All Indian Reports

[Pablo Tatts]

TheNational Indian Gaming Commission periodically initiates and develops reports and publications on the Commission, it's regulatory work and Indian gaming. Annual reports include Gross Gaming Revenues and the FOIA report. Reports marked with a * are reports to Congress.

Reports summarize the activities of an agency, office, commission, or other federal entity within a specific time period or in response to a particular mandate. Reports often compile information from other records, such as correspondence.

Below are examples of office-level reports related to American Indians and Alaska Natives in the holdings of the National Archives. Select the National Archives Identifiers for the full archival records descriptions.

In addition to periodic reports, federal entities occasionally commissioned reports on special topics related to American Indians and Alaska Natives. These reports were often the result of special investigations or projects. Examples are listed below.

Annual reports for the Northern Affairs portfolio before 1967 are not included in this database. To access a Northern Affairs annual report from before 1967, search for copies of the annual reports of the department responsible for Northern Affairs at that time in Aurora or at another library.

In 1991 the departmental annual report was integrated into the Estimates Part III which includes the Report on Plans and Priorities and the Performance Report and the Public Accounts, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Canadian Polar Commission (note that reports from 1991 to 1997 are available in print format only).

The departments of Justice (DOJ), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Homeland Security (DHS) administered 50 federal grant programs from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 that can be used to address human trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans, but DOJ could do more to identify the number of Native American victims served. For example, DOJ's Office on Violence Against Women requires grantees to report Native American status of victims served, but not by type of crime. DOJ's Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention do not require grantees to collect and report Native American status of victims served. However, in fiscal year 2017, OVC began providing recipients of human trafficking-specific grant programs the option to report the race or Native American status of victims served. While Native American status may not generally be a factor for determining whether a victim can receive services, it may be a factor for determining how best to assist this demographic. GAO recommended that DOJ require its grantees to report the number of human trafficking victims served and, as appropriate, the Native American status of those victims. DOJ agreed to implement the first part of this recommendation, but did not agree to the second part, citing victim confidentiality and other reasons. In June 2017, DOJ reported ongoing and planned actions to better capture the number of victims served but reiterated its concerns about collecting Native American status. GAO maintains that collecting grantee information on both the number and Native American status of victims served is important and will continue to monitor implementation.

Human trafficking is the exploitation of a person typically through force, fraud or coercion for purposes such as forced labor or commercial sex, and it involves vulnerable populations including Native Americans. Several components within DOJ, DHS, and the Department of Interior investigate and prosecute human trafficking in Indian country, and federal agencies provide grant funding to support efforts to combat trafficking and assist victims.

This testimony focuses on trafficking occurring in Indian country or involving Native Americans and addresses the extent to which: (1) federal agencies collect and maintain data on investigations and prosecutions; (2) tribal and major city LEAs encounter trafficking and the factors that affect their ability to investigate and prosecute such activities; and, (3) federal grant programs are available to help address trafficking and how well the granting agencies are positioned to know the number of victims served. This testimony is based on GAO reports issued in March and July 2017. To do this work GAO reviewed federal trafficking data and conducted three surveys. We surveyed the 203 known tribal LEAs, 86 major city LEAs, and 315 victim service provider organizations that received fiscal year 2015 DOJ or HHS grants that could be used to assist human trafficking victims.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has reported that crime rates experienced by American Indians are two and a half times higher than those experienced by the general population in the United States. Specifically, from 1992 to 2001 American Indians experienced violent crimes at a rate of 101 violent crimes per 1,000 person annually, compared to the national rate of 41 per 1,000 persons. The federal government plays a major role in prosecuting crimes committed in Indian country. For example, unless a federal statute has granted the state jurisdiction, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country, while the federal government and tribal governments both have jurisdiction to prosecute Indian offenders who commit crimes in Indian country. Federal prosecution, however, carries with it the possibility of greater terms of imprisonment, as tribal courts are statutorily limited to a maximum of 3 years imprisonment per offense, regardless of the severity of the offense, for example, a homicide. Because of such jurisdictional and sentencing limitations, tribal communities rely on the federal government to investigate and prosecute a variety of crimes in Indian country. Members of Congress have raised questions over recent press reports that federal prosecutors have declined to prosecute a significant percentage of Indian country criminal investigations that have been referred to their offices, and Congress asked us to review this issue. This report addresses the following questions: 1) How many Indian country matters were referred to U.S. Attorneys' offices and what were the declination rates for those matters for fiscal years 2005 through 2009? 2) What are the reasons for the declinations as recorded in the Department of Justice's case management system?

In fiscal years 2005 through 2009, U.S. Attorney's Office (USAOs) resolved about 9,000 of the approximately 10,000 Indian country matters referred to their offices by filing for prosecution, declining to prosecute, or administratively closing the matter. USAOs declined to prosecute 50 percent of the 9,000 matters. In addition: (1) About 77 percent of the matters received were categorized as violent crimes, and 24 percent as nonviolent crimes. (2) Declination rates tended to be higher for violent crimes, which were declined 52 percent of the time, than for nonviolent crimes, which were declined 40 percent of the time. According to staff from the USAOs, the difference in declination rates may be related to the evidence that is generally available for each type of crime, because, generally, less evidence is available for violent crimes. (3) South Dakota and Arizona were the top two districts receiving Indian country matters, with 2,414 and 2,358 matters, respectively. (4) The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) were the most prominent referring agencies, with 5,500 and 2,355 matters referred, respectively. Matters referred by the FBI were declined 46 percent of the time by the USAO, and matters from BIA 63 percent of the time. According to USAO, FBI, and BIA officials, this may be attributed to differences in the types of crimes investigated by the two agencies and the agencies' policies on which matters to refer to USAOs. (5) Two charge categories accounted for 55 percent of matters referred. There were 2,922 assault matters received (29 percent of the total), while the other leading charge was sexual abuse and related offenses, with 2,594 matters received (26 percent of the total). USAOs declined to prosecute 46 percent of assault matters and 67 percent of sexual abuse and related matters. The FBI and the BIA referred 79 percent of the Indian country matters to the USAOs. USAOs declined 63 percent of Indian country criminal matters referred by the BIA and 46 percent of Indian country criminal matters referred by the FBI. Representatives from USAOs, BIA, and FBI told us that this difference in declination rates may be the result of differences in agency protocols for referring matters to a USAO. For example, while FBI officials said that they may elect not to refer matters that they believe lack sufficient evidence for prosecution, BIA officials said that they refer all matters that they investigate to the USAO. Also, one agency may not have a presence in a certain area, leaving the other to make all of the referrals to the USAO. For example, the FBI does not have a presence on some tribal land in Arizona, and so criminal matters from that area are referred by the BIA. Furthermore, FBI officials noted that in many districts USAO guidelines assign primary responsibility for investigation of certain types of crimes to either the FBI or the BIA.

Users can find a report on technical education and research and development systems in India, provided by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). Details on technical manpower through various educational institutions in the country are provided. Information on Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs), along with number of students and entry requirements, is available. Detailed... Annual Administrative Reports of Himachal Pradesh Share This The Annual Administrative Report is provided by the Himachal Pradesh Directorate of Prosecution. You can find detailed information pertaining to the Directorate of Prosecution, officers, public prosecutors, etc.

3a8082e126