. * 14 tribes routinely shared crime statistics with neighboring local governments, the State, or the FBI. Introduction Overview Purpose This report describes the characteristics of tribal -- * law enforcement * courts and administration * corrections and intermediate sanctions * criminal history records * justice statistics. The report addresses basic questions about the criminal justice system in Indian country: Which tribes have sworn law enforcement personnel and the source of authority? What are the number and types of tribal court systems? Who performs the tribal detention function and what types of sanctions are to be imposed? Do tribes have access to State and national criminal record systems? ------------------------------------ Tribal Justice on the web All of the tables in this report are available in a spreadsheet format on the BJS website: . Other information not published in this report, either because of low response rates or because it has only specialized interest, is also in a digital table on the web. The web-only table cover the following subjects: * Criminal investigation functions * Criminal case referral to U.S. attorneys office * Number and type of separate courts * Tribal court judge selection * Judicial staffing * Tribal victims services * Tribal reliance on State courts for judicial services * Tribal reliance on county/municipal social service agencies. ----------------------------------------- The 13 tables present individual agency data for tribal criminal justice agencies across the United States. The table notes describe the data used and provide information for interpreting the tables. The publication is divided into four parts, according to broad topical areas: Part I: Law enforcement * sworn law enforcement personnel * source of tribal law enforcement authority * estimated number of sworn full-time law enforcement officers reported in 2000 * cross-deputization agreements * law enforcement reciprocity with local and State authorities for crimes committed on and off tribal land. Part II: Courts and administration * tribal justice systems * BIA Court of Indian Offenses * types of tribal operated court systems * number of full-time judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and peacemakers. Part III: Corrections and intermediate sanctions * tribal detention facilities * types of adult intermediate sanctions (for example, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and fines without incarceration). Part IV: Criminal history records and justice statistics * access to the National Crime Information Center(NCIC) * sharing of tribal criminal history records with State repositories or the FBI * participation in the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) * types of criminal incidents recorded * method of recording crimes * tribal justice agencies electronically networked within and outside the tribe * sharing of crime statistics with Bureau of Indian Affairs(BIA), FBI, and local governments. Compilation of census data The data presented was compiled from the Census of Tribal Justice Agencies for 2002. Federally recognized tribes across the United States responded to the questionnaires. Policy Studies, Inc., collected the data on behalf of BJS. Justice and criminal jurisdiction background in Indian country Criminal jurisdiction -- the governmental powers to make and/or enforce laws -- in Indian country is divided among the Federal, State, and tribal governments. Jurisdiction in a specific incident depends on the nature of the offense, whether the offender or victim was a tribal member, and the State in which the crime occurred. Public Law 83-280 (commonly referred to as Public Law 280 or P.L. 280) conferred jurisdiction the Federal Government to six State governments. Congress extended criminal jurisdiction over tribal lands to California, Minnesota (except the Red Lake Reservation), Nebraska, Oregon (except the Warm Springs Reservation), Wisconsin, and Alaska. These are mandatory P.L. 280 States. Public Law 280 also permitted other States to acquire jurisdiction at their option. These States could take partial jurisdiction until the 1968 amendment to the law. The optional P.L. 280 States assumed jurisdiction either in whole or in part over Indian country within their boundaries: Nevada, Idaho, Iowa, Washington, South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota, Arizona, and Utah operate under this arrangement. In States where P.L. 280 does not apply, the Federal Government retains criminal jurisdiction for major crimes committed under the "Indian Country" Crimes Act (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1152), the Indian Country Major Crimes Act (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1153), and the Assimilative Crimes Act (Title 18, United States Code, Section 13). The 1994 Crime Act expanded Federal criminal jurisdiction in Indian country in such areas as guns, violent juveniles, drugs, and domestic violence. Tribal authority to sentence offenders in Indian country is limited to a maximum of 1 year of imprisonment and a $5,000 fine or both. (For a detailed discussion of criminal jurisdiction and sentencing in Indian country, see 18 U.S.C. Subsection 13; 1151; 1152; 1153; 1162; and 25 U.S.C. Subsection 1302.). American Indians and reservations in the United States In 2000, American Indians and Alaska Natives accounted for 4.3 million, or 1.5%, of the 281 million persons in the United States. This population includes persons who reported their race as "American Indian or Alaska Native" with or without another racial category. About 2.5 million (0.9%) of the U.S. population, listed only American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1.8 million, as American Indian or Alaska Native as well as one or more additional races. An estimated 43.5% or 1,021,747 of all American Indians who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native indicated they resided on a Federal reservation or in a tribal statistical area during Census 2000. This report summarizes the BJS results from participants in the 2002 Census of Tribal Justice Agencies. Participation by Alaska Native tribes or villages was not extensive enough to enable their inclusion. Ninety-two percent (314) of the 341 tribes in the continental United States participated. The majority (65%) of the 314 tribes are located within "mandatory" (123) or "optional" (81) P.L. 280 States. About 110 tribes are located in non-PL 280 States. About 188 tribes reported they have some form of a justice system. More than a fifth (39)of those tribes supported the services of an indigenous court; almost a quarter received judicial services from a BIA-operated Court of Indian Offenses (CFR); and a majority (175) of the tribes had tribal courts. Almost 75%(140) of the tribes relied on the States for some justice services (for example, correctional and counseling services). Law enforcement Law enforcement in Indian country Adding to jurisdictional complexities in Indian country, law enforcement authority is dispersed among Federal, State, local and tribal agencies. Among the tribes' inherent powers are the authority to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all tribal members and the authority to arrest and detain non- Indians for delivery to State or Federal authorities for prosecution. These tribal police powers are generally limited to the reservation. The work of tribal police is often critical to resolving criminal cases referred to State and Federal agencies because tribal police usually discover the crime, interview witnesses, and grasp the circumstances involved. Often tribal police refer cases to U.S. attorney's offices for investigation, as tribal courts generally hear only misdemeanor cases. The Federal Government -- Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) -- investigates crimes and directly enforces the law in Indian country. BIA also affects law enforcement indirectly by providing funding to tribal governments.***Office of Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Indian Country Law Enforcement Review, December 1999. The BIA funds many tribal governments to conduct their own law enforcement through what is called a 638 contract or compact (P. L. 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination Act (1975)).*** Public Law 93- 638, the Indian Self-Determination of Act 1975, affords tribes -- through Federal grants and contracts -- the opportunity to provide for their own police departments and other institutional services. Public safety on reservations in P.L. 280 States is primarily the responsibility of local and tribal law enforcement. BIA directly provides policing for those tribes that request services and do not have 638 contracts and that are not in P.L. 280 States. Tribal law enforcement agencies In 2001 half the tribes employed at least 1 full- time sworn officer with general arrest powers. * About 95 (58%) of the 165 tribes with at least 1 full-time sworn officer were in a mandatory or optional P.L. 280 State. * Nearly 80% (130) of the 165 tribes with at least 1 sworn officer indicated that their law enforcement agencies operated through a P.L. 93-638 contract or self-governance compact. * Among the tribes operating with P.L. 638 contracts, about 56% (73) were located in a mandatory or optional P.L. 280 State. Cross deputization agreements Cross deputization agreements have been used to enhance law enforcement capabilities in areas where State and tribal lands were contiguous and intermingled. Under some agreements, Federal, State, county/local, and/or tribal law enforcement officers have the power to arrest Indian and non-Indian wrongdoers wherever the violation of law occurs. * About 99% of the 165 tribal law enforcement agencies with at least one sworn officer with arrest powers have cross deputization agreements with BIA law enforcement, neighboring tribes/villages, neighboring nontribal authorities, or Federal law enforcement agencies other than BIA . * Among the 163 tribes that reported having cross deputization agreements, over half (84) of the agreements were with neighboring nontribal authorities. * An estimated 53% (86) of the tribal police with cross deputization agreements were in mandatory or optional P.L. 280 States. Tribal and State law enforcement reciprocating authority Sometimes only one governmental unit, State or tribal, is willing to cross-deputize. In such instances, States have recognized tribal police to have peace officer authority -- to arrest tribal offenders off the reservation or detain nontribal offenders on the reservation. * About 57% (93) of the 165 tribes with tribal law enforcement officers reported being recognized by the State to have peace officer authority. * Among the 93 tribes with police officers recognized by the State, 54% were in mandatory or optional P.L. 280 States. * About 74 (45%) of the tribes with law enforcement personnel had arrest authority over tribal members off the reservation, with 55% in mandatory or optional P.L. 280 States. * Almost 101 (62%) tribes with at least 1 sworn officer reported having arrest authority over non- Indians on tribal reservations. The majority (60%) of tribes with arrest authority over non-Indians on the reservation were in mandatory or optional P.L. 280 States. For an in depth discussion on tribal law enforcement, see the BJS report Tribal Law Enforcement, 2000 http://www.ojp.usdoj. gov/bjs/abstract/pdf/tle00.htm>. Courts Courts, caseloads, and special judicial services The complexity of criminal jurisdiction in Indian country among the Federal, State, and tribal authorities also carries forward to the forums that decide criminal cases in Indian country. Some issues are handled directly by indigenous forums or tribal courts; others are sent through the Federal court system; and still others are handled by State courts. Tribal justice systems in Indian country The court systems operating in Indian country vary by tribe. The Indian country judicial system revolves around a core of four legal institutions: Court of Indian Offenses (Code of Federal Regulations or CFR), tribal courts of appeal, tribal courts of general jurisdiction, and indigenous forums (also known as traditional courts). In 2002, about 60% (188) of all the tribes had some form of a tribal justice system. Indigenous forum Historically, most tribes addressed criminal activity by consensus through "indigenous forum"-- often referred to as peacemaking, council of elders, and sentencing circles. Indigenous courts have served one of the most important roles exercised by tribal government: resolving disputes in the community, which may also extend to non- members who consent. A primary goal of the indigenous courts has been dispute resolution, to mediate the case to the satisfaction of all parties. In 2002 about 39 (21%) of all tribes with a justice system reported operating an indigenous court in their tribal jurisdiction. Court of Indian Offenses The U.S. Department of Interior initially set up the Court of Indian Offenses (CFR) to handle less serious criminal offenses and to resolve disputes between tribal members in Indian country. In 1883 the CFR Courts were made a regular part of the BIA activities on the reservations, operating under written guidelines set down in the Code of Federal Regulations. Between the 1880's and 1934, the CFR court system operated in about two-thirds of all reservations. In 2002, about 46 tribes operated under a CFR court on their reservation. Among the 188 tribes with some form of tribal justice system, about 25% (46) had CFR courts. Tribal courts Passage of the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, encouraged tribes to enact their own laws and establish their own modern tribal courts. Tribes that could not afford to set up their own courts retained CFR courts operated by BIA, but the majority of tribes have established a formal tribal court system. Modern tribal courts, unlike the CFR courts, are under tribal control and are directly oriented to the needs of tribal members. Some tribes have developed a hybrid or blended judicial system that incorporates the dispute resolution elements of indigenous or CFR courts and the more modern focus to ensure due process. Tribal courts were designed to operate and enforce tribal constitutions and codes. About 175 (56%) of all tribes operated tribal courts on their reservation in 2002. Appeals from tribal trial courts are rare, although most tribes do provide some form of judicial review in criminal cases. Fifty-eight percent (103) of the tribal courts also had an appellate court. Inter-tribal court system Where it is economically and administratively feasible, a consortium of tribal governments (small or remotely located tribes) share a court (for example, the Northwest Inter-tribal Court System and the Southwest Inter-tribal Court of Appeals). Member tribes of an intertribal court have joined their limited resources to ensure that each tribe is able to have a court by sharing judges, prosecutors, and related court services. About 15 (8%) of the 188 tribes that had some form of tribal justice system, were members of an intertribal justice system in 2002. Some member tribes of the intertribal court consortium were entitled to appeal matters to a court of last resort. Types of cases and courts The types of cases handled by the tribal justice systems vary with the tribes and types of courts operating in Indian country. In 2002 about 84% of all tribes with some form of tribal justice system handled criminal misdemeanor cases. Most tribal courts heard traffic cases (160), juvenile (157), family law cases (147), domestic violence protective orders (157), civil matters (182), probate (115), and wildlife offenses (123). Over half (174) of all tribes indicated they had at least one general jurisdiction tribal court. Twenty- five percent (80) had a juvenile court, and 16%(51) had a separate family court. Full-time court employees and services for juvenile and family cases In 2002 an estimated 200 judges, 153 prosecutors, and 20 peacemakers were employed full time in Indian country. On account of limited personnel and resources, some tribes relied on State courts for judicial services. About 140 (45%) of all tribes relied on State court judicial services in some form. An estimated 179 (57%) of all tribes in Indian country ordered treatment in juvenile and/or family cases using county/municipal social service agencies (not shown in table). Child support enforcement program Just under a third (97) of all the tribes reported having a child support enforcement program. A third of the tribes had tribal family codes for establishing paternity (115), codes for establishing a child support order (119), codes for enforcing a child support order (120), and codes for modifying or adjusting a child support order (115). Corrections Sentencing, sanctions and supervision Criminal sentencing in tribal courts is generally limited to a maximum of 1 year of imprisonment and a $5,000 fine or both [25 U.S.C sec 1302(7) (3)]. By constitution, some tribes further restrict the types of sentences imposed in their respective courts. Detention in Indian country The detention of offenders for offenses that occur in Indian country varies by crime, the State's P.L. 280 status, and the existence of a tribal jail. In 2002 nearly 68% (212) of the tribes were provided detention services from a local county government. About 23% (71) of all tribes provided their own detention function. Among the 175 tribes that had their own tribal courts, an estimated 35% (62) had detention facilities for persons who committed offenses on the reservation. Adult intermediate sanctions Intermediate sanctions include restitution, reconciliation, substance abuse programs, community service, counseling, fines, and other types of sentences without incarceration. In 2002 slightly less than half of all tribes provided some intermediate sanctions against adults for criminal violations in Indian country. Over two-fifths of 314 tribes participating in the census provided monetary fines without incarceration; counseling or therapy; alcohol rehabilitation; some type of community service; drug rehabilitation; restitution without incarceration; and victim-offender reconciliation. The provision of intermediate sanctions for adults varied by the type of justice forum operating in the tribal jurisdiction. The majority of the tribes with a justice forum provided intermediate sanctions to adults that included drug or alcohol rehabilitation, counseling or therapy to the offender, and some type of community service. For the 175 tribes operating their own tribal courts, 84% provided monetary fines without incarceration; 79%, counseling or therapy; 79%, alcohol rehabilitation; 78%, some type of community service; 74%, drug rehabilitation; 74%, restitution without incarceration; and 22%, victim-offender reconciliation for adults. Juvenile intermediate sanctions Out of 314 participating tribes, 45% provided counseling or therapy; 44%, alcohol rehabilitation; 44%, monetary fines without incarceration; 43%, some type of community service; 41%, drug rehabilitation; 36%, restitution without incarceration; and 12%, victim-offender reconciliation for juveniles. As with the adults, a majority of the tribes operating a tribal court provided intermediate sanctions to juveniles that included drug or alcohol rehabilitation, counseling or therapy to the offender, and some type of community service. Among the 175 tribes operating their own tribal courts, about 75% provided counseling or therapy; 74%, alcohol rehabilitation; 73%, some type of community service; 71%, monetary fines without incarceration; 70%, drug rehabilitation; 62%, restitution without incarceration; and 21%, victim-offender reconciliation for juvenile offenders. Probation Probation in Indian country, similar to that imposed by Federal and State courts, is a part of the sentencing process providing an alternative to imprisonment by allowing a convicted offender to stay in the community, usually under conditions and the supervision of a probation officer. A violation of the probation terms can lead to its revocation and to imprisonment. Forty-one percent of all tribes (314) maintained a probation function for adults (not shown in table). Thirty-nine percent provided probation for juveniles. The provision of probation for adults and juveniles varied slightly by the type of justice system. Among the 175 tribes operating their own tribal courts, about 70% offered probation to adults, and 66% to juveniles. Residential programs In 2002 less than 10% of all tribes (314) reported having their own juvenile residential facility (not shown in table). For juveniles who had committed offenses on tribal land, tribes were more likely to use the residential facilities of the local county or non-tribal agencies than the facilities of another tribe. About 41% indicated the use of a county facility or that of a non-tribal agency to place juveniles; about 17% used the residential facility of another tribe. On the 175 reservations with a tribal court system, about 13% had their own juvenile residential facility. Approximately 26% of the tribes with their own tribal court system used the juvenile residential facilities of another tribe, and 68% placed juveniles in county or non-tribal agency facilities. For an indepth analysis of correctional facilities on reservations, see BJS Bulletin, Jails in Indian Country, 2003,(NCJ 208597) at . Criminal history records Collection and sharing of data for criminal justice statistics Tribes differ in their access to State and national record systems, in how they measure incidents of crime, and in how they integrate and share criminal justice information. The National Crime Information Center Operated by the FBI, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is a computerized index of criminal justice information (for example, files on criminal history, fugitives, stolen property, and missing persons). Data indexed by NCIC are provided by the Federal, State, local, and foreign criminal justice agencies and by authorized courts. NCIC is available to law enforcement agencies 365 days a year. About 55% of the tribes had access to NCIC. Seventy-two percent of tribes did not submit criminal history records to the State or Federal repositories. Almost 18% (55) of the tribes reported submitting criminal history records to a State and 17% to the FBI. National Sex Offender Registry The FBI's National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) is a network of State sex offender registries across the United States. Initially each State registry was responsible for registering and tracking the movements of sex offenders within its jurisdiction. However, when registered offenders moved from one State to another, individual States could not track them. The Lychner Act of 1996 imposed two major obligations on the FBI effective October 3, 1997: 1. To establish a national database at the FBI to track each person convicted of a criminal offense against a minor or of a sexually violent offense. 2. To register and verify the addresses of sex offenders who reside in States that do not have a "minimally sufficient" sex offender registry program. For most offenders, address verification is yearly, but for those who have been designated as a sexually violent predator, address verification is required every 90 days. (For a detailed discussion of the NSOR, see .) In 2002, 54 tribes (18%) reported they submit offender information to the NSOR. Number and types of crime Nearly 70% (213) of the tribes recorded the number and types of criminal incidents occurring in their jurisdiction. The method of tribal recording of crime on the reservations was manual (29%), electronic (24%), or both (47%). Among all tribes with a tribal justice system, there was an average of 784 criminal cases and 523 civil cases filed during the prior calendar year. The Navajo reservation had the largest number of criminal (31,057) and civil (46,876) cases filed during 2001. The tribal justice agencies reported that the majority of the criminal and civil offenses filed in the last calendar year were against American Indians. However, on average 5 criminal and 44 civil cases involved a non-Indian defendant in the prior calendar year. The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan reported the largest number of criminal (500) and civil (1,500) cases filed against non-Indian defendants during 2001. Integrated justice information systems An integrated criminal justice information system uses technology to allow the seamless sharing of information at critical decision points throughout the justice system. In many tribes today, integration efforts are under way to link tribal agencies not only to State and Federal record systems but also to other tribal agencies. The information shared can include all criminal justice related data, such as photographs, fingerprints, DNA identification records, case records, court calendars, electronic messages, and documents. Integration allows a single agency -- like a tribal police department, a prosecutor's office, a court, or a corrections program -- to distribute information among its own personnel and to share that information with multiple justice agencies. In 2002 less than 10% (27) of the tribes reported their justice agencies were electronically networked with other justice agencies on the reservation. About 12% (36) of the tribes indicated justice agencies in the tribe were electronically networked with justice agencies outside the tribe. About 12 tribes reported they routinely shared crime statistics with neighboring local governments; 14, with the State government; and 13, with the FBI. Tribes were least likely to report routinely sharing crime statistics with other tribes (6). End of file 12/14/05 ih