Missing and Murdered Indigenous People
January 10, 2022
(MMIP): Overview of Recent Research,
Emily J. Hanson
Legislation, and Selected Issues for Congress
Analyst in Social Policy

Across many countries and in the United States, Indigenous peoples—women and girls
in particular—are disproportionately affected by violence. In the United States, for

example, 84% of American Indian and Alaskan Native (AI/AN) women and 82% of
AI/AN men reported experiencing violent victimizations in their lifetime. Studies have also shown that Native
American children are more likely to experience abuse and trauma than their non-Native peers. In November
2021, 3.6% of the missing persons included in the National Missing and Unidentified Person System (NamUs)
were identified as AI/AN, which was approximately four times their percentage in the U.S. population (0.9%).
Advocacy by Native American and other Indigenous communities has brought increased attention to experiences
of violence in Indigenous communities using the terms Missing and Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP) and
Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG). This report provides an overview of recent
research and commonly cited barriers to addressing MMIP, background on legislation and programming to
improve data collection and criminal justice services for Native Americans, and selected policy issues Congress
may consider when conducting oversight or considering legislation related to MMIP.
In recent years, the federal government has made efforts to address MMIP and the high rate of violence
experienced by Native Americans. This report provides background on these issues, including an in-depth review
of major sources of data on missing Native Americans and violent victimizations. Data sources include the
Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, as well as federal databases
tracking missing persons. These data sources present a consistent picture of high rates of violent victimization of
Native Americans.
The report then discusses three common barriers to the federal government’s and criminal justice systems’ ability
to fully understand and address MMIP. The first potential barrier is the relative lack of culturally specific services
for Native American crime victims who live outside of tribal lands. Second, complicated jurisdictional overlaps
between federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement can lead to confusion regarding responsibility for
investigations and prosecutions of crimes that occur on tribal land and can lead to loss of time and inefficient use
of resources. The third barrier concerns gaps in the criminal justice data about MMIP.
The report next discusses federal legislation and initiatives related to MMIP, including alerts for missing persons,
efforts to encourage collaboration across federal agencies and with tribal governments, and efforts to improve data
collection. This section covers Operation Lady Justice, which was created by Executive Order 13898, and the
recently launched U.S. Department of the Interior Missing and Murdered Unit. Recent federal legislation to
address MMIP is also discussed, including Savanna’s Act (P.L. 116-165) and the Not Invisible Act of 2019 (P.L.
116-166).
The report concludes with a discussion of MMIP issues policymakers might consider when conducting oversight
or considering legislation.
Congressional Research Service

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

Introduction
Across many countries, Indigenous peoples—women and girls in particular—are
disproportionately affected by violence.1 In the United States, 84% of American Indian and
Alaskan Native (AI/AN) women and 82% of AI/AN men reported experiencing violent
victimization in their lifetime, which is significantly higher than the rate of lifetime violence
experienced by non-Hispanic White women and men.2 Studies have also shown that AI/AN
children are more likely to experience abuse and trauma than their non-Native peers.3 In
November 2021, of the 20,993 missing persons included in the National Missing and
Unidentified Person System (NamUs), 749 (3.6%) were identified as AI/AN.4 The proportion of
missing people who were identified as AI/AN is more than three times the AI/AN percentage of
the U.S. population (0.9%).5 Advocacy by Native American and other Indigenous communities
has brought increased attention to experiences of violence in Indigenous communities using the
terms Missing and Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP) and Missing and Murdered Indigenous
Women and Girls (MMIWG). In recent years, the federal government has made efforts to address
MMIP and the high rate of violence experienced by Native American women, girls, and two-spirit
people.6
This report provides an overview of recent research about and commonly cited barriers to
addressing MMIP and background on legislation and programming to improve data collection
and services for Native Americans. It concludes with selected policy issues Congress may
consider when conducting oversight or considering legislation related to MMIP.
MMIP is an issue that bridges several policy domains of interest to many in Congress, including
tribal jurisdiction and self-determination, violent crime, and human trafficking. The broader scope
and history of this issue could encompass events as early as the first arrival of Europeans in the
Americas. As stated in a January 2021 article in the Department of Justice Journal of Federal
Law and Practice,
The issue is steeped in centuries of interracial physical and cultural violence carried out
through colonial oppression of Indigenous peoples. What began with European
colonialization and the kidnapping and murdering of Indigenous people continued with

1 United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, Breaking the Silence on Violence
against Indigenous Girls, Adolescents and Young Women, https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-
library/publications/2013/5/breaking-the-silence-on-violence-against-indigenous-girls.
2 Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and
Men, 2016, https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249822.pdf (hereinafter, “NIJ VAWA”), p. 2. In this case, violence
includes sexual violence, psychological aggression or physical violence by an intimate partner, and stalking.
3 Department of Justice, Ending Violence So Children Can Thrive, November 2014,
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/defendingchildhood/pages/attachments/2015/03/23/ending_violence_so_chil
dren_can_thrive.pdf.
4 NamUs, Missing Persons Search, https://www.namus.gov/MissingPersons/Search (hereinafter, “NamUs Search”).
5 U.S. Census Bureau, “Selected Characteristics of the Total and Native Populations in the United States,”
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=population%20by%20race&tid=ACSST1Y2019.S0601 (hereinafter, “U.S.
Census: Native American Population”).
6 The term two-spirit is a modern pan-Indian term that refers to an identity akin to a third gender. According to the
Indian Health Service, “Traditionally, Native American two-spirit people were male, female, and sometimes intersexed
individuals who combined activities of both men and women with traits unique to their status as two-spirit people. In
most tribes, they were considered neither men nor women; they occupied a distinct, alternative gender status.” For
more information, see https://www.ihs.gov/lgbt/health/twospirit/. In this report, the term MMIP should be understood
as being inclusive of two-spirit people and data specific to two-spirit people will be presented when available.
Congressional Research Service

1

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

U.S. colonizing policies throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. These policies
included wars, massacres, and attacks on Indigenous civilian populations, boarding schools
with assimilatory policies, laws suppressing cultural and religious practices, and forced
removal of Indigenous peoples from their traditional lands.7
A full elucidation of this history and its relationship to modern patterns of victimization are
beyond the scope of this report. Similarly, the long history of Native American advocacy for
equal justice and self-determination is germane to the topic of MMIP but not a focus of this
report.
Note On Terminology
A variety of terms are used in research, policy, and advocacy concerning peoples native to the Americas. This
report primarily discusses issues related to communities native to the contiguous United States,8 but may at times
include Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and American Samoans. In the context of this report, the fol owing
terms are defined as such:

American Indians refers to peoples who originally inhabited the territories included in the continental
United States prior to European colonization.

Alaska Natives refers to peoples who originally inhabited the territories included in Alaska.

Native Americans refers to peoples who originally inhabited the territories comprising the United States,
including American Indians and Alaska Natives as well as Native Hawaiians and American Samoans.

American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) is the category used to col ect data about Indigenous peoples
in many U.S. government surveys, including the Census. In this report, this label is used when discussing
data that were col ected and reported with the term.

When capitalized, Indigenous refers to people or groups of people who are the original inhabitants of a
place. The term is used in the lowercase when not referring to people.

The terms Indian and/or Indian tribe may be used when referring to Native American populations that
are statutorily defined.9

Indian Country is a legal term defined in Title 18, Section 1151 of the United States Code as “(a) all land
within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government,
notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation,
(b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original
or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c)
all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way
running through the same.”10
Data on Violence Experienced by Native Americans
There is no single source for data on MMIP; instead, one can begin to gain an understanding of
the violence experienced by Native Americans by examining several federal databases as well as
data gathered by researchers. However, researchers and advocates have identified significant gaps
in available data, indicating that they do not provide a comprehensive picture of the issue. This

7 Heather Sauyaq, Jean Gordon, and Travis W.M. Roberts, “Missing or Murdered Indigenous People: Culturally Based
Prevention Strategies,” Department of Justice Journal of Federal Law and Practice, vol. 69, no. 1, (January 2021), pp.
46-47.
8 The contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia.
9 Indian is a legal term of art used to denote people or tribes that fall under the special legal relationship that exists
between the United States government and federally recognized tribes. This term is neither synonymous nor congruent
with Native American. In this report, Indian is used in the sections that discuss jurisdictional issues addressed in federal
law.
10 For more information on tribal lands, see CRS In Focus IF11944, Tribal Lands: An Overview.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 8

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

section presents available data and later portions of this report discuss both potential reasons for
data gaps and actions Congress could take to address them.
FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program collects
annual data on reported crime in the United States.11 The FBI uses these data to create an
aggregate measure of reported violent crime, which includes homicide (i.e., murder/nonnegligent
manslaughter), rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Agencies that submitted crime data to the
UCR program via the National Incident-Based Reporting System also submitted demographic
data on violent crime victims.12 From 2010 to 2020, 1.0% of violent crime victims were identified
as AI/AN.13 This rate remains consistent when looking at the data separately for homicide, rape,
robbery, and aggravated assault. Figure 1 demonstrates that the number of violent crime victims
identified as AI/AN in UCR has increased since 2010 (blue line, right axis). Similarly, the rate of
violent crime victimization has increased from 60 per 100,000 AI/AN residents in 2010 to 142 in
2019 (orange line, left axis).14
Figure 1. AI/AN Victims of Violent Crime
2010–2020

Source: Victimization data are from Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime Data Explorer, https://crime-data-
explorer.fr.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend. Population estimates for 2010-2019 are from U.S.
Census Bureau, Population Division, https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-
2019/national/asrh/nc-est2019-sr11h.xlsx.

11 For more information on the UCR program, see CRS Report R46668, The National Incident-Based Reporting System
(NIBRS): Benefits and Issues or CRS Report RL34309, How Crime in the United States Is Measured.
12 The agencies that reported using the NIBRS system covered 53% of the total U.S. population in 2020, thus the data
included in Figure 1 and Figure 2 (i.e., the data reported with victim demographic information) are only a subset of the
violent crimes and homicides reported to the FBI.
13 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime Data Explorer, https://crime-data-
explorer.fr.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend.
14 2020 population estimates from the U.S. Census were not yet available.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 8

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

Figure 2 shows that the number of homicide victims identified as AI/AN in the UCR data has
been increasing since 2012, but has increased significantly since 2018 (blue line, right axis). The
rate of homicide victimization has increased from 0.7 per 100,000 AI/AN residents in 2010 to 1.8
in 2019 (orange line, left axis).
Figure 2. AI/AN Victims of Homicide
2010–2020

Source: Victimization data are from Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime Data Explorer, https://crime-data-
explorer.fr.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend. Population estimates for 2010-2019 are from U.S.
Census Bureau, Population Division, https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-
2019/national/asrh/nc-est2019-sr11h.xlsx.
These data alone do not necessarily mean that the number of violent crimes committed against
Native Americans has changed. It may be the case that the violence experienced by Native
Americans has remained steady but other factors, such as increased crime data reporting by tribal
law enforcement,15 greater willingness to report crimes to the police,16 or improved practices in
identifying Native American victims, may have changed.17
CDC National Vital Statistics System
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collects and publishes annual data on the
leading causes of death in the United States through its National Vital Statistics System (NVSS).
The most recent data are for 2019 and include homicide rates broken down by race and age.18 In

15 Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2021,
https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/tcdca21.pdf, pp. 8-9.
16 Eric P. Baumer and Janet L. Lauritsen, “Reporting crime to the police, 1973–2005: A multivariate analysis of long-
term trends in the National Crime Survey (NCS) and National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS),” Criminology,
February 2010, vol. 48, no. 1.
17 A related issue is that the AI/AN population captured in the census is considered by some researchers and advocates
to be a significant undercount. For more information, see https://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/economic-development-
commerce/census.
18 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), WISQARS- Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 9

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

2019, homicide was the 12th leading cause of death for AI/AN people across all ages and sexes19
and the 16th leading cause in the United States overall.20 For persons 1 to 19 years of age, on
average, homicide was the third leading cause of death for AI/AN people and the fourth leading
cause of death for this age group in the overall population. For those who were 20 to 44 years of
age, homicide was, on average, the fifth leading cause of death for AI/AN people and the fourth
leading cause of death in the overall population. Homicide was a less common cause of death for
those 45 to 64 in the AI/AN and overall populations, and it was not in the top 20 causes of death
for those 65 and older in the AI/AN and overall populations.
The CDC also provides cause of death data for homicides. As shown in Figure 3, the cause of
death for all victims (75%) and AI/AN (54%) victims in 2019 was most commonly firearms. This
was followed by other/unspecified causes (11% overall and 21% for AI/AN victims) and those
homicides involving a cut or pierce (9% overall and 17% for AI/AN victims).
Figure 3. Cause of Death in Homicides Involving All and AI/AN Victims
2019

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), WISQARS- Web-based Injury Statistics Query and
Reporting System, https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcause.html.
Notes: All victims includes AI/AN victims. AI/AN data are for those identifying only as non-Hispanic AI/AN. The
Other/Unspecified category includes drowning, falls, and transportation related deaths as well as those listed
only as “other” or “unspecified.”
Additional Federal Data Sources
Other federal sources of data about violence experienced by AI/AN individuals include the
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the National Violence Against Women Survey
(NVAWS), and the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS). Dr. André B.
Rosay, Professor of Justice & Associate Dean of the College of Health at the University of
Alaska-Anchorage, published a review of the violent victimization data on Native Americans

System, https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcause.html.
19 In most cases, the data reported in this section use a binary female/male or women/men classification system that was
collected from law enforcement and criminal justice or medical agencies. For example, WISQARS data are gathered
using death certificates, which are typically completed by funeral directors, attending physicians, medical examiners,
and coroners. Therefore, it is not typically clear whether or how this term relates to gender.
20 The overall category includes all races and both Hispanic and non-Hispanic people. AI/AN data is for those
identifying only as non-Hispanic AI/AN.
Congressional Research Service

5

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

from these three surveys.21 This section will provide an overview of the analyses summarized in
Rosay’s report, which included the work of several researchers as well as a report on NISVS
authored by Rosay.
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) administers the NCVS, which collects criminal
victimization data via interviews with a nationally representative sample of households and
captures both reported and unreported victimizations.22 Dr. Rosay summarized findings from
several analyses of NCVS data collected from 1992 to 2005. The pattern of findings consistently
demonstrated that violent victimizations were highest among participants who identified as
AI/AN relative to other groups regardless of the crime, gender, age, location, and household
income. One study summarized by Rosay found that AI/AN participants had a violent crime
victimization rate 2.5 times the national rate and “experienced one violent crime for every eight
residents, compared to the national average of one violent crime for every 20 residents.”23
Analyses of NCVS data also indicated that participants identifying as AI/AN were more likely to
report interracial victimizations, particularly for rape and sexual assault. The summarized studies
found AI/AN participants reported that between 50% and 70% of perpetrators were not Native
American.24
The National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS)
The NVAWS, which was sponsored by Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and the National
Institute of Justice (NIJ), used telephone surveys to collect data from men and women about both
lifetime and past-year incidents of emotional abuse, physical assault, rape, and stalking during
1995 and 1996.25 The analysis and interpretation of these data are limited as they were collected
25 years ago and included only 193 AI/AN participants (88 women and 105 men). However,
lifetime prevalence rates estimated from these data appear to align with those found in the NCVS.
Participants who identified as AI/AN reported:
the highest lifetime prevalence rates for physical assault (61.4% for women and 75.2% for
men). They also had the highest lifetime prevalence rates for stalking (17.0% for women
and 4.8% for men). American Indian and Alaska Native women had the highest lifetime
prevalence rates for rape (34.1%; estimates for men were not available due to low sample
sizes).... When examining intimate partner violence (including physical, sexual, and
psychological violence), women and men who identified themselves as American Indian
or Alaska Native had significantly higher lifetime prevalence rates than women and men
who identified themselves as White—38.2% of American Indian and Alaska Native
women and 41.2% of American Indian and Alaska Native men had experienced intimate
partner violence in their lifetime (compared to 29.3% of White women and 22.2% of White
men).26

21 André B. Rosay, “National Survey Estimates of Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native People,”
Department of Justice Journal of Federal Law and Practice, January 2021, vol. 69, no. 1 (hereinafter, “DOJ Rosay”).
22 DOJ, OJP, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-
collection/ncvs.
23 DOJ Rosay, p. 94.
24 DOJ Rosay.
25 DOJ, OJP, National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of
Violence Against Women, November 2000, https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf.
26 DOJ Rosay, p. 96.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 12 Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)
Since 2010, the CDC has conducted the NISVS, which uses telephone surveys to gather national
and state-level data on both the past-year and lifetime prevalence rates of psychological
aggression27 by intimate partners28, physical violence by intimate partners, stalking, and sexual
violence.29 In 2010, the NIJ partnered with the CDC to oversample AI/AN participants.30 The NIJ
and the CDC collected data from areas with large AI/AN populations, including rural areas and
tribal lands that may not be as well represented in other victimization surveys.31 The final sample
(i.e., general population sample combined with the oversample participants) of AI/AN
participants included 2,473 women and 1,505 men. Eighty-three percent of the women and 79%
of the men reported an affiliation or enrollment32 with a tribe or village, and 54% of both the
women and men had lived on a reservation or in an Alaska Native village during the past year.33
In 2016, Rosay published a comprehensive report on the 2010 NISVS data regarding AI/AN
experiences of victimization for NIJ.34 The 2010 NISVS findings echo the high rates of violent
victimization of Native Americans, and especially women, observed in previous surveys. The
analyses looked separately at the past-year35 and lifetime experiences of violent victimization of
Native American men and women and compared these data to the experiences of non-Hispanic
White women and men.36
As shown in Table 1, the majority of both AI/AN women and men reported experiencing a
violent victimization during their lifetimes.37 Both AI/AN women and men were significantly
more likely to have experienced violence in their lifetimes relative to non-Hispanic White
participants, and AI/AN women were significantly more likely to have experienced violence in
the past year than non-Hispanic White women.38 AI/AN women were 1.2 times more likely to

27 Psychological aggression is defined as “expressive aggression (such as name calling, insulting or humiliating an
intimate partner) and coercive control, which includes behaviors that are intended to monitor and control or threaten an
intimate partner.” CDC, National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010 Summary Report, p. 37,
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf, (hereinafter, “2010 NISVS Summary”). Sexual
violence, physical violence and stalking are also defined here.
28 Intimate partners is defined as “cohabitating or non-cohabitating romantic or sexual partners and among opposite or
same sex couples.” 2010 NISVS Summary, p. 37.
29 CDC, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS),
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/datasources/nisvs/index.html.
30 DOJ Rosay.
31 See 2010 NISVS Summary, p. 100, for technical notes on sampling strategy.
32 Tribal affiliation indicates association with a federal recognized Indian tribe. Tribal enrollment is a more formal
identifier based on unique membership criteria (e.g., lineal descent) established by a tribe.
33 DOJ Rosay, and Dr. André B. Rosay and NIJ, “Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and
Men, May 2016,” https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249736.pdf (hereinafter, “NIJ Rosay). As stated in NIJ Rosay:
“The combined sample includes ... American Indians and Alaska Natives who live in geographical areas with low
densities of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Some of these areas (e.g., Oklahoma, Texas, New York, Colorado,
Florida, Illinois, and Michigan) have low densities but large numbers of American Indians and Alaska Natives” (p. 6).
34 NIJ Rosay.
35 This indicates experiences that occurred in the 12 months prior to taking the survey. 2010 NISVS Summary, p. 7.
36 Here and in other studies discussed in this report, the term White is typically not defined. The term frequently
indicates a person who self-identifies as being of European, Middle Eastern, or North African descent. See
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI625219 for an example definition.
37 In this study, violent victimization included sexual violence, physical violence by an intimate partner, psychological
aggression by an intimate partner, or stalking.
38 NIJ Rosay, pp. 44-45.
Congressional Research Service

7

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

have experienced violence in their lifetimes relative to non-Hispanic White women, and 1.7 times
more likely to have experienced violence in the past year.39 AI/AN men were 1.3 times more
likely to have experienced violence in their lifetimes relative to non-Hispanic White men.40 There
was not a significant difference in violence experienced in the past year by AI/AN and non-
Hispanic White men.
Table 1. Lifetime and Past-Year Violence Experienced by AI/AN Women
Lifetime
Past Year
84% experienced violencea
40% experienced violencea
56% experienced sexual violence
14% experienced sexual violence
56% experienced physical violence by an intimate
9% experienced physical violence by an intimate
partner
partner
49% experienced stalking
12% experienced stalking
66% experienced psychological aggression by an
26% experienced psychological aggression by an
intimate partner
intimate partner
Source: Dr. André B. Rosay and National Institute of Justice (NIJ), “Violence Against American Indian and
Alaska Native Women and Men, May 2016,” https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249736.pdf, p. 44.
a. The statistic for violence includes sexual violence, physical violence by an intimate partner, psychological
aggression by an intimate partner, and stalking.
Table 2. Lifetime and Past-Year Violence Experienced by AI/AN Men
Lifetime
Past Year
82% experienced violencea
35% experienced violencea
28% experienced sexual violence
10% experienced sexual violence.
43% experienced physical violence by an intimate
6% experienced physical violence by an intimate
partner
partner
19% experienced stalking
4% experienced stalking
73% experienced psychological aggression by an
27% experienced psychological aggression by an
intimate partner
intimate partner
Source: Dr. André B. Rosay and National Institute of Justice (NIJ), “Violence Against American Indian and
Alaska Native Women and Men, May 2016,” https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249736.pdf, p. 45.
a. The statistic for violence includes sexual violence, physical violence by an intimate partner, psychological
aggression by an intimate partner, and stalking.
This study also found that both AI/AN women and men were significantly more likely than non-
Hispanic White participants to have been victimized by an interracial41 perpetrator and
significantly less likely than non-Hispanic White participants to have been victimized by an
intraracial42 perpetrator.43 For example, among women who reported experiencing sexual
violence, 96% of AI/AN victims experienced it at the hands of an interracial perpetrator

39 NIJ Rosay, p. 44.
40 NIJ Rosay, p. 45.
41 A racial outgroup member (e.g., a non-AI/AN perpetrator and AI/AN victim).
42 A racial ingroup member (e.g., an AI/AN perpetrator and AI/AN victim).
43 NIJ Rosay, p. 46.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 13 Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

compared to 32% of non-White Hispanic women, and 21% of the AI/AN victims experienced
sexual violence at the hands of an intraracial perpetrator compared to 91% of non-White Hispanic
women.
As shown in Table 3, among AI/AN participants who reported experiencing violence in their
lifetime, the majority experienced it at the hands of interracial perpetrator in each category of
crime measured.44
Table 3. Percentage of AI/AN Victims Reporting Violence by an Interracial
Perpetrator

AI/AN Women
AI/AN Men
Sexual violence
96%
89%
Physical violence by an intimate partner
90%
85%
Stalking
89%
91%
Psychological aggression by an intimate partner
91%
88%
Source: Dr. André B. Rosay and National Institute of Justice (NIJ), “Violence Against American Indian and
Alaska Native Women and Men, May 2016,” https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249736.pdf, pp. 19, 26, 33, 41.
The study also looked at how these experiences affected the lives of participants. For example,
the results indicated that 67% of AI/AN women and 26% of AI/AN men reported feeling
concerned for their safety, 41% of AI/AN women and 20% of AI/AN men were physically
injured, and 41% of AI/AN women and 10% of AI/AN men missed days of work or school as a
result of these victimizations.45 Further, 49% of AI/AN women and 20% of AI/AN men reported
they needed services46 as a result of these victimizations.47 The most commonly reported service
needed was medical care. Thirty-eight percent of AI/AN women and 17% of AI/AN men reported
they were unable to gain access to the services they required.48 Compared to non-Hispanic White
women, AI/AN women were significantly less likely to receive services; there was no significant
difference between AI/AN and non-Hispanic White men.49
Federal Data on Missing Persons
The federal government has two primary sources for data on missing persons: the National Crime
Information Center (NCIC) and NamUs.50 Although neither database captures the totality of
missing persons in the United States, typically NCIC includes greater numbers of missing
persons.51

44 NIJ Rosay, pp. 19, 26, 33, 41.
45 NIJ Rosay, pp. 47-48.
46 Including medical care, housing services, community services, advocacy services, and legal services. NIJ Rosay, p.
66.
47 NIJ Rosay, pp. 47-48.
48 NIJ Rosay, pp. 49-50.
49 NIJ Rosay, p. 50.
50 For more information, see CRS Report RL34616, Missing Adults: Background, Federal Programs, and Issues for
Congress.
51 NamUs, Frequently Asked Questions, https://namus.nij.ojp.gov/frequently-asked-questions#faq-why-is-the-number-
of-missing-persons-in-ncic.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14 Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

NCIC is not available to the public. NamUs displays some information to the public and allows
for public submission pending review by an “appropriate criminal justice agency.”52
National Crime Information Center
The NCIC is an index of criminal justice information, which includes criminal records, fugitives,
stolen property, and missing persons, maintained by the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information
Services (CJIS) Division. The NCIC has maintained records of missing persons since October
1975; these data are obtained from state and local law enforcement agencies, several federal
agencies, and select non-law enforcement agencies (e.g., courts).53 Missing person records are
removed from the NCIC when the person is located or their remains are identified. The FBI
releases an annual Missing Person and Unidentified Person Statistics report using records from
NCIC. The NCIC missing person data are broken down by race, age, and sex.54 The NCIC report
also includes statistics on missing people who fall into the following categories:
 have a proven physical or mental disability,
 are missing under circumstances indicating that they may be in physical danger,
 are missing under circumstances indicating their disappearance may not have
been voluntary,
 are under the age of 21 and do not meet the above criteria,
 are missing after a catastrophe, and
 are 21 and older and do not meet any of the above criteria but for whom there is a
reasonable concern for their safety.
The 2020 NCIC Missing Person and Unidentified Person Statistics report included 9,575 missing
persons who were identified as Native American. Of these persons, 55% were female and 45%
were male, and 74% were 17 or younger and 26% were 18 or older.55 As shown in Table 4, the
percentage of missing persons in NCIC identified as Native American was in many cases higher
than the AI/AN percentage of the U.S. population (0.9%).56
Table 4. Age and Sex of Native American Missing Persons in the NCIC
2020
Age
Female
Male
Unknown Sex

Count
% of Overall
Count
% of Overall
Count
% of Overall
0-17
4,128
2%
2,932
1%
2
3%
18 or older
1,165
0%
1,336
0%
2
3%
Unknown
2
0%
8
0%
0
0%

52 DOJ, OJP, “Operation Lady Justice: Comparison of the NamUs and NCIC Databases,” fact sheet,
https://operationladyjustice.usdoj.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh281/files/media/document/oljnamusncic.pdf.
53 For more information, see CRS Report RL34616, Missing Adults: Background, Federal Programs, and Issues for
Congress.
54 FBI, 2020 NCIC Missing Person and Unidentified Person Statistics, https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/2020-ncic-
missing-person-and-unidentified-person-statistics.pdf/view (hereinafter, “NCIC 2020 Missing Persons”).
55 NCIC 2020 Missing Persons. The NCIC uses the term Indian in its report but does not define it; as such, this CRS
report uses the term Native American to refer to the NCIC data.
56 U.S. Census: Native American Population.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 15 link to page 15 Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

Age
Female
Male
Unknown Sex
Total
5,295
2%
4,276
2%
4
5%
Source: FBI, 2020 NCIC Missing Person and Unidentified Person Statistics, https://www.fbi.gov/file-
repository/2020-ncic-missing-person-and-unidentified-person-statistics.pdf/view.
Notes: “Count” is the total number of missing Native American persons recorded in each category. The “% of
Overall” is the percent of the total missing persons in each category that are Native American. For example, 2%
of all the females between the ages of 0-17 in NCIC were Native American.
As shown in Table 5, the largest category of missing persons in NCIC among both female and
male Native Americans in 2020 was juveniles. This was followed by “other” (i.e., 21 and older
and do not meet any of the criteria listed above but for whom there is a reasonable concern for
their safety) and those missing under circumstances indicating that they may be in physical
danger.
Table 5. Circumstances Under Which Native American Persons Are Missing in
the NCIC
2020
Category
Female
Male
Unknown Sex
Total
Juvenilea
3,965
2,837
2
6,804
May be in physical
356
347
0
703
danger
Proven physical or
107
150
0
257
mental disability
Disappearance may
102
78
0
180
be involuntary
Missing after a
0
1
0
1
catastrophe
Other
765
863
2
1,630
Source: FBI, 2020 NCIC Missing Person and Unidentified Person Statistics, https://www.fbi.gov/file-
repository/2020-ncic-missing-person-and-unidentified-person-statistics.pdf/view.
a. “Juvenile” indicates under the age of 21 and does not meet the other criteria. “Other” indicates 21 and
older and does not meet the other criteria but there is a reasonable concern for their safety.
National Missing and Unidentified Persons System
NamUs is a Department of Justice (DOJ) data collection effort operated by the University of
North Texas (UNT) Health Center under a cooperative agreement with NIJ since 2011.57 NamUs
data are obtained from law enforcement agencies, coroners, and medical examiners. The majority
of AI/AN cases included in this database are investigated by a non-tribal law enforcement
agency.58 NamUs data show a steady increase in the number of AI/AN cases published in its

57 For more information, see CRS Report RL34616, Missing Adults: Background, Federal Programs, and Issues for
Congress.
58 NamUs, Unresolved Missing Person Cases with Tribal Enrollment/Affiliation,
https://namus.nij.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh336/files/media/document/namus-stats-tribal-report-august-2021.pdf
(hereinafter, “NamUs AI/AN August 2021”).
Congressional Research Service

11

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

database since September 2019.59 This could reflect a base rate increase in missing AI/AN
persons, but it may also reflect increased rates of reporting and improved data collection. NamUs
has stated it is working to improve its data on Indigenous persons and releases monthly data
reports and maps about cases involving AI/AN individuals.60 However, there may be racial
misclassifications in data included in this database, particularly in cases when the absence of
identifying documentation or positive identification by family and friends results in the race of
victim being determined by law enforcement personnel.
NamUs Missing Persons Data
As of November 12, 2021, the NamUs database of missing persons included 751 cases of missing
AI/AN individuals:61 235 females, 514 males, and 2 individuals listed as “other.” Among the 751
missing AI/AN persons in NamUs, 118 were 18 or younger at the time they went missing: 65
females and 53 males. Other characteristics of the missing AI/AN people include the following:
 133 had a known tribal enrollment or affiliation,6213 had no affiliation, 350 had
an unknown tribal affiliation, and 255 had no affiliation provided;
 80 went missing from tribal land,63 399 did not go missing from tribal land, and
for 272 it was either unknown (48) or not provided (224) whether they went
missing from tribal land; and
 56 had their primary residence on tribal land,64 337 did not have their primary
residence on tribal land, and for 358 the primary residence locations were
unknown (42) or not provided (316).
NamUs Unidentified and Unclaimed Persons Data
As of November 12, 2021, the NamUs database included 167 cases (33 females, 127 males, 7
unsure) of AI/AN unidentified persons (i.e., unidentified decedents).65 Of these 167 decedents, 7
were found on tribal lands, 51 were not found on tribal land, and in 109 cases it was unknown or

59 NamUs, NamUs Support for Missing Indigenous Person Cases, https://namus.nij.ojp.gov/missing-indigenous-
persons (hereinafter, “NamUs Indigenous Cases”). NamUs is an operational rather than historical database, and as a
result its data do not include cases currently under investigation but not yet officially classified by law enforcement, nor
the number of cases resolved and archived between data collections.
60 NamUs Indigenous Cases.
61 NamUs Search.
62 NamUs releases a monthly fact sheet about the tribal membership of persons recorded in the database. As of
November 2021, the most recent release was for August 2021. As stated in this fact sheet, “cases include indication of
enrollment or aﬃliation with state- or federally-recognized tribes; it does not include all American Indian and Alaska
Native missing persons. Tribal enrollment and aﬃliation information is reported to NamUs by local, state, tribal, or
federal law enforcement, or it may be self-reported by family members of missing persons. Data ﬁelds to capture tribal
enrollment and aﬃliation information were added to NamUs in December 2018 with no requirement for investigating
agencies to add this information retroactively; therefore, tribal data may not yet be entered into NamUs for some
missing persons.” NamUs AI/AN August 2021, p.1.
63 “These data reﬂect cases in which individuals went missing from tribal land, whether or not they resided on tribal
land.” NamUs AI/AN August 2021, p. 1.
64 “These data reﬂect cases in which individuals had a primary residence on tribal land at the time of their
disappearance. These individuals may -- or may not -- have gone missing from tribal land, or they may have gone
missing from tribal land other than their own communities.” NamUs AI/AN August 2021, p. 1.
65 Racial identification is made by medical examiners and coroners at the agency managing the case, which may result
in misclassifications of the decedent’s race.
Congressional Research Service

12

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

not provided whether the individuals were found on tribal land or not. The NamUs database also
included 26 cases (5 females and 21 males) of unclaimed persons66 identified as AI/AN.
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) Data on
Missing Native American Children
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) released a fact sheet
summarizing its data on missing Native American children from January 2009 to December
2018.67 During this time, NCMEC had case records for 1,909 Native American children who were
reported missing from 43 states and 52 reservations. Fifty-nine percent were female and 41%
male, with a mean age of 14. Thirty-five percent of the missing Native American children
recorded by NCMEC had at least one tribal affiliation; 125 tribal affiliations were included, with
the most common being Cherokee, Navajo, Sioux, Chippewa, and Alaska Native.68 Eight percent
were missing from tribal lands, and these children tended to be younger (mean age of 11) and
more likely to be victims of family abduction than Native American children missing from
outside of tribal lands.
Eighty-five percent of the total cases involving Native American youth were considered
endangered runaways, meaning a “missing child between 11 and 17 years of age who is missing
of his or her own accord and whose whereabouts are unknown to his or her parent(s) or legal
guardian.”69 The next most common category was family abduction (i.e., “The taking, retention or
concealment of a child, younger than 18 years of age, by a parent, other person with a family
relationship to the child, or his or her agent, in violation of the custody rights, including visitation
rights of a parent or legal guardian.”70), which described 12% of NCMEC’s records involving
Native American children. Eleven percent of the cases involving missing Native American
children included a history of sexual abuse, including sex trafficking, sexual abuse by a family
member, statutory rape, and sexual assault by an acquaintance.
Data on Adverse Life Experiences Among Native American Children
As of September 2021, NamUs data indicated that 3% of the missing persons who were 18 or younger at the time
they went missing were identified as AI/AN.71 According to the Annie E. Casey Kids Count Data Center72, in 2019
AI/AN youth comprised 1% of the minor population in the United States.73 These data suggest that AI/AN youth

66 NamUs defines an unclaimed person as “a decedent who has been identified by name, but for whom no next-of-kin
has been located to make death notifications or have the remains claimed for burial or cremation.”
67 National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (MCMEC), Native American Children Reported Missing to
NCMEC, https://www.missingkids.org/content/dam/missingkids/pdfs/Native%20American%20Children_2009-
2018.pdf (hereinafter, “NCMEC Native American Children”).
68 NCMEC did not provide greater detail on the children identified as Alaska Native. They state, “Tribal
name/affiliation for each child was documented based upon information provided by an official source and any
omissions or lack of Tribal specificity is unintentional.” NCMEC Native American Children, p. 32, footnote 3.
69 NCMEC Native American Children, p. 1.
70 NCMEC Native American Children, p. 1.
71 NamUs Search.
72 The Annie E. Casey Foundation is a nonprofit organization focused on child well-being in the United States. The
foundation collects and publishes data on child well-being and produces an annual report called the KIDS COUNT
Data Book. For more information, see https://datacenter.kidscount.org/about.
73 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids County Data Center, Child population by race in the United States,
https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/103-child-population-by-
race?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/1729,37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133/68,69,67,12,70,66,71,72/423,424.
Congressional Research Service

13

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

are missing at a disproportionate rate to their representation in the overall U.S. population of children. Kids
Count analyses also indicate that 35% of American Indian74 youth reported experiencing two or more adverse life
experiences (i.e., “frequent socioeconomic hardship, parental divorce or separation, parental death, parental
incarceration, family violence, neighborhood violence, living with someone who was mentally il or suicidal, living
with someone who had a substance abuse problem or racial bias.”75) compared to an average of 18% for all
children surveyed.76 In 2019, Kids Count reported that American Indian youth had a death rate of 32 per 100,000
compared to a rate of 25 per 100,000 in the overall population of children.77 Also in 2019, Kids Count reported
that 1% of the children who were confirmed by child protective services as victims of maltreatment were
American Indians,78 2% of the children in foster care were American Indians,79 and the rate of American Indian
youth in juvenile detention, correctional, and/or residential facilities was 236 out of every 100,000 compared to
114 for every 100,000 youth in the overall population.80
Urban Indian Health Institute Study on MMIWG
A study conducted by the Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI) examined the rates of MMIWG in
urban areas.81 UIHI focused on these areas because the 2010 census data indicated that 71% of
the AI/AN population lived in urban areas.82 UIHI used Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
requests to law enforcement agencies, missing persons databases, local news media and online
archives, social media, and direct contact with family and community members to gather data
across 71 cities in 29 states. According to UIHI, “These cities were selected because they either

74 This is the descriptor used in the data; the Annie E. Casey Foundation did not denote racial identity or membership in
a federally recognized tribe.
75 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids County Data Center, Children who have experienced two or more adverse
experiences by race and ethnicity in the United States, https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/9729-children-who-
have-experienced-two-or-more-adverse-experiences-by-race-and-
ethnicity?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/1696,1648,1603/10,11,9,12,1,13/18990,18991 (hereinafter “KidsCount
Adverse Life Experiences”).
76 KidsCount Adverse Life Experiences.
77 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Child and teen death rate by race and ethnicity in the United States,
https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/11053-child-and-teen-death-rate-by-race-and-
ethnicity?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/1729,37/10,11,9,12,1,13,185/21389,21390.
78 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids County Data Center, Children who are confirmed by child protective services as
victims of maltreatment by race and Hispanic origin in the United States,
https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/9909-children-who-are-confirmed-by-child-protective-services-as-victims-
of-maltreatment-by-race-and-hispanic-
origin?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/1729,37,871,870,573/2638,2601,2600,2598,2603,2597,2602,1353/19244,19
245.
79 Annie. E. Casey Foundation, Kids County Data Center, Children in foster care by race and Hispanic origin in the
United States, https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/6246-children-in-foster-care-by-race-and-hispanic-
origin?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/1729,37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133/2638,2601,2600,2598,2603,2597,
2602,1353/12992,12993.
80 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids County Data Center, Youth residing in juvenile detention, correctional and/or
residential facilities by race and Hispanic origin in the United States, https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/8391-
youth-residing-in-juvenile-detention-correctional-and-or-residential-facilities-by-race-and-hispanic-
origin?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/1729,871,573,36,867,133,18,17,14,12/4038,4411,1461,1462,1460,4157,135
3/16996,17598.
81 Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI), Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: A snapshot of data from
71 cities in the United States, November 2018, http://www.uihi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Missing-and-
Murdered-Indigenous-Women-and-Girls-Report.pdf (hereinafter, “UIHI Report”), p. 5.
82 Urban Indian Health Institute, U.S. Census Marks Increase in Urban American Indians and Alaska Natives,
http://www.uihi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Broadcast_Census-Number_FINAL_v2.pdf (hereinafter, “AI/AN
Census”).
Congressional Research Service

14

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

have an urban Indian health center that is affiliated with UIHI, a significant population of urban
Indians, or [were] found to have a large number of MMIWG cases in a preliminary consultation
with key community leaders.”83 In its sample of 71 cities, UIHI identified 506 cases of MMIWG:
128 (25%) missing persons cases, 280 (56%) murder cases, and 98 (19%) unknown cases.84 In the
387 cases for which the victim’s age was determined, ages ranged from younger than 1 to 83,
with a mean age of 29. Three-quarters of the cases UIHI identified did not include tribal
affiliation or enrollment information.
UIHI identified 153 cases that were not in law enforcement records obtained via FOIA requests.85
UIHI located these cases using government missing persons databases, media reports, social
media and advocacy sites, and contact with families and communities.86
UIHI identified racial misclassification as a common barrier to accurate data collection regarding
missing and murdered Native Americans. Native American victims may be misreported as White
or Hispanic, particularly in the absence of family or government identification.87 UIHI also found
technical shortcomings, such as data systems that cannot accurately identify Native American
victims, which may result in racial misclassification or inaccuracies. For example, nine of the
cities included in the study reported they were unable to search their data systems for American
Indian, Native American, or Alaska Native victims because of missing race information and
muddled race coding schemes, among other reasons.88
Human Trafficking of Native Americans
Another issue commonly associated with MMIP is human trafficking, and sex trafficking in particular. U.S. Code
defines severe trafficking in persons as “(A) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud,
or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or (B) the
recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use
of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or
slavery.”89 Several studies have identified Indigenous people both in the United States and abroad as being at
increased risk for trafficking.90
There are many shortcomings in the existing data on sex trafficking in Native American communities. Among
other reasons, victims may not be wil ing or able to share their experiences with law enforcement, other
government agencies, or researchers. Additionally, some law enforcement agencies may not be adequately trained
in identifying and responding to victims of trafficking.91 Often the best source for data may be from victim
advocacy or victim resource centers; however, the number of trafficking victims in a sample of people accessed via

83 UIHI Report, p. 5.
84 UIHI labeled cases as “unknown” when “law enforcement gave a number of total cases in response to a record
request but did not clarify how many were missing and how many were murdered (16 cases total), and when a case was
listed on a missing persons database but had been removed, UIHI could not verify whether the woman or girl was
located safe or deceased”; UIHI Report, p. 6.
85 UIHI Report, p. 17.
86 In at least one case, jurisdictional issues might have contributed to the law enforcement agency not having a record
of the murdered individual. In the UIHI report, a case is described where the victim was allegedly kidnapped in the law
enforcement agency’s jurisdiction, but murdered in a different agency’s jurisdiction. UIHI Report, p. 17.
87 UIHI Report.
88 UIHI Report, p. 16.
89 22 U.S.C. §7102 (11).
90 DOJ, “Human Trafficking (Including Sex Trafficking) of American Indians and Alaska Natives,” September 2017,
https://www.justice.gov/ovw/page/file/998081/download (hereinafter, “DOJ Human Trafficking”). Some reasons for
this increased risk may include higher rates of prior sexual victimization, poverty, and homelessness in Native
American and Indigenous communities.
91 DOJ Human Trafficking.
Congressional Research Service

15

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

a victim resource center may not be representative of the overall population rate. For example, a commonly cited
report from the Minnesota Indian Woman’s Sexual Assault Coalition and Prostitution Research & Education found
that in a sample of 105 “Native women in prostitution,”92 nearly half had life experiences that met “a conservative
legal definition of sex trafficking.”93 However, the overlap between prostitution and sex trafficking may be quite
large and thus the rate of trafficking among Native American women in prostitution may be higher than the
trafficking rate in the population of Native American women overall. Further, the study’s sample was recruited in
partnership with several organizations and agencies that provide services or resources to victims of sexual and
domestic violence who may also have a higher base rate of trafficking than the general population.94 Given the
difficulty of obtaining data from trafficking victims, this method may be the best available; stil , a study’s ability to
estimate a population base rate may be limited by the absence of a random sample of Native American
participants.
In 2017, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on the human trafficking of Native
Americans. GAO surveyed 132 tribal law enforcement agencies and found that from 2014 to 2016, 20% (27
agencies) reported they had initiated at least one investigation involving human trafficking, 75% (99 agencies)
reported they had not, and 5% (6 agencies) reported they did not know if they had.95 GAO also surveyed 61
major city law enforcement agencies and found that from 2014 to 2016, 10% (6 agencies) initiated human
trafficking investigations involving at least one Native American victim, 61% (37 agencies) initiated human
trafficking investigations that did not involve any Native American victims, 20% (12 agencies) indicated they had
initiated human trafficking investigations but did not know (or did not respond) about Native American victims,
and 10% (6 agencies) did not initiate any human trafficking investigations.96
There is also a lack of information about Native American victims of human trafficking who have received victim
services funded by federal grants. Another GAO report found that from FY2013 to FY2016, DOJ, Health and
Human Services (HHS), and Homeland Security (DHS) administered at least 50 grant programs that may be used
to serve Native American victims of human trafficking.97 However, there are no data to indicate the number of
Native American recipients in these programs.
Complications in Addressing MMIP
Several factors may contribute to complications in both capturing the true scope of violent
victimization experienced by Native Americans and addressing MMIP. This section of the report

92 Melissa Farley, Nicole Matthews, Sarah Deer, Guadalupe Lopez, Christine Stark, and Eileen Hudon, Garden of
Truth: The Prostitution and Trafficking of Native Women in Minnesota, Minnesota Indian Women's Sexual Assault
Coalition and Prostitution Research & Education, October 2011, p. 3, https://www.niwrc.org/resources/report/garden-
truth-prostitution-and-trafficking-native-women-minnesota (hereinafter, “Garden of Truth”).
93 Garden of Truth, p. 3. In the context of this study, prostitution was defined as “exchange of sex acts for food and
shelter and other needs; outcall/escort/cell phone; Internet advertised prostitution; massage parlors; pornography of
children and adults; stripclub prostitution; sauna-or nail parlor-based prostitution; live sex shows; street prostitution;
peep shows; phone sex; international and domestic trafficking; mail order bride or servile marriages; and prostitution
tourism” (pp. 10-11). Trafficking was defined as “a form of prostitution that involves third party control and
exploitation” (p. 11). Thus, when prostitution is a result of coercion, force, or exploitation, it is a form of trafficking.
This distinction can often be complicated to make in practice, as a victim who meets the legal definition of trafficking
may not consider that to be true. For example, they may be trafficked by a person whom they consider an intimate
partner. For more information on the spectrum of sex work and differences between prostitution and sex trafficking, see
https://uaht.org/prostitution-and-human-trafficking/.
94 National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, Human Trafficking, Domestic Violence, and Sexual Assault,
https://vawnet.org/sc/human-trafficking-domestic-violence-and-sexual-assault.
95 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Human Trafficking: Information on Cases in Indian Country or that
Involved Native Americans, GAO-17-624, July 24, 2017.
96 Because these statistics are rounded to full numbers, the percentages do not sum to 100%.
97 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Human Trafficking: Action Needed to Identify the Number of Native
American Victims Receiving Federally-funded Services, GAO-17-325, March 30, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

16

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

discusses a selection of these complicating factors; however, this list is not comprehensive and
may not represent the totality of concerns raised by researchers or Native American communities.
Gaps in Data and Services for Urban Native American Populations
The majority of Native Americans reside in urban areas outside of tribal lands.98 Despite this fact,
federal policies aimed at reducing violence against Native Americans often focus on tribal lands.
Many Native American people moved away from tribal lands during World War II either to enlist
in the military or for employment opportunities in war-related industries. After World War II, the
federal government pursued policies of termination and relocation that resulted in great numbers
of Native Americans moving away from tribal land from 1953 to 1968.99 Termination refers to the
federal policy involving “termination of the federal government’s trust relationship with Indian
tribes and, as a consequence, the elimination of federal benefits and support services to the
terminated tribes.”100
The termination policy was coupled with relocations efforts. The Indian Relocation Act of 1956
(P.L. 84-959) appropriated federal funds to pay for vocational training and housing assistance to
encourage assimilation and relocation. Some 100,000 Native Americans entered into these
programs, and about a third ultimately returned home.101 Although the policies of termination and
relocation ended by the 1970s, the pattern of Native American migration toward urban areas has
continued. The 2010 Census found that 71% of AI/AN individuals were living in urban areas.102
The five cities with the largest populations identifying as AI/AN (alone or in combination with
another racial identity) were New York City, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Oklahoma City, and
Anchorage.103
Although the available data demonstrate that Native Americans are more likely to experience
violent victimizations than other racial and ethnic groups, limited information exists to determine
how victimization rates may differ on and off tribal lands. Further, NamUs data demonstrate that
the majority of missing and unidentified cases involving AI/AN persons occur off tribal land.104
In addition, the majority of NCMEC cases involving AI/AN children occurred outside of tribal
lands.105 Given that most Native Americans reside outside of tribal lands, it is likely that a
considerable percentage of violent victimizations of AI/AN people were also occurring off tribal
lands. Native Americans living in urban areas and off tribal lands do have access to federal victim
services resources; however, many federal programs and resources to specifically address the
experiences of Native Americans are directed toward tribal communities rather than urban
areas.106

98 AI/AN Census.
99 Stephen L. Pevar, The Rights of Indians and Tribes, 4th ed., (New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012)
(hereinafter, “The Rights of Indians and Tribes”), p. 11.
100 The Rights of Indians and Tribes, p. 11.
101 The Rights of Indians and Tribes, p. 12.
102 AI/AN Census.
103 U.S. Census Bureau, The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010,
https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/c2010br-10.pdf, p. 11.
104 NamUs Search.
105 NCMEC Native American Children.
106 For example, the Tribal Sexual Assault Services Program in VAWA is focused on enhancing sexual assault services
in Indian tribal lands and Alaska Native villages.
Congressional Research Service

17

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

Jurisdictional Overlap
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) reports there are about 400 tribal justice systems
nationwide.107 Tribal justice systems vary widely in size, and tribal courts vary in their structure
and judicial philosophy. Federally recognized tribal governments retain authority for self-
governance in many respects, and thus may establish justice systems that differ from others in the
United States. The concept of tribal sovereignty predates, but also finds some support in, the
United States Constitution, which acknowledges Indian tribes as separate entities in a list that also
includes foreign nations and the states.108 In practice, tribal authority to pass and enforce laws has
been restricted by acts of Congress, executive orders, federal administrative agreements, court
decisions, and treaties.109 The federal government has assumed the authority to regulate the
powers and scope of tribal justice systems’ jurisdiction and sentencing authority, although many
tribes do not recognize this as a legitimate institutional power nor as an effective public safety
strategy. A report on tribal justice systems mandated under the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
(P.L. 111-211; TLOA) states:
For more than 200 years, the Federal government has undertaken to impose Federal laws,
procedures, and values concerning criminal justice on American Indian nations. An oft-
used justification for these jurisdictional modifications is that the overlay of Federal and
State law will make Indian country safer. But, in practice, the opposite has occurred. Indian
people today continue to experience disproportionate rates of violent crime in their own
communities. An exceedingly complicated web of jurisdictional rules, asserted by Federal
and State governmental departments and agencies whose policy priorities usually pre-date
the modern era of Tribal sovereignty and self-determination contributes to what has
become an institutionalized public safety crisis....
Because the systems that dispense justice originate in Federal and State law rather than in
Native nation choice and consent, Tribal citizens tend to view them as illegitimate; these
systems do not align with Tribal citizens’ perceptions of the appropriate way to organize
and exercise authority. The Commission heard this observation at virtually every one of its
field hearings from the Eastern United States to Alaska.110
Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction
Tribal courts have jurisdiction over certain types of criminal offenses. Generally, tribes only have
jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that occur in Indian Country.111 However, the responsibility for

107 U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Tribal Court Systems,
https://www.bia.gov/CFRCourts/tribal-justice-support-directorate. This section only covers the exercise of criminal
jurisdiction; civil jurisdiction is beyond the scope of this report. Also not covered in this report is how jurisdiction
differs in Alaska.
108 U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. A full discussion of the history and complexity of tribal
sovereignty and jurisdiction is beyond the scope of this report. However, CRS has several reports that may provide
more information on these topics, including the history of congressional power with regard to tribal issues and the
federal trust-relationship. For examples, see CRS Report R46647, Tribal Land and Ownership Statuses: Overview and
Selected Issues for Congress; CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10608, Supreme Court Rules on Authority of Tribal Police to
Stop Non-Indians; and CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10527, This Land Is Whose Land? The McGirt v. Oklahoma Decision
and Considerations for Congress.
109 For a table of major statutes and cases affecting tribal criminal jurisdiction, see Indian Law and Order Commission,
A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: A Report to the President and Congress of the United States, Chapter 1
– Jurisdiction: Bringing Clarity Out of Chaos, May 2015 (hereinafter, “TLOA Report”), p. 2.
110 TLOA Report, pp. 3-4.
111 Tribal Law and Policy Institute, Tribal Court Clearinghouse, General Guide to Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 42 Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

investigation and prosecution of a criminal offense could fall into multiple jurisdictions, including
federal, state, and tribal (see the Appendix for a jurisdiction chart).112 Jurisdiction for offenses
committed on tribal lands is determined by a combination of the type of offense, the status of the
encompassing state with regards to P.L. 83-280 (commonly referred to as “P.L. 280”), and the
tribal membership status of both the victim and offender.
An Indian tribe has the inherent sovereignty to exercise criminal jurisdiction over crimes that
occur on its land involving an Indian offender regardless of the victim’s race.113 In 1885, the
Major Crimes Act (MCA; 18 U.S.C. §1153) established federal jurisdiction for certain crimes
committed within Indian Country by Indians.114 Under current law, MCA offenses include
murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, certain sexual abuse felonies, incest, assault against
minors, felony child abuse or neglect, arson, burglary, robbery, and certain crimes within the
special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.115 Thus, if an offense committed
by an Indian in Indian Country falls under the MCA and is contained in tribal code, both the tribal
government and the federal government generally may choose to prosecute that offense, but a
state government generally may not.116
There is, however, a major exception to this general rule. P.L. 280 transferred responsibility for
major crimes from the federal government to some states. The original statute, passed in 1953,
identified six states that came to be known as mandatory P.L. 280 states (Alaska, California,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin).117 P.L. 280 extinguished the federal government’s
authority to prosecute MCA offenses in those six states.
Since the enactment of P.L. 280, several states have become optional P.L. 280 states by choosing
to assume at least some jurisdiction to be exercised concurrently with the federal government.118
In both mandatory and optional P.L. 280 states, if an offense listed in the MCA is committed by
an Indian in Indian Country, the state may also have jurisdiction. In non-P.L. 280 states, the same
set of circumstances would fall under federal jurisdiction, exclusive of state jurisdiction. In
optional P.L. 280 states, the federal government retains concurrent jurisdiction with the state to
prosecute offenders under the MCA.119

Country, https://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/jurisdiction.htm.
112 An accused offender may be prosecuted for the same conduct in both tribal and U.S. courts. The 2004 Supreme
Court decision in U.S. vs. Lara established that the double jeopardy clause does not bar a successive prosecution in
U.S. court because a tribal prosecution in the act of a separate sovereign exercising inherent authority. 541 U.S. 193,
200 (2004) (“Congress does possess the constitutional power to lift the restrictions on the tribes’ criminal jurisdiction
over nonmember Indians as the statute seeks to do.”).
113 At least one circuit court has determined that federal MCA jurisdiction is not exclusive of tribal jurisdiction. “A
tribal court, which is in compliance with the Indian Civil Rights Act[,] is competent to try a tribal member for a crime
also prosecutable under the Major Crimes Act.” Wetsit v. Stafne, 44 F.3d 823, 825 (9th Cir. 1995).
114 18 U.S.C. §1153. Indian Country is defined in 18 U.S.C. §1151 as generally including all land within Indian
reservations, dependent Indian communities, and individual Indian allotments.
115 18 U.S.C. §1153.
116 McGirt vs. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452, 2482 (2020).
117 DOJ, United States Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota, “Frequently Asked Questions about Public Law 83-
280,” https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/Public-Law%2083-280 (hereinafter, “USAO-MN FAQ”).
118 USAO-MN FAQ. Some optional P.L. 280 states accepted only partial jurisdiction that may not include MCA
offenses.
119 See United States v. High Elk, 902 F.2d 660 (8th Cir. 1990): but see United States v. Burch. 169 F.3d 666 (10th Cir.
1999).
Congressional Research Service

19

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

P.L. 280 did not alter the extent of tribal jurisdiction. However, a process called retrocession
allows the Secretary of Interior to grant a request made in agreement between a state and tribe for
the removal of a state’s P.L. 280 jurisdictional authority.120 In 1968, P.L. 280 was amended to
require tribal consent for a state to assume optional P.L. 280 jurisdiction. No tribes have
consented to state jurisdiction since the amendment’s passage.121 TLOA also allows tribes in
mandatory P.L. 280 states to petition the federal government to re-assume criminal jurisdiction
from the state without the agreement of the state.122
The determination of jurisdiction for offenses that occur on tribal lands may also depend on the
tribal membership status of the offender and the victim.123 If the offender is a member of a tribe
and the victim is not, then the tribe may have jurisdiction along with the state or federal
government (as determined by the MCA and P.L. 280). If neither the offender nor the victim are
members of a federally recognized tribe, but the offense occurs on tribal lands, then the federal or
state government has jurisdiction, but the tribe generally does not. In most circumstances, tribes
do not have jurisdiction over non-Indian offenders, even if the victim is a tribal member.124
However, the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA; Title IV of P.L.
103-322) granted certain tribal courts special domestic violence jurisdiction over non-Indian
offenders when the victim is Indian.125
Tribal Law and Order Act
In 1968, Congress passed the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), which, among other things, limited
tribal justice systems’ sentencing authority to one year of imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine.126
President Barack Obama signed TLOA into law in 2010, which, in part, encouraged coordination
between federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement as well as clarified and expanded tribal
authority over criminal cases on tribal lands involving Indian offenders.127 TLOA increased tribal
justice systems’ sentencing authority to up to three years of imprisonment and/or a $15,000 fine
per felony offense, with a maximum of nine years total imprisonment for individuals convicted of
multiple offenses. However, to exercise this authority tribal justice systems must meet certain

120 USAO-MN FAQ.
121 Carole Goldberg, “Unraveling Public Law 280: Better Late than Never,” American Bar Association Human Rights
Magazine, Vol. 43, no. 1, (September 01, 2017),
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/vol--43/vol--43--no--
1/unraveling-public-law-280--better-late-than-never/.
122 USAO-MN FAQ.
123 Under current law, tribal governments have jurisdiction over both member and non-member Indians (i.e., both
individuals who are members of the tribe exercising jurisdiction and members of different federally recognized tribes).
See P.L. 102-137 (superseding by statute the contrary judicial decision in Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 693 (1990)
holding that “[c]riminal trial and punishment is so serious an intrusion on personal liberty that its exercise over non-
Indian citizens was a power necessarily surrendered by the tribes in their submission to the overriding sovereignty of
the United States”).
124 Tribal officials may detain non-Indians suspected of an offense to turn custody over to state or federal authorities or
eject non-Indians from Indian land and not permit them to return. See CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10561, High Court to
Review Tribal Police Search and Seizure Case.
125 For more information, see CRS Report R45410, The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA): Historical Overview,
Funding, and Reauthorization (hereinafter, “VAWA Overview”).
126 25 U.S.C. §1302
127 See P.L. 111-211.
Congressional Research Service

20

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

standards, including the ability to convene a representative jury and meet certain due-process
requirements.128
Violence Against Women Act
The 2013 VAWA Reauthorization extended tribal criminal jurisdiction further to include non-
Indian offenders in cases of domestic and dating violence against Indian victims when the
conduct occurs on tribal lands, as well as the enforcement of certain protection orders.129 To
exercise this expanded jurisdiction, tribes must meet certain requirements to protect a non-Indian
defendant’s constitutional rights. For a non-Indian to be prosecuted for a VAWA-related crime in
a tribal court, they must have sufficient ties to the tribal community. Under current law, this may
include residing in the territory of the prosecuting tribe, employment by the prosecuting tribe, or
being the spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner of either a member of the prosecuting tribe or
a member of a different tribe who resides in the territory of the prosecuting tribe.130 The tribal
court must guarantee the non-Indian defendant’s constitutional rights, including the right to due
process and habeas corpus, and if imprisonment may be imposed, the right to a trial by an
impartial jury that is both a fair cross section of the community and does not “systematically
exclude any distinctive group in the community, including non-Indians.”131 According to the
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), as of February 2021, 27 tribes exercise this
expanded jurisdiction.132
The complicated laws governing tribal jurisdiction can adversely affect the ability of tribes, law
enforcement, and both tribal and federal/state judicial systems to address MMIP. First,
jurisdictional confusion can slow down investigations and waste resources.133 Another potential
limitation is that tribal members may not have equivalent access to state or federal law
enforcement or be as willing to rely on these external systems. The TLOA report states:
Because Tribal nations and local groups are not participants in the decision making, the
resulting Federal and State decisions, laws, rules, and regulations about criminal justice
often are considered as lacking legitimacy. As widely reported in testimony to the
Commission, nontribally administered criminal justice programs are less likely to garner
Tribal citizen confidence and trust, resulting in diminished crime-fighting capacities. The
consequences are many: victims are dissuaded from reporting and witnesses are reluctant
to come forward to testify. In short, victims and witnesses frequently do not trust or agree
with State or Federal justice procedures. Potential violators are undeterred.134
Further, limitations on tribal justice systems can result in crimes commonly associated with
domestic violence falling outside of tribal reach. A 2018 report on the expanded domestic
violence jurisdiction found that five years after passage, implementing tribes reported being
constrained by the inability to prosecute crimes that commonly co-occur with domestic violence
such as drug and alcohol offenses and crimes against children.135 A VAWA reauthorization bill

128 25 U.S.C. §1302.
129 VAWA Overview.
130 25 U.S.C. §1304(b)(4)(B).
131 25 U.S.C. §1304(d).
132 National Congress of American Indians, Currently Implementing Tribes, https://www.ncai.org/tribal-vawa/get-
started/currently-implementing-tribes.
133 TLOA Report.
134 TLOA Report, p. 4.
135 National Congress of American Indians, VAWA 2013’s Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction Five-Year
Report, 2018, http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/SDVCJ_5_Year_Report.pdf. At the time of publication,
Congressional Research Service

21

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

that passed the House during the 117th Congress (H.R. 1620) would expand tribal jurisdiction
over certain non-Indian conduct to include obstruction of justice, sexual violence, sex trafficking,
stalking, and assault of a law enforcement or corrections officer.136
Oil Pipeline Man Camps and Violence Against Native American Women
Research has established a connection between sexual violence, human trafficking, and man camps in the United
States and Canada.137 Man camps refer to areas of temporary housing for oil and gas workers who are
characteristically well paid, male, and non-Indigenous. Man camps can be formal settlements of portable housing
set up by extraction companies to house workers, or informal settlements of mobile homes and trailers rented
out to workers by local property owners.138 In either case, the influx of workers into frequently under-resourced
rural areas can strain local emergency and health services. There has been a documented relationship between
man camps and increases in crime rates, drug and alcohol-related offenses, and sexual violence.139 Law
enforcement often does not have the resources to serve these temporarily inflated populations and struggle to
address the increase in crime. Because man camps often cross into tribal lands, there is also jurisdictional
confusion about agency responsibility. Law enforcement may also not be able to monitor the presence of sex
offenders in these formal or informal man camps.140 According to testimony by Lisa Brunner, a program specialist
at the National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center, “The Fort Peck Tribes Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act (SORNA) program reports that 1 year ago there were 48 registered sex offenders. Now there
are over 600 registered sex offenders. The struggle has been that non-Native sex offenders do not recognize the
tribal jurisdiction and feel they do not have to report to the tribal SORNA program.”141
Rates of sexual assault, domestic violence, and human trafficking doubled or tripled in the Bakken oil-producing
region of North Dakota and Montana where extractive industries were present.142 The violence connected to
man camps disproportionately affected Native American women and girls.143 The Bureau of Justice Statistics
funded a study of violent victimization rates in the Bakken region from 2006 through 2012.144 Study findings
indicated that during this time, rates of violent victimization reported to law enforcement increased 23% in the
Bakken region and declined 8% in the non-Bakken regions of Montana and North Dakota. The rate of serious
violent victimization (i.e., homicide, sexual assault, aggravated assault, and robbery) increased 38% in the Bakken
region but decreased by 4% in the non-Bakken regions studied. Aggravated assault rates increased by the greatest
margin (70%) in the Bakken region (while decreasing by 4% outside the Bakken region); it increased 72% for males
and 67% for females. Rape and sexual assault rates decreased by 3% in the Bakken region (while decreasing by 5%
outside the Bakken region), but the rates of unlawful sexual contact (i.e., incest and statutory rape) increased 45%

18 tribes had implemented the expanded jurisdiction.
136 For more information, see CRS Report R46742, The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization: Issues
for Congress, hereinafter “VAWA Reauthorization”.
137 Kathleen Finn, Erica Gadja, Thomas Perin, and Carla Fredericks, “Responsible Resource Development and
Prevention of Sex Trafficking: Safeguarding Native Women and Children on the Fort Berthold Reservation,” Harvard
Journal of Law & Gender, vol. 40, 2017.
138 National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Reclaiming Power and Place: the Final
Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Canada, 2019, p. 593,
https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/final-report/.
139 Testimony of Lisa Brunner, Program Specialist at National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center, in U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Combating Human Trafficking:
Federal, State, and Local Perspective, hearings, 113th Cong., 1st sess., September 23, 2013, S.Hrg. 113-455
(Washington, DC: GPO, 2013), transcript available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-
113shrg85505/pdf/CHRG-113shrg85505.pdf (hereinafter, “Senate Hearing on Trafficking”), p. 42.
140 Senate Hearing on Trafficking”, p. 41.
141 Senate Hearing on Trafficking, p. 42.
142 Senate Hearing on Trafficking, p. 41
143 Senate Hearing on Trafficking, p .42.
144 Kimberly Martin, Kelle Barrick, Nicholas J. Richardson, Dan Liao, and David Heller, “Violent Victimization
Known to Law Enforcement in the Bakken Oil-Producing Region of Montana and North Dakota, 2006-2012,” RTI
International, 2017, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/violent-victimization-known-law-enforcement-
bakken-oil-producing (hereinafter, “Bakken Report”).
Congressional Research Service

22

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

in the Bakken region (while decreasing by 7% outside the Bakken region).145 Domestic violence146 rates increased
by 27% in the Bakken region (while decreasing by 6% outside the Bakken region), and serious domestic violence147
rates increased by 47% (while increasing by 11% outside the Bakken region). Although the violent victimization
rate in the Bakken region increased for all racial categories, it was particularly pronounced for Native
Americans.148 From 2006 to 2012, the violent crime victimization rate for Native Americans in the Bakken region
increased from 239 per 10,000 to 295; in comparison, the rate for White victims increased from 90 per 10,000 to
112. Outside the Bakken region, the rates of violent victimization decreased by 11% for Native Americans and
10% for White victims.
Data Gaps
Another difficulty in understanding the victimization of Native Americans generally, and MMIP
in particular, is incomplete data. There are several federal programs to gather data on crime,
including the FBI’s UCR program and the NCVS. Federal agencies, researchers, and advocates
have identified gaps in tribal participation in these programs as a significant issue. Beyond gaps
in tribal participation, tribes may also have difficulty accessing data resources (e.g., software,
equipment, trained personnel) that can be helpful in preventing or addressing violence in tribal
communities.
There are 574 federally recognized tribes, and the reasons underlying these gaps in participation
and access vary widely. However, some commonly identified reasons are lack of funding and
resources (e.g., personnel, equipment, and reliable internet access), state laws preventing tribal
access to programs or resources, and tribal government decisions not to share information.149
Additional causes of gaps in the data on violence experienced by Native Americans include racial
misclassification, incorrect classification of a crime or cause of death, and hesitancy of victims or
witnesses to report a crime due to poor relationships with or mistrust of law enforcement.150
Federal Programs and Grants
The federal government has several programs that either directly or indirectly address MMIWG.
Some of these programs were created specifically to address this issue, such as the recently
launched Missing and Murdered Unit (MMU) at the BIA. Other programs may address MMIWG
but were not explicitly developed for this purpose. For example, many DOJ grants address crime
in Indian Country, which may include offenses related to MMIWG.

145 Bakken Report, p. 8. The study authors note that “the magnitude of the percentage increase in other unlawful sexual
contact during this period (up 45%) is due to the relatively low rate of these crimes compared with other types of
violent sex offenses recorded in NIBRS. For example, although the rate of other unlawful sexual contact increased
during the study period, the rate of violent sex offenses in 2012 (9.0 per 10,000) was more than four times higher than
the comparable rate of other unlawful sexual contact (2.5 per 10,000).”
146 Bakken Report, p. 7, defined as “violent crimes committed by intimate partners and non-intimate family members.”
147 Bakken Report, p. 7, “serious violent crime consists of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape, sexual assault,
aggravated assault, and robbery.”
148 Bakken Report, p. 10.
149 Kristi A. Naternicola, “The Tribal Engagement Program (TEP) Builds Bridges for Tribal Partners,” Department of
Justice Journal of Federal Law and Practice, January 2021, vol. 69, no. 1 (hereinafter, “DOJ TEP”), p. 37.
150 DOJ TEP, pp. 52-53; UIHI Report, p. 4.
Congressional Research Service

23

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

Federal Programs
In recent years, the federal government has launched initiatives to address MMIWG, including
executive branch task forces to encourage collaboration and communication between federal
agencies. Other programs created via legislation include Ashanti Alerts, among others.
Missing and Murdered Unit (MMU)
In April 2021, the Department of the Interior (DOI) announced the formation of the MMU within
the BIA’s Office of Justice Services. The MMU is an extension of the Operation Lady Justice
task force, discussed below, launched under President Donald J. Trump to address unsolved
MMIP cases. One focus of the MMU will be to increase cooperation between DOI and other
federal entities such as the DOJ’s NamUs, the U.S. Marshals’ Missing Child Unit (MCU), and the
FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Units (BAU) and Forensic Laboratory.151 The press release
announcing the MMU also stated there will be new positions, such as a Unit Chief responsible for
collaboration with stakeholders, as well as positions to manage services for the families of
victims and to perform data collection and analysis.
Operation Lady Justice Task Force
In November 2019, President Trump signed an executive order152 that created the Task Force on
Missing and Murdered American Indians and Alaska Natives, also called Operation Lady Justice.
The task force was comprised of members from DOJ, DOI, and HHS. The aims of this task force
were to “enhance the operation of the criminal justice system and address the legitimate concerns
of American Indian and Alaska Native communities regarding missing and murdered people —
particularly missing and murdered women and girls.”153
The executive order also outlined particular purposes the task force was to fulfill, including
 consultations with tribal governments;
 developing new protocols for use in both new and unsolved cases, including
improving law enforcement responses, strengthening procedures for data sharing
between jurisdictions, and broader use of databases (e.g., NamUs or the
Combined DNA Index System)154;
 creating a multi-disciplinary, multi-jurisdictional team, including members of
tribal law enforcement as well as DOJ and DOI, to review cold cases; and
 clarifying responsibilities and jurisdiction throughout the investigation and
prosecution of cases involving missing and murdered American Indians and
Alaska Natives, including guidelines for communications with victims’ families,
commitments between jurisdictions to utilize both cooperative and trauma-
informed approaches, and public awareness campaigns to prevent crime and
educate affected communities about available resources.

151 DOI, “Secretary Haaland Creates New Missing & Murdered Unit to Pursue Justice for Missing or Murdered
American Indians and Alaska Natives,” press release, April 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/news/secretary-haaland-
creates-new-missing-murdered-unit-pursue-justice-missing-or-murdered-american.
152 Executive Order 13893, “Establishing the Task Force on Missing and Murdered American Indians and Alaska
Natives,” 84 Federal Register 231, December 2, 2019.
153 Operation Lady Justice, Executive Order, https://operationladyjustice.usdoj.gov/about/executive-order.
154 For more information on CODIS, see CRS Report R41800, The Use of DNA by the Criminal Justice System and the
Federal Role: Background, Current Law, and Grants.
Congressional Research Service

24

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

In November 2020, the task force submitted a one-year progress report that includes
accomplishments, project status reports, and recommendations for future actions; a final report is
expected in November 2021. The one-year progress report lists the following accomplishments:
 holding five in-person listening sessions prior to COVID-19 mitigation measures
and 12 virtual tribal consultations (one for each of the BIA regions);
 establishing and convening 10 working groups on topics including developing
new protocols, solving cold cases, and outreach;
 developing “draft standard operating procedures and protocols;”155 and
 opening six offices to “operationalize solving cold cases involving missing and
murdered American Indians and Alaska Natives.”156
Advocates have criticized Operation Lady Justice most notably for a lack of participation from
and communication with affected families and grassroots organizations. In May 2021, a group of
MMIWG and MMIP grassroots advocates released a letter outlining their concerns, including
 lack of outreach and opportunities for families, advocates, and grassroots
organizations to participate or testify in listening sessions;
 task force communications were conducted mainly using government websites
and listservs that were not effective at reaching tribal community members and
affected families;
 difficulty in accessing both in-person and digital listening sessions; participation
in virtual meetings required strong internet connections to which many tribal
communities do not have access;
 participants were only given three and a half minutes to testify on a first-come,
first-served basis, which the authors’ assert was not sufficient for all those
interested to share their stories, nor was it sufficient time for affected families to
communicate their losses; and
 no points of contact (e.g., a known phone line) to the cold case review teams for
advocates or affected families.157
Federal Alert Programs
While not specific to MMIP, the federal government has developed two national alert programs to
aid in the search and recovery of missing persons:
 In 2003, The PROTECT Act (P.L. 108-21) created the AMBER (America's
Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) Alert system, which supports the
recovery of children under the age of 17. The Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) launched the AMBER Alert in Indian Country
(AIIC) Initiative to expand tribal participation in this program.158 A 2019 DOJ

155 Operation Lady Justice, Report to the President Activities and Accomplishments of the First Year of Operation Lady
Justice (hereinafter, “OLJ First Year”), p. v.
156 OLJ First Year, p. v.
157 “Public Statement on Operation Lady Justice, From MMIWG & MMIP Grassroots Advocates,” https://2a840442-
f49a-45b0-b1a1-7531a7cd3d30.filesusr.com/ugd/6b33f7_1c1b44893a2e4385a8314b53e31ea4be.pdf.
158 DOJ, OJP, AMBER Alert, AMBER Alert in Indian Country, https://amberalert.ojp.gov/amber-alert-indian-country.
Congressional Research Service

25

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

study found that among the 100 federally recognized tribes surveyed, 76
participated in state or regional AMBER alert programs.159
 The Ashanti Alert Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-401) was enacted in December 2018 to
create a similar voluntary national communications system to support the
recovery of missing adults between the ages of 17 and 64. The Ashanti Alert pilot
program was launched in 2020.
Federal legislation has been introduced in both chambers to create a national alert system for
senior citizens, especially those with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia (e.g., National Silver Alert
Act of 2014, H.R. 5361); no federal law establishing the system has been enacted. Several states
have Silver or Senior Alert systems that provide alerts about missing seniors.160
Federal Efforts to Improve Data Collection
As discussed above, many researchers and advocates have highlighted data collection weaknesses
as a significant barrier to federal work to address MMIP. Two laws enacted during the 116th
Congress aimed, in part, to improve data quality.
Savanna’s Act
Congress enacted Savanna’s Act (P.L. 116-165) in 2020 to clarify the responsibilities of law
enforcement agencies at all levels of government in responding to MMIP, increase cooperation
between law enforcement agencies, provide tribal governments with additional resources to
address MMIP, and increase data collection and reporting on MMIP. The law authorizes grants to
implement policies and report data on MMIP, requires the FBI to include gender in annual
statistics publications about missing and unidentified persons, and includes new requirements for
the DOJ to address MMIP. The included DOJ requirements are as follows:
 provide training to law enforcement agencies on how to record tribal enrollment
for victims in federal databases;
 develop and implement a strategy to educate the public on the National Missing
and Unidentified Persons System;
 conduct specific outreach to tribes, tribal organizations, and urban Indian
organizations regarding the ability to publicly enter information through the
National Missing and Unidentified Persons System or other non-law enforcement
sensitive portal;
 develop regionally appropriate guidelines for response to cases of missing or
murdered Native Americans;
 provide training and technical assistance to tribes and law enforcement agencies
for implementation of the developed guidelines; and
 report statistics on missing or murdered Native Americans.161

159 DOJ, Justice Department Upgrades Amber Alert Website, Adds Resources for Tribes, November 2019,
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-upgrades-amber-alert-website-adds-resources-tribes.
160 For more information on missing persons alert systems, see CRS Report RL34616, Missing Adults: Background,
Federal Programs, and Issues for Congress.
161 S. 227, Congressional Research Service Bill Summary, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-
bill/227.
Congressional Research Service

26

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

The law also states that tribes may submit individual guidelines for responding to MMIP cases to
DOJ.
Not Invisible Act
The Not Invisible Act of 2019 (P.L. 116-166) was signed into law in 2020 with the broad purpose
of reducing violent crime in Indian Country and against Native Americans through improved
interagency coordination. This law requires DOI to designate within the BIA an official who is
responsible for coordinating prevention initiatives, grants, and programs that pertain to MMIP as
well as human trafficking. The law further requires DOI and DOJ to establish a joint commission
on violent crime in Indian Country and against Native Americans. The commission is tasked with
creating recommendations for improving the identification, reporting, and responses to missing,
murdered, and trafficked Native Americans, and both DOI and DOJ must produce written
responses to these recommendations.
A GAO study released in October 2021 found that neither the DOJ nor DOI had met all the
requirements of Savanna’s Act and the Not Invisible Act.162 The report included the following
recommendations:
The Attorney General should develop a plan—including key steps, who will achieve them,
and by when—for accomplishing ongoing analyses of data in existing federal databases
and future data that may be gathered to identify relevant trends in cases of missing or
murdered American Indian and Alaska Native women and areas of concern.
The Attorney General should develop a plan, including milestone dates, to develop and
implement a dissemination strategy to educate the public about the National Missing and
Unidentified Persons System (NamUs).
The Attorney General should develop a plan, including milestone dates, to conduct specific
outreach to Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations regarding the
ability to publicly enter information regarding missing persons through NamUs or other
non-law enforcement sensitive portal.
The Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the Attorney General, should finalize its
draft plan establishing and appointing all members to the Joint Commission on Reducing
Violent Crime Against Indians, as required by the Not Invisible Act of 2019, and include
milestone dates for all steps in the process.163
Federal Grants
Several federal grant programs are aimed at addressing the needs of tribal justice systems and the
experiences of Native American women:
Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS): Since 2010, this solicitation has been an
avenue by which federally recognized tribes can apply for many of DOJ’s tribal grant programs
across several agencies using a single application. The FY2021 CTAS purpose areas include
Public Safety and Community Policing, Comprehensive Tribal Justice Systems Strategic
Planning, Tribal Justice Systems, Tribal Justice System Infrastructure, Children’s Justice Act
Partnerships for Indian Communities, Juvenile Tribal Healing to Wellness Courts, and the Tribal

162 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Missing or Murdered Indigenous Women: New Efforts Are
Underway but Opportunities Exist to Improve the Federal Response, GAO-22-104045, October 28, 2021 (hereinafter,
“GAO Federal Response to MMIW”).
163 GAO Federal Response to MMIW, p. 42.
Congressional Research Service

27

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

Youth Program.164 Two common critiques of the CTAS solicitation are that the competitive nature
of these grants force tribes to compete with each other for resources, and the process may favor
tribes with more resources to devote to grant writing.165
Grants to Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions Program: These grants are
administered by DOJ’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) for the development and
operating costs of nonprofit, nongovernmental tribal domestic violence and sexual assault
coalitions. This program is authorized at two points in statute, each defining distinct aims. Under
34 U.S.C. Section 10441(d)(1), the purpose areas for these grants include the following:
1. Increasing awareness of domestic violence and sexual assault against Indian women;
2. Enhancing the response to violence against Indian women at the federal, state, and tribal
levels;
3. Identifying and providing [technical assistance] to coalition membership and tribal
communities to enhance access to essential services to Indian women victimized by
domestic and sexual violence, including sex trafficking;
4. Assisting Indian tribes in developing and promoting state, local, and tribal legislation
and policies that enhance best practices for responding to violent crimes against Indian
women, including the crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, sex
trafficking, and stalking.166
Additionally, under 34 U.S.C. Section 12511(d)(2), eligible coalitions may receive additional
funding if they address the following purpose areas:
1. Work with local sexual assault programs and other providers of direct services for sexual
assault victims to encourage appropriate responses to sexual assault within the state,
territory, or tribe;
2. Work with judicial and law enforcement agencies to encourage appropriate responses to
sexual assault cases;
3. Work with courts, child protective services agencies, and children's advocates to develop
appropriate responses to child custody and visitation issues when sexual assault has been
determined to be a factor;
4. Design and conduct public education campaigns on sexual assault;
5. Plan and monitor the distribution of grants and grant funds to their state, territory, or
tribe; or
6. Collaborate with and inform federal, state, or local public officials and agencies to
develop and implement policies to reduce or eliminate sexual assault.167
Grants to Tribal Governments to Exercise Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction
(SDVCJ): These funds support tribes in implementing the expanded responsibilities of tribal

164 See the FY2021 CTAS solicitation at https://www.justice.gov/tribal/page/file/1353346/download for more
information about each purpose areas, including the estimated amount of funding available, estimated number of
awards to be made, and length of award.
165 Testimonies of the Honorable Fawn Sharp, President of the National Congress of American Indians, and Julia Kitka,
President of the Alaska Federation of Natives, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, A Call to Action:
Native Communities’ Priorities in Focus for the 117th Congress, hearings, 117th Cong., 1st sess., February 24, 2021,
S.Hrg. 117-8 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021).
166 FY2021 Tribal DV and SA Coalitions.
167 FY2021 Tribal DV and SA Coalitions.
Congressional Research Service

28

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

justice systems to address domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protection orders
granted in the 2013 reauthorization of VAWA. These funds may be used to defray costs associated
with law enforcement, prosecution, trial and appellate courts, probation systems, detention and
correction facilities, alternative rehabilitation, culturally appropriate assistance for victims and
families, providing counsel for indigent defendants, and empaneling juries.168
Violence Against Women Tribal Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Project (SAUSA): This grant
funds three-year fellowships for cross-designated prosecutors that work to address violence
against women in cases in tribal and federal courts.169 The SAUSA program aims to aid tribal
governments in exercising the special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction granted under
VAWA.170 As such, the programs purpose areas include the following:
1. To strengthen tribal criminal justice systems to assist Indian tribes in exercising SDVCJ,
including: (A) Law enforcement (including the capacity of law enforcement or court
personnel to enter information into and obtain information from national crime information
databases); (B) Prosecution; (C) Trial and appellate courts; (D) Probation systems; (E)
Detention and correctional facilities; (F) Alternative rehabilitation centers; (G) Culturally
appropriate services and assistance for victims and their families; (H) Criminal codes and
rules of criminal procedure, appellate procedure, and evidence.
2. To provide indigent criminal defendants with the effective assistance of licensed defense
counsel, at no cost to the defendant, in criminal proceedings in which a participating tribe
prosecutes a crime of domestic violence or dating violence or a criminal violation of a
protection order.
3. To ensure that, in criminal proceedings in which a participating tribe exercises SDVCJ,
jurors are summoned, selected, and instructed in a manner consistent with all applicable
requirements.
4. To accord victims of domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protection
orders rights that are similar to the rights of a crime victim described in section 3771(a) of
Title 18, consistent with tribal law and custom.171
Tribal Sexual Assault Services Program (TSASP): This program is administered by OVW to
aid in the creation, maintenance, and growth of programs in Indian Country and Alaska Native
villages that provide intervention and assistance to victims of sexual assault.172 Under 34 U.S.C.
Section 12511, victims may include adult, youth, and child victims of sexual assault as well as
victims’ family and household members and those “collaterally affected by the victimization,
except for the perpetrator.”173 TSASP purpose areas include the following:
1. 24-hour hotline services providing crisis intervention services and referral.

168 DOJ, OVW, “OVW Fiscal Year 2021 Grants to Tribal Governments to Exercise Special Domestic Violence
Criminal Jurisdiction,” https://www.justice.gov/ovw/page/file/1353556/download (hereinafter, “FY2021 SDVCJ
Solicitation”).
169 DOJ, OVW, “FY2022 Budget Request At A Glance,” https://www.justice.gov/jmd/page/file/1399101/download
(hereinafter, “FY2022 At A Glance”).
170 25 U.S.C. §1304(f).
171 DOJ, OVW, “OVW Fiscal Year 2021 Grants to Tribal Governments to Exercise Special Domestic Violence
Criminal Jurisdiction Solicitation,” https://www.justice.gov/ovw/page/file/1354661/download (hereinafter, “FY2021
SAUSA”).
172 34 U.S.C. §12511(e).
173 34 U.S.C. §12511(a)(1).
Congressional Research Service

29

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

2. Accompaniment and advocacy through medical, criminal justice, and social support
systems, including medical facilities, police, and court proceedings.
3. Crisis intervention, short-term individual and group support services, and
comprehensive service coordination and supervision to assist sexual assault victims and
family or household members.
4. Information and referral to assist the sexual assault victim and family or household
members.
5. Community-based, culturally specific services and support mechanisms, including
outreach activities for underserved communities.
6. The development and distribution of materials on issues related to the services described
in (1) – (5).174
Tribal Access Program (TAP): This program provides tribes with access to national crime
information systems and trainings on using these systems.175 Through TAP, both criminal (e.g.,
law enforcement, prosecutors) and non-criminal tribal agencies (e.g., public housing, civil courts)
can gain access to databases such as NCIC, the Next Generation Identification (NGI) system, the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and the National Data Exchange
(N-DEx).176 Participating tribes can use these databases for several purposes relevant to MMIP
and MMIWG; for example, entering orders of protection, registering sex offenders, entering
arrest warrants, obtaining criminal histories, and checking the records for individuals with access
to Native American children.177
Recent Legislative History
Several recent legislative proposals introduced in the 116th and 117th Congresses are relevant to
the federal response to MMIP. This section includes details on a non-exhaustive selection of bills
related to MMIP. A common theme in these legislative efforts is an interest in collecting more and
better data on MMIP, increasing interagency cooperation, and tribal access and participation in
federal criminal justice programs.
 AI/AN CAPTA (H.R. 1566 and S. 1868): This bill was introduced in the House
and Senate during the 117th Congress and would address child abuse and neglect
in tribal communities. The bill would "require that equitable distribution of
assistance include equitable distribution to Indian tribes and tribal organizations
and to increase amounts reserved for allotment to Indian tribes and tribal
organizations under certain circumstances, and to provide for a Government
Accountability Office report on child abuse and neglect in American Indian tribal
communities."178
 Native Youth and Tribal Officer Protection Act (H.R. 2740): This bill was
introduced during the 117th Congress and would, among other things, expand

174 DOJ, OVW, Fiscal Year 2021 Tribal Sexual Assault Services Solicitation,
https://www.justice.gov/ovw/page/file/1356356/download (hereinafter, “FY2021 TSASP”).
175 DOJ, Tribal Access Program, https://www.justice.gov/tribal/tribal-access-program-tap (hereinafter, “TAP”).
176 DOJ, Tribal Access Program, National Crime Information Systems, https://www.justice.gov/tribal/national-crime-
information-systems. For more information on this data program, see FBI CJIS services at
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis.
177 TAP.
178 H.R. 1566 and S. 1868.
Congressional Research Service

30

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

tribal criminal jurisdiction to include “violence committed against a child by a
caregiver; violence against law enforcement officers involved in preventing,
investigating, arresting, or prosecuting a person for domestic violence, dating
violence, or child violence; attempted dating violence or domestic violence; or
threatened dating violence or domestic violence.”179
 Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2021 (S.
292): This bill was introduced in the 117th Congress and would create a new
grant program to help states and tribes implement extreme risk protection order
laws (i.e., red flag laws), which "allow certain individuals (e.g., law enforcement
officers or family members) to petition a court for a temporary order that
prohibits an at-risk individual from purchasing and possessing firearms."180
 Violence Against Women Act (H.R. 1620): This bill passed the House in March
2021 and would expand tribal jurisdiction over certain nonmembers to include
obstruction of justice, sexual violence, sex trafficking, stalking, and assault of a
law enforcement or corrections officer. It also included an annual reporting
requirement that mandates that the Attorney General and the Secretary of the
Interior prepare and submit a report to Congress with statistics about missing and
murdered Indian women and recommendations for improving data collection on
these victims.181
 Preventing Domestic Violence Homicides Through Assessment Training Act
(H.R. 1907): This bill was introduced in the 117th Congress and would authorize
DOJ to award technical assistance and training grants to states, local
governments, tribes, and domestic violence victim service providers to
implement and operate lethality assessment programs.
 Native American Child Protection Act (H.R. 1688 and S. 2326): This bill
passed the House in May 2021 and was subsequently introduced in the Senate.
The bill reauthorizes through FY2027 certain programs related to the prevention,
investigation, treatment, and prosecution of family violence, child abuse, and
child neglect involving Indian children and families. It also, among other things,
would require National Indian Child Resource and Family Services Centers to
"(1) provide advice, technical assistance, and training to urban Indian
organizations; (2) develop certain technical assistance materials for Indian tribes,
tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations; and (3) develop model
intergovernmental agreements between tribes and states to prevent, investigate,
treat, and prosecute incidents of family violence, child abuse, and child neglect
involving Indian children and families."182
 The People’s Response Act (H.R. 4194): This bill was introduced in the 117th
Congress and would create a division on Community Safety in HHS. This bill
includes funds to help tribal communities to hire first responders and address
community safety both on and off tribal lands.

179 H.R. 2740, Congressional Research Service Bill Summary, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-
bill/2740.
180 S. 292, Congressional Research Service Bill Summary, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-
bill/292.
181 VAWA Reauthorization.
182 H.R. 1688, Congressional Research Service Bill Summary, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-
bill/1688.
Congressional Research Service

31

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

 Tribal Reporting and Accountability to Congress Act (TRAC Act; S. 1892):
Introduced in the 116th Congress, this bill would have amended Section 13 of the
Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. §2810) to require an annual
report on MMIP from each district’s Assistant United States Attorney tribal
liaison. The bill did not become law.
 Bridging Agency Data Gaps and Ensuring Safety for Native Communities
Act (BADGES for Native Communities Act; H.R. 4289 and S. 1853): Versions
of this bill were introduced in both the House and the Senate during the 116th
Congress. It was not taken up by either body. These bills would have addressed
shortcomings in information sharing as well as the reporting and investigation of
MMIP through technical assistance, grant programs, and increased mental health
resources to tribal and BIA law enforcement. These bills also sought to increase
tribal access to and participation in the NamUs and NCIC.
 Studying the Missing and Murdered Indian Crisis Act of 2019 (H.R. 2029):
Introduced in the 116th Congress, this bill would have required a report from
GAO on law enforcement agencies' responses to MMIP and on recommendations
to improve database and notification systems. The bill did not become law.
Issues for Congress
Services for Native American Populations in Urban Areas
As discussed previously, the majority of Native American people live in urban areas while most
federal programs to address violence against Native Americans focus on tribal lands.183 Although
federal crime data collection programs are generally insufficient to compare Native American
experiences of violent victimization on and off tribal lands, given that most Native Americans
live in urban areas it seems likely that many victimizations are also occurring off tribal lands.
Although Native Americans living off tribal lands would be eligible for federal victim resources,
Congress may consider potential gaps in services to address violent victimizations of Native
Americans in urban areas and the possible need for culturally specific services.
VAWA includes several grant programs that specifically serve Native American victims. For
example, the Tribal Sexual Assault Services Program (Tribal SASP) provides “intervention,
advocacy, accompaniment (e.g. accompanying victims to court, medical facilities, and police
departments), support services, and related assistance for adult, youth, and child victims of sexual
assault; non-offending family and household members of victims; and those collaterally affected
by sexual assault.”184 Only federally recognized tribal governments, tribal organizations, and
nonprofit tribal organizations are eligible to apply for these grants, so they may be limited in their
ability to serve Native American victims residing in urban areas. For example, current grant
funding may not be sufficient for tribal governments to serve victims living on tribal lands and to
identify and meet the needs of Native American victims residing outside of tribal lands.
The Grants to Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions Program is a formula grant
program to support the development and operation of nonprofit, nongovernmental tribal domestic

183 UIHI, U.S. Census Marks Increase in Urban American Indians and Alaska Natives, http://www.uihi.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/09/Broadcast_Census-Number_FINAL_v2.pdf (hereinafter, “AI/AN Census”).
184 VAWA Measuring Effectiveness Initiative, Tribal SASP Program, https://www.vawamei.org/grant-program/tribal-
sasp-program/.
Congressional Research Service

32

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

violence and sexual assault coalitions.185 Tribal coalitions provide education, support, and
technical assistance to member Indian service providers and tribes to enhance their response to
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. However, these
coalitions may also be limited in their ability to aid victims living in urban areas.186 Congress may
consider amending the authorizations for these grant programs to expand services for Native
Americans living off tribal lands. For example, Congress may consider providing funds to help
tribal governments deliver services to members who are victimized while living off tribal lands.
Alternatively, Congress may consider leveraging existing programs to improve services for
Native American crime victims. For example, VAWA funds three grants for culturally specific
services and outreach to underserved populations:
 Grants to Enhance Culturally Specific Services for Victims of Domestic
Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking: This grant program
helps develop and support community-based programs with the primary purpose
of providing or enhancing access to culturally specific services for victims of
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
 Grants for Outreach and Services to Underserved Populations: This program
supports nonprofit organizations in the development and implementation of
outreach strategies targeted at adult or youth victims of sexual assault, domestic
violence, dating violence, or stalking in underserved populations, and victim
services for these populations.
 Sexual Assault Services Culturally Specific Program: This program funds
nonprofit organizations that focus primarily on culturally specific communities to
create, maintain, and expand sustainable sexual assault services provided by
organizations that are uniquely situated to respond to the needs of sexual assault
victims from culturally specific populations.187
Congress may consider amending the authorizations for these programs to emphasize services for
Native American victims living in urban areas or off tribal lands.188
The Office for Victims of Crime’s (OVC’s) Vision 21 report emphasized the need for American
Indian and Alaska Native crime victims to receive targeted, culturally specific support, though
Vision 21 primarily conceived of this support being offered on tribal lands and in Alaska Native
Villages.189 OVC funds culturally responsive services for victims of crime; organizations that

185 As defined in 34 U.S.C. Section 12291(a)(35)), tribal coalitions are “established nonprofit, nongovernmental Indian
organization, Alaska Native organization, or a Native Hawaiian organization that— (A)provides education, support,
and technical assistance to member Indian service providers in a manner that enables those member providers to
establish and maintain culturally appropriate services, including shelter and rape crisis services, designed to assist
Indian women and the dependents of those women who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, and stalking; and (B)is comprised of board and general members that are representative of— (i)the member
service providers described in subparagraph (A); and (ii)the tribal communities in which the services are being
provided.”
186 However, Native Americans victims may access VAWA programs and other victim services for the broader
population.
187 VAWA Overview.
188 HHS has programs to address the health of Native American urban populations. See
https://www.ihs.gov/urban/urban-indian-organizations/ for more information on Urban Indian Organizations (UIOs) at
HHS.
189 DOJ, OJP, Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), OVC Builds Capacity To Serve Crime Victims in Indian Country,
https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/pubs/TribalVictimsofCrime/intro.html (hereinafter, “OVC in Indian
Congressional Research Service

33

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

serve urban Native American populations may be eligible, but the only specific mention of Native
Americans is in reference to tribal governments and organizations.190 There are some OVC funds
for collaborative programs to meet the needs of Native American victims in Indian Country; for
example, OVC’s Children’s Justice Act (CJA) and Comprehensive Tribal Victim Assistance
Discretionary Grant (CTVA) programs have encouraged partnerships between federal, state, local,
and tribal stakeholders.191 In one case, a partnership between the California CJA program and the
Washoe Tribe of Nevada “contributed to a 62.5-percent increase in services provided to child
abuse victims during the second phase of the grant program.”192 In another case, collaboration
between the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation CTVA program and law enforcement from several
jurisdictions resulted in 115 partnerships to broaden access to victim services.193
Native Americans who do not reside on tribal lands can receive federal, state, and local resources
that support victims and at-risk populations of all races and ethnicities. Congress may consider
programs that encourage partnerships between tribal governments and cities or states where large
populations of Native Americans reside to provide culturally specific services or conduct outreach
to Native American victims. Congress may also consider programs that provide targeted
prevention or victim support services to Native Americans living in urban areas. For example,
Congress may consider expanding eligibility criteria, objectives, or funding for existing programs
that provide victim services and serve at-risk youth on tribal lands, such as the Victims of Crime
Act (VOCA) tribal set-aside grants, to provide culturally specific services to Native Americans
residing in urban areas. This would allow Native Americans who live in cities such as New York,
Los Angeles, or Phoenix to access targeted programs. In FY2020, DOJ appropriations (P.L. 116-
260) included a 5% set-aside in the Crime Victims Fund (CVF) for tribal victim services.194 Only
federally recognized Indian tribes, tribal designees, and tribal consortia consisting of two or more
federally recognized Indian tribes are eligible to receive these funds. Grantees may not have the
resources or partnerships in place to direct these funds toward services for Native Americans
victims living in urban areas.
Tribal Law Enforcement and Criminal Jurisdiction over MMIP
Tribal jurisdiction over criminal offenses related to MMIP is complex. Although tribal
governments have jurisdiction over offenses on their lands involving Indian offenders, they are
limited in their sentencing authorities. Some have suggested that these sentencing limitations may
decrease the likelihood a tribal justice system will pursue a case that falls under the MCA,
particularly when the federal government is also pursuing the case.195 In addition, with the
exception of those offenses included in the VAWA special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction,
tribes do not have criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian offenders. This may be of particular
concern given the high rates of interracial violence associated with crimes against Native
Americans. Congress could keep tribal jurisdiction in its present form or it may address or alter
tribal jurisdiction in any number of ways. For example, Congress could address this issue by

Country”).
190 DOJ, OJP, OVC, OVC FY 2021 National Center for Culturally Responsive Victim Services,
https://ovc.ojp.gov/funding/opportunities/o-ovc-2021-32002.
191 OVC in Indian Country.
192 OVC in Indian Country.
193 OVC in Indian Country.
194 For more information, see CRS Report R42672, The Crime Victims Fund: Federal Support for Victims of Crime.
195 The Rights of Indians and Tribes, p. 136.
Congressional Research Service

34

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

expanding tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian offenders to include additional offenses. The House
passed a VAWA reauthorization bill in the 117th Congress that would expand tribal jurisdiction
over certain nonmembers to include obstruction of justice, sexual violence, sex trafficking,
stalking, and assault of a law enforcement or corrections officer.196 Alternatively, Congress could
preserve current limitations on tribal jurisdiction and instead invest greater resources in federal
and state programs that address violent crime in Indian Country.
Justice System Resource Shortages and Low Federal and State Prosecution
Rates
Federal, or some state criminal justice systems, have jurisdiction over MCA offenses that occur in
Indian Country, regardless of the victim’s or offender's tribal status. Some data has been used to
argue that both states and the federal government may not be adequately resourced to meet this
responsibility. In P.L. 280 states, some argue there are often insufficient funds to address crime on
Indian lands.197
Similar underfunding concerns have been identified at the federal level. A Senate report that
accompanied TLOA stated declination statistics (i.e., cases referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office
[USAO] that they decline to prosecute) in Indian Country, “likely reflect difficulties caused by the
justice system in place”; for example, shortages in law enforcement personnel on tribal lands,
training, and equipment.198 GAO found that the USAO declined to prosecute violent crime cases
in Indian Country 52% of the time and nonviolent crime cases were declined 40% of the time.199
The two most common offenses referred to the USAO by the FBI and BIA were assault and
“sexual abuse and related matters.” The USAO declined to prosecute 46% of referred assaults
cases and 67% of sexual abuse and related matters. Further, jurisdictional confusion can result in
the loss of time and resources when a violent victimization occurs on tribal lands.200
Past efforts to address low prosecution rates in Indian Country have included efforts to increase
USAO staff. Congress may also address this issue by encouraging greater collaboration between
federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement. For example, Congress may consider programs to
expand the use of cross-deputization, which can give jurisdictional powers to tribal law
enforcement officers equivalent to that of state or federal officers and allow for mutual
enforcement of federal, tribal, or state law.201 Congress may consider creating or expanding grant
programs to encourage collaboration between tribal governments and law enforcement agencies
in cities with large Native American populations.
Communication and Notification of Tribal Governments
There is also no federal requirement to notify a tribal nation if one of its members is the victim of
a crime or killed while outside of tribal lands. This is different from how the United States

196 VAWA Reauthorization.
197 The Rights of Indians and Tribes, p. 131; U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), U.S. Department of
Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters, GAO-11-167R, December 13, 2010 (hereinafter, “Indian
Country Prosecutions”).
198 S.Rept. 111-93, p. 14.
199 Indian Country Prosecutions.
200 TLOA Report.
201 CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10561, High Court to Review Tribal Police Search and Seizure Case.; Kevin Morrow,
“Bridging the Jurisdictional Void: Cross-Deputization Agreements in Indian Country,” North Dakota Law Review, vol.
94, no. 65, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

35

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

typically handles relations with other sovereign nations; for example, the United States has
mutual legal assistance treaties with many foreign nations.202 Also, if a foreign person were to be
killed in the United States, it would not be unusual for the deceased’s nation representatives to be
notified and cooperation to be extended in providing documentation and resources to the victim’s
family.203 Congress may consider action to encourage or require notification of tribes when their
members are victims of crimes outside of Indian Country.
Competitive Grant Funding for Tribal Justice Systems
Congress currently funds several grants that address MMIP through competitive or short-term
grant programs like the CTAS. Some tribes have criticized competitive grant programs that
require tribal communities to compete against each other for finite resources and they also argue
that this may favor larger, more resourced tribes that can employ grant writers.204 Tribes have also
expressed concern about the viability of funding public safety initiatives through short-term
grants.205 Congress may wish to preserve current grant structures or may shift tribal grant funding
to different models, such as formula grants.
Tribal Law Enforcement Funding Shortages
Congress may also provide additional funding for tribal law enforcement. On average, law
enforcement agencies have 3.5 officers per 1,000 residents nationwide; in comparison, tribal
agencies have an average of 1.9 officers per 1,000 residents.206 In 2020, the BIA submitted a
report to Congress analyzing estimated needs for law enforcement in Indian Country for 2018 and
found that $1.3 billion was needed for tribal law enforcement, $240.6 million for existing
detention/corrections programs, and $1.2 billion for tribal courts.207 DOI’s FY2022 budget
request includes a proposed $38 million increase for Criminal Investigations and Police
Services.208 Of the requested increase, more than $15 million would be used to hire additional
officers to improve direct service and law enforcement programs in Indian Country.209 DOI’s
FY2022 budget request includes a $5 million increase in funding for Law Enforcement Special
Initiatives to support the MMU.210

202 For more information, see CRS Report 94-166, Extraterritorial Application of American Criminal Law.
203 UIHI Report.
204 Testimony of the Honorable Fawn Sharp, President of the National Congress of American Indians, in U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, A Call to Action: Native Communities’ Priorities in Focus for the 117th
Congress, hearings, 117th Cong., 1st sess., February 24, 2021, S.Hrg. 117-8 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021).
205 Testimony Julia Kitka, President of the Alaska Federation of Natives, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs, A Call to Action: Native Communities’ Priorities in Focus for the 117th Congress, hearings, 117th Cong.,
1st sess., February 24, 2021, S.Hrg. 117-8 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2021).
206 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, “Broken Promises: Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans,”
December 2018, p. 48, https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf. For more information on BIA
law enforcement, see CRS In Focus IF11709, Department of the Interior (DOI) Law Enforcement Programs.
207 DOI, BIA, Report to Congress on Spending, Staffing, and Estimated Funding Costs for Public Safety and Justice
Programs in Indian Country, 2018, p. 5,
https://www.bia.gov/sites/bia.gov/files/assets/bia/ojs/ojs/pdf/2018_TLOA_Report_Final.pdf.
208 BIA Budget Justification, p. IA-PSJ-1.
209 BIA Budget Justification, p. 44. Other portions of the requested funds would address shortages in police and
investigative staff arising from the McGirt v. Oklahoma decision and provide body-worn cameras to law enforcement
in Indian Country.
210 BIA Budget Justification, p. IA-PSJ-3.
Congressional Research Service

36

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

Data and Crime Reporting Gaps
Tribal communities' limited access to and participation in federal crime data collection efforts
have been cited as significant limitations to understanding and addressing MMIP. As discussed
above, the federal government has recently passed legislation to try to enhance data collection
about crime on tribal lands. DOJ has also made efforts to improve tribal access to federal crime
databases. For example, the FBI’s CJIS Division made efforts to increase tribal access to federal
crime data resources and databases beginning in 2010. In 2015, CJIS launched an outreach
program called the Tribal Engagement Program (TEP) with this same focus.211
Congress may consider further efforts to expand tribal access to federal data resources, both to
share crime data and to access data that may aid law enforcement on tribal lands. Congress might
also consider programs to expand the reporting of crimes involving Native Americans occurring
outside of tribal lands. For example, Congress may consider requiring agencies that accept federal
criminal or juvenile justice grant funding to report Native American crime victims and offenders
by nation and tribal affiliation, 212 and notify tribes when police interact with members outside
reservations. 213
Another contributing factor to data gaps is limited access to broadband internet in Indian
Country.214 The federal government has launched initiatives in the past to expand tribal internet
access. The BIA administers the National Tribal Broadband Grant program to bring Native
American communities greater high-speed internet access.215 In June 2021, the Department of
Commerce announced that nearly $1 billion would be made available to expand internet access
on tribal lands via National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
grants.216 Congress may consider continuing or changing efforts to expand internet access.
In 2018, the NCAI adopted a resolution in support of indigenous data sovereignty.217 Indigenous
data sovereignty is defined as “the right of a nation to govern the collection, ownership, and
application of its own data. It derives from tribes’ inherent right to govern their peoples, lands,
and resources.”218 Congress may consider adopting measures to support Native American
ownership or management of data collections about their members. 219 Congress may also
consider directing agencies to include Native American community representatives on advisory
boards such as the NCIC’s Advisory Policy Board. Alternatively, Congress could preserve data
collection and ownership practices as they are currently structured.

211 DOJ TEP.
212 UIHI Report, p. 22. Further considerations are how law enforcement agencies determine tribal membership and how
to collect data on Native Americans that are not members of federally recognized tribes.
213 UIHI Report, p. 22.
214 DOJ TEP.
215 DOI, BIA, “Expanding Broadband Access,” https://www.bia.gov/service/infrastructure/expanding-broadband-
access.
216 Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, “Department of
Commerce’s NTIA Announces Nearly $1 Billion in Funding to Expand Broadband on Tribal Land,” press release, June
3, 2021, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2021/department-commerce-s-ntia-announces-nearly-1-billion-
funding-expand-broadband.
217 National Congress of American Indians, Support of US Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Inclusion of Tribes in the
Development of Tribal Data, https://www.ncai.org/resources/resolutions/support-of-us-indigenous-data-sovereignty-
and-inclusion-of-tribes-in-the-development-of-tribal-data.
218 United States Indigenous Data Sovereignty Network, https://usindigenousdata.org/.
219 United States Indigenous Data Sovereignty Network, Policy Brief Indigenous Data Sovereignty in the United States,
https://usindigenousdata.org/s/policy_brief_indigenous_data_sovereignty_in_the_united_states.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

37

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

Appendix. Jurisdictional Responsibility Diagram

Source: Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: A Report to the
President and Congress of the United States, Chapter 1 – Jurisdiction: Bringing Clarity Out of Chaos, May 2015,
p. 7.
Notes: “Non-Public Law 83-280” and “Public Law 83-280 States” headings refer to whether the federal
government has transferred responsibility for major crimes to the state in which the alleged offense occurred.
For more information on Public Law 83-280, see page 19 of this report.
*Under the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-211), tribes can opt for added concurrent federal
jurisdiction, with federal consent. Neither this tribe-by-tribe issue nor the various configurations of “Optional
280” status are shown in this chart.
**Under the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization of 2013 (VAWA Amendments), after 2015 tribes
may exercise special domestic violence jurisdiction with the federal government and with states for certain
domestic violence crimes.

Congressional Research Service

38

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)

Author Information

Emily J. Hanson

Analyst in Social Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47010 · VERSION 1 · NEW
39