Tech Support : support@safience.io

Blog

Persons With Disabilities Are Increasingly Being Targeted By Criminals: BJS Data

By a Biometrica staffer

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) has, once again, shown that disabled people are disproportionately targeted by criminals, and are particularly at risk of being victims of violent crimes. The rate at which disabled people are victimized, the survey found, is also alarmingly higher than it was in the past.

In 2019, the rate of violent victimization against persons with disabilities was nearly four times the rate for those without, according to data published this month by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The overall rate of violent victimization against persons with disabilities was 46.2 per 1,000 people aged 12 or older. That number drops dramatically to a rate of 12.3 per 1,000 for persons without disabilities.

According to older results of the same survey (NCVS), between 2009 and 2015 the rate of violent victimization of persons with disabilities was 2.5 times the rate for those without (i.e. 32.3 per 1,000 versus 12.7 per 1,000).

Per the latest survey results, between 2017 and 2019, people with disabilities were victims of 26% of all non-fatal violent crime, and yet only accounted for 12% of the population. When it comes to the type of crime, one in three robbery victims had at least one disability, BJS adds.

However, BJS researchers and law enforcement agencies concede that the number of crimes actually committed against disabled people is likely to be higher than what is reported, CBS News said in a report.

Other key findings of the latest NCVS, according to BJS, include:

  • During 2017–19, the rate of violent victimization against males with disabilities was 42.7 per 1,000, compared to 13.4 per 1,000 males without disabilities
  • For females with disabilities, the rate of violent victimization was 49.4 per 1,000, compared to 11.3 per 1,000 for females without disabilities. In a 2015 report from the U.S. Department of Human Health Services, researchers found that disabled women are more likely to experience violence or abuse compared to non-disabled women and are more likely to experience violence or abuse by a current or former partner, per the CBS News article cited earlier
  • For each racial and ethnic group measured, persons with disabilities had higher violent victimization rates than persons without disabilities
  • Among victims who were disabled, the rate of violent crime excluding simple assault was more than four times the rate for people without disabilities (i.e. 17.9 per 1,000 versus 4.0 per 1,000)
  • The rate of simple assault against persons with disabilities (28.3 per 1,000) was more than three times the rate for persons without disabilities (8.3 per 1,000)
  • 27% of aggravated assault victimizations involved a person with a disability; similarly the rates were 27% for rape/sexual assault and 25% for simple assault
  • Among the disability types measured, the rate of violent victimization was highest for persons with cognitive disabilities (83.3 per 1,000). Persons with hearing disabilities had the lowest victimization rates of violent crime (23.6 per 1,000) and violent crime, excluding simple assault, (9.4 per 1,000) among the disability types examined
  • Strangers committed a lower percentage of violent victimizations against persons with disabilities (32%) than against persons without disabilities (41%)
  • A similar percentage of violent victimizations against persons with (11%) or without (13%) disabilities was committed by an intimate partner. Other relatives (including parents, children, etc) accounted for a higher percentage of violent victimizations against persons with disabilities (14%) than against persons without disabilities (7%)
  • Violent crime against persons with disabilities (38%) was less likely to be reported to police than violence against persons without disabilities (45%)
  • 19% of rapes or sexual assaults against persons with disabilities were reported to police, which was lower than the percentage for victims without disabilities (36%)

The Repatriation Of Native American Artifacts And Human Remains

By Aara Ramesh

Among the many challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples in North America today, one that has gained particular attention is that of unmarked graves (usually associated with former Indian boarding schools) and of artifacts taken from various Tribes in the early period of the European settlement of the continent.

It is estimated that currently, there are ​​116,857 remains of Indigenous Peoples kept in museums and institutions across the country (not including the Smithsonian Institute’s museums and research facilities). The issue of the return of these remains is one that is of high importance to Native American communities today.

In this piece, we take a look at the Native American Graves Protection And Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, which was enacted to address this specific issue.

Under NAGPRA, museums and federal agencies were ordered to take detailed stock of their inventory of “human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and cultural patrimony,” within five years of it being signed into law. It is important to note that there are specific definitions of these terms that may differ from their conventional cultural connotation.

The details required to be collected include where the remains and objects came from; their cultural affiliation, if known; and any specifics on how and when each item was acquired by the body. The cultural affiliation clause here refers to establishing a link to a federally recognized Tribe in the present.

Per a U.S. Senate report from 1990, the Act was not meant to undermine the “important function museums serve in society by preserving the past,” but rather was to “encourage a continuing dialogue between museums and Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations,” in addition to promoting “greater understanding” between them. 

In addition, the Act also spells out some rules around gravesites and other cultural items embedded on federal and Tribal lands. Before any intentional excavation is carried out, the party behind it has to get a permit and consent from the relevant bodies, in which the reason for the excavation has to be well justified.

The Act also accounts for unintentional discoveries of such artifacts in the course of other activities, such as construction, mining, or logging. The person who makes the discovery is required to immediately halt their activity and notify the relevant authority, federal or Tribal, and wait up to 30 days for permission before they are allowed to restart. 

Part of the restitution covered by NAGPRA is that descendants of the deceased person whose remains are in question, as well as a “culturally affiliated” Native American organization or Tribe, can request the repatriation of the human remains and/or artifact in question. If such a request is made, the item must be returned within 90 days of it being registered.

Almost all trafficking of Native American human remains “for sale or profit,” no matter when the remains were acquired, is illegal under NAGPRA, except in certain cases where explicit permission has been granted by the relevant authority. Any entity found to be in violation of this could face criminal penalties (a fine and/or prison term), as well as civil suits from the Secretary of Interior and/or “an Indian tribe, Native Hawaiian organization or individual with protected rights under NAGPRA.”

Crucially, claims under NAGPRA cannot be made against individuals, and are applicable only to museums (which is, admittedly, a broad category) and federal agencies. There are also two significant exceptions to repatriation mandates. One is if more than one party makes a claim on the object/remains, and it cannot be determined which has the more legitimate claim. The second is if the item is “indispensable for [the] completion of a specific scientific study, the outcome which would be of major benefit to the United States.”

There is a Federal Advisory Review Committee that oversees the implementation and review of NAGPRA. The Secretary of the Interior appoints members to the committee from a number of different stakeholder fields.

The assessment of the efficacy of NAGPRA is debated. The National Parks Service (NPS) estimates that it has collected around $59,111 in civil penalties from violations of NAGPRA between 1990 and 2018. Over that same period, the NPS says, “20% of museums subject to NAGPRA have resolved all Native American human remains under their control.”

On the other hand, national NAGPRA program manager Melanie O’Brien estimates that 72% of institutions that possess Native American remains have not established the affiliation and/or completed the repatriation process. She also says there is ample information to determine where the ancestors originally came from for at least 90% of those remains, down to state, if not county or site. The cultural affiliations of an additional 5% of remains have been established, but cannot be claimed due to a small technical loophole involving publishing a completed inventory. O’Brien estimates that only 5% of that total number comes from “an ‘unknown’ geographic location.”

On their part, institutions say that the process of cultural affiliation is “difficult, time consuming and expensive,” especially for those that are “too old to be affiliated with a federally recognized, present-day tribe.”

Particular institutions that have been in the news for noncompliance recently are the University of California, Berkeley, and the Harvard Peabody Museum, which have the two largest collections of Native American human remains in the U.S.

Earlier this year, the Department of Interior, under the purview of its first-ever Native American secretary, said it is looking at revising NAGPRA for the first time since it was enacted, to make it more effective and to “standardize” some of the broad definitions currently in the Act.

It is important, Indigenous activists say, for the repatriation of remains and funerary objects to happen. It allows for the healing of centuries-old wounds. Often, Tribes have been reported to hold “poignant,” “emotional,” and “deeply spiritual” reburial ceremonies” for the remains, most of which are unidentifiable. This can be particularly true in the cases of students housed at the aforementioned boarding schools.

At the end of the day, as John Stomberg, director of the Hood Museum, put it: “The work is never done when it comes to NAGPRA.”

SUV Drives Into Christmas Parade In Suburban WI, Killing Five And Injuring At Least 40 Others

By a Biometrica staffer

An SUV barrelled through barricades and drove through a Christmas parade in Waukesha (a suburban town just 20 miles from Milwaukee, Wisconsin) in the early evening of Sunday, Nov. 21, killing at least five and injuring over 40 others. The police have not released information on the identities of those who were killed, as they are still working on informing the families.

Police said they are still collecting information, though a “person of interest” is in custody. Investigators are examining whether the SUV’s driver may have been fleeing from a crime when he crashed into the paradegoers, a law enforcement official briefed on the matter told The Associated Press. The investigators were questioning the person in custody about that incident, which the official described as an altercation involving a knife, the Associated Press report added.

But the investigation is still in its early stages and is continuing to develop, the official cautioned.

The entire gruesome event was captured on cellphone videos and the city’s livestream. As the maroon SUV sped on around 4:39 pm, an officer fired his gun to try and stall it, Waukesha Police Chief Dan Thompson said. He added that he did not know whether the driver was hit by the bullets, though he confirmed that no bystanders were.

Thompson also said that many people drove themselves to the hospital, meaning that victim count is still being tallied. One area hospital said that it is treating just over a dozen injured people, three of whom are in critical condition and four who are in serious condition, per reporting from CNN. A number of patients are also being treated at the Froedtert Hospital, a Level I trauma center that typically treats “the most critically ill patients.”

The White House said that President Joe Biden has been apprised of the situation and that the administration is in contact with state and local officials, as the situation develops. “The White House is closely monitoring the situation in Waukesha and our hearts go out to everyone who has been impacted by this terrible incident,” one official said, adding, “We have reached out to state and local officials to offer any support and assistance as needed.”

The annual parade that occurs the weekend before Thanksgiving had participants of all ages, ranging from toddlers all the way through to senior citizens. This year’s theme was “comfort and joy.” Local schools had entries from the cheer, dance, and band teams. Reports say that among those who were hit and injured were members of a “Dancing Grannies” club, comprising elderly ladies who meet to dance and perform at various parades. Also among the injured are a Catholic priest, multiple parishioners, and a group of Waukesha Catholic schoolchildren.

Monday’s classes have been canceled by the Waukesha school district, which is also providing counselors to students and staff who may be traumatized by the events witnessed. Witnesses who were at the scene and those who were watching the events on TV have described being “freaked out” and horrified by what they saw, especially as children were involved in the parade.

Waukesha Mayor Shawn Reilly said, “Today our community faced horror and tragedy in what should have been a community celebration. I’m deeply saddened to know that so many in our community went to a parade but ended up dealing with injury and heartache.”

Idaho Governor Tony Evers said he and his wife Kathy were “praying for Waukesha tonight and all the kids, families, and community members affected by this senseless act.”

How Schools Can Help Curb Violence Among Youth

By a Biometrica staffer

In Portsmouth, Virginia, the local police department and the Up Center are reaching out to the public as they seek mentors to help steer youth in the right direction. The two organizations have come together due to an increase in gang violence involving middle and high school students in Portsmouth, according to a news report published last week. About 20 police officers had signed up to be mentors so far. Reports of an increase in cases of violence among youth are not limited to Virginia. In Aurora, Colorado, where two separate shootings left nine teenagers injured last week, a local church hosted a “State of Emergency” meeting that brought together people across various fields — including the local police department, mental health experts, and survivors of crime, among others.

The meeting in Aurora was an open space for young people to share and for adults to listen and help, a news report said. The emergency meeting was held less than a mile from Hinkley High School, where three teens were shot in the campus parking lot. Police have arrested three 16-year-old suspects and say the incident is gang-related. At Salisbury in North Carolina, a local high school was the venue for a friendly football contest that pitted police officers, city employees and former high school athletes against one another to raise money for Uplift Academy — a new youth intervention initiative designed to combat gang culture, influence and recruitment in local schools.

With reports of youth-on-youth violence back in the spotlight, in this piece we give you an introduction on the role schools can play in preventing the youth from falling prey to gang memberships. Why is that important? Youth violence is not an issue that can be solved with just the participation and involvement of law enforcement; ditto schools, or even parents and families. It’s a crisis that requires the coming together of various sections of the community for a comprehensive, and more effective, approach.

The information in the rest of this piece is based on reports by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the National Gang Center. (In October 2009, the National Youth Gang Center, which had been funded by the OJJDP since 1995, merged with the National Gang Center, which had been funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance since 2003.)

Gang Behavior On Campus

Do students who are members of gangs leave behind their affiliations once they enter campus? They don’t, say the OJJDP and the National Gang Center. “Gangs, unchecked and unidentified in a school setting, often engage in threat and intimidation; physical and cyber bullying; fighting; recruiting; and criminal activities such as the introduction and use of weapons, assault, sex trafficking, vandalism, and illegal drug sales. The absence of a well-developed, strategic, collaborative, and effective school safety plan can lead to violence and other unsafe and disruptive activities within a school setting,” the OJJDP-National Gang Center added in a report.

The first step towards combating gang activity on campus is, of course, identifying such activity. Here’s where it can become challenging though for both schools and law enforcement. How do you know when teenagers are just expressing themselves and are part of harmless informal clubs, and when they may pose a threat to the safety of other students and school staff? While it’s hard to come up with a concrete list, and of course differs from case to case, the report says there are a few common gang identifiers that schools can be on the lookout for. Those include but are not limited to:

  • Cliques of students wearing the same colors in clothes, bandanas, specific types of belts/buckles, jewelry, charms, or team sports clothing
  • Tattoos, graffiti, and drawings/sketches on folders, notebooks, or school assignments, including area codes and geographical locations represented numerically
  • Hand signs, handshakes, and other expressions of gang association or affiliation

However, none of these on their own may be conclusive proof that a student is engaging in gang activity. And determining proof is a process that typically involves sharing of information between school personnel and local law enforcement.

For instance, if a student is displaying any or all of those signs, the school could also consider their behavior and activities in spaces like lunchrooms, hallways, bathrooms, the schoolyard, the bus stop, the bus, extracurricular school-sponsored events, and other spaces where students can freely congregate before, during, and after school. If schools suspect that there could be gang activity on campus, they could also check if any establishments in the vicinity, such as apartment complexes, stores, restaurants, parks, etc are being used for gang-related activity. Repeated incidents of disrespect, threat, and intimidation by specific students (verbal and nonverbal) would also, for instance, need to be examined.

The best strategies are proactive, per the OJJDP-National Gang Center. That includes:

  • Prevention — Gang prevention is based on early identification of occurrences and trends within the school and community and the provision of evidence-based services and activities designed to discourage a youth’s decision to join a gang.
  • Intervention — Gang intervention strategies focus on youth who exhibit some level of engagement in a gang and are provided with evidence-based services to facilitate gang disengagement.
  • Suppression — Gang suppression strategies related to the school environment focus on proactive measures to mitigate many of the factors that can contribute to disruptive, gang-related behaviors that pose a threat to the learning environment and to the safety and wellbeing of others.

What kind of prevention, intervention and suppression strategies can schools consider? We will cover that in the next part of this mini series on youth gangs and violence.

This is the second part of a mini series Biometrica is doing on youth gangs and youth violence. The first one, an introduction to the OJJDP’s programs to combat youth violence, can be found here.

Who Is Required To Report Suspected Child Abuse And When

By Aara Ramesh

Last month, we wrote about some gaps in the child welfare system that can lead to children in foster care being abused. Unfortunately, the reality is that it’s not just those children who can fall prey to abuse. Almost any child is vulnerable, by virtue of their dependence on adults in their early life.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) actually considers child abuse and neglect “serious public health problems that can have long-term impact on health, opportunity, and wellbeing.” On one hand, child maltreatment has a wider economic cost, resulting in a loss of $428 billion in 2015, putting it on par with the costs associated with other widespread health issues like stroke and type 2 diabetes.

Per a CDC report, at least one in seven children have likely experienced child abuse and/or neglect in the past year, and it’s highly probably that this number is actually higher. In 2019 alone, an estimated 1,840 children died of abuse and neglect nationwide. As with most social determinants of health, children who live in poverty conditions are more likely to experience abuse and neglect. In this case, they are five times more likely to be victims of maltreatment.

Research shows that neglect is the most common form of child abuse, followed by physical, sexual, and psychological abuse. About 16% of children who were abused in 2018 were subjected to more than one type of maltreatment. The most common relationship between abuser and victim is parent–child, with more than three out of four abusers in 2018 being parents. The rates of abuse do not vary too much across gender, with the rate being 48.6% and 51% respectively for boys and girls.

In the long term, children who are abused in such a way suffer beyond just immediate physical injuries. They may also develop emotional, cognitive, and psychological problems. They are more susceptible to becoming violent, abusing drugs, contracting sexually transmitted infections, developing eating disorders, and falling prey to sexual exploitation, perpetuating the cycle of abuse. They are also more likely to perform poorer in school or drop-out altogether, and face limited employment opportunities. The stress and anxiety associated with conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder can also put them at risk for other physiological issues like high blood pressure, cholesterol, and heart disease.

Given the prevalent nature of this problem, it is unsurprising that there are laws in place to ensure that as few child abuse cases fall through the cracks in the legal system as possible. In today’s piece, we look at laws that govern who must legally report suspected child abuse cases to the authorities and when.

In 1962, a team of researchers published a landmark article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, in which they coined a new term — “Battered-Child Syndrome,” i.e., “a clinical condition in young children who have received serious physical abuse, generally from a parent or foster parent.” This marked a turning point in society’s understanding of child abuse, with most coming to recognize it as a “regular and recurring aspect of family life, not a sensational exception.”

It has taken centuries for our language and perception of childhood to reach where it is today. As such, child abuse — both physical and sexual — has likely existed for a considerable amount of time, though historians say they were “rarely documented, because neither medical nor legal frameworks existed for identifying or discussing them.” Where once, even in America, a spanking would have been acceptable or even encouraged, today parents are urged by psychologists to find alternatives to physical punishment. Further, even today, “abuse” has different cultural connotations across the world.

In 1974, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was signed into law to address this problem. It was subsequently reauthorized in 2010, and was amended in 2015, 2016, 2018, and 2019. The 2015 revision added sex and/or human trafficking to the umbrella term of “child abuse and neglect” and “sexual abuse.” 

Under the Act, to receive federal funds earmarked for child abuse mitigation, states had to mandate some professionals to report any real or suspected cases of child abuse and neglect, set up child protective agencies; and ensure confidentiality in any records or legal proceedings tied to each report; among other stipulations. CAPTA covers physical abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect, and psychological and emotional maltreatment.

In general, those who are required to report by law are those adults that have frequent contact with children and, thus, may be more likely to notice the signs of maltreatment. These commonly include social workers, staff at schools, healthcare professionals, mental health personnel, child care providers (i.e., nannies, at-home nurses, etc.), medical examiners/coroners, and law enforcement officers.

Some states expand this further to cover commercial film or photograph processors and/or computer technicians who may encounter child sexual abuse material during in their day-to-day jobs; substance abuse counselors; probation or parole officers; members of the clergy; and anyone involved in either a paid or volunteer capacity with organized activities for children like church groups, camps, youth centers, and recreation centers.

Eighteen states and Puerto Rico went even further, requiring that any civilian report suspected abuse/neglect, and granted them total criminal and civil immunity even if it was found they purposely submitted a false report. Later, the anonymized nature of hotlines further widened the ability to draw attention to suspected abuse. Indiana, New Jersey, and Wyoming require every person, regardless of profession, to report suspected abuse. 

In addition, CAPTA has a provision for “institutional reporting,” i.e., individual organizations like a school or hospital must have internal policies and procedures for mandatory reporting. There are state by state variations on whether a person who reports suspected child maltreatment can be penalized by their company for doing so, be that in the form of termination, demotion, a pay cut, negative performance evaluation, or suspensions.

Some states require the person submitting the report to provide their contact information and names, while others allow anonymous reporting. The vast majority nonetheless have clauses that maintain confidentiality in the record, and prevent the abuser from learning who made the report. The identities of the tipster can be disclosed to law enforcement and other criminal justice personnel for investigative purposes or if the report is found to be false.

The penalties for those who are required to but fail to report child maltreatment also vary from state to state. In some states, like Florida, it can be a felony. In others, it could just be a misdemeanor. In some, like Arizona and Minnesota, if it involves another serious offense like prostituting a child or incest, or if the child dies, then the misdemeanor can be upgraded to a felony. In some states like Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, and Guam, only second or subsequent violations are classified as felonies.

Penalties can range from 30 days to five years in prison and/or fines between $300 and $10,000. In seven states and American Samoa, the person who fails to report despite being legally obligated to do so can be sued in civil court, in addition to the criminal charges. Uniquely, Florida imposes a fine of up to $1 million on any institution of higher learning that fails to report or prevents any person from reporting an instance of abuse committed on the institution’s grounds or at an event sponsored by it. 

Around 10 states also have penalties for an employer who retaliates in any way against an employee or volunteer who makes a report. They can be charged with a misdemeanor, though in Connecticut that can be a felony and carries a civil fine of up to $2,500.

Conversely, there are also penalties for those who make false reports. In New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands, making false reports is entirely illegal based on the state code. In 19 states and the Virgin Islands, it usually amounts to a misdemeanor, though in Florida, Illinois, Tennessee, and Texas, false reporting is a felony. Multiple false reports are upgraded to felonies in Arkansas, Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia.

No criminal penalties are imposed in California, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, and Nebraska. However, those who submit a false report are not protected from civil or criminal action, as is usually the case for those who report maltreatment.

In those states that specify penalties for false reports, the consequences can range from 90 days to five years in jail, or fines between $500 and $5,000. Civil charges may also apply in some states. Again, Florida is an outlier here: in addition to a court sentence of 5 years and $5,000, the Department of Children and Family Services may fine the person who made the false report up to $10,000.

You can find a detailed, state-by-state list of penalties associated with failing to report child maltreatment or submitting a false report here.

You can find a detailed, state-by-state list of mandatory child abuse reporting requirements, as compiled by the  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau here.

The National Child Abuse Hotline can be contacted 24×7 at 1-800-422-4453.

Firearm Used In Nearly Half Of All Indigenous Persons Homicides: CDC Report

By a Biometrica staffer

On Thursday, Nov. 18, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in a statement that analysis of data from the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) was helping it uncover the characteristics surrounding homicides of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people. One of the key findings, the CDC said, was that a firearm was used in nearly half (48%) of all homicides of Indigenous People, per an analysis of data from 34 states and the District of Columbia for the period 2003-2018.

Other main findings of the report included one that showed the rate of homicide was three times higher in AI/AN males than females (12 versus 4 per 100,000). And approximately half of victims lived (48%) or were killed (53%) in metropolitan areas. Among female victims, 38% of suspects were current or former intimate partners.

When it comes to the suspects of these homicides, the report found that a majority (80%) were young adult males and 42% were aged between 18-34 years. Nearly one-third of the suspects were also Indigenous, the CDC says. And, over 60% of victims knew the suspect in their homicides.

The epidemic of Missing or Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP) has been spoken about quite a bit this week across news outlets, thanks to the first White House Tribal Nations Summit to be held since 2016, which took place Nov. 15-16. November also happens to be the designated Native American Heritage month. 

During the two-day summit earlier this week, President Joe Biden signed a legislation titled: “Improving Public Safety and Criminal Justice for Native Americans and Addressing the Crisis of Missing or Murdered Indigenous People.” Biden also announced the launch of five new initiatives aimed at addressing public safety among, and protection of, Indigenous persons at the summit.

On Thursday, the CDC said homicide was the fifth leading cause of death in 2019 for AI/AN males and the seventh leading cause of death for AI/AN females ages 1–54 years. AI/AN people also have reported high levels of intimate partner violence, including physical or sexual violence, stalking, or psychological harm by a current or former intimate partner or spouse.

American Indian and Alaska Native people also experience higher rates of adverse childhood experiences, such as child abuse and neglect and family and community violence, putting AI/AN people at further risk for other forms of violence, such as homicide, the CDC said. “The risk factors for violence are compounded by historical (war, loss of land, language, access to traditional ways, and cultural identity), intergenerational (child and elder abuse and neglect), and ongoing (racism and structural inequities) traumas,” it added.

On Tuesday, Nov. 16 the Department of the Interior (DOI) announced the creation of a new Secretary’s Tribal Advisory Committee (STAC), which formally establishes a mechanism for Tribal leaders to engage in routine and robust conversations directly with DOI Secretary Deb Haaland. There have been initiatives aimed at addressing the MMIP crisis in the past too.

The Presidential Task Force on Missing and Murdered American Indians and Alaska Natives, also known as Operation Lady Justice, was established in 2019. In 2020, Savanna’s Act was passed to increase federal governmental agency coordination to reduce violent crimes within tribal lands and against AI/AN people. The Not Invisible Act directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to review, revise, and develop law enforcement and justice protocols to address MMIP.

Justice Department Announces $139 Million In Grants To Advance Community Policing

By a Biometrica staffer

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced more than $139 million in grant funding through the department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) COPS Hiring Program (CHP). The awards provide direct funding to 183 law enforcement agencies across the nation, allowing those agencies to hire 1,066 additional full-time law enforcement professionals, the DOJ said.

“The grants we are announcing today will enable law enforcement agencies across the country to hire more than 1,000 additional officers to support vitally important community oriented policing programs,” Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said in the statement. CHP is a competitive award program intended to reduce crime and advance public safety through community policing. 

CHP provides funds directly to law enforcement agencies to hire new or rehire additional career law enforcement officers, thus, increasing their community policing capacity and crime prevention efforts.

Of the 183 agencies who were awarded grants per the DOJ’s announcement, around half will use the funding to focus on building legitimacy and trust between law enforcement and communities; 41 agencies will seek to address high rates of gun violence; 21 will focus on other areas of violence; and 19 will focus CHP resources on combating hate and domestic extremism or supporting police-based responses to persons in crisis.

Since its creation in 1994, COPS has invested more than $14 billion to advance community policing, including grants awarded to more than 13,000 state, local and Tribal law enforcement agencies to fund the hiring and redeployment of more than 135,000 officers, the DOJ said. CHP, COPS’ flagship program, continues to be in demand today, per the statement.

In fiscal year 2021 (FY21), COPS received 590 applications requesting nearly 3,000 law enforcement positions. For FY22, President Joe Biden has requested $537 million for CHP, an increase of $300 million, the statement adds.

On Oct. 1, President Joe Biden issued a proclamation to kick off National Community Policing Week. In his message, he said: “I have long been an advocate for community policing […]. It is especially important now, as State and local governments across the country continue to climb back from the once-in-a-century economic crisis triggered by COVID-19 last year. With their budgets decimated, countless communities were forced to cut essential services in 2020, including law enforcement and social services, just as a second public health epidemic of gun violence threatened the safety of their cities and towns.”

Community policing, or rather the modern form of it, is said to trace its roots back to the 1960s when riots and gang activities were on the rise. Law enforcement response to that increase in violent crimes dented police–community relationships and, hence, direct partnerships between the two were conceived as one idea to improve those relationships. The history of the COPS Office, though, goes back to 1994 when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act authorized an $8.8 billion expenditure over six years. The COPS Office was created to distribute and monitor these funds.

Community policing, as Biden put it in his proclamation, is simply “the practice of law enforcement professionals working side-by-side with members of their communities to keep neighborhoods safe.” It is meant to recognize that police rarely can solve public safety problems alone, and, thus, encourages interactive partnerships with relevant stakeholders.

You can read more about community policing in an earlier piece we published here.

A complete list of awards under this announcement can be found here. 

First Amendment Rights Vs. Public Safety — The Balancing Act Of Prosecuting Domestic Terrorism

By Aara Ramesh

A week ago, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a warning that the U.S. is facing a “heightened threat environment” from domestic terrorists this holiday season. Though there have been no “credible” or specific threats yet made, the DHS says that a series of religious holidays could create potential targets. 

Per the Associated Press, this is the fourth time in 2021 that the DHS has sent out such a bulletin. In fact, since the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and President Joe Biden’s inauguration later that same month, the threat posed by domestic extremists has been a key focus area for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other law enforcement agencies.

In September, we wrote about how the understanding of “terrorism” has changed in the two decades since 9/11 and at the shifting landscape that is defined more by domestic actors and ideologies, and less by foreign groups’ goals.

Prominent examples of what might constitute domestic terrorism include Elliot Rodger’s 2014 shooting spree in Santa Barbara; Dylann Roof’s 2015 murder of nine Black churchgoers in Charleston; the 2017 white supremacist/neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville; the anti-Hispanic shooting rampage at a Walmart in El Paso in 2019; the Jan 6. insurrection at the U.S Capitol; various nationwide synagogue attacks; and the rise since last year in anti-Asian hate crimes.

In that piece, we also mentioned that law enforcement faces “significant challenges” when it comes to thwarting homegrown violent extremists (motivated by the ideologies of foreign terrorist organizations) and domestic terrorists (those who plan to use violence to achieve a set of goals but are not directed or inspired by foreign terrorist organizations), mainly because of the ubiquity and ease of online self-radicalization, and the diffused nature of those extremists’ networks and affiliations.

The biggest problem, however, that law enforcement faces when it comes to dealing with domestic terrorism is that there is no law that governs this area and that enacting one would be extremely challenging. We explore this loophole in today’s piece.

At the center of this is a debate over what constitutes constitutionally protected free speech and what can be considered a legitimate threat of violence.

For instance, there is some evidence that law enforcement saw some warning signs in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 insurrection about what the rioters had planned, but that this chatter was chalked up to people just exercising their free speech rights under the First Amendment.

It is difficult, according to legal and constitutional scholars, to know where to draw the line. Law enforcement and privately-owned internet companies are not — and nor should they be — equipped, it is said, to distinguish between someone just complaining on the internet, making joke threats or tall claims they would never follow through on, and those who are legitimately telegraphing their intention to cause harm.

As the Verge points out, not everyone who complains about “political correctness” online wants to “imminently establish an all-white ethnostate.” Or, similarly, there is a marked difference between someone who believes a woman’s place is at home and an incel (involuntary celibate) advocating for every man to be assigned a woman as a sex slave.

In testifying before Congress, John Cohen, the official in charge of intelligence analysis at the DHS, said that “analysts need to be able to distinguish […] between constitutionally protected speech and threat-related activity” — something they are not equipped to do at the moment.

Under current law, a white supremacist or incel who commits a terror attack cannot be prosecuted under that terminology. They can face murder, hate crime, or weapons charges, but “terrorism” is a crime reserved for the 60-odd federally designated foreign terrorist organizations (most, but not all, of which are Islamist). 

Hate crime charges are typically added on to other criminal charges like assault or murder, to increase the punishment meted out for the crimes in question. For instance, a “potential sentence for a hate crime assault would be higher than an assault with no hate crime enhancement.”

It is, of course, the prosecutor who decides when to append a hate crime or terrorism charge, and it can be difficult to successfully argue and prove terrorism charges as they generally “rely on motive and other psychological factors.” Such charges are usually levied against those with affiliations to the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.

It may be easier to get a conviction for domestic organizations and individuals on charges like murder, assault, weapons possession, conspiracy, or organized crime. The only difference a targeted domestic terrorism law would make, some detractors say, would be in who ends up prosecuting a case.

In the past, perpetrators of mass violence and murder have been charged with both murder (on the state level) and hate crimes (federally), but have not faced terrorism charges, which are more nebulous and difficult to define in legal terms.

Even Timothy McVeigh, who notoriously set off a truck bomb at a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people, was charged with and executed for murder, and not for terrorism, despite that incident being widely acknowledged as the worst domestic terror attack up to that point.

Two key pieces of legislation have already been introduced in the House (H.R.350) and the Senate (S.964) this year to address this problem, titled, “The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021.” The bills seek to enhance information sharing on the problem at hand, understand links between domestic terrorism and hate crimes, and boost prosecution of such attacks, among other measures.

The question is whether it is even desirable to enact a domestic terrorism law. As one expert put it, in legally prosecuting domestic terrorism, there is a “real danger of the government criminalizing ideology, theology and beliefs rather than focusing on specific criminal acts.”

In addition, constitutional experts warn that any broad-based domestic terrorism law would likely face several legal challenges, with the Supreme Court likely to rule that “otherwise lawful support” of a domestic organization cannot be criminalized by the government. Precedent set by the Court seemingly confirms this view.

There is also a difference in perception between domestic terrorism and international terrorism. Neal Katyal, a legal scholar and ex-Justice Department official, underscored this disparity by pointing out, after the Charlottesville attack, that if the perpetrator had espoused the ideology of the Islamic State or Al Qaida, he could have been charged with engaging in terrorism.

As such, the debate right now remains more political than legal.

DOI Announces Creation Of First Tribal Advisory Committee To Strengthen ‘Nation-To-Nation’ Relationship

By a Biometrica staffer

On Tuesday, Nov. 16 the Department of the Interior (DOI) announced the creation of a new Secretary’s Tribal Advisory Committee (STAC), which formally establishes a mechanism for Tribal leaders to engage in routine and robust conversations directly with DOI Secretary Deb Haaland. The DOI announcement comes during day two of the first White House Tribal Nations Summit to be held since 2016.

This important move will further strengthen the DOI’s nation-to-nation relationship with federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes and their leadership, the Department said in a statement. The DOI announcement also comes just a day after President Joe Biden issued an executive order aimed at improving public safety and criminal justice, and at addressing the epidemic of missing and murdered Indigenous People.

The newly-formed STAC will ensure that Tribal leaders and the current and future Secretaries have a forum to seek consensus, exchange views, share information, and provide advice and recommendations regarding programs and funding that affect Tribes across the entire Department, the DOI said.

“Tribes need a seat at the decision making table before policies are made that impact their communities. The creation of this new Tribal Advisory Committee is a timely and much-needed development that will ensure Tribal leaders can engage at the highest levels of the Department on the issues that matter most to their people,” Haaland said in the statement on Tuesday.

The DOI also said that Tribal consultations will be held regarding draft updates to the Department’s Tribal consultation policy and certain procedures contained in its Departmental Manual. As part of that, DOI said it plans to seek Tribal inputs on edits that would:

  • Bolster DOI’s consultation policy to encourage early, robust, interactive, pre-decisional, informative and transparent consultation;
  • Establish a model for seeking Tribal consensus;
  • Require that DOI staff undergo training before participating in consultation;
  • Codify the STAC;
  • Address flexibility for Tribal waivers;
  • Clarify that Interior decision-makers must invite Tribes to engage in consultation; and
  • Require a record of consultation.

In a separate statement on Tuesday, DOI also announced a new interagency initiative to improve the protection of and access to Indigenous sacred sites through enhanced and improved interdepartmental coordination, collaboration and action. A new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed by eight agencies, will increase collaboration with Tribes to ensure stewardship and access to sites, and incorporate Traditional Ecological Knowledge into management, treatment, and protection procedures. 

“Since time immemorial, the Earth’s lands and waters have been central to the social, cultural, spiritual, mental, and physical wellbeing of Indigenous peoples. It is essential that we do everything we can to honor sites that hold historical, spiritual or ceremonial significance,” Haaland said.

On Monday, Nov. 15, Biden signed the legislation aimed at addressing this crisis during the first day of the Tribal Nations summit. He also listed out four other initiatives, including inter-departmental and agency collaboration to protect Tribal treaty rights. On the same day as his announcement, other steps were announced, including DOJ’s Office for Victims of Crime saying it awarded nearly $104 million to help crime victims in Indian Country.

“These efforts — again, to use the word my dad would use much — are a matter of dignity.  That’s the foundation of our nation-to-nation partnership.  That’s what this summit is all about,” Biden said in his remarks at the summit.

How Covid-19 Has Impacted The Already Strained Child Welfare System

By Aara Ramesh

Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, the child welfare system was rife with gaps that made children in foster care extra susceptible to abuse. Like with many other societal problems, however, the pandemic only worsened that situation on a number of fronts. In this piece, we take a look at some of the ways in which this might have happened.

On the one hand, a shocking number of children have been left without a primary caregiver as a result of the virus. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) termed this the “hidden pandemic,” with an estimated 119,000 children being left without a primary caregiver in the first 14 months of the pandemic in the U.S. alone. This is in addition to the 600,000 Americans who died as a direct result of contracting the virus.

This stark statistic likely affected both the number of children pushed into the welfare system (which in all probability rose), as well as the number of families able and willing to take in kids through fostering or adopting (which fell). In addition, many registered families had to grapple with possibly exposing their households to the Covid-19 virus, while authorities had to find a way to care for children within the system who may have caught the virus.

On another front, lockdowns and school closures have cut children off from non-caregiving adults who may have been able to spot signs of abuse or neglect. Typically, those adults that have the most frequent contact with children are the ones who are best suited and most likely to report suspected maltreatment or neglect. In 2018, over two-thirds of all referrals of maltreatment to Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies came from teachers, pediatricians, daycare providers, lawyers, police, etc. Around one-fifth came from teachers. Only 16.6% of child maltreatment reports came from nonprofessionals, i.e., friends, neighbors, and relatives. 

Many states have witnessed a decline in the number of reported child maltreatment cases. This is not necessarily an indication that the number of incidents has reduced, but rather that there are now more barriers to reporting. In March 2020 alone, Wisconsin, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Illinois noted that reports of child abuse fell by between 20% and 70%. Experts fear that cases now only come to light “once it’s too late and the child has been admitted to the hospital with serious or life-threatening injuries.”

Doctor visits have transitioned online as well, cutting off another avenue for abused children. Even caseworkers are less able to visit homes and conduct their inspections and assessments. 

Similarly, foster families have faced increased economic hardship and potentially unemployment. Poorer individuals are more likely to be frontline/essential workers, meaning that they could not afford to work from home or take time off, thereby affecting their families. Parents who do work from home face the prospect of 24×7 childcare with limited support, training, and resources. Factors such as these compound existing fears over the virus, and only exacerbate stress, frustration, workload, and general burnout.

In the case of agencies, investigations and follow-ups have been compromised. According to the Brookings Institute, one of the gaps exposed by the pandemic is that the child welfare system is currently run by a mix of public agencies, private entities, and community-based organizations, leaving more cracks for cases of abuse to fall through. On top of this, differences in federal and state laws, as well as private organizations’ own rules, complicate matters further.

There have also been disruptions in child welfare hearings and legal proceedings due to court closures, which affects family reunification and adoption processes, throwing the future of children further into doubt.

All manner of professionals involved in the running of the child welfare system have had to contend with safety protocols, PPE requirements, mask and vaccine mandates, and individuals or families who may oppose any number of these factors. Many private and non-profit organizations dedicated to child welfare have been bankrupted or forced to shut down due to the economic downturn or a loss of funding.

On the other hand, many see the pandemic as an opportunity to restructure a system some describe as “reactionary,” with “few effective tools and little oversight.” The scope of CPS’ mandate is also extremely broad — ostensibly, their main target is to ensure the wellbeing of the child, but often the core of why family reunification may not be possible is much more complicated, down to “poverty, economic uncertainty, homelessness, substance use disorders,” etc. Dealing with such factors is often out of the purview of the individual caseworker.

As the Brookings Institute put it — the pandemic “has also called attention to a system that could benefit from fundamental changes. In the long-run, it is possible that this crisis could act as a catalyst that causes us to reevaluate child protection at its core – how we support and treat families who are deemed to be at-risk of child abuse and neglect, and how we reconcile child safety and protection with family support and preservation, while recognizing the importance of both.”