 |
|||
| A
publication of the Justice Center |
Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Center |
||
 |
|||
|
and Public Safety
In early 1995, the Justice Center
at the University of Alaska Anchorage conducted an on-site survey
of 28 Alaska villages to gather information about village safety
and policing needs. The survey was part of a three-phase project
undertaken by the Center in conjunction with the Alaska Department
of Public Safety. This and future Forum articles will examine
the results of the study, which assembled information from community
leaders and other residents. Data collection included (1) compilation
of documents and other information related to each community;
(2) interviews with city officials and Indian Reorganization
Act (IRA) council members in each village and (3) interviews
with other residents in each community. The interviews with officials
elicited background information about the community and its government
as well as about public safety issues. This article will present
a summary discussion of village social and governing structures
as they are perceived in relation to public safety.
The communities surveyed were selected
after consideration of suggestions from Native leaders, participants
in the Alaska Federation of Natives conference, the Alaska Native
Justice Center and the Alaska State Troopers. Eleven of the Alaska
Native regional corporations are represented. The Arctic Slope
region was not included because its villages receive complete
public safety services from their own borough public safety agency
rather than from the Alaska State Troopers, Village Police Officers
(VPOs) or Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs).
Community Characteristics
The villages studied are in isolated locations 10 to 100 air miles from an urban center, with few road connections to other communities (Figure 1). They range in size from approximately 70 to over 700 residents (based on 1990 Census data). Residents are predominately Alaska Native, although the proportion of Native residents ranges from 98.3 per cent in Lower Kalskag to less than 7 per cent Native in Chickaloon (Table 1). The average (mean) Native population is approximately 82 per cent and the median proportion of Natives in the community population is 93.8 per cent. This means that in 14 of the 28 villages, 94 per cent or more of the residents are Native.
Most villages have few permanent
employment opportunities in the community, and cash employment
positions with schools and other organizations in the communities
have historically been dominated by non-Natives. Many residents
rely heavily on hunting, fishing, and the collection of wild
food for portions of their diets. In some communities, such as
in the NANA region, which has the Red Dog Mine, employment opportunities
do exist, but many residents must work outside their home villages.
This situation reportedly results in significant numbers of working-age
males regularly being away from their villages at work sites.
Even in those villages with available
wage-paying jobs, residents often engage in hunting, fishing
and/or food-gathering subsistence activities. Many adult village
residents consider their subsistence activities to be their preferred
and basic work obligations, requiring an extensive commitment
of time, focus and effort.
The buildings and facilities of
the typical village surveyed are modest by contemporary urban
standards. Nearly all of the communities have a general store,
usually run by the local government. Similarly, most have a local
school and housing for teachers (who are often non-Native). Native
"teacher aides" from the local community are employed
in almost every school. Most villages have well-maintained runways
for regular air service. Every community has an office facility
for the city and, in some instances, the tribal government officials,
although in one case this office is located in a nearby town.
These facilities are equipped with telephones, copy and fax machines,
and other office equipment.
One of the most conspicuous differences
between the current village situation and that found in the late
1970s in another study conducted by the Alaska State Troopers
and the Justice Center is in the area of communication technology.
In the late 1970s a single radio telephone in a village was not
uncommon, and fax machines did not exist. A second notable difference
is the increase in aircraft available for routine and emergency
transportation between communities. The addition of this technology
has greatly enhanced the potential for public safety services.
Government
Most of the 28 villages are
incorporated under Alaska law as first or second class cities.
Unincorporated villages have established IRA or traditional councils
administering local governmental affairs. Most of the first or
second class city governments were incorporated to obtain state
services and funds in the early 1970s. These governments often
continue to share authority with the councils, which have formally
existed since well before Alaska statehood, and in many villages
these governing groups have members in common. The power distribution
among these entities varies from community to community. City
councils usually play the leadership role in dealing with the
agencies of the State of Alaska while the IRA councils deal primarily
with federal agencies. IRA councils have responsibility for juvenile
matters under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and they manage
trust lands in the community. In addition, they frequently provide
a variety of grant-funded social services for the village. The
village city councils usually manage public safety, road and
facility maintenance, sewage and utility services, and similar
fundamental government functions. Many villages employ at least
one Village Police Officer (VPO) and are also served by a resident
state-funded Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO).
In some instances the official
members and the goals of both the city and IRA councils are the
same, but in others the members and goals differ. The relationships
can be very complex, and in a few cases these bodies are in competition.
The responsibilities, relationships
and powers of various governing groups in Native communities
across the state vary greatly and, in some cases, shift dramatically
over short periods of time. Information about such shifts is
seldom given wide dissemination outside a community and is frequently
not documented in state or regional publications. Consequently,
nonresidents and outside agencies wishing to have effective relationships
with local governments in Native communities must maintain continuous
contact and face-to-face communication to understand community
functioning and the changes which occur in the community government
structure.
The village governments have a
wide variety of income sources, most of which produce relatively
limited amounts of money to support government operations. The
most significant source of support is state-provided funds. State
funds are supplemented by federal grants and contracts and city-run
enterprises and businesses, such as washeterias, bingo and pulltabs,
public utilities, and stores. However, no matter how creative
the community in obtaining resources to support public safety,
nearly all the communities surveyed are short of money to pay
for routine local public safety operations.
Social Control
Most villages have established
local ordinances and rules to handle behavior deemed undesirable
by the local community or its officials. The nature of these
rules and the degree of their formal codification vary from community
to community. In a few instances, community officials spoke freely
about written tribal or village rules and their use; however,
they frequently would not provide a copy of these rules to interviewers.
Most of the villages have developed
and regularly use local_sometimes extralegal_social control mechanisms.
Although only a few communities have "tribal" courts
in operation, officials in nearly all villages indicate the concept
is being implemented or considered for use. The officials in
one community reported having a tribal court and a tribal bar
association consisting of lay-lawyers. Residents accused of law
violations are given a choice of being tried by the tribal court
or being referred to troopers for arrest and trial in a state
court. Tribal court sentences comprise fines and community service,
such as helping the elderly in the village, cleaning public facilities,
and working on community construction. Those serving tribal court
sentences in the community are supervised by a Village Police
Officer.
This same community also reported
having established a children's court. On this court three elders
oversee incidents related to misconduct such as curfew violations,
juvenile drinking, stealing, and gasoline sniffing. This group
relies heavily on counseling and discussions with the offender
and the offender's family. The most severe sentence imposed on
offending teenagers involves emptying honey buckets for residents.
In another community, the first
and second chiefs of the tribal council have assumed responsibility
for behavior control actions on behalf of the community. They
reportedly follow the rules in a "tribal handbook,"
and they are assisted by local Native "security guards"
whom the tribal council has hired at $140 per week. These officials
indicated that they enforce only "tribal law" violations
which occur in the village or on adjacent land claimed as the
traditional subsistence area of their people. Offenses committed
by village residents elsewhere in the state and offenses involving
local, state or federal property (e.g., breaking and entry of
the school or post office and warrants for offenses committed
in Anchorage or Fairbanks) are left to the Alaska State Troopers.
However, village officials insist upon accompanying and assisting
troopers who come into the village to investigate or serve papers.
These chiefs also stated that people
coming into their village, including state officials, are randomly
searched for alcohol and drugs. In addition, since most people
in this village are lifelong residents and, by custom, walk freely
into each other's homes, the chiefs seem to feel comfortable
in entering any home, unannounced, to check on reported misconduct
or alcohol possession.
This village is particularly interesting
because its officials claim to use sentencing standards which
can result in lifetime banishment from the village. For example,
a resident judged in a hearing by the council as drunk or disorderly
is given a fine of $75 for a first occurrence, a fine of $150
for a second incident, and a "blue ticket" for a third
or subsequent incident. The first "blue ticket" action
banishes the offender for a minimum of three months, after which
time he can be readmitted upon submission to the council of a
written apology and a request for readmission. A second "blue
ticket" is similar, except the banishment is for a minimum
of six months. A third "blue ticket" action indicates
permanent banishment. The process has reportedly been applied
only to "tribe" members; "non-enrolled" people
who are found drinking alcohol or being disorderly are sent out
of the village after a single offense.
The officials of this village and
those in many other communities claim to have developed their
own system because they do not believe the state has effectively
addressed community problems. Among the most frequently occurring
problems which community officials claim to have made progress
in correcting are (1) alcohol importation, possession, and distribution;
(2) curfew violations; (3) dog control; (4) misuse of firearms;
(5) misuse of citizen band radios; and (6) disorderly conduct
and interpersonal violence. They have had less success in dealing
with nonresidents such as the pilots, guides, and hunters claimed
to be trespassing in their territory.
Conclusion
The current governmental arrangements
reflect spontaneous resourcefulness as much as comprehensive
design. Most of the communities studied either have or are in
the process of developing a sense of direction which reflects
a commitment to the familiar rural village life patterns and
links to the society outside the village boundaries.
Most of the villages in this survey
have seemingly well-understood community social control methods
to handle problems beyond the scope of family responsibility.
These methods sometimes do not reflect the western legal system
and lack articulated recognition from the Alaska Department of
Public Safety, the Alaska Court System, and most other governmental
organizations. The village social control systems tend, however,
to be confined primarily to dealing with disruptive behavior
in the community. Criminal acts which the state has defined as
high-priority criminal behavior are nearly always referred by
the village to the state.
Future Forum articles will examine specific public safety data obtained from the survey. Copies of the entire report may be obtained from the Justice Center at UAA for a nominal cost.