Here.

An excerpt:

Among the tribes that responded to our survey (109), none reported that they were exercising TLOA’s new sentencing authority, and, in open-ended responses, many tribes (86 of 90, or 96 percent) reported challenges to exercising this authority due to funding limitations. Tribes were relatively evenly split among those that reported that they have plans to exercise the new authority (36 of 101, or 36 percent); that they did not know the tribe’s plans to exercise the new authority (34 of 101, or 34 percent) because, for instance, the tribal council has not yet made a decision; and that they did not have plans to do so (31 of 101, or 31 percent). In addition, 64 percent of selected tribes (70 of 109) reported implementing at least half of the requirements necessary for exercising the new sentencing authority, but reported challenges in implementing other requirements. Specifically, these tribes most frequently reported implementing the requirement to maintain a record of the criminal proceeding, and least frequently reported providing the defendant a licensed defense attorney. For example, 8 tribes that described challenges to exercising the new sentencing authority reported challenges with the costs of implementing the requirements associated with the sentencing authority. In particular, 3 tribes reported challenges with the costs of providing a licensed judge with sufficient legal training as required under TLOA. As a result, tribal courts may be unable to impose prison sentences of over 1 year to 3 years per offense—as TLOA provides—and possibly provide a more effective deterrent to criminal activity in Indian country.
DOJ and BIA provide funding and technical assistance to tribes that can be used to help them exercise the new sentencing authority, and tribes reported that they desire additional funding and technical assistance from the federal government for this purpose. However, tribes do not always have a clear understanding about their eligibility for federal funding sources available to help them exercise the new sentencing authority. In its fiscal year 2011 solicitation for the Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance (TCCLA) grant, DOJ stated that consistent with its authorizing statute, eligibility is “limited to tribal and non-tribal non-profit (Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 501(c)(3)) entities that provide legal assistance services for federally recognized Indian tribes, members of federally recognized Indian tribes, or tribal justice systems pursuant to the federal poverty guidelines.” However, 6 of the 9 tribes or tribal entities that applied for TCCLA in fiscal year 2011 were ineligible—because they were not 501(c)(3) non-profit entities—yet DOJ did not explain to the tribes that they were ineligible for funding because they were not such entities. As a result, these tribes used resources to prepare applications explaining their intended use of the funding—which, for 4 of the 6 tribes, was to meet requirements necessary for exercising the new sentencing authority—when they were not eligible for the funding. DOJ officials agreed that they could update the letter used to inform applicants that they were not selected for funding to make it clearer that only 501(c)(3) nonprofit entities are eligible. Further, internal control standards state that agency management should ensure that there are adequate means of communicating with external stakeholders that may have a significant impact on the agency achieving its goals. By taking actions to better clarify that applicants must be 501(c)(3) non-profit entities to be eligible for TCCLA, both during the application process and when applicants are notified of their ineligibility, DOJ could better ensure that the tribes and DOJ will not use resources to prepare, review, and deny applications for grants for which tribes or certain tribal entities are not eligible. Moreover, tribes would also be better positioned to make informed decisions about the available funds to pursue.