    [Senate Hearing 108-341]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 108-341

              CHILD PROTECTION AND FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                    S. 1601

    TO AMEND THE INDIAN CHILD PROTECTION AND FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT
     TO PROVIDE FOR THE REPORTING AND REDUCTION OF CHILD ABUSE AND FAMILY
                   VIOLENCE INCIDENCES ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 24, 2003
                                 WASHINGTON, DC

    89-643              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2003
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                          COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

                  BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman

                    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Vice Chairman

    JOHN McCAIN, Arizona,                KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         HARRY REID, Nevada
    CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
    ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah                 BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
    GORDON SMITH, Oregon                 MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

             Paul Moorehead, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

            Patricia M. Zell, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
        S. 1601, text of.............................................     2
    Statements:
        Brunoe, Garland, chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Warm
          Springs Reservation of Oregon..............................    27
        Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado,
          chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs......................     1
        Cross, Terry, executive director, National Indian Child
          Welfare Association........................................    29
        Grim, Charles W., director, Indian Health Service, Department
          of Health and Human Services...............................    19
        Hopper, Woodrow, acting deputy assistant secretary for
          management--Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.....    18
        Lewis, Mark, director, Guidance Center, Hopi Tribes of
          Indians....................................................    25
        Perez, Jon, IHS Division of Behavioral Health................    19

                                    Appendix

    Prepared statements:
        Brunoe, Garland..............................................    39
        Cross, Terry (with attachment)...............................    42
        Grim, Charles W. (with attachment)...........................    70
        Hopper, Woodrow (with attachment)............................    80
        Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, vice
          chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs......................    39
        Taylor, Jr., Wayne, chairman, Hopi Tribe (with attachment)...    92
        Toulou, Tracy, director, Office of Tribal Justice, Department
          of Justice (with attachment)...............................   100

              CHILD PROTECTION AND FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT

                                  ----------

                         WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2003

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                   Committee on Indian Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room
    485, Russell Senate Building, Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senator Campbell.

     STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
            COLORADO, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

        The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
        Welcome to the committee's hearing on a bill to reauthorize
    the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act,
    S. 1601, which I was happy to introduce along with my friend
    and colleague, Senator Inouye. Senator Inouye won't be here
    this morning. We are both also on Appropriations and he is
    still in the appropriations hearing. Senators Johnson and
    Domenici have also cosponsored this bill.
        Prepared Statement of Sen. Inouye appears in appendix.
        [Text of S. 1601 follows:]

        The Chairman. Today, we will receive testimony on continued
    incidences of child abuse, the need for tribal infrastructure
    for managing child abuse cases, and whether there is proper
    interagency cooperation and character investigations for
    individuals having regular contact with Indian children.
        There is a chart here on the right and as you can see from
    that chart, studies indicate violence and abuse in Indian
    country occurs at rates that are higher than other populations.
    At one time, the rate of violence in Indian country rose by 18
    percent while at the same time, it decreased by 8 percent for
    the general population.
        On chart 2, these percentages translate into very startling
    figures. The numbers of Indian children victimized were over
    3,000 out of every 100,000 children which is far too many. In
    fact one is far too many.
        Enacted in 1990, the act established extensive reporting
    requirements, mandated certain character investigations and
    authorized funding for prevention and treatment programs. The
    bill before us today is designed to improve tribal capacity and
    to identify the impediments to reducing child abuse.
        S. 1601 promotes cultural perspectives by giving
    consideration to tribal programs which incorporate traditional
    healing methods. Preventing child abuse also requires that
    individuals having regular contact with children are adequately
    screened prior to contact. S. 1601 will expand the scope of
    character investigations to contractors and volunteers in
    addition to employees who have regular contact with Indian
    children making its scope consistent with other Federal law.
        With that, I look forward to hearing the testimony from our
    witnesses and we will go ahead and start with pane one which
    will be Woodro Hopper, acting deputy assistant secretary for
    Management, Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior and
    Charles Grim, director, Indian Health Service. We will take you
    in that order with Mr. Hopper first. Your complete written
    testimony will be included. If you would like to deviate from
    that written testimony, that will be fine.

    STATEMENT OF WOODROW HOPPER, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
       FOR MANAGEMENT--INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Hopper. I am pleased to be here today to provide the
    Department's testimony supporting S. 1601, a bill to amend the
    Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act to
    provide for the reporting and reduction of child abuse and
    family violence incidents on Indian reservations.
        The Department of the Interior supports expansion of the
    number and breadth of employment positions that will be subject
    to the minimum standards of character under the act. The
    Department of the Interior recommends a review not only of
    appropriate State criminal history repositories but also tribal
    criminal history repositories.
        We also support inclusion of the certification requirements
    for education employees who are responsible for child
    protection at residential and day schools. Certification is
    critical as almost all Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] funded
    schools contract to provide important services including mental
    health and other social services to Indian students. The
    Department of the Interior supports conducting a study to help
    identify and reduce the barriers to implementation of the Act,
    with particular emphasis on tribal, Federal and State
    investigations and prosecution of Indian and non-Indian
    abusers.
        The study will allow the Office of Law Enforcement Services
    in the BIA to identify efforts that better serve Indian
    communities and improve the implementation of the President's
    citizen centered government initiative. However, we
    respectfully request additional time in which to complete the
    more comprehensive report to better identify incidences of
    child abuse and family violence and steps to improve
    intergovernmental and interagency cooperation.
        The BIA, in cooperation with Indian tribes, must continue
    to develop more awareness at the local level to prevent child
    abuse. We must work together to ensure that abusers do not have
    access to children and that any incidences of abuse are
    prosecuted.
        This concludes my statement. I want to thank you for
    introducing this legislation and for your support for the
    protection of our future generations. I would be happy to
    answer any questions you may have.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Hopper appears in appendix.]

    STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. GRIM, DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE,
      DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ACCOMPANIED BY JON
           PEREZ, DIRECTOR, IHS DIVISION OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

        Mr. Grim. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee.
        I am Dr. Charles W. Grim, director of the Indian Health
    Service. I have accompanying me today, Dr. Jon Perez, director
    of our IHS Division of Behavioral Health. I will be making the
    opening statement for the Department and Dr. Perez is here to
    help with additional questions, should the committee have them.
        I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify on behalf
    of Secretary Thompson on S. 1601, the Indian Child Protection
    Family Violence Prevention Act of 2003. With your concurrence,
    I will submit my written testimony for the record and just
    speak briefly.
        The Chairman. It will be included in the record.
        Mr. Grim. Thirteen years ago, this committee authorized the
    Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
    because of the incidences of abuse of children on Indian
    reservations was underreported and because many perpetrators of
    sexual abuse of children on Indian reservations were Federal
    Government employees and because funds were inadequate to meet
    the increasing needs for mental health treatment and counseling
    for victims of child abuse and family violence. This act was
    passed to help preserve the continued existence and integrity
    of Indian tribes by protecting American Indian and Alaska
    Native children and families.
        Thirteen years later, these reasons, while somewhat
    diminished, are still valid reasons to reauthorize the act.
    Indian country has higher rates of child abuse and domestic
    violence than other population groups in the United States.
    Child abuse and family violence are crimes and there are
    tribal, State and Federal laws that address the criminal
    aspects of these behaviors.
        The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention
    Act enables us to undertake treatment and prevention program
    activities to reduce the risk factors associated with child
    abuse and family violence. The available statistics you
    presented briefly in your opening comments show an alarmingly
    high level of child abuse and family violence in Indian country
    and this Act gives us an opportunity to do something about it.
    Abuse and neglect have short and long term consequences and
    long term means a lifetime of physical and psychological scars.
        Experiencing abuse, neglect or violence or even its threat
    increases the risk of the victim becoming a perpetrator of
    violence. Children who have experienced such abuse are also at
    increased risk for experiencing the adverse health effects and
    behaviors as adults that include smoking, alcoholism, drug
    abuse, physical inactivity, obesity, depression, suicide,
    sexual promiscuity, and certain chronic diseases and being a
    perpetrator of abuse as well.
        As we all know, these health effects and behaviors also are
    risk factors for many other diseases and chronic conditions.
    The consequences of child abuse and neglect can be seen
    throughout the life cycle. Among our youth who are
    incarcerated, there are a large number who are victims of child
    abuse and neglect.
        We must protect our children and our families from violence
    and must provide treatment if we are to break the cycle. There
    is no simple solution. There are many factors commonly
    associated with abuse and neglect but the presence of these
    factors alone does not guarantee abusive situations will
    develop. If we can reduce the risk factors, we can also reduce
    the incidence of child abuse and family violence and can break
    the cycle of abuse and its consequences.
        The Indian Health Service has been a partner with five
    tribes in funding grants to establish programs for child
    protective services, child abuse prevention, family violence
    prevention and abuse prevention and identification education
    programs. The programs developed from these grants incorporated
    culturally relevant aspects of prevention programs that have
    shown positive effectiveness in reducing abuse and violence.
    Programs of home visiting and family intervention, parent
    education and school based programs for the prevention of child
    sexual abuse appear to increase the number of children more
    likely to use protective strategies.
        The IHS also funded the development of a Child Protection
    Technical and Training Manual for use in Indian country. In
    addition, the Administration for Children and Families, Office
    of Child Abuse and Neglect within the Department of HHS funded
    the Making Medicine Project that has trained 150 professionals
    on providing culturally sensitive treatment to Indian victims
    of child physical and sexual abuse. These professionals are
    working with American Indian and Alaska Native communities
    around the country.
        The IHS has also established an interagency agreement with
    the Department of Justice, Office of Victims of Crime for a
    four year training program for IHS physicians and nurse
    practitioners in the application of forensic and telemedicine
    equipment in child sexual abuse cases.
        In addition, as required by the current and the proposed
    act, the IHS published an interim final rule that established
    minimum standards of character for IHS employees, volunteers
    and contractors who are in positions identified by the IHS as
    involving regular contact or control over American Indian and
    Alaska Native children.
        The rate of child abuse and family violence in Indian
    country is high and is unacceptable. It happens for many
    reasons but it doesn't happen in isolation from the economic
    and social problems that are faced in Indian country resulting
    in poverty, a lack of resources, limited opportunity and a
    sense of hopelessness and isolation at times.
        The reauthorization of the Indian Child Protection and
    Family Violence Prevention Act as I mentioned earlier will
    continue to help us protect our children and treat the
    survivors of family violence and abuse. It will take further
    investment and a broad range of Federal and tribal programs to
    achieve the goal of prevention. The Department and IHS are
    committed to working with you to achieve those goals of
    prevention.
        In conclusion, the Department fully supports enactment of
    S. 1601. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or any
    other members of the committee might have.
        Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Dr. Grim appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you both, Mr. Hopper and Dr. Grim.
        It really kind of amazes me when we look at the statistics
    dealing with child abuse. Historically, Indian people were the
    most loving families you could ever ask for where they all
    participated in raising their children. They are literally
    known for that kind of loving family and yet we have some of
    the highest child abuse in the country. I can only attribute it
    to some of the factors you mentioned, drugs, alcohol and so on,
    the things that go with a depressed economy and a depressed
    society. Sometimes that anger turns inward.
        Mr. Hopper, I am interested in the progress the Department
    has made and its experience over the past 8 years in
    implementing the act. First of all, let me ask is there a
    backlog now of security checks of people?
        Mr. Hopper. My understanding as of last evening is there is
    no backlog of security checks.
        The Chairman. There is not. Explain this to me. Is the
    Security Division now in two parts with one part being in
    Albuquerque and one part being in Washington?
        Mr. Hopper. That is somewhat correct, sir. The Office of
    Indian Education has its own separate Personnel Security Office
    right now that is located in Albuquerque. The other entities
    within the BIA have a separate office.
        The Chairman. What does one do that the other one does not
    do?
        Mr. Hopper. They both perform similar duties. One office
    concentrates primarily on the 5,000 or so educators and people
    who work in the schools, while the other office concentrates on
    the employees who work in the trust and tribal services related
    programs.
        The Chairman. It works better to have one group in
    Albuquerque?
        Mr. Hopper. Under the reorganization we are going through
    right now, they will be merged into one unit and will be
    located, at the moment, in Albuquerque, NM, within in the
    Office of Law Enforcement Services.
        The Chairman. Currently the act requires all authorized
    positions within the Department to have regular contact with
    children to undergo a character investigation. What is the
    Department of the Interior's process for determining whether a
    position requires the investigation or not? Is it direct
    contact with the children?
        Mr. Hopper. Yes; it is. The security personnel in
    conjunction with the program side of the house determine which
    positions require an investigation. However, when you look at
    our education programs, virtually every position has the
    preponderance of contact with children and virtually every
    position requires a character background checks, whether it is
    a janitor or a school principal. We have been doing that now
    for many, many years.
        The Chairman. In addition to Indian students lot of the
    tribal schools now have non-Indian children in the schools
    because their parents employees of the tribe or something. In
    the process you describe, what governs the positions outside
    the BIA Office of Indian Education? Say it is a non-Indian kid
    that is enrolled in that school, an Indian school.
        Mr. Hopper. Would you mind restating the question?
        The Chairman. Many of the schools now on reservations have
    mostly Indian children but have some non-Indian children in the
    schools because their parents are employees of the tribe or
    something of that nature. They are isolated from the city, so
    they have them in the same schools with Indian children. How do
    you interact with them? What governs the positions dealing with
    kids that may not be Indian but are in Indian schools who may
    have been abused?
        Mr. Hopper. It is the employees that have the background
    check, not the children. Are you asking if something happens to
    one of the children?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Hopper. The reporting process for any child in the
    school would be the same.
        The Chairman. The same?
        Mr. Hopper. Yes; I would have to defer to one of the staff
    to give you an idea of the number of non-Indian children that
    may be attending a BIA school.
        The Chairman. I don't need the numbers, that is all right.
        In 1998, the Office of Inspector General conducted surveys
    of character investigations for certain area offices of the
    Office of Indian Education and there appears to be a
    significant delay in conducting character investigations. Have
    you taken any steps to try to speed up that or to improve the
    process?
        Mr. Hopper. What happened was, the Office of Indian
    Education established within their own ranks, an office to deal
    with personnel security and that backlog has been reduced. They
    are expeditiously processing the background investigations.
        The Chairman. The act also requires the Department to
    establish an Indian Child Resource and Family Services Center
    with a multidisciplinary team. What is the progress of that?
        Mr. Hopper. The BIA does use the Child Protection Team
    concept if that is what you are referring to in the event that
    we have an incident. We have a multidisciplinary team that
    works in conjunction with Indian Health Service, the Justice
    Department, law enforcement, and whoever else is necessary.
        The Chairman. So there is not a physical center where they
    work together?
        Mr. Hopper. No, sir; it is not a center.
        The Chairman. The act also required the Department to
    conduct a feasibility study for the Central Registry to collect
    data and reports on child abuse. I understand that was not
    established but there are apparently some alternatives and
    resources for tracking child abuse in Indian country, are there
    not?
        Mr. Hopper. I don't have the answer to that. I can provide
    it to you or call on BIA staff who may know.
        The Chairman. Bill, do you know? If somebody does know,
    otherwise I would have you provide that to me. Identify
    yourself for the record, Bill.
        Mr. Mehojah. I am Bill Mehojah, director, Office of Tribal
    Services.
        Presently, we do not have a central registry in place. Any
    reports of child abuse incidents are reported to law
    enforcement and they maintain a database or system of counting
    those cases but we do not have a central registry.
        The Chairman. Then how do you monitor a perpetrator moving
    from one jurisdiction to another when he gets a little worried
    that somebody may uncover what he has been doing and he moves
    to someplace else? Mr. Hopper, if you know that?
        Mr. Hopper. If we find a perpetrator and we identify the
    individual as an employee, we will take immediate action to put
    him on administrative leave until we can perform the due
    process. That is when the Department of Justice steps in if
    they are going to prosecute. The employee could be fired and
    incarcerated. They could never be reemployed with the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs.
        If you are asking if there is any possibility they could
    somehow be employed with another agency at some later date,
    there is no second chance in BIA.
        The Chairman. There is no second chance, in other words.
        Mr. Hopper. There is no second chance in BIA, that is
    correct.
        The Chairman. They can't just be transferred as we have
    read about and seen in the news with some churches, for
    instance?
        Mr. Hopper. No; that does not happen. The individual
    isolated until such time that we either prosecute or remove
    them administratively.
        The Chairman. As I understand your testimony, you are
    pretty supportive of the bill, S. 1601?
        Mr. Hopper. Absolutely.
        The Chairman. We want to mark this bill in October and are
    kind of running out of time. As you know, we only have maybe
    another 6 weeks and we will be out of here for the year. If you
    have any suggestions of how we can improve the bill, if you
    would contact staff, I would certainly appreciate it because I
    would like to mark this up in October if we can.
        Mr. Hopper. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. Dr. Grim, thank you for appearing today.
        What role does the Indian Health Service play in this whole
    child abuse investigation realm?
        Dr. Grim. We perform a number of services in the child
    abuse arena. We perform both clinical, forensic, supportive and
    training roles. Clinical services we provide involve direct
    assessment and treatment of those people who have been abused.
        The Chairman. Counseling programs or something of that
    nature?
        Mr. Grim. Yes; counseling services, as well as substance
    abuse and treatment services may be needed as a result of
    abuse. We also provide forensic exams when necessary in our
    facilities like the sexual assault forensic exams. We have
    protocols and procedures in place to deal with those and
    oftentimes our providers who are doing those exams are
    sometimes called upon to testify in judicial proceedings.
        We also provide supportive services for both families and
    victims in the way of social services, counseling, and other
    sorts of services that may be necessary. We also train IHS
    personnel across the clinical spectrum in identifying,
    assessing and treating victims of child abuse or their
    families.
        The Chairman. We are always talking about budget crunches
    around here as you know. Do you find the resources we provide
    adequate for you to do a first class job in this area?
        Mr. Grim. As always, Senator, we try to do the best we can
    with the resources that are available. The major issues that
    usually arise are often in our smaller facilities whenever a
    provider is called upon, has done a forensic exam perhaps and
    is called upon to testify in court. It pulls that provider away
    from a clinic for a half a day or a day, then we may experience
    decreased access to care in that given clinic. So it does place
    occasional burdens on us to deal with these issues but we
    always participate fully with the judicial system when
    necessary.
        The Chairman. I am sure everyone on this committee
    appreciates that. With regard to the traditional methods for
    restoring health and well being of Indian people, studies
    researched by our staff support incorporating cultural
    awareness into treatment methods. I understand the Indian
    Health Service has an agreement with the Substance Abuse and
    Mental Health Service Agency to promote that kind of culturally
    appropriate action, particularly with children's mental health
    services in Indian country. What type of research have you been
    conducting on whether that is a successful program or not?
        Mr. Grim. You are correct. We do have agreements going on
    with SAMHSA right now that have demonstrated successes in
    Indian country. Right now we have two Indian Health Service
    personnel detailed to SAMHSA, one in the Center for Substance
    Abuse Treatment, one in the Center for Substance Abuse
    Prevention to help better coordinate the resources of the two
    agencies going into Indian country.
        Specifically to the culturally appropriate care children's
    programs you brought up, we have something called the Circles
    of Care Grant Program. It is funded by SAMHSA and both IHS and
    SAMHSA are sharing technical assistance roles with tribes and
    also evaluation for the 16 tribal programs. We have been
    primarily providing technical assistance. SAMHSA has been
    providing evaluations through a contract with the University of
    Colorado's Health Science Center.
        We feel the evaluations provided thus far by Colorado have
    indicated a high success in helping tribal programs build the
    infrastructure to deal with these problems.
        The Chairman. Do you work with Dr. Jim Shore? Do you know
    that name? He is with the Medical Sciences Group at the
    University of Colorado but I know he has extensive background
    in Indian health, having worked on many reservations. I was
    just wondering about that.
        Mr. Perez. I know the name. I worked with Dr. Manson.
        The Chairman. Dr. Grim, I assume you also support this
    bill, do you not?
        Mr. Grim. Yes, sir; we fully support the bill.
        The Chairman. As with Mr. Hopper, if you can give us any
    suggestions on how to improve it, I would appreciate it because
    we are going to try to mark up the bill in October, as I
    mentioned.
        Mr. Grim. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. Thank you for appearing.
        We will now go to our second panel which will be: Mark
    Lewis, director of the Guidance Center, Hopi Tribe; Garland
    Brunoe, chairman, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs; and
    Terry Cross, executive director, National Indian Child Welfare
    Association from Portland.
        As with our previous panel, if you would like to submit
    your complete written testimony, that will be in the record and
    we will study that very carefully. If you would like to
    abbreviate or diverge from your written testimony, that would
    be fine.
        We will go ahead and start in the order that I mentioned
    with Mr. Lewis first.

    STATEMENT OF MARK LEWIS, DIRECTOR, GUIDANCE CENTER, HOPI TRIBE
                               OF INDIANS

        Mr. Lewis. Good morning, Chairman Campbell.
        My name is Mark Lewis and I am the administrative director
    for the Hopi Guidance Center, Behavioral Health and Social
    Services for the Hopi Tribe. I am here as a representative of
    the Hopi Tribe and Chairman Wayne Taylor, Jr., who could not be
    here today.
        The tribe wanted to convey to you that we are very pleased
    and honored to be invited to testify on S. 1601, the Indian
    Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act of 2003.
        Again, my name is Mark Lewis. I am a member of the Hopi
    Tribe, a professional social worker by trade and have been with
    the Guidance Center for 10 years, beginning as a mental health
    clinician and in the last 6 years, administering both
    behavioral health and social services which is responsible for
    child protective services and behavioral health of our tribe.
        The tribe wishes to describe to you our very real
    experience as a community and government in implementing the
    original act of 1990 and provide important input in advocacy
    that we believe will improve and strengthen this act that we
    believe is critical in effectively addressing child protection,
    child abuse prevention and treatment.
        We also wish to endorse the changes of the Act that
    Chairman Campbell has provided and we hope to provide other
    information that will also strengthen what you have proposed.
        As you may be aware, the Hopi Tribe has experienced
    directly the tragedy and immense pain associated with abuse of
    over 100 of our children, apparently beginning sometime in the
    last 1970's which continued until 1987 when a BIA school
    teacher was exposed as a prolific pedophile. As a result of
    this tragedy and other similar deplorable circumstances in
    Indian country, the original act was passed into law and became
    one of the primary vehicles for child protection and child
    abuse prevention and treatment in Indian country.
        We wish to convey that it also must be understood that
    tribes in general lacked services, programs and funding to
    effectively address child abuse issues prior to the passage of
    this act. S. 1601 will improve the act in a number of important
    ways. While we encourage Congress to make the changes outlined
    in the bill, we also ask that the Act provide adequate funding
    to help tribes carryout the original important functions of the
    act.
        First, the bill expands the current law's requirements for
    background checks to include volunteers and employees of other
    Federal entities beyond the Bureau and IHS. While the tribe
    supports this amendment, it is critical that while adding to
    the list of who must have a background check, actual funding
    must accompany not just the additions but the current
    background check requirements of the act.
        By way of background, the Hopi Tribe's law enforcement
    departments lack proper funding to adequately meet all of its
    law enforcement and investigative needs. We are still a Bureau
    operated law enforcement, so they lack adequate funding to
    properly meet all of its needs, investigative needs and
    investigation of child sexual abuse which many know is a
    specialized service.
        Today, the Hopi has just two investigators but that is for
    all of its criminal investigations across our on-reservation
    population of 8,000. The Hopi Guidance Center, the entity for
    which I am responsible, and also responsible for child
    protective services and mental health and substance abuse
    services on the Hopi Reservation has had to rely on periodic
    surplus from its Bureau funding base or find alternative
    funding streams for these background checks. There is no money
    coming as a result of the act to conduct these.
        As a governing board member, elected official of the Hopi
    Junior/High School they will attest as well that there is no
    funding to conduct the background checks on those teachers and
    we often rely on the surplus in order to be able to do those
    background checks.
        S. 1601 calls for the establishment of safety measures for
    child protection workers. We certainly support that but it is
    indicative of the training needs and other costs associated
    with implementing stronger systems and protocols and procedures
    in the provision of child protection and child abuse prevention
    as well as treatment.
        S. 1601 expands the definition of child abuse, mental
    health, emotional and well being and self esteem are important
    factors in the health of Indian children and children facing
    family violence should be able to access child abuse services.
    The Tribe agrees with the expanded definition. However, it is
    indicative of once again the need to provide adequate financial
    resources to investigators, to prosecutors, to courts who will
    see more of these cases coming through an already overcrowded
    door.
        S. 1601 replaces the feasibility study from the original
    act and Federal study of impediments to reducing child abuse.
    The feasibility study was conducted but the law doesn't reflect
    it. The tribe supports what you are doing with your proposal.
    We must study and understand the impediments to reducing abuse
    in order to make effective decisions at our tribal levels.
        S. 1601 emphasizes strengthening tribal infrastructure to
    develop effective tribal programs including databases for
    accessing current, national central registries for child abuse.
    The tribe supports not only this provision but the general
    building of administrative infrastructure in general.
    Management information systems and other related forms of
    technology must be funded as they are necessary these days and
    in the height of greater accountability for tribal programs to
    effectively administer our particular programs.
        While many of these wonderful mandates have come down, the
    BIA of Social Services which has the primary responsibility for
    social services in Indian country, never receives any increases
    as we all know. We need to be able to address those issues with
    this act as well as with the current provision of social
    services through the Bureau.
        In conclusion, the tribe urges the committee to move
    forward with the proposed amendments and also to ensure that
    its provisions, as well as those of the original act, receive
    full funding in order to meet all of these mandates.
        Once again, on behalf of the Hopi Tribe and Chairman
    Taylor, we thank you for this opportunity to present the issues
    and concerns of the Hopi Tribe.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Taylor, Jr., appears in
    appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you for appearing here.
        Chairman Brunoe, we will go to you now.

    STATEMENT OF GARLAND BRUNOE, CHAIRMAN, THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES
               OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON

        Mr. Brunoe. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good
    afternoon.
        I am Garland Brunoe, the tribal council chairman of the
    Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs of Oregon.
        Our tribe thanks you for the opportunity to be here today
    to testify in support of S. 1601, the Indian Child Protection
    and Family Violence Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2003.
    This is extremely needed legislation.
        The Warm Springs Tribes located in north central Oregon
    share many of the modern characteristics of Indian reservation
    life. Our communities are rural and many Indian individual
    dwellings are isolated. Economic opportunities are limited and
    unemployment and poverty rates are persistently high.
    Unfortunately, so too are the rates of child abuse and family
    violence.
        About 4,100 people live on the Warm Springs Reservation,
    3,300 are tribal members and of them, 1,617 are younger than 18
    years of age. Last year, during 2002, 402 Warm Springs children
    were placed under the custody of our Child Protective Services
    by tribal court order. This year for 2003, we project 460 of
    our children will be placed in CPS custody, a 14-percent
    increase over 2002.
        These numbers are very distressing and our tribe is doing
    all we can to try to address this problem. Because we are
    exempt from Public Law 280 and our reservation is almost all
    tribal trust land, we have exclusive jurisdiction over child
    welfare issues, allowing us to fashion and run a program
    without competing State regulations.
        We try to work closely with the State of Oregon and are one
    of the few tribes in the Nation with a tribal/State Title 4(e),
    Foster Care Maintenance Payment Agreement that gives us much
    the same footing as a State for developing and maintaining a
    foster program.
        Even with our fairly comprehensive Child Protection Service
    Program, key jurisdictional differences do remain. Non-Indians
    in our reservation with criminal child abuse charges have to be
    referred to the State and Federal child abuse charges require
    calling in the FBI. Also, the local public schools that educate
    our children first report signs of child abuse to the State and
    the State then sends them along to us.
        S. 1601 seeks to address these sorts of problems by
    requiring that non-Indians with criminal child abuse charges be
    reported to the State and by requiring a study of how
    jurisdictional differences hinder the reduction of child abuse.
    We also support the bill's expansion of coverage by including
    family violence and child abuse, allowing Indian Health
    Service's treatment grants for all child abuse victims and
    making the Justice Department a part of the Regional Resource
    Centers.
        We also applaud the clarification that tribal
    responsibilities under 638 contracts include cooperation and
    reporting on abuse cases, training child protection worker
    safety and improved data collection.
        More than anything else, the act itself and its funding
    must be reauthorized. Addressing child abuse and family
    violence is very labor intensive. Our police, our courts, our
    prosecutors, our youth services and our medical services are
    all involved but Child Protective Services must tie it together
    and provide a tremendous range of functions. One on one care
    and attention often from specialists is essential. At Warm
    Springs, our CPS capacity that delivers those services is
    severely strained if not becoming broken.
        We have a staff of just 15 including four cases workers who
    must each handle more than 110 cases a year. We need assistance
    almost across the board.
        I am sure other tribes across Indian country have similar
    problems. Child abuse and family violence are silent and
    generally out of the public eye but they are devastating to our
    communities. Consequences are long lasting and far reaching.
    This is an issue that must be addressed and passage of S. 1601
    is essential to that task.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my testimony.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Brunoe appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Cross.

     STATEMENT OF TERRY CROSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INDIAN
                CHILD WELFARE ASSOCIATION, PORTLAND, OR

        Mr. Cross. Mr. Chairman, I am Terry Cross. I am the
    executive director of the National Indian Child Welfare
    Association located in Portland, OR.
        Thank you for inviting me to provide this testimony in
    support of reauthorization of the Indian Child Protection and
    Family Violence Prevention Act. I am submitting full written
    testimony for inclusion in the record.
        The Chairman. Fine.
        Mr. Cross. The National Indian Child Welfare Association is
    a national, private, non-profit organization, a membership
    organization of tribes and tribal child welfare workers and
    tribal child protection workers that provides support to those
    workers and tribes who are providing these services in the
    field with training, technical assistance, advocacy and
    research.
        You mentioned in your opening remarks what we call the
    natural system of child protection that has existed amongst our
    people for generations. This historical framework still helps
    support our families and those sacred teachings about children
    being gifts of the Creator are still very central to our way of
    life and our extended families. If it weren't for those, this
    problem would be even worse than it is. In a few minutes I will
    come back to talking about how those natural systems can be
    supported.
        Those natural systems of child protection have been broken
    down in the context of substance abuse, poverty, interrupted
    parenting, removal and oppression and we all know that one of
    the major assaults on Indian people was the removal of the
    authority and capacity to protect our own children. I think
    Chief Joseph said in his remarks, ``Let me gather the
    children.'' Our tribal leaders of the past knew the children
    were at the top of the list. There is no expression of tribal
    sovereignty more important than the protection of your own
    children.
        What has happened historically is that the sacred authority
    to protect children has been limited and constricted by Federal
    policy. Where tribes should be the agent of statutory authority
    for the investigation and treatment of child abuse, instead
    today we have a patchwork quilt, a tangled web of complex
    Federal Indian policy and Federal child welfare policy that
    overlap to leave our children out of the configuration of
    services. To give you an example of some of that complexity,
    you heard here today that because of the Dawes Act, when
    reservations are checkerboarded, you sometimes need a guidebook
    to know who has authority to investigate which cases. Because
    of Public Law 280, you have to have intergovernmental
    agreements just to know who has jurisdiction in which cases, in
    which States. CAPTA, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
    Act that provides funding to States in this area of child abuse
    leaves out tribes completely.
        My testimony goes into depth in this area but what I want
    to say about this tangled web is it has a lot of consequences
    and serious consequences. One of those is there is no good data
    about child abuse in Indian country. The number you have here
    of 1 in 30 kids abused is the best information we have but we
    know that it only accounts for probably 61 percent of the cases
    in the country. You can add another 40 percent probably on top
    of that 1 in 30.
        Part of that untold story is the amount of this issue
    attributable to substance abuse. We know that at least 65
    percent of child abuse cases are substance abuse related. We
    know when you single out the neglect cases, that goes much
    higher, as high as 83 percent. We also know the term child
    abuse lumps together several different items; neglect, child
    abuse and child sexual abuse, and that child neglect actually
    accounts for about 83 percent of those overall numbers. When
    you look at the relationship between child neglect, poverty and
    substance abuse, you start to see why we have such serious
    problems.
        In addition to that, when we are taking a look at how the
    numbers play out, the numbers for child sexual abuse are
    actually somewhat lower than mainstream society as best we can
    tell. The numbers for child abuse and neglect vary by community
    but a surprising piece of information is that most child deaths
    in Indian country are not the result of abuse, but are the
    result of neglect. Our kids are three times more likely to die
    of accidents than any other children in the country. The Indian
    Health Service has not addressed this issue at all.
        It is important for us to keep in mind that these
    statistics have important social impacts and you have heard
    several of those talked about, mental health, juvenile justice,
    family violence, and other areas. Basic to that, -is the impact
    on the very development of our communities themselves, the
    development of infrastructure, the economic development, the
    impact of life long suffering of children who don't get enough
    medical care, children who don't get treatment for serious
    depression or for family violence, being victims of family
    violence, the costs are very high.
        The consequence of this overlapping, tangled web I
    mentioned is a very confused set of jurisdictions with unclear
    roles and reporting problems. One of the reasons we don't have
    good data is because there is no central place for data to be
    reported. The national NCANDS database is a database that
    records all cases of child abuse reported to States for the
    purposes of tracking how many and where. Indian data does not
    go in there unless the State has provided the service. If the
    tribes have provided those services, then the data doesn't go
    in there. It may get reported to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    but the BIA does not report to the NCANDS database and the
    numbers you have here on the wall come from the NCANDS
    database. That is why I say that 40 percent of the cases out
    there are not getting counted.
        Another problem is that children end up not getting
    protected. We have children in situations where there are no
    services, where people point at each other thinking the other
    one should be doing it. I want to point out that in child
    welfare policy, it is well known that somebody has to be
    responsible and the entity with statutory authority is the
    place for that responsibility to lie. We know from our work
    around the country that when tribes exercise and are empowered
    to exercise that statutory authority, then things happen. The
    tribe can negotiate those local agreements to overcome this
    tangled web. The tribes should be leading the child protection
    teams and not the Federal agencies because the Federal agencies
    do not have statutory authority. If the tribe doesn't want to
    provide the services, they should be able to delegate that
    authority to someone else and make that decision themselves.
        Again, I reiterate that there is no expression of
    sovereignty more important than the protection of children.
    That goes for both the criminal and civil side and the only
    meaningful solutions to the problems pointed out by Chairman
    Brunoe pointed out are local solutions, agreements and
    protocols and cross deputizations driven by strong tribal
    authority. That strong tribal authority only can come through
    funding. We need programs that are non-discretionary, that are
    funded to allow tribes to operate the very basics of child
    protection. In this very complex arena, tribes need training
    and technical assistance. They need to have access to
    culturally designed prevention and intervention strategies and
    those are growing around the country. Those need to be shared
    with one another.
        We also need to have the capacity to do child abuse
    prevention activities. Every State in the Nation has a
    children's trust fund that funds child abuse prevention that
    the Federal Government matches under CAPTA. Tribes don't have
    access to those dollars unless they go hat in hand to States
    and apply for a grant like every non-profit in a State. There
    needs to be a Tribal Indian Children's Trust Fund established
    so that tribes can do child abuse prevention.
        We need to clarify and simplify the background checks and
    support it. Right now, it is an unfunded mandate. We need to
    reconcile the minimum definitions in this Act with the minimum
    definitions in CAPTA.
        We support the provisions as proposed. We think S. 1601 is
    on the right track but we also want you to consider making sure
    the tribes have the funds to operate the programs. It was
    disappointing for me every year when I go to the Appropriations
    Committee and to see neither the Bureau of Indian Affairs, nor
    the Indian Health Service, budget requests funding for this
    legislation. We can't continue to have our children treated
    this way to have a Federal policy that says they should be
    protected but have it be empty and in name only on paper.
    Without the appropriations to follow up and provide the
    services, it is meaningless.
        Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Cross appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Let me start with you, Mark. I was amazed that you had
    somebody down there that in a period of 7 or 8 years, sexually
    abused over 100 Hopi kids. Where is that person now?
        Mr. Lewis. I understand he is still in Federal prison.
        The Chairman. He is in prison?
        Mr. Lewis. Yes.
        The Chairman. I visited Oraibi a long time ago and I noted
    with great interest that those cliffs are pretty high. Too bad
    this man got as far as prison, he should have been thrown off
    the edge.
        Mr. Lewis. They are pretty high.
        The Chairman. Mr. Brunoe, I am interested in the issue of
    inter-governmental cooperation. We certainly need everybody we
    can to be involved in this. You said you had 402 kids in
    protective custody and it was a 14-percent increase just from
    last year. To what do you attribute that huge increase in a
    year?
        Mr. Brunoe. The noted increase is coming from substance
    abuse.
        The Chairman. Substance abuse. Is it the crude stuff like
    paint and ``canned heat,'' nail polish, things like that? Is
    that the problem you have at Warm Springs with substance abuse?
        Mr. Brunoe. I think it is the more readily available meth
    labs that are available now in different areas that easily put
    this stuff on the street. Since we live on the main highway
    that goes from Portland, OR, the major metropolitan and the
    State of Oregon, through our reservation on the way to Bend,
    OR, we get around 8,000 cars a day that go through our
    reservation. So easily some of that stuff is flowing through
    our reservation on the way to Bend.
        The Chairman. You heard Dr. Grim testify about some of the
    forensic exams that can be done, some of the people they have
    working in those areas. Are those components with the Indian
    Health Service been of value to your tribe when you deal with
    the components of child abuse?
        Mr. Brunoe. Not responding directly to what Dr. Grim said,
    we have five HIS doctors in our wellness center there, the
    Indian Health Service clinic and one of the doctors there has
    been trained on some of the equipment. She is at the point
    where she is overtaxed in the number of child abuse cases that
    need the kind of investigation that goes on. Then we need to
    send our children to Bend, OR for more in-depth types of review
    and the waiting list is about 3 to 4 months long to get a child
    in there, to have them see a professional.
        The Chairman. 3 to 4 months?
        Mr. Brunoe. 3 to 4 months.
        The Chairman. For a youngster, that is a lifetime in
    remembering some of the things that happened. You said each of
    your case workers handles 110 cases a year, about one every
    three days is a new case to deal with?
        Mr. Brunoe. Right.
        The Chairman. How do you balance that with ensuring the
    safety of the child protection workers? That is a high
    caseload.
        Mr. Brunoe. Talking to our CPS manager that runs that, they
    do it with a lot of overtime, work beyond your regular 8 hour
    days and they know they are pushed to capacity. Since the
    Federal funds we get for the 4(e) moneys come through the State
    to the tribes, we are very careful to make sure when we go
    through our audit from the Federal Government, that we are
    doing everything that is required of the Federal Government
    along with the State because if they find a finding, we could
    end up hurting the State, so the State of Oregon and the Warm
    Springs Tribe work closely to make sure our case reviews are
    done carefully, that the foster parents are qualified, that the
    foster homes are qualified.
        It also reaches to the tribal council chambers where not
    long ago I had a tribal member come to me who was having their
    grandchild removed from them because of the condition of the
    home and she wanted me to override that. I explained to her
    that if she loved her grandchild, she would go back and take
    care of the issue of what the court and the child protective
    services wanted, and that I wasn't going to, neither was the
    tribal council, tell them what to do and that is difficult to
    do.
        The Chairman. Did it work?
        Mr. Brunoe. Yes; it worked because she spent the weekend
    doing what they asked her to do for 4 months.
        The Chairman. She didn't initiate a recall, huh?
        Mr. Brunoe. No; not yet.
        The Chairman. A lot of times we think in terms of
    additional resources. The code word for resources, and I
    shouldn't say resources but the code word for money in many
    cases around here, as you know, and I know we are not doing a
    good enough job of providing enough money for a lot of the
    problems we have in Indian country. Is there anything you could
    speak to or know about that would help in this case that does
    not deal specifically with more Federal funding?
        Mr. Brunoe. Not at the moment, Mr. Chairman, but if I do, I
    will forward it.
        The Chairman. If we do a data collection reporting system,
    should that include training of tribal employees or would that
    be effective?
        Mr. Brunoe. That would be important because gathering the
    data is something that is essential to funding eventually and
    it stabilizes the findings which I know is lacking across
    Indian country.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Lewis, I understand the Hopi Children's Code has been a
    model code for many Native American communities to follow. When
    you set that up, did your tribe invite Federal or State
    agencies with any particular expertise to do that or did you do
    it with your own tribal resources?
        Mr. Lewis. The code was being developed when I was still on
    the line so I wasn't able to necessarily be a part of that.
        The Chairman. You were where?
        Mr. Lewis. I was still on the line providing clinical
    services but what I do remember is that the local Federal and
    tribal attorneys involved with our cases were a part of
    development of that code. I think it is very related to the
    Chairman of the Warm Springs Tribe, and that was done with
    tribal resources and there were no resources that the tribe had
    to do that. When the code was eventually passed, if you look at
    the written testimony provided to your office, you will see the
    tribe made a decision even I passed its own code, we didn't
    know how to necessarily enact it because we didn't have any
    money. We ended up doing that with our BIA Social Services
    funding because there was no funding to implement child
    protective services, part of the code, actually. I can leave
    the Hopi Children's Code here if you want it.
        We made that decision but we made that decision at the risk
    of impacting other important social services like services to
    the developmentally disabled, children and adults as well as
    substance abuse and chemically addicted populations.
        The Chairman. Chairman Brunoe said they have an average of
    110 cases a year. What is the Hopi workload?
        Mr. Lewis. We have two CPS investigators carrying caseloads
    of about 30 apiece.
        The Chairman. Per year?
        Mr. Lewis. No; at any given time. The issue with that is
    that child protective services is a rather burdensome process,
    so our efficiency is not as good as it could be because we
    simply need more child protective services workers, in addition
    to just trying to handle the ICWA cases that come to our agency
    which we don't have a worker which we are working on
    developing.
        The Chairman. Based on your experience with what is
    considered a model of this children's code, has your
    relationship in working with Federal agencies been good?
        Mr. Lewis. I like to believe that we at the Hopi Guidance
    Center have really good relations with our State and a lot of
    that has to do with approaching the States with a certain
    attitude but that doesn't mean there aren't certain barriers
    within the States. What I have found in my dealings with the
    State is they didn't know how to work with tribes and when they
    were willing and ready to work with tribes, they haven't done
    enough of it so we had to really form a good collaboration.
        We are also the only tribe in Arizona to have a 4(e)
    agreement with our State. We are assuming the TANF program
    under the guidance center with our State. We are also a mental
    health provider with our State system as well as a Medicaid
    provider, so we have pretty good experience working with the
    State but it hasn't come without its barriers because they
    simply don't know how to work well with tribes.
        The Chairman. That is rather surprising considering the
    number of tribes in Arizona and the long history of Indian
    people since there has been a State of Arizona.
        Based on your experience, have there been any particular
    Federal barriers to what you are trying to do?
        Mr. Lewis. As you mentioned before, one of them is having
    the unfunded mandate so that puts us in the position of trying
    to be as creative as possible. One of the ways we have done
    that by obtaining resources like through the State mental
    health system and through being very creative and strategic
    with our funding that does come down from the Bureau and how we
    utilize our surplus but that's certainly been a challenge.
        I think related to what the chairman and particularly what
    my colleague, Terry Cross mentioned, you mentioned a good point
    about is funding the answer to everything. Well, it is the
    answer to a lot of things but not everything. When a lot of
    this legislation has come down, we don't believe as a tribe,
    and it is in our written testimony, that enough clarity is
    provided to the Bureau and the IHS in helping to work together
    collaboratively to make these Acts happen. These are two of the
    major and primary overseers of services and regulation in
    Indian country and they are still not in a position where they
    are collaborating and sharing information as well as they
    should be.
        It is wonderful to see my colleagues, Dr. Grim and Dr.
    Perez who I know very well, Larry Blair and these folks here
    sitting at the table but that is not indicative of how it is
    day in and day out at our levels, the Bureau and the IHS
    communicating and collaborating together and encouraging the
    sharing of Federal resources. There is simply not enough of
    that coming from those entities.
        The Chairman. Dr. Grim is listening very intently back
    there, I notice.
        This bill, S. 1601, requires a study of the impediments to
    reducing child abuse in Indian communities. Your testimony
    certainly supports this idea. What role do you envision the
    tribes playing in the study?
        Mr. Lewis. There are a couple things I see as the role of
    the tribes being involved in the study. One of them is to act
    as a principal, if you will, to be able to help guide what some
    of the research issues are and we are providing an ongoing role
    in the consultation or any sorts of committees that you usually
    have when you are doing studies and evaluations.
        I also think some money needs to come now to encourage
    tribes and encourage the Bureau and the IHS to allow tribes to
    be creative in how they can develop better and more expanded
    programs to meet the specific needs of its population and the
    problems we are seeing associated with child abuse.
        The Chairman. I have many Hopi friends and have visited a
    few times down there. They are very, very traditional people,
    very in tuned with their religious beliefs. Do you feel that
    culturally sensitive programs are effective in assisting Indian
    children and their families, especially in dealing with
    sensitive issues like violence and abuse?
        Mr. Lewis. Certainly I agree and the provision that you are
    proposing in your legislation is important in all Federal
    programming that they take into account the cultural ways and
    mores and that they allow that as part of the regulation of
    those particular programs, not just with these particular
    programs and providing access to traditional healing but also
    if you look at the child welfare laws, the Federal legislation
    that comes down to our level, the Bureau only more recently has
    yet to take into consideration the family and kinship system
    and allowing that as a way for us to provide effective child
    welfare, mental health and substance abuse services. We are
    sometimes limited in the usage of our funding because they
    haven't fully taken into account our kinship system. By that, I
    mean about 95 percent of Hopi children moved from their homes
    are placed within relative homes or clan homes, if you will.
    Sometimes the Bureau won't allow us to provide funding to help
    provide food for that family because that is not ``under the
    Federal regulations.'' They have to be licensed as a foster
    home.
        Those are some of the ways where we need to allow the
    cultural practices to be allowed to be part of our actual day
    to day practice and that the funds follow that.
        The Chairman. There is no appeal or something that can be
    addressed in dealing with that problem, that they are not
    licensed as a home but they are still related and want to take
    care of those kids?
        Mr. Lewis. I am sure if Chairman Taylor was here, he would
    laugh and say that is why we sent Mark up here to kind of rebel
    rouse and I am sure my colleagues from the Bureau and IHS can
    attest to that. They are tired of hearing me at the regional
    levels.
        The Chairman. I am not tired of hearing it, I think it is a
    very good point.
        Mr. Lewis. So simultaneously I think our strategy is to
    come here and continue to advocate that but on behalf of our
    kids, we have done our best effort to try and encourage and
    influence families, the relative caretakers, to go ahead and
    get the foster care license even though they don't want it.
    They just want to take care of their kin but we have had to
    work very hard to encourage them to just get licensed so we can
    provide you with some funding. We will continue to advocate
    these issues here as well.
        The Chairman. Is it difficult to get licensed?
        Mr. Lewis. Sometimes it is and you have to go through a
    number of background checks and families just want to take care
    of their kids and need money to help pay for food. I those are
    wonderful questions I am glad you asked. If you look in our
    written testimony, to bring home the point of social services,
    people have forgotten, at least for Arizona, 638 tribes are the
    primary funder, the primary regulator of child welfare
    services. They have come out with these new regulations in
    2000. The problem is in theory, they are okay but they never
    consulted Indian Health Services and never consulted Bureau of
    Education and they are requiring us to have all those people
    help fund a portion of a child's cost if they have to go into
    residential treatment but those regulations are not binding on
    IHS, nor are they binding on Education and both will tell you
    they have no money, yet we are still out of compliance with the
    Bureau because of those specific social services regulations.
    Again, it is an example of a lack of meaningful consultation
    and collaboration between those three entities and then
    imposing it on tribal programs such as ours. It is very
    difficult to be in compliance with those. The money, we can't
    use it.
        The Chairman. That means in some cases a youngster would be
    taken out of the family and would be put into a home as a first
    priority but the family that would want to take care of him
    often cannot? I am not a child psychologist but it wouldn't
    seem to me that is in the best interest of the child.
        Mr. Lewis. It is not in the best interest of the child but
    sometimes it is in the best interest of the child to put
    somebody in a professional treatment facility because the
    extended family are kin that are willing to take them in are
    maybe as dysfunctional as the family they come from. That is
    where it is key and it is critical.
        The Chairman. Thank you for that insight.
        Terry, thank you for your testimony. In your written
    testimony, your concerns related to the data reporting of child
    abuse and neglect and recommended technical assistance provided
    in this area. From your perspective, what infrastructure do
    tribes need to develop an effective reporting and data
    collecting system?
        Mr. Cross. First of all, it is access or the capability to
    have a management information system to track and record that
    information and then report it so the development of
    technology. Also, the technical assistance with which to
    develop their own fields for those management information
    systems, the words they use for how they are defining abuse and
    neglect or how they are defining family an all those are things
    that have to be developed locally but in a framework that can
    be translated to a central database. We are working on a
    project funded by ACF to demonstrate with five tribes how that
    can be done.
        The Chairman. You say in your testimony that about 61
    percent of the incidents are reported to a national database.
    Is that correct?
        Mr. Cross. Those are the cases that make it into the NCANDS
    database through the State systems.
        The Chairman. So you do support having Indian children
    reported to the NCANDS database?
        Mr. Cross. I do because that is the central database that
    measures trends nationally. To create a system parallel to that
    would be one more layer. It is an ongoing, funded program in
    the Federal Government that Indian tribes should have access to
    just like States.
        The Chairman. You are from Portland, correct?
        Mr. Cross. That's right.
        The Chairman. Are there data available to the extent of
    Indian kids living in Portland, urban Indian kids?
        Mr. Cross. There is not good data available for urban
    Indian children. There is a tremendous under count in the urban
    centers largely because Indian children are often not
    identified even for purposes of ICWA in State systems.
        The Chairman. Also, in your testimony you mention that some
    tribes have a memoranda of understanding with Federal and State
    agencies to ensure that all appropriate agencies respond to
    incidents of child abuse. Do most in your State have that
    agreement?
        Mr. Cross. They do. As I mentioned the local protocol
    agreements, when you have a reservation that is checkerboarded
    or where you in a 280-State and there is the sharing of
    jurisdiction, there are tribal police, county sheriffs and the
    FBI, if those agencies don't come together, put down on paper
    and sit down at the table together and discuss who is going to
    do what when, historically cases of abused children just fall
    through the cracks and nobody responded. Unfortunately there is
    not enough of those agreements because they are complex to put
    together and they end up being caught up in other kinds of
    politics like water rights, taxation or just getting people to
    sit down at the table with one another to work out those things
    can be very difficult.
        The Chairman. In some cases, we have looked into trying to
    consolidate Federal programs to decrease duplication to get a
    better result for the money we have appropriated. Are there any
    other Federal programs that you think could be a model that
    would be applicable to abuse, neglect, alcoholism related
    problems that we could look at here?
        Mr. Cross. Earlier you mentioned resources in your
    questions. One of the major issues is if we just had access to
    the entitlements that all children have, title 4(e) being the
    major one. As you know, we have a bill pending right now to get
    tribes direct access to Title 4(e). That would be the biggest
    thing to happen to tribal child welfare since the Indian Child
    Welfare Act.
        It would provide resources to tribes and those tribes who
    have agreements are tapping into those resources somewhat but
    many tribes only get the foster care payment and don't get the
    caseworker dollars, don't get the recordkeeping dollars, don't
    get the training dollars associated with 4(e). If that alone
    was corrected, it would make a huge dent in this.
        The formula distribution of funds under CAPTA to States is
    very small. I understand recently two States turned back their
    money because the mandates were too stringent for them to take
    for $200,000. I think HHS ought to give any money turned back
    by States to the tribes to do prevention work.
        The major concern I would have in consolidating funding
    across programs is that when it is child abuse and neglect, you
    have to be careful to ensure the provision of that service for
    children and somehow protect those dollars from being drained
    off into other important priorities of the tribe.
        One of the ways in general that the Federal Government
    enforces policy is through its power of the purse strings and
    saying you can have this money if you, meet certain conditions.
    As a child advocate, I need to say it is important to say to
    everyone, you can have these Federal dollars if you protect
    your children. I want to make sure in any creative solutions we
    come to, that those services currently available and any future
    services might be available for children are protected in some
    way.
        The Chairman. I think that is all the questions I have.
    Other members may have questions and they will submit them in
    writing to you. Senator Inouye probably does.
        I appreciate your being here and as I told the first
    witnesses, if you have some suggestions on how we can improve
    this bill--and we have been jotting down a few of them that we
    got from your testimony today--I certainly would appreciate
    your supplying them. We are going to keep open the record for
    about 2 weeks and if you could forward any suggestions to us,
    we are going to try to mark this bill up in October as I
    mentioned.
        Thank you so much for being here and the committee is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
    reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    =======================================================================

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii,
                   Vice Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs

        I am pleased to join my chairman today in receiving testimony on a
    bill to reauthorize the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence
    Act. Surely, there can be no more precious resource than our children.
        It is essential that we work together to assure that the children
    of Indian country are protected from abuse, and that we continue to
    improve upon our data collection efforts as well as our ability to
    track those who have abused children in the past and who are looking
    for havens in Indian country, so that we may 1 day be able to eliminate
    this scourge from the lives of those we hold so dear.
        I am glad to see that the departments who will present testimony to
    the committee today support the reauthorization of this important act.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Garland Brunoe, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of
                     the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon

        Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Garland Brunoe,
    chairman of the tribal council of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm
    Springs Reservation of Oregon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
    today in support of S. 1601, the Indian Child Protection and Family
    Violence Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2003.
        In presenting this testimony, I would like to acknowledge Warm
    Springs Tribal Judge Lola Sohappy, who is very involved in child
    welfare on our reservation, an active member of the National Indian
    Child Welfare Association, and who has been communicating with your
    staff regarding this legislation.
        The 650,000 acre Warm Springs Reservation in north Central Oregon
    is the home of about 3,287 of our 4,160 tribal members. Additionally we
    estimate about 950 non-members also reside on our reservation. Within
    our residential population, 1,617 of our tribal members, or close to 40
    percent, are younger than 18 years old.
        Like many reservations, our communities are rural, and individual
    residences are often isolated. Economic opportunities are limited, and
    unemployment and poverty are well above national averages by almost any
    measure. So, too, are substance abuse and violence, including family
    violence. When much of your population is young, that violence all too
    often involves children.
        Unfortunately, this applies at Warm Springs. In 2002, 402 Warm
    Springs children were placed in custody of Warm Springs Child
    Protection Services [CPS] by tribal court order. This is 25 percent of
    all our children. For 2003, we project 460 children will be in the
    custody of CPS, a 14-percent increase from 2002.
        Our tribe is doing all we can to address this very serious issue.
    While our basic capacity in this field is strained, we are trying to
    make use of our unique circumstances.
        Our population is not large, and because Warm Springs is exempt for
    Public Law 280 and our reservation is almost a solid block of tribal
    trust land, we exercise exclusive jurisdiction over our tribal child
    welfare cases. We have our own Child Protective Services agency, and do
    not have to rely on the State for case management, investigations, and
    other services. Without the competing demands of State regulation, we 1
    are able to craft our policies and actions in a manner that is
    sensitive to the needs of our own community.
        While we exercise our own jurisdiction, we do try to work closely
    with the State of Oregon. Warm Springs is one of the few tribes
    nationwide that has developed a tribal-State title IV-e foster care
    maintenance payment agreement with the State of Oregon that allows the
    tribe to receive Federal funds for maintenance payments for children
    placed in foster care. The agreement also allows the tribe to receive
    an administrative match for services, training, and associated expenses
    for children qualifying for IV-e support. This allows the tribe to
    participate on the same footing as a State in developing and
    maintaining a foster care program for tribal children rather than
    placing them in the custody of the state for these services.
        Warm Springs still has an array of jurisdictional issues with which
    we must deal. Criminal child abuse actions by non-Indians must be
    addressed by the State. When Federal crimes are specifically
    identified, be they Indian or non-Indian related, the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation must be called in. And because Warm Springs children
    attend local public schools, any child abuse or neglect issues
    identified there are reported first to, the county, and only thereafter
    to our Child Protective Services or the Warm Springs Police Department.
        Jurisdictional issues are complicated and not easy to resolve, but
    improved communication and coordination can help. Accordingly, we
    strongly support section 4 of S. 1601, which would require tribes to
    report non-Indians to State law enforcement agencies in abuse or family
    violence occurrences where a criminal violation is indicated.
        For similar reasons, we also support section 5, directing a study
    of impediments to the reduction of child abuse, including
    intergovernmental and Jurisdictional impediments.
        We strongly support the various ways in which the act is expanded.
    Section 3 extends the ``child abuse'' definition to children subjected
    to family violence. Section 6 includes Federal and tribal contract and
    volunteer personnel in background checks, and makes those
    investigations tougher. Section 7 extends applicability of IHS
    treatment grants to all child abuse victims, not just sexual abuse
    victims. And the addition of the Department of Justice in the staffing
    and operation of the Regional Resource Centers, as provided in section
    8, will advance communication, cooperation, and successful prosecution
    of child abuse matters.
        The clarification and extension of responsibilities are also
    applied to tribes, which we agree is essential. Section 9 requires that
    tribes operating their own Child Protection and Family Violence
    Prevention program under a contract from the BIA must clearly designate
    responsibility for child abuse case coordination and reporting, and for
    the treatment and prevention of child abuse. The section further helps
    tribally operated programs by authorizing tribes to provide training
    for any required child protection certifications, to help ensure the
    safety of child protection workers while on the job, and to improve
    data systems for case and program monitoring and evaluation. Annual
    tribal program reports to the Interior Secretary would also have to
    include information on training, threats to worker safety, and
    community outreach and awareness efforts.
        But more than anything else, the overall reauthorization of the
    Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act, and its
    funding, is essential.
        Child abuse and family violence continue to devastate Indian
    communities. Because these problems tend to occur in private and the
    victims are frightened and silent, they do not attract much public
    attention. But their consequences are far reaching and long lasting. At
    Warm Springs, as I noted earlier, children in custody of our Child
    Protection Services this year are projected to increase by 14 percent
    from 2002. For last year, 2002, our Police Department reported 338
    child abuse and 50 family violence cases opened for investigation for
    criminal charges, an increase of 29 percent from 2001 for these two
    types of violence. I should note that some of this increase should be
    attributable to improved data collection started in 2002. But in any
    event, whether the real increase might have been 10 percent or 15
    percent or more, the fact remains we experienced a significant jump in
    the level of child abuse and family violence. At least at Warm Springs,
    and most probably nationwide, child protection and family violence
    prevention absolutely requires increased attention and assistance.
        Because child abuse and family violence are often hidden from view
    and their consequences can be so personal and profound, child
    protection and the prevention of associated family violence is very
    labor intensive. Abused or neglected children require attentive and
    careful handling. Their family situations can often be explosive. At
    Warm Springs, in addition to our Child Protective Services agency,
    child protective activities significantly involve the tribal police,
    the tribal court, tribal prosecution, community services, and medical
    personnel including mental health practitioners and physicians
    experienced in child abuse forensics.
        But the leading agency that ties these diverse function together is
    Child Protective Services. CPS has a multi-faceted and complicated
    task. It must investigate child abuse charges, it must remove children,
    it must temporarily shelter abused children, and find short term and
    long term foster residences, which must be monitored. Currently, Warm
    Springs CPS maintains 40 foster homes. CPS must provide for the direct
    needs of the child, including medical, counseling, and treatment needs,
    the child's clothing and education, and even, if needed, transportation
    to appointments. And CPS is also responsible for working to reunite the
    family, including all family counseling activities. CPS must be engaged
    with the prosecution of child abuse-related criminal charges. And
    throughout all this, they must meet rigorous reporting requirements. At
    Warm Springs, where CPS will have a projected 460 children under its
    custody this year, the regular CPS staff totals about 15 personnel,
    including 4 case workers, each of whom must handle more than 110 cases
    a year. We also engage seven full time Protective Care Providers to
    operate our 24 hour Emergency Shelter.
        Clearly, our child protection capacity at Warm Springs desperately
    needs attention and assistance, almost across the board. But based on
    our own circumstance, areas of particular need include an additional
    Warm Springs police investigator and tribal prosecutor to develop and
    try solid child abuse cases against adults. We need improved access to
    examinations and forensic interviewing in sexual abuse cases, and
    because of the traumatic nature of child abuse, mental health and
    follow-on care need to be significantly expanded. Juvenile Services
    needs support. And we need training for our CPS staff. We also need a
    means of capturing and interpreting data.
        Mr. Chairman, this is a long list just from our tribe. But it
    serves to highlight the level of attention that Indian child protection
    and family violence prevention needs nationwide. S. 1601 is an
    essential step in meeting that challenge, and the Warm Springs Tribes
    support it and urge the committee to approve it.
        Thank you. That concludes my testimony. I shall be pleased to
    respond to any questions.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9643.069