Detailed Information on the
Bureau of Indian Affairs - Law Enforcement Assessment

The program will contract for independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality to determine overall program effectiveness.

The program will develop and implement a plan to improve the quality and the quantity of data reported to more accurately measure progress towards performance goals and to show the effects of funding and other policy changes on results that are clear.

The program will develop a process to compare BIA case closure rates with those of other Federal agencies' law enforcement programs.

Measure: Percent change in Part I offenses that occur on DOI lands or under DOI jurisdiction

Explanation:This is a DOI cross agency outcome measure that allows the DOI to track reductions in Part I crime incidents for all of its law enforcement agencies.

Measure: Crime: Part I violent crime incidents per 100,000 Indian Country inhabitants reciving law enforcement services.

Explanation:Violent crime statistics are a nationally recognized measurement of law enforcement agencies. The FBI's UCR defines violent crime and the FBI collects and compiles uniform violent crime statistics for all law enforcement agencies nationwide, including statistics provided by BIA. This measure will track the BIA's ability to minimize violent crime in Indian country.

Measure: Percent change in Part II offenses (excluding natural, cultural and heritage resource crimes) that occur on DOI lands or under DOI jurisdiction

Explanation:This is a DOI cross agency outcome measure that allows the DOI to track reductions in Part II crime incidents for all of its law enforcement agencies.

Measure: Percent change of natural, cultural and heritage resource crimes that occur on DOI lands or under DOI jurisdiction

Explanation:This is a DOI cross agency outcome measure that allows the DOI to track reductions in natural, cultural and heritage resource crime incidents for all of its law enforcement agencies.

Measure: Percentage of BIA field agency law enforcement programs that participate in community policing

Explanation:This measure is an intermediate outcome measure. Community policing efforts have been proven effective in detering crime and reducing crime rates in communities across the nation. The use of community policing as a performance measure is a direct strategy to establishing safer communities with lower crime rates.

Measure: Percent of BIA/Tribal law enforcement agencies on par with recommended national ratio of staffing

Explanation:Having a measure that keeps BIA accountable for ensuring the appropriate staffing levels for officers is an important strategy towards reducing crime. Without properly staffed police forces, Indian country has no hope of detering or reducing the high rate of crime.

Measure: Percent of incidents/investigations closed for Part I, Part II, natural, cultural and heritage resources offenses. (New measure, August 2007)

Explanation:

Measure: Percentage of reported cases during the year that are closed by the end of the reporting year. (New measure, August 2007)

Explanation: 

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Statutory responsibilities of BIA's Division of Law Enforcement include: (1) enforcing federal and tribal laws; (2) investigating criminal offenses; (3) protecting life and property; (4) providing detention and correctional services; and (5) providing training, prevention and outreach programs."

Evidence: Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-379) [25 U.S.C. 2802(b)]

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: On Indian reservations, violent crime rates (492 per 100,000 residents) are higher than national average (330 per 100,000 residents); aggravated assault rates are higher ( 444 vs. 245) and a recent Meth Survey showed that the responding agencies reported significant increases in instances of domestic violence, burglary, assault and child abuse as a direct result of increased methamphetamine use on Indian reservations.

Evidence: DOJ, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Table 16, Crimes per 100,000 inhabitants as compared to 06 Statistics for High Crime/High Priority funding which outlines national crime rates versus Indian country crime rates.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Subject to federal statutes, tribal, federal, and state agencies may carryout some law enforcement activities within Indian reservations. BIA coordinates operations with other federal, state and local agencies through formal agreements and cross deputization agreements so as not to duplicate services.

Evidence: Cross Deputization agreements to address jurisdictional authority. OJS-Weekly Report, News Release - DOJ/DEA, NCAI News Release,US Attorney News Letter to outline partnerships, task force activities and meetings to address delineation of jurisdiction to show cooperation among law enforcement agencies and various MOUs. Listing of DOJ grants for equipment, training, hiring for which OJS tracks services.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The BIA Law Enforcement program is appropriately designed and operates to the best of its ability at a given resource level. The largest concern for a design flaw would be the area of overlap with other law enforcement agencies for funding and jurisdictional boundaries. Because of the location and lay out of Indian reservations, particularly in Oklahoma, jurisdiction between BIA, Tribal, FBI, State and County law enforcement could cause problems for case management and processing. The program has successfully addressed this potential flaw through the use of MOUs and cross deputization agreements with neighboring law enforcement agencies so there is no confusion when it comes time to process. Stronger coordination between DOJ and BIA has taken place to ensure that grants given by DOJ are not overlapping BIA funding and that consideration is given to future support for expiring grants. The BIA is the only appropriate location for an Indian country law enforcement program as was outlined in the FY 1999, "Presidential Initiative on Law Enforcement in Indian Country." The initiative outlined two options for alignment of Law Enforcement Services in Indian country. Option B proposed to move all Indian country Law Enforcement services under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, however, through consultation and review of the proposals, it was determined that Option A, which consolidated all Indian country Law Enforcement services under a BIA Director of Law Enforcement Services, was the best decision. No other Federal law enforcement agencies have the authority to process Part II crimes as does BIA, nor do they have the authority to offer tribal contracts under P.L. 93-638 which promotes tribal self-determination.

Evidence: Cross Deputization Agreements and various MOUs. DOJ grant programs include COPS in Schools, Troops to COPS, Tribal Mental Health Community Safety Initiative, Methamphetamine, and grant assistance for tribal police recruitment, training, and equipment for which we received reports and track services. Wind River Drug bust evidence of all agencies coordinating for combined result. Quarterly financial reports from DOJ on COPS Grants. Presidential Initiative on Law Enforcement - pages 8-10 - jurisdiction Options.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Distribution of funding increases is determined through a specific methodology which includes the analysis of each individual law enforcement agency based on its current violent crime statistics, incident rates, staffing levels, and cost data. Once these are all determined the agencies are grouped according to 7 Priority Levels, Level 1 = High Crime/High Officer Need; Level 2 = High Crime/Low Officer Need; Level 3 = High Crime/No Officer Information Submitted; Level 4 = Low Crime/High Officer Need; Level 5 = Low Crime/Low Officer Need; Level 6 = Low Crime/No Officer Information Submitted; and Level 7 = No Data Provided. This methodology allows us to determine not only which agencies are most in need of assistance to address high crime levels, but also allows us to determine if the high crime is based upon the need for additional officers, or if there is something else that needs to be addressed to correct the problem as well as which agencies have additional staff which can be deployed in times of crisis or need. While most of the BIA program allocations use base funding levels to maintain current services, OJS has the flexibility and does redeploy resources to target specific types, patterns, or geographic centers of crime to maintain and enhance current service levels. As a result of the direct feedback loop in the reporting process, the program ensures there are no unintended subsidies and resources remain with the beneficiaries.

Evidence: FFS allocation reports; FY06 Statistics for High Crime/High Priority Fund Distribution; National Disaster Response, Major Incidents in Indian Country (Task Forces, Special Responses, TDY Reports) Need TDY Reports from participants.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: BIA Law Enforcement has long-term measures on Part I violent crime incidents per 100,000 inhabitants, Percent change in Part I offenses that occur on DOI lands or under DOI jurisdiction, Percent change in Part II offenses (excluding natrual, cultural and heritage resource crimes) that occur on DOI land or under DOI jurisdiction, and Percent change of natural, cultural and heritage resource crimes that occur on DOI land or under DOI jurisdiction. Crime and incident statistic reporting are a nationally recognized measurement of law enforcement agency performance that OJS has adopted. These measures have been slightly modified and redefined to be in line with measurements of like law enforcement agencies to ensure that they are being appropriately captured to provide the best accountability for the law enforcement program.

Evidence: FY 08 Budget submission performance summary table outlines all of these measures and gives the FY 2012 long-range target. Definition Templates.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Each of the measures is expected to be carried out through FY 2012 with marked improvement. Although reason says that the influx of new officers should show an increase in crime and national crime rates are on the rise, the BIA is striving to maintain the current violent crime rate of 492 through FY 2012. The target for Community policing is to achieve 100% participation by FY 2012 which is quite ambitious since tribally contracted programs are not required to participate in these efforts and, with little resources available, it may be difficult to get tribes to invest in the program. The case closure rate is expected to reach 67% by FY 2012 which is 2% over the National target of 65%.

Evidence: FY 08 Budget submission performance summary table outlines all of these measures and gives the FY 2012 long-range targets. FY 06 4th Quarter Performance Report and FY 07 1st Quarter Performance Report

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program provides annual reporting on the long-term measures outlined in 2.1 and has 2 additional annual strategy measures that track OJS' efforts to reduce crime in Indian country and they include: Percent of BIA law enforcement agencies implementing community policing programs, and Percent of BIA/Tribal law enforcement agencies on par with recommended national ratio of staffing. The use of an annual community policing measure as well as a measure that keeps BIA accountable for ensuring the appropriate staffing levels for officers are direct strategies to establishing safer communities with lower crime rates. Community policing efforts and appropriate staffing levels have been proven effective in deterring crime and reducing crime rates in communities across the nation.

Evidence: Performance Reportd and 08 Budget Submission; Definition Templates for performance measures

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program has FY 06 baseline data on all measures. Each of the annual targets are ambitious as the program is expecting to improve community policing levels by 10% when there is no control to ensure tribal programs will even implement when resources are constrained; expecting to maintain the crime rate at 492 while increasing staff, although reason says that reported offenses will increase with the increase in officers; expecting to increase the number of agencies with appropriate staffing levels by 2% while still working to overcome year long delays imposed by background checks performed for new hires; and expecting a 3% increase in the case closure rate for major felony cases.

Evidence: FY 06 4th Quarter Performance Report and FY 07 1st Quarter Performance Report; 08 Budget Submission; Trend Analysis; FY 2008 Goal Performance Table

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Tribal contracts and compacts have statements that require that the tribal programs provide performance information in support of GPRA reporting. Improved data submission and performance trends show that all parties, including tribal programs are working to improve performance as outlined in the established goals. OJS is doing presentations to tribal entities to show the value of the existing performance measures as well as the information reported. Tribes are also learning the value of reporting on a monthly basis as opposed to an annual basis to show monthly crime trends that allow for program review and efficiency.

Evidence: Tribal contracts and compacts include reporting requirements; IT system print screen of the number of tribal programs reporting; FY 08 Performance Summary Table; Trend Analysis for data comparison.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Independent evaluations of sufficient scope to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness are lacking. In 2002, DOI's Inspector General conducted a department-wide review of law enforcement programs. The IG report does not assess program performance and results. PSD Yearly Program Review and OLESEM review does not meet the criteria for independence or scope. Both are from within BIA's Law Enforcement Services. The Ft. McDowell review does not provide sufficient scope on BIA program, only one tribal law enforcement agency. Corrective Action Plans from CALEA review does not reflect indepedent evaluation, rather it is a a plan the agency developed stemming from CALEA review. The CALEA review itself merely assessed compliance with professional standards, not impacts and effectiveness of program operations. GAP analysis is not of sufficient scope, focusing on staffing shortages. State Certification is not an evaluation of sufficient scope, as it only pertains to the Hopi BIA Police Agency. NCIC audit is not of sufficient scope; it does not evaluate the program's achievement of performance targets, and that these evaluations examine the underlying cause and effect relationship between the program and the target.

Evidence: PSD Yearly Program Review, Ft. McDowell audit, Corrective Action Plans from CALEA review, Tribal 638 Contract Monitoring, OIG FY 2002 DOI Law Enforcement Assessment, GAP Analysis, OLESEM review, State Certification, NCIC audit

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: BIA program budget plans are specifically tied to performance measures for increased staffing for law enforcement programs. In FY 07, the request included $1.7 million to replace expiring COPS grants and the FY 08 request included $5 million to allow for an increase of 50 officers to address the measure of bringing programs up to national levels of staffing. The FY 08 request also included $6 million to address the methamphetamine crisis by providing meth awareness and drug certification training and $6 million for the High Priority/High Crime program which is designed to provide necessary funding to tribal programs that have particularly high levels of crime. Each of these areas is a direct strategy to the measure of reducing crime. The program performance overview table included within the FY 08 budget submission outlines specific performance outlays as related to budget increases. OJS continues to work with PPA in the Budget Performance Integration (BPI) effort. The programs are working to integrate the ABC system and GPRA measures to establish linkage between cost and performance outcomes in order to provide further justification for budget requests.

Evidence: 07-08 Budget Submission

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The program has worked extensively to develop appropriate long-term outcome and annual strategy measures to reflect program accountability. Each of these measures has been carefully defined with input from field staff to ensure all parties agree to the validity of the measures. The program and all partners established baselines for each of these measures in FY 06 and the measures are properly targeted out to FY 2009, and have been granted OMB approval. The program has developed a draft Law Enforcement Manual that outlines standard policies and procedures to ensure the program is operating as efficiently as possible. Program case file and location reviews are conducted to ensure policies and procedures are being properly adhered to. An IT system for crime statistics management has been developed to accurately collect and analyze data.

Evidence: FY 2008 Budget Performance Overview Table; Measure Definition Templates; Draft Law Enforcement Manual; PSD Review Report; IT system print screens that show various information collected and stored.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The new IT reporting system captures data on a real time basis from BIA and Tribal Law Enforcement Programs. Information was captured from 88% of Law Enforcement agencies in 2006 and crime, population and staffing statistics were used to determine high crime and high priority fund distributions. GAO Financial Auditors verified the methodology of the data collection through the system and the program has received no negative feedback regarding its collection of data. New ABC reporting procedures were put into place for the collection of 1st quarter ABC data. The program had a 92% response rate and continues to work with the ABC team to ensure the proper comparison of cost and performance information.

Evidence: IT system print screens showing the various data collected; high priority/high crime report; high priority/high crime briefing; notice to field for ABC reporting; ABC reports for FY 05 and FY 06.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: All individual performance plans include specific performance requirements. Bonuses are based upon the individuals ability to meet the targets outlined. Indian tribes operate 149 (78%) of BIA-funded law enforcement agencies under non-competitive contract/compact agreements. Model agreements require tribes to conform to BIA personnel, training, program regulations and standards, including record keeping and performance evaluation.

Evidence: IPPs for SES and down; contract requirements.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: BIA obligates all tribal contract/compact funds at start of fiscal year. Tribes receive separate contract support funding for administrative (i.e. personnel, accounting, procurement) services. OJS incurs very little administrative costs as compared to the other programs. Standard procedures are in place to compare actual expenditures against intended use as well as monitoring corrective actions in the case of erroneous expenditures. Monthly Fund Status Reports are reviewed by the Program Director as well as District Commanders that outline all individual expenditures. All field locations have been trained and use Document Direct to print Budget Object Class Reports (BIA 010) and Transaction Reports (BIA 100) which allow for the review of obligations by individual object class and the tracking of corrective actions respectively

Evidence: 06 Funding documents, FFS obligation reports; ABC chart on expenses; Object Class Report; Transaction Reports; Allocation Report (Monthly Fund Status Report)

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The efficiency measure for law enforcement is to improve the case closure rate for major felony cases. This measure tracks the level of efficiency with which investigators investigate, process and close cases. Improved case clearance rates, ABC surveys and analysis of crime and cost information allow OJS to track the efficiency of the law enforcement program and modify program policies and procedures to better serve Indian communities. OJS developed a new data system that allows for the collection of valid and more complete crime statistics and agency information which allows the program to measure efficiency and do performance comparisons across the board.

Evidence: IT system requirements analysis for Proto-type and Mission Needs statements for future IT investment. PSD Reports, ABC analysis, High Crime/High Priority reports and performance trend comparisons

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: BIA coordinates operations with other federal, state and local agencies through formal agreements and cross deputization agreements so as not to duplicate services. Joint Federal Investigations of major crimes in Indian Country lie with the BIA and FBI. Tribal Agencies have MOU's with local state entities.

Evidence: MOUs between Federal agencies, cross deputization agreements, Special Response Reports, Partnership and Taskforce documents (OJS-Weekly Report, News Release - DOJ/DEA, NCAI News Release,US Attorney News Letter)

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: BIA conducts annual program and financial reviews of tribal contract/compact operations for compliance with program regulations and standards. Single Audit reports are also reviewed to resolve high risk, material, and other adverse findings. OJS had one finding in the most recent financial audit that centered around unratified procurements. In an effort to address this finding, the program has developed a detailed corrective action plan with milestones for completion. Areas that are already being addressed within the corrective action plan are the review of existing designees and possible re-designation of AOTRs at all locations and training for all designees.

Evidence: Program reviews and single audit act reports.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The Office of Justice Services has implemented a new organizational chart to allow for better management of the Law Enforcement program. This organization chart included the development of the Professional Standards Division which was created to allow for internal independent reviews of law enforcement agencies and individuals. Law Enforcement has developed and is awaiting final approval on a Policy & Procedure Manual based on CALEA Standards which the PSD uses as a guideline in evaluating agencies and individuals. This manual outlines the standard procedures for credentials management, standard formats for reporting serious incidents and case file management as well as general overall policies and procedures on everything from dress and equipment requirements to required training for officers to ensure that all BIA law enforcement programs are operating in the same efficient manner. A new crime statistics and program management system was developed to better track performance within the program.

Evidence: Draft Policy & Procedure Manual, New Org. Chart, Data Management System

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Base line data has been captured to measure progress toward the long-term performance goals. Training initiatives such as Operation Eagle and Operation Dream Catcher have been implemented to address specific meth crime trends.

Evidence: 08 Budget Performance Summary table. Increase reporting of reliable data, from 43% to 88% of Law Enforcement Programs. Operation Eagle, Operation Dream Catcher. Trend Analysis; Measure Definition Templates

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Base line data has been captured for FY 2006 and will be measured against FY 2007. Community Policing measure has 05 and 06 actuals.

Evidence: Evidence: 08 Budget Performance Summary table. Measure Definition Templates; FY 06 4th Quarter Performance Report and FY 07 1st Quarter Performance Report

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Law Enforcement is set up to track improvements in Case Clearance and the rate is currently at 61% in FY 2006 and is expected to improve for FY 07 reporting. Additionally, the analysis of crime, staffing and cost information has become standard practice in determining fund distribution under the High Crime/High Priority initiative. The training of senior and administrative staff in the use of Budget Execution Models (BEM) and actual implementation of the BEM is allowing OJS to better manage funds to ensure cost effectiveness. OJS receives annual ABC briefings from PPA in which PPA presents findings from ABC data and analyses that integrate crime rate, staffing levels, and cost information, which is then used by senior management to make resource decisions.

Evidence: 06 High Crime High Priority Statistics report; BEMS; 05 and 06 ABC reports

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are currently no comparative studies in place that include statistics for Indian Country vs. County law enforcement or Federal programs. In an effort to show this kind of comparison for clearance rates, year-end PSD reports will now include a breakdown of the clearance rates by the individual clearance categories so that a comparison like that done by FLETC on other Federal Agencies can be done in FY 08 that includes Indian country.

Evidence: FLETC Case Study on case clearance rates.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: IG report does not assess program performance and results. DOI OLESEM review is not independent; it is from the agency. Ft. McDowell assessment lacks scope and does not consider the program's impact and effectiveness. Corrective Action Plan developed from CALEA contract review is not an evaluation, and CALEA review assesses compliance with professional standards, not impacts and effectiveness of program operations. State Certification is not an evaluation of sufficient scope, as it only pertains to the Hopi BIA Police Agency, and does not speak to whether there are effective results being achieved. NCIC audit is not of sufficient scope; it does not evaluate the program's achievement of performance targets, and whether the program is effective and achieving results.

Evidence: FY 2002 OIG review; OLESEM PSD Review; Ft McDowell assessment; Corrective Action Plan; State Certification; NCIC audit