How and why is this population currently disproportionately affected by sexual and domestic violence?
“Sexual assault rates and violence against Native American women did not just drop from the sky. They are a process of history”(Amnesty International, 2006, pg 15). In order to comprehensively understand the contemporary crises faced by Native American women, historic patterns of discrimination must be considered. Tribal jurisdiction should be effectively restored when considering Native American's rights to self determination. Prevailing barriers to justice and safety will maintain a pervasively asymmetric legal framework, in which Native American's are deliberately barred from their basic civil rights.
Currently, NA/AN suffer disproportionately high levels of health related problems, such that the tuberculosis rate is 750 times higher than among all other Americans, diabetes is 6.8 times higher, and pneumonia and influenza are sixty one percent higher. Public health deficits lead to shorter life spans, and on average Native American's life expectancy is shortened by six years in comparison to the rest of the population. Assess to basic housing and amenities is also curtailed for the Native American population, such that 82 percent of Navajos living on a reservation are lacking telephone services and 46 percent have no electricity. (Entrekin et al, 2006). Simultaneously considering these patterns of poverty and substandard health, housing and education, Native American women face additional barriers, including high rates of sexual and domestic violence.
In South Dakota, Native Americans make up 10 percent of the population, yet they represent 40 percent of the victims of sexual assault. Similarly Alaska Natives are 15 percent of the population yet they constitute 61 percent of sexual assault victims (Perry 2004). This social problem can not be considered in a vacuum. The general overview and demographics presented previously offers insight into a systemic range of problems. According to a Department of Justice report conducted between 1992 and 2002, Native American women are 2.5 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted as compared to the American population. 34.1 percent are raped during their lifetime, yet 86 percent of the perpetrators of sexual violence against Native American women were non-Native men. These figures do not take into account that over half of these crimes will remain unreported (Perry 2004). Historical injustices faced by Native American women get to the origins of this contemporary crises. Some examples I found particularly salient were:
- The General Allotment Act of 1887 disrupted women's roles by curtailing the matrilinear system of land inheritance. The federal government divided communal tribal lands into 80-160 acre sites that were given to a male principe. Previously, most tribes honored women's land rights and practiced a matriarchal land inheritance system.
- Educational programs were funded and implemented to attempt assimilation of Native Americans into Western culture. These programs forced farming roles onto men and domestic housework onto women, removing the agrarian role women had previously maintained. Women's autonomy over agrarian practices was a source of strength and power. Imposing a Western distribution of labour degraded the social status and rights previously held by women.
- Religious practices, especially ceremonial dances, were outlawed and Christian missionaries were funded to convert Native Americans. Mandatory boarding schools that existed up until the 1950's systemically removed children from their mothers and tribes, placing them in institutions where they were prohibited to speak their language. Their name were changed and their Christian names reordered how family lineage was tracked. Names were modified from referencing the mother's lineage to a Western patriarchal model. Maternal and fertility values were once again depleted from Native American women's roles (Entrekin et al, 2006).
-During the 1970's IHS sterilized 25 percent of Native American women ages 15 to 44. Systemic failures included false information about sterilization, use of coercion to get signatures on consent forms, lack of appropriate waiting period, and irregular consent forms (Lawrence, 2000).
- A federal appellate court ruling, in 1968, maintained a measure with discriminatory legal consequences. A Native American man convicted of forcible rape charges in a reservation, would receive a lesser sentence if the victim was a Native American woman rather than a non-Native American woman. “It has been suggested that Congress, in passing this law, may have viewed Native women as immoral and less worthy of protection”(Amnesty International, 2006, pg 16)Current legal barriers to effectively reduce violence against Native American women are marked by the lack of comprehensive tribal jurisdiction.
- Oliphant versus Suquamish Supreme Court decision (1978) , removed Native American's right to prosecute non-Indians who have committed crimes in Indian country (Radon 2004). This decision left tribes powerless in the face of alarming rates of crimes against women. A Tribal nation can prosecute criminal cases solely if the defendant is an Indian (Entrekin et al, 2006).
This legal loophole leaves Native American women at high risk within their communities. Considering that 86 percent of perpetrators of sexual violence against Native American women were non-Native men (Perry 2004), 75 percent of offenders in intimate partner violence crimes were non-Native and 25 percent of offenders in family violence crimes were non-Native, there is clearly a significant gap in the protection of Native American women (Entrekin et al, 2006). Health, legal and social policies have historically failed Native American women, yet their patterns and precedents endure.
Under the Full Faith and Credit Provision of the Violence Against Women Act, survivors of violence are entitled to protection outside of where they were initially issued a protective order. Many women choose to flee the communities where they were victimized and under this provision their protective order remains effective beyond their county or state. Native American women have been unable to fully access the Full Faith and Credit provision under VAWA. Often times, protection orders issued by a tribal court are unenforceable outside of the tribes's issuing jurisdiction. Yet, even within the reservation, local officers are unable to arrest non-Native American criminals. The perpetual inability to centralize protective orders issued by tribal jurisdictions is a major barrier in safeguarding Native American women. There does not exist a national registry for tribal protective orders and a majority of tribal protective orders are not eligible to be entered into the federal registry for protective orders (Entrekin et al, 2006).
Currently only 13 percent of sexual assaults reported by Native American women lead to an arrest, as compared to 35 percent for African American women and 32 percent for Caucasian women (Weisman 2012). The restrictions placed on tribal prosecutes to file charges against non-Indian offenders leaves the federal government responsible for such cases. Federal prosecutors do not offer necessary attention to non-felony domestic violence cases, often times refusing to prosecute them all together. While currently there are no statistics on how many cases are refused by federal prosecutors specific to Native Americans, overall federal prosecutors refused to prosecute 42.9 percent of assault cases investigated.
Inadequate access to legal and health services in response to crimes against women on Native American reservations remains prevalent. Sexual assault forensic examinations, also known as a “rape kits” are a key component to effectively prosecuting sexual violence crimes. Currently all sexual violence victims must be given the option to access a rape kit, regardless of whether they will be reporting the crime. 44 percent of IHS facilities do not have staff members who are trained and able to provide emergency services specific to sexual violence, according to a recent Amnesty International survey (2006). This forces women to travel hundreds of miles to access these services in settings that might be culturally foreign and insensitive. Currently there is a lack of centralized and coordinated continuum of care for survivors and this results in conflicting instructions and suggestions from multiple service providers. Furthermore, the IHS only provides forensic exams for sexual assault victims in 27 out of the 45 hospitals it funds (Weisman, 2012). Access to services within Native American reservations are crucial for providing timely, widely accessible and culturally sensitive services to Native American women.
There are consistent delays by law enforcement in responding to reports of sexual violence against Native American women. The lack of a timely response by officials deters many survivors from pursuing a criminal case. Additionally there are overwhelming reports of insensitive and improper questioning of victims. Many state, federal and tribal officers have access to training regarding sexual and domestic violence, yet these are commonly not mandatory resulting in substandard responses to such crimes (Amnesty International, 2006).
Stigma and discrimination are key components when considering the reasons underlying the fact that over half of the cases of sexual assault remain unreported (Perry 2004). There is evidence of discriminatory treatment linked to suspected alcohol consumption amongst Native American women by law enforcement officials. Premature assumptions that a victim of violence had been under the effects of alcohol during the attack are connected to perpetual stereotypes linking Native American women and alcohol. Often times survivors reported being questioned about drinking and receiving discriminatory treatment due to this suspicion (Amnesty International 2006). Considering historic patterns of systemic oppression, Native American women might also justifiably hold some level of mistrust towards government officials.
Perpetual oppressive patterns and policies have lead to a breakdown of Native American women's identities."These women, who believe that they are targets of violence specifically because they are Native women, therefore consider that the only solution to the rape crises...is to lose their indigeneity."(Pacheco, 2009). In tandem to this statement, Andrea Smith, a Native American rape counselor and advocate describes how "every Native survivor I ever counseled...said to me at one point 'I wish I was no longer Indian'"(Pacheco, 2009).
There are a several successfully operating Native American organizations geared towards serving women who are survivors of violence as well as developing and implementing policy, educational and preventative programs. White Buffalo Calf Woman Society, Inc organized the first battered women's shelter on a reservation. They are located in South Dakota on the Rosebud reservation and offer shelter and advocacy for domestic violence victims. Morning Star House Inc. in Albuquerque New Mexico impacts 30,000 people through culturally relevant domestic violence services. It fosters comprehensive community programs against domestic violence. The Tribal Law and Policy Institute is a nonprofit corporation conducting research to optimize training, education and policy effecting the well being of Native Americans. Sacred Circle offers assistance to tribes in developing coordinated agency response systems as well as personnel training, tribal policy development and other forms of technical assistance (Entrekin et al, 2006).
The Tri-Ethnic Center at Colorado State University developed a community readiness model that has been successfully implemented in several different Native American reservations. It is a culturally relevant model that reinforces tribal self-determination and sovereignty through tribal and institutional partnerships that consider the cultural context when providing specifically tailored community interventions. It is influenced by the model of individual readiness for treatment and applies the stage appropriate treatment model to communities.
No level of community intervention will be sufficient if deliberate policy disparities continue to curtail a tribe's legal ability to safeguard its community. The VAWA reauthorization act passed bipartisanly in the Senate with a 68-31 vote in April 2012 addresses many gaps in service for Native American women and their communities. It gives tribal law enforcement civil authority to enforce protective orders against Indians and non-Indians equally. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the bill is found in section 904, which would allow tribes to arrest and prosecute non-Indian perpetrators of domestic or dating violence committed in Indian country. In these cases, the defendant would need to either be employed at the reservation, be a resident of the reservation or be the spouse or intimate partner of a resident or member of the reservation or tribe. The bill also allows tribal courts to give and enforce jail sentences that meet the current federal standards for such crimes. It also provides further funding for training, education and implementation of policies that address violence against women (National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence). The IHS needs to be better equipped to meet the needs of the population it serves. Funding and implementing an accessible and culturally relevant continuum of care that can comprehensively respond to Native American survivors of violent crimes is essential. The VAWA reauthorization act of 2012 did not pass in the House of Representatives. House republicans are either uninformed on this crisis or they are deliberately choosing to deny basic rights and services to Native Americans.
Amnesty International. Maze of Injustice: The failure to protect Indigenous women from sexual violence in the USA. (2006). New York: NY. 1-92.
Bendery, Jennifer. (April 26, 2012). Violence against women act reauthorization overwhelmingly passes senate. The Huffington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/violence-against-women-act- passes senate_n_1456839.html
Bubar, R., Thurman, Pamela J. (2004). Violence Against Native Women. Social Justice. 31.4.
Buchwald, D., Tomita, S., Hartman, S., Furman, R., Dudden, M. & Manson, S. M. (2000). Physical Abuse of Urban Native Americans. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 15, 563. 562-564.
Entrekin, Chrisina M., Harper, Shelby S.(2006). Violence Against Native Women. A Guide for Practitioner Action. Office on Violence Against Women, National Center on Full Faith and Credit. 1-38.
Heise, Lori, L. Violence Against Women : An Integrated, Ecological Framework. Violence Against Women 1998 4: 262.
Lawrence, Jane.(2000). The Indian Health Services and the Sterilization of Native American Women. American Indian Quarterly. 24, 3, 400.
National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women.Tribal Provision: Myth v. Facts. Accessed at http://4vawa.org/pages/tribal-provision-of-s-1925-myths-v- facts.com
Pacheco, Amanda. (2009). Broken Traditions: Overcoming the Jurisdictional Maze to Protect Native American Women from Sexual Violence. USF Journal of Law and Social Challenges. 1, 11.
Radon, A. (2004). Tribal Jurisdiction and Domestic Violence: The Need for Non-Indian Accountability on the Reservation. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. 37, 1275-1312.
Saylors, Karen. Daliparthy, Nalini. (2006). Violence Against Native Women in Substance Abuse Treatment. American Indian Alaska Native Mental Health Resource. 13, 1, 33.
Steven W Perry (December 2004). American Indian and Crime- A BIS Statistical Profile 1992- 2002, Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, accessed at www.ojp.usdoj/bjs/pub/pdf/aic02.pdf
Weisman, Jonathan. (May 12, 2012). For Native American women, scourge of rape, rare justice. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/us/native- americans-struggle-with-high-rate-of-rape.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
