Native Missing Persons Cases Will Not be Solved by Police Alone: The Case for “Missing Persons Advocates”

Abstract

This study explored the potential role of victim advocacy in Native American missing person cases. Interviews with 25 tribal and non-tribal victim/social service providers were conducted to assess their perspectives on the factors which make Native Americans vulnerable to going missing, the barriers and challenges regarding reporting and investigating missing persons, as well as how victim/social service providers might better support the families of missing persons. Findings suggest that advocates perceive that responding to and offering services for Native families who experience a missing loved one will be extremely difficult because of the intersection of isolation, poverty, and jurisdictional complexities among tribal lands, combined with social service providers and law enforcement officers’ lack of resources and training regarding cultural sensitivity. At the same time, advocates suggest that additional training and resources could help overcome many of these barriers and see a role for victim service providers in responding to missing and murdered Native American persons. Implications and suggestions for practice are discussed.

Keywords

victim advocacy missing persons native Americans MMIP

Introduction

The problem of missing or murdered Indigenous persons (MMIP)¹ has gained significant attention in the United States in recent years. In response to calls for justice from tribes and grassroots activists, the federal government responded to this long-standing issue by creating Operation Lady Justice² in 2019 (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.), and many states followed suit through legislative efforts that created task forces and/or engaged in efforts to identify the scope of MMIP (National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center, 2020). Research has found that Native persons are at a disproportionate risk of going missing and that there are unique challenges in reporting and investigating Native missing person cases (Fillmore et al., 2021; Richards et al., 2021a); however, work identifying potential risk factors for missingness, as well as prevention and intervention efforts are still needed. In discussing missing or murdered persons, it is important to define missingness, thus for the purposes of this work, when we discuss missing persons, we are referring to people who are not where they are expected to be and whose well-being cannot be confirmed (see similar definition from International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children, 2023, pp. 2–3).

One avenue for intervention and support regarding missingness among Native Americans that has not been examined is victim/social service agencies. These agencies are in a unique position in that they provide services to victims of crime and/or the loved ones of victims, including helping victims and families navigate the criminal justice system. However, at present, it is unclear as to whether victim/social service agencies support families of missing persons, including missing Native persons. In this regard, the purpose of this study is to explore the perspective of victim/social service agencies regarding the vulnerability of going missing among Native Americans, challenges to reporting and investigating missing persons, and avenues for supporting the loved ones of missing persons.

To address the knowledge gap regarding victim advocacy for missing Native persons and their loved ones, we first discuss the context of missing Native persons, including the scope of the problem and the unique challenges surrounding this population. Next, we describe some of the challenges and barriers to reporting and investigating missing persons, followed by the role of victim service providers and how they could aid in providing services to victims, including loved ones of missing persons. We then present our qualitative findings from interviews with 25 tribal and non-tribal victim/social service agencies in Nebraska. To conclude, we discuss the implications of our findings, outline the study’s limitations, and provide recommendations for future research.

Missing Native American Persons

Recent legislation across several states has mandated research on the scope and context of missing Native American persons in the United States (e.g., Arizona, Idaho, Nebraska, Washington State, National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center, 2020), and findings suggest that Native persons are missing at disproportionate rates. For example, Richards et al. (2021a) conducted four point-in-time counts of missing persons in Nebraska who were reported to the state (Nebraska Missing Persons List) and/or national missing persons databases (National Missing and Unidentiﬁed Persons System [NamUs] or National Center for Missing and Exploited Children [NCMEC]) in 2020 and found that Native American Nebraskans were missing at about 3 to 4.5 times their representation in the state’s population. Using similar methods, Fillmore et al. (2021) identified that Native persons were also disproportionately missing from Idaho—by as much as 2.1 times their proportion of the state’s population.

Prior studies also suggest that 50% (Fillmore et al., 2021) or more (Richards et al., 2021a) of Native missing persons are juveniles. Furthermore, studies across different states vary regarding whether the majority of Native missing persons are male (Arizona: Fox et al., 2020; New Mexico Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives Task Force, 2020; Nebraska: Richards et al., 2021a) or female (Washington: Alexander, 2019; Idaho: Fillmore et al., 2021). Finally, research on children missing from out-of-home care suggests that Native American children are disproportionately missing from care compared to children of other races/ethnicities (Nystrom et al., 2022).

Regarding the context of Native missing persons, community listening sessions in tribal communities have noted that Native community members perceive missingness as linked to systemic issues such as poverty, isolation, untreated mental health issues or substance abuse, domestic violence, and lack of opportunity for youth in isolated rural communities (see Richards et al., 2021a). Indeed, hundreds of years of colonization, or “the elimination and destruction of another society, including their values, beliefs, norms, cultures, and traditions by outsiders” (Weaver, 2009, p. 1552), has produced deeply entrenched disparities in Native communities that likely contribute to an environment that increases the likelihood of going missing. For example, the long-term effects of colonization (e.g., historical trauma, historical oppression) (Deer, 2015; Struthers & Lowe, 2003), as well as byproducts of colonization, such as economic (e.g., poverty, high unemployment rates), psychological (e.g., suicide, depression), social (e.g., child abuse, domestic violence), and structural (e.g., marginalization, racism, discrimination) disparities, can place Natives at an increased risk of going missing (Brown-Rice, 2013; Struthers & Lowe, 2003). Relatedly, Native Americans experience high rates of violence and victimization (Richards, Schwartz, & Wright, 2021; Rosay, 2016), and Native children are disproportionately involved in the child welfare system (Ganasarajah et al., 2017). Taken together, Native Americans are likely disproportionately represented among reported missing persons due to high rates of exposure to social and structural disparities and/or environments that make going missing more likely. Furthermore, Native Americans are also disproportionately impacted by the barriers and challenges in reporting and investigating missing person cases (Richards et al., 2021a, 2021b).

Barriers and Challenges for Missing Person Cases

Missing person cases are complex for those reporting a missing person and the law enforcement officers attempting to locate them. First, community members report uncertainty regarding when to file a missing person report. For instance, there is a common misconception that there is a waiting period (e.g., 24 hours) before a person can be reported as missing to law enforcement (see Richards et al., 2021a). This myth has been refuted by government sources urging people to file a missing person’s report immediately (e.g., U.S. Department of Justice, 2022), and federal law (Crime Control Act of 1990) explicitly prohibits law enforcement from applying a waiting period for missing children. While many states’ laws (e.g., California Penal Code § 14205, 2013, Kansas Statute § 75-712c, 2021; see Chakraborty, 2019) prohibit waiting periods for reporting anyone as a missing person (i.e., adults and children), in states where waiting periods are not explicitly prohibited by law, individual police departments or individual officers may encourage people to wait to file a report, thus perpetuating this “waiting period” myth. Regarding Native community members specifically, listening sessions in tribal communities have demonstrated hesitancy by Native persons in reporting a friend or loved one as missing, especially if that person is or has been involved in the “system” (e.g., criminal justice, youth justice, or child welfare system), out of fear of further entrenching their loved one in the system and inadvertently “making matters worse” (Richards et al., 2021a). Indeed, Native people have experienced and continue to experience significant harm at the hands of governmental systems, and thus, Indigenous individuals might rightly distrust system actors such as law enforcement (Fiolet et al., 2019).

Furthermore, it is perceived that law enforcement officers may turn community members away when reporting a person as missing if the officer does not feel that the person has been missing for a sufficient amount of time or if the person has been involved in problem behavior (e.g., drug or alcohol abuse, criminality) (Richards et al., 2021a).³ In addition, missing person policies are not universal across law enforcement departments. Among departments with a missing person policy, policies vary substantially regarding the information on when to take a report and what must be included in reports (Richards et al., 2021a). Taken together, there can be wide variation in the experiences of community members when attempting to make missing person reports, and Native community members (and perhaps members of other communities of color) experience unique barriers given historical distrust of law enforcement and other system actors (e.g., child welfare) (see Crossland et al., 2013).

Second, investigating missing person cases is complex and fraught with “moral ambiguities” for law enforcement officers (Innes, 2002, p. 73). To begin, when a missing person report is received, an investigator must determine whether the person is missing because of a crime (e.g., a kidnapping, assault, human trafficking) or a non-criminal but potentially dangerous situation (e.g., an accident, an illness such as dementia), or whether their absence is voluntary (e.g., a young adult striking out on their own) (Fyfe et al., 2015; James et al., 2008). If the missing person is an adult and not determined to be “vulnerable,” there are additional complications regarding investigations, as adults have the right to go missing (see Chakraborty, 2019). For instance, sometimes, a person may have left voluntarily to escape life circumstances, such as leaving an abusive partner. As such, law enforcement investigators must balance the rights of the missing person while also attempting to establish their safety and treat families with compassion (Bayliss & Quinton, 2013). In totality, investigating missing person cases is a fluid process influenced by many unpredictable individual case characteristics, many of which are unknown by those reporting a person as missing when they make a report (Fyfe et al., 2015; Innes, 2002).

In addition, the unique position of Native American tribes as both sovereign nations and interdependent on the United States creates jurisdictional complexities in responding to crimes in Indian country,⁴ including reports of missing persons. Specifically, a series of federal laws have reduced tribal sovereignty and thus decreased tribes’ authority to prosecute and/or punish crimes against Native victims (for a discussion, see Gilbert et al., 2021; Richards et al., 2021a). When an act of violence occurs in Indian country, tribal, state, federal, or local law enforcement agencies may respond. The decision regarding which agency has jurisdictional authority depends on the crime committed, whether the offender and/or the victim are Native, and whether the crime was committed exclusively in Indian country (see Castillo, 2015). Such jurisdictional confusion may result in a delayed or inadequate response to victims and confusion—for both law enforcement and victims—regarding which agency is responsible for the ongoing investigation and resolution of a case.

These jurisdictional complications produce unique barriers for Native persons when they attempt to seek assistance from a criminal justice authority in or near Indian country, including reporting a missing person. As noted above, victims and their families may be hesitant to trust outside authority (Crossland et al., 2013). Law enforcement agencies in much of Indian country also suffer from insufficient funding, inadequate training, and high turnover (Bachman et al., 2008). Taken together, it is likely that Native community members would benefit from additional support when reporting missing persons, throughout related investigations, and after missing person cases are resolved. Such support could be provided through victim advocates.

Victim Service Providers and Missing Person Cases

Victim service providers, commonly known as “victim advocates,” provide a range of supports to victims of crime, both short-term (e.g., offering information, helping locate resources, assisting with paperwork) and longer-term (e.g., supporting victims through the court process) (Takahashi & James, 2018). Victim advocates consist of paid employees and volunteers and exist in multiple domains. For example, system-based victim advocates can work within police departments, prosecutors’ offices, or correctional departments (Takahashi & James, 2018), while community-based victim advocates work in nonprofit organizations (e.g., domestic violence shelters) that are not affiliated with criminal justice system agencies. In addition, services are provided at “no cost” to victims. However, even with the free services for victims, many programs were designed for White heterosexual victims (Kulkarni et al., 2023) and thus may not meet the needs of victims across different racial/ethnic backgrounds, genders, and/or sexual orientations (see Gillespie et al., 2021).

Despite their aid-driven missions and potential to help, research suggests that as few as 9% of victims of violent crime access these types of services (Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS], 2022), indicating that many victims go without services or are significantly underserved. This can be due to actual or perceived barriers regarding victim service agencies, such as affordability, availability, accessibility, and acceptability of services (Logan et al., 2004). While limited research examines barriers for Native victims specifically, concerns voiced by rural victims likely provide insight into some of the experiences of Natives. For example, rural victims report limited services, difficulty obtaining appointments, lack of qualified providers, and little access to confidential services among victim agencies (Logan et al., 2004). In addition, rural service providers indicate having fewer training opportunities, fewer resources, and a larger geographic catchment area, making it harder to meet the needs of victims (Gillespie et al., 2021; Yun et al., 2009). Rural providers also have concerns about their ability to provide culturally centered services, including hiring appropriate providers to serve specific communities, such as Native American communities (Gillespie et al., 2021). Accessing services that are not culturally centered and/or services not available in a victim’s native language can serve as barriers for Native victims (Bryant-Davis et al., 2009; Wahab & Olson, 2004). In addition, when Native victims seek services outside of Indian country, they can experience racism or substandard care (Bubar, 2009; Finfgeld-Connett, 2015).

To date, there is little information regarding whether and/or how victim advocates are used in missing person cases; however, many of the services provided to other types of victims—or witnesses—of crimes may benefit the loved ones of missing persons. For example, victim advocates routinely assist victims in reporting crimes, accompany victims during law enforcement interviews, and serve as a liaison between law enforcement and victims during ongoing investigations. Furthermore, victim advocates serve as a “point person” for victims of crime regarding what to expect from the criminal justice system and system actors. Finally, for Native missing person cases, culturally centered victim advocates might be helpful given the jurisdictional complications of Indian country and the increased vulnerabilities and unique culturally centered service needs of Native communities.

Of course, missing person cases are different from most other types of victimizations/crimes for which victim advocates might help. For example, in missing person cases, the actual victim is not the one seeking out help as they have gone missing. However, like in cases of homicide, in missing person cases, loved ones of missing persons would be considered vicarious victims. Therefore, the role of advocates for victims of crime discussed above would be beneficial for the loved ones of missing persons as they file the missing person’s report and attempt to navigate the criminal justice system.

The Present Study

Emerging research has identified the problem of missingness among Native American persons and suggested that there are increased barriers for Native persons in reporting their loved ones as missing and/or in the law enforcement response to these reports (Fillmore et al., 2021; Richards et al., 2021a). In addition, prior studies have established the value of victim advocacy in supporting victims of crime and their loved ones through criminal justice processes (Takahashi & James, 2018) while noting challenges to service access for Native victims (Gillespie et al., 2021).

The present exploratory study bridges these literatures by examining the potential role of victim advocacy in missing person cases, particularly those involving Native Americans. Interviews with tribal and non-tribal victim/social service providers were conducted to assess their perspectives on (a) what makes Native Americans vulnerable to going missing, (b) the barriers and challenges regarding reporting missing persons, (c) the barriers and challenges regarding investigating missing persons, and (d) how victim/social service providers might support the loved ones/families of missing persons. Findings are discussed in the context of how “missing person advocates” might better support the loved ones of missing Native persons—as well as other marginalized victims of color—as they seek help in finding their loved ones and addressing underlying disparities that make them more vulnerable to going missing.

Methodology

Procedure and Sample

The present data were collected as part of a larger study on missing Native Americans in Nebraska, which was mandated by Legislative Bill 154 (2019). This project addressed three aims, to understand (a) the scope of missing Native American persons in Nebraska, (b) the barriers and challenges in reporting and investigating missing person cases involving Native persons, and (c) the identification of new partnerships for prevention and intervention. The data used here were collected in service to this third aim.

We conducted an internet search of victim/social service agencies and allied professionals in Nebraska, resulting in a list of 51 relevant entities. We first emailed an invitation to participate to all identified victim advocates and allied professionals. Among providers who agreed to participate, snowball sampling was used to identify potential victim advocates not on the initial list to ensure that participation was solicited from a comprehensive list of victim advocates and allied professionals in the state; one additional victim service provider was identified through snowball sampling. Recruitment of participants continued until providers stopped responding to weekly emails, resulting in a total of 25 victim advocates and allied professionals who agreed to participate.⁵ Of those 25 agencies, 6 were tribal, and 19 were non-tribal. Furthermore, seven respondents identified as Native American while 18 were non-Native American; most interview respondents were female; however, two respondents were male. See Table 1 for a list of interview participants and their roles: pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of interview participants. Pseudonyms were created by randomly choosing male or female names from a list of popular baby names.

Table 1.

List of Interview Participants and Roles.

Name	Role	Tribal Affiliate (Y/N)
Ember	Victim Service Program Support	N
Harbor	Direct Victim Service Provider	N
Mae	Direct Victim Service Provider	N
Jett	Victim Service Program Support	N
Lily	Direct Victim Service Provider	N
Rowan	Direct Victim Service Provider	N
Jenn	Direct Victim Service Provider	N
Lucy	Direct Victim Service Provider	N
Kelsey	Direct Victim Service Provider	Y
Madeline	Victim Service Program Support	N
Kennedy	Direct Victim Service Provider	N
Sam	Direct Victim Service Provider	Y
Beverly	Victim Service Program Support	N
Shelby	Direct Victim Service Provider	Y
Isabel	Victim Service Program Support	N
Melinda	Victim Service Program Support	N
Linda	Victim Service Program Support	N
Jasmine	Direct Victim Service Provider	N
Gaylene	Direct Victim Service Provider	Y
Tereasa	Direct Victim Service Provider	N
Jean	Direct Victim Service Provider	N
Heather	Direct Victim Service Provider	N
Susan	Victim Service Program Support	N
Jane	Victim Service Program Support	N
Anna	Victim Service Program Support	Y
Danielle	Victim Service Program Support	Y
Katherine	Victim Service Program Support	N
Regina	Direct Victim Service Provider	Y

Note. Twenty-five agencies were interviewed for this project, but some agencies had multiple persons during the interview, resulting in 28 individuals participating in the interviews. To protect the identity of interviewees, pseudonyms were created for participants.

The research team completed semi-structured interviews from January to March 2021.⁶ The interview protocol asked about respondents’ professional experiences relating to missing person cases generally and those involving missing Native American persons, including barriers to reporting, investigating, and providing services for the victims and their families. Furthermore, respondents were asked to identify potential solutions for victim service providers and other related social service and criminal justice system personnel. Before beginning the interviews, respondents were asked about their familiarity with LB-154. For those unfamiliar with LB-154, background information was explicitly provided about missing Native persons in Nebraska. Lastly, not all respondents had experience or were familiar with serving Native crime victims but were asked to provide responses based on their perceptions about this population.

All interviews were conducted via Zoom ranging from 20 minutes to 1 hour. For confidentiality purposes,⁷ interviews were not recorded; instead, one interviewer took detailed written notes and hand-recorded notable quotes during the interviews, while the second interviewer asked questions and spoke with each respondent. Quotes were collected using shorthand strategies in the moment, which were filled in immediately post-interview. Furthermore, both researchers met after each interview to discuss major themes and ensure agreement in data collection. An interview protocol was used so that each interview consisted of the same questions, and interviewers followed the protocol but could solicit additional information as needed. Most interviews involved a single respondent, but two included more than one victim service provider from the same agency (i.e., multiple respondents).

Analytic Plan

Qualitative data analysis was conducted using ATLAS.ti (version 19) due to its ability to optimize intercoder reliability, quantify patterns and trends, and organize quotations. The coding of interviews did not begin until all interviews were completed. Qualitative analysis was conducted using several stages of coding. First, the research team completed several preliminary read-throughs of the interviews. For open coding, three interviews were randomly selected to develop a preliminary list of patterns and trends. Next, a refined coding frame was created to reflect the overall themes and definitions we identified from the preliminary coding. We then employed additional stages of open coding to refine our themes (Emerson et al., 2011). Lastly, this coding frame was refined to assess conceptual variability and troubleshoot shortcomings of the coding frame before the final analysis.

The finalized coding frame was applied to all interviews. Each interview underwent double-blind coding by two reviewers. Cohen’s kappa was used to determine intercoder reliability (McHugh, 2012). In the first round of analysis, five interviews did not meet an acceptable level of agreement (i.e., below .61). We used consensus-based coding to resolve differences in these interviews. In the final analysis, all interviews had intercoder reliability of substantial (.61–.80) to almost perfect agreement (.81–1.00).

Results

Interviews with victim/social service providers were conducted to understand their perceptions of (a) what makes Native Americans vulnerable to going missing, (b) challenges with reporting missing persons, (c) challenges with investigations of missing persons, and (d) ways in which service providers may support the loved ones/families of missing persons. A summary of the themes that were identified is presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Summary of Themes.

	N*	%
What Makes Native Americans Vulnerable to Going Missing
Poverty	17	68
Lack of resources	15	60
Isolation/rurality	12	48
Larger systemic issues (e.g., racism, historical trauma, indifference, no voice)	21	84
Reporting missing persons
Lack of communication	12	48
Law enforcement stereotyping	13	52
Revictimization	9	36
Lack of education or training	12	48
Kinship/confidentiality issues	6	24
Investigation missing persons
Lack of collaboration	10	40
Jurisdiction	18	72
Lack of resources	8	32
Lack of trust	3	12
Training needs	11	44
Potential solutions to increase reporting and investigating missing persons
Resources	10	40
Training	16	64
Awareness/education	10	40

N = the number of interviewees that mentioned the theme/sub-theme.

What Makes Native Americans Vulnerable to Going Missing

Respondents noted several factors they perceive to create a context in which Native Americans may be more vulnerable to going missing: poverty, lack of resources, and isolation/rurality. In addition, respondents also mentioned other larger issues such as historical trauma/oppression, indifference from the larger society, and continued impacts of colonization.

First, 68% of respondents felt that poverty on Indian reservations was the main contributor to this population’s vulnerability to violence and victimization—specifically, missingness. For example, Jean said, “high poverty, low education, etc., all makes it even more of an issue. In a way, it is a perfect storm to create the most vulnerable persons and least resources possible.” Similarly, 60% of respondents felt that lack of resources was a primary contributing factor to Native American persons’ vulnerability to missingness. Respondents noted that Native Americans living on reservations often do not have access to transportation, internet, domestic violence services/shelters, healthcare, education, and housing resources.

With the lack of resources, 48% of respondents also noted that the isolated nature of Indian reservations (i.e., rurality) supports an environment where Native persons go missing. Respondents provided specific examples regarding how rurality might serve as a contributor. For example, Kelsey and Anna both mentioned that law enforcement might be unable to adequately respond to violence and victimization on Indian reservations due to the distance from their agency to the reservation and/or a lack of personnel in the agency. At the same time, Ember noted that Native American victims of crime (e.g., domestic violence) might have trouble accessing victim services off the reservation due to a lack of transportation. Taken together, respondents perceived that the isolated nature of Native American communities was linked to an increased likelihood of missingness through intervening factors such as poverty and access to resources.

In addition, over 80% of respondents were aware of and acknowledged the historical trauma/oppression that Native Americans experienced and still experience today. For example, Kelsey, Shelby, and Anna noted that violence, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse resulted from historical trauma and oppression. At the same time, Lucy felt that there is “so much focus on assimilating Native American people into White culture that they aren’t noticed.” Over 50% of respondents felt like the larger society was indifferent toward Native American people. For example, they perceived a lack of care and knowledge about Native American people and/or issues from others (i.e., non-Native Americans). Specifically, Shelby stated that Native Americans are viewed as “out of sight, out of mind,” and Melinda stated that Native Americans were “invisible” in mainstream society and went unnoticed by others. Respondents brought up issues of othering—the process of assigning negative stigmatization to a group of people—Native Americans by society (see Tuck & Wayne Yang, 2021), the lack of representation in media and legislation, and the belief that issues involving Native Americans are not taken seriously. In addition, five respondents (20%) specifically mentioned that colonization might be to blame for some of the problems on Indian reservations, thus making Native Americans vulnerable. Overall, the issues of the larger society ignoring and othering Natives, along with the impact of colonization, make them vulnerable to going missing by being denied the attention and resources necessary to protect their people.

Challenges in Reporting Missing Persons

Participants were asked if they could identify any barriers to reporting a missing person to law enforcement in general and for missing Native Americans specifically. Based on their responses, several themes were identified: communication, jurisdictional complications, stereotypes, revictimization, and kinship issues (i.e., living in a tight-knit community). First, 48% of respondents expressed concern about the lack of communication between the different law enforcement agencies (i.e., tribal, local, state, and federal agencies). For example, Linda stated, “. . . if you are on a reservation and something happens, a lot of times I think information isn’t shared [between local and tribal law enforcement].” Respondents also identified that lack of communication between systems creates issues for victim service providers trying to assist those who report a missing loved one.

Relatedly, victim service providers expressed confusion about which law enforcement agency they should report to in cases of missing Native American persons. Respondents were aware of the jurisdictional complications but did not completely understand them and how they would impact being able to serve a Native American victim. For example, Melinda stated, “If you have a missing Native woman, do you call tribal police? The F.B.I.?” and “If you think a Native woman is missing, and she has ties to tribal lands. . . what do you do?” Service providers reported that there was also a misconception that you must wait to report a missing person. This misunderstanding delays the reporting of a missing person. Lastly, 32% of providers mentioned not knowing what the NamUs⁸ is and how it could be used as a resource for families to report someone missing without directly reporting to law enforcement.

Respondents also specifically expressed concern about the issue of law enforcement stereotyping of Native Americans. For example, Melinda, Linda, and Sam all stated that a stereotype exists for Native Americans who might have a history of alcohol abuse among law enforcement. Specifically, Linda said that they had heard from clients—“Oh, it’s the Indians, they’re drunk or whatever”—instead of taking a report of a missing Native person seriously. According to respondents, the belief in these stereotypes regarding Native Americans specifically prevents Native persons from reporting because they feel like they will not be taken seriously.

Similarly, 36% of respondents mentioned that victims do not want to report to law enforcement for fear of being re-victimized. For example, Jean stated, “Police just lack the general training or knowledge for how to treat people, so they often re-victimize people in need of serious help.” Victim service providers stated that they felt like the presence of law enforcement was traumatizing for victims and that if they [victims] were to report anything to law enforcement, it could make their situation worse. Specifically, Susan said, “The barriers that keep people from reporting their abuse . . . fear of making things worse or fear of their abuser. If anyone inquiries about them or reports them . . . that they would be in trouble for that . . .” Furthermore, some respondents mentioned that victims might distrust law enforcement, either due to past personal experiences and/or from others’ experiences (e.g., family, close friends). Lastly, Jane mentioned that law enforcement might not believe some reports. She said she has “seen extreme cases not be believed because it ‘seems too extreme to have happened.’”

Finally, the issue of kinship was identified among 24% of providers as a reporting barrier among Native American missing person cases. For example, those living in a small community might not report because they fear that their abuser or the person who might be responsible for someone going missing could be working for law enforcement or that someone in law enforcement may be close with or related to the abuser, which would compromise the victim’s confidentiality. For example, Tereasa noted, “. . .we will have survivors [from reservation communities], and their abusive partners will flee back to the reservations, and then the people there protect that person so they can’t be arrested or prosecuted.” These themes suggest that Native community members may not report missing person cases because they do not know whom to report to and/or do not trust law enforcement officers.

Challenges in Investigating Missing Persons

Respondents were asked to identify any challenges for investigating missing persons in general and for investigating missing Native American persons. In addition to reporting barriers discussed above, respondents identified key themes for potential challenges in investigating missing persons, including the lack of collaboration, resources, trust, and training among law enforcement and/or victim/social service providers. First, 40% of respondents identified a need for collaboration between law enforcement, victim service providers, reporting parties (e.g., loved ones of missing persons), and other parts of the criminal justice system. Often, this appeared as providers recounted families not satisfied by law enforcement investigations—especially the lack of follow-up with the family or person who reported a missing person’s case. For instance, Regina stated there was a “lack of support for families who are looking for the person or answers. Lack of follow-through from law enforcement and government agencies.”

One reason that collaboration is lacking in missing person investigation is, as noted above, jurisdictional complexities. Specifically, jurisdictional complexities can make determining which agency is responsible for investigating a missing person case challenging. Approximately 70% of respondents mentioned this as a barrier to investigating missing Native person cases. In addition, the lack of communication between different policing agencies were seen by respondents as a substantial barrier to policing/investigating missing person cases. For example, suppose a person were to report their loved one as missing to their local law enforcement department but went missing from tribal lands. In that case, the local police might not inform the tribal police department that a person is missing from their jurisdiction. Respondents perceived that due to the small nature of many law enforcement departments adjacent to reservations and the capacity issues in many tribal police departments (i.e., few personnel and a large geographic catchment area), the lack of communication between departments means that cases fall through the cracks.

A general lack of resources among law enforcement and victim service agencies for investigating missing persons was also identified by 32% of respondents. Respondents felt this was especially true for tribal police departments and other small, rural police departments that typically surround tribal lands in Nebraska. For example, Anna felt that the relatively few number of officers policing large tribal communities meant that small agencies did not have the resources or personnel to conduct proper investigations. In addition, Heather stated that “the tribal system, criminal justice system, and social system are strained and don’t work together very well.” Similarly, Tereasa stated, “It seems to me like there’s a lack of resources for victim services and policing and investigations. So, my feeling is when things happen on tribal lands, there aren’t resources to help find missing persons or investigate cases.”

In addition, a lack of trust was identified as a key theme for barriers regarding investigations (reported by 12%). Respondents were readily able to tell stories of times when they or a client called law enforcement to report a crime or ask for assistance, only to have no one respond to their call (Linda, Victim Service Program Support) or to have the responding officer seem not to believe them (Jane, Victim Service Program Support). Furthermore, Tereasa spoke of victims, specifically Native American victims, who refused to work with law enforcement due to experiences with racism from officers. She said:

I will say, though, that we’ve had several clients that have told us they will not work with law enforcement because of racism, and they were all Native American survivors. And, of course, if you talk to law enforcement, they deny any racial inequity.

Finally, (lack of) training was a barrier to investigating missing person cases by 44% of respondents. Specifically, providers felt that law enforcement officers are not adequately trained to handle missing person cases. They felt this lack of training was especially problematic when coupled with officers’ seeming not to know or care about the nuances of Native culture. The idea that law enforcement is strained by all the tasks they are “supposed” to do appeared in conjunction with discussions about law enforcement seemingly not caring about Native persons specifically. Providers acknowledged that law enforcement, just like every part of the system, is being asked to do a myriad of tasks for which they are not well equipped, but also noted that law enforcement’s lack of understanding of Native cultures made investigating missing person cases—or any victimization—more complicated. This may be due to their beliefs of the stereotypes regarding Native culture, thus ignoring cultural nuances and/or denying the reality of a Native person going missing. In addition, the themes mentioned above (e.g., stereotypes regarding Native Americans, kinship issues, and lack of trust in law enforcement) may impede law enforcement investigations because victims may not want to cooperate.

Potential Solutions to Increase Reporting and Investigating Missing Native Persons

Respondents were asked about any victim service protocols that could be enacted to better support loved ones of missing persons and/or law enforcement protocols that could be enacted to better respond to, investigate and/or resolve missing person cases. Overall, victim service providers reported that limited partnerships and policy efforts existed for providing services to missing persons and their loved ones. Lily stated, “I feel like we are failing them [Native American persons],” which implies that more work and partnerships need to be done to respond to the issue of missing (or murdered) Native American persons in Nebraska. Respondents drew from their expertise and offered several potential solutions to reduce the identified barriers. Several key themes were identified that both victim service providers and law enforcement would benefit from: more resources, training, collaboration, and awareness/education.

First, 40% of respondents cited the need for greater resources to serve missing persons and their loved ones, especially additional financial resources. In this regard, funding issues were identified as a direct barrier to providing services. For example, Kelsey indicated that their agency was limited by the grant that funded their services as it only funded services for victims of domestic violence. In addition, Melinda identified that victim services were not equipped to provide services to men. She stated, “we will serve a male, but our services aren’t designed to do that.” Similarly, when asked about serving loved ones of missing persons, Shelby stated that due to funding, “all assistance has to go through the victim, but the victim can provide resources from the program to loved ones.” Thus, the families/loved ones of missing persons were not themselves presently viewed as victims in the eyes of policymakers and funders.

Respondents also noted that more resources would enable providers to support more inclusive and culturally centered services. For example, one respondent described the need to increase the number of domestic violence shelters that exclusively serve Native American clients, including unique services such as sweat lodges, used for spiritual and physical healing within Native American culture (see Finfgeld-Connett, 2015). Respondents understood that providing services to intervene on issues that increase one’s likelihood of going missing (e.g., domestic violence) was a critical avenue to ultimately reducing the problem of going missing among this population.

Second, respondents noted training as a barrier to providing services to the loved ones of missing persons, specifically Native Americans. Most (64%) respondents felt they lacked training regarding missing persons, runaway persons, and trafficked individuals. Almost 25% of respondents noted they felt unaware of the scope of issues that Native American people face and felt that if they had more education and training about these issues, they would be able to offer a better quality of services and be better equipped to help Native American victims. In addition, many respondents (64%) felt that law enforcement was unaware of the dynamics that might cause someone to go missing and the dynamics of trafficked victims, which would subsequently impact investigations. Taken together, providers noted that having an advocate specializing in missing person cases trained to understand the dynamics regarding risks for missingness would support better collaboration between the loved ones of a missing person and system actors such as law enforcement. A collaborated system (i.e., law enforcement and victim services) for missing person cases would likely streamline the reporting and investigation process and provide much-needed clarity for victims/victims’ families.

Finally, respondents felt that awareness regarding missing Native persons was generally lacking and that bringing Native communities together with system actors to address the issue and raise awareness outside of Native communities would help address the problem of missing Natives. For example, Danielle stated, “We’ve done walks, memorial walks for missing persons. Build awareness. It’s good for people to know that ‘this’ is going on. It’s good for the family. Assist people any way you can.” Some providers felt that Native communities were being burdened with the task of creating awareness and solving the problems of missing Native Americans with no help from those outside the community, despite some of the issues being created by outside forces. Gaylene, Ember, and Danielle mentioned that the pandemic had worsened the issue of missing Native American persons. Danielle said, “...[we] probably have not heard about all that has happened on reservations due to the pandemic.” Lastly, Jean mentioned that “putting a human face or story to this issue might have a huge impact.”

Discussion and Conclusion

The present exploratory study examined the potential role of victim advocacy in missing person cases, particularly missing person cases involving Native Americans. Our interviews with tribal and non-tribal victim/social service providers shed light on perceived reasons why Native Americans are vulnerable to “going missing,” the barriers and challenges regarding reporting and investigating missing persons, as well as how victim/social service providers might support the loved ones and families of missing persons. Several broad themes were identified, but the most salient influences appear to be the intersection of isolation and poverty in tribal communities and jurisdictional complexities regarding reporting and investigating missing person cases; when these are added to social service providers and law enforcement officers’ lack of resources and training regarding cultural competency, responding to and offering support services for Native families who experience a missing loved one is made more difficult. We discuss our main findings below.

First, our findings suggest that victim advocates understand that many interrelated issues (e.g., poverty, lack of resources, isolation, historical trauma, indifference from mainstream society, colonization) create a context in which Native Americans may be more vulnerable to going missing. For example, when it is perceived that a problem (such as going missing) is not a “mainstream” problem, it is not taken as seriously by the public or, relatedly, by employees serving the greater public. In addition, because Native communities are often located in rural or isolated areas, the issues faced by those who live there are seen as “their” problems only, thus placing a burden on Native communities to solve these problems alone. In addition, given that historically, violence against Native Americans has been minimized through colonization, the violence they experience today may not be taken as seriously as violence experienced by other groups.

However, vulnerability to missingness is only part of the problem. It is perceived that Native Americans may be hesitant to report a missing person because they fear backlash or unintended consequences of engaging with law enforcement. For instance, due to the characteristically tight-knit nature of many Native communities, members may be hesitant to report a situation where the perpetrator is known to the police and/or tribal leaders. While law enforcement officers regularly stated during interviews that anyone could report a person who is suspected to be missing at any time (Richards et al., 2021), our discussions here with social service providers suggested that some Native Americans may be reluctant to go to law enforcement because they do not trust them, or they do not want to get “the system” involved in tribal matters. Communication and, again, jurisdictional complexities can also complicate the response of law enforcement and/or social service providers when a person is reported missing.

Furthermore, the lack of communication and jurisdictional complexities might be exacerbated, given that many social service providers (including law enforcement) who serve tribal communities often lack resources and personnel. Certainly, our participants thought this might be the case and could explain some of the barriers these providers face when investigating missing person cases, especially those involving Native Americans. They suggested that more resources, in general, are needed to ensure comprehensive responses by law enforcement and social service providers. They also mentioned that more resources are needed for training on cultural sensitivity in responding to missing Native cases.

In sum, the issues faced by victims accessing or receiving victim services, the barriers victim service providers face in serving victims, and the unique problems faced by those living in Native communities may create further complexities when it comes to reporting and providing services in cases of missing persons. Nevertheless, victim service providers must be able to assist missing persons or loved ones of those who have gone missing, especially when it involves a marginalized and vulnerable population, such as Native Americans, where any intervention can help find and return them safely to their community.

Victim service providers identified a primary barrier to providing such assistance: current policies and funding limitations, which limit who is considered a victim and thus eligible for their programming. In other words, the scope of work and the population that victim advocates can serve—given their funding mechanisms (i.e., grants)—do not often include the loved ones of missing persons. This omission can and should be addressed by funders. For example, the 2022 National Institute of Justice Research and Evaluation on Violence Against Women solicitation specifically included research on missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls within its scope. As such, solicitations from the Office on Violence Against Women and the Office on Victims of Crime that provide programmatic funds (i.e., funds to support the creation or expansion of victim services) could include developing/supporting missing person advocacy as a priority area. In addition, the National Institute of Justice solicitation focusing on tribal–researcher partnerships could support the development of a pilot study on victim advocacy regarding MMIP.

Although the current study provides insight into the role of victim advocacy in missing person cases, especially Native American persons, there are limitations. First, the study had a small sample size limited to a single state, thereby limiting the generalizability of the research. That said, we intended to explore the role of victim advocacy for a specific and under-researched demographic—Native American persons—in Nebraska. To further this research, we recommend additional interviews with victim advocates who vary by geographic location and the communities they serve. Finally, our sample was primarily comprised of women-identifying advocates; however, victim advocacy is generally female-dominated.

Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic posed unique challenges to the data collection process. Data collection occurred during the pandemic’s early stages; consequentially, all interviews were conducted via Zoom without recording to preserve the respondents’ confidentiality. As a result, the current research may have overlooked rural and/or tribal communities and victim advocates with limited access to technology and the internet. At the same time, this strategy may have allowed some advocates to participate who would not otherwise have been accessible by the research team. Future research can address this limitation by providing participants with the option of a video conference or in-person interview to include all possible participants. In addition, given that interviews were not recorded, data analysis relied solely on the interview notes and “notable” quotes from the participants that were determined by individual notetakers as opposed to a consensus from the research team.

Lastly, although this study focused on missingness among Native American persons, we would be remiss not to mention that other communities of color are also disproportionately impacted by missingness (see Fillmore et al., 2021; Richards et al., 2021a), and thus these findings are likely applicable to persons of other races/ethnicities. For example, other marginalized communities experience poverty, isolation, lack of resources, and lack of access to needed services, likely impacting their risk of missingness. In addition, Native Americans are not the only community with a tumultuous history with governmental agencies (e.g., law enforcement), which could impact their ability or willingness to report a loved one as missing. Therefore, it is necessary that future studies focus on other marginalized communities and/or communities with histories of oppression to identify overlapping and additional factors that might make that population vulnerable to going missing and associated service needs.

To conclude, the problem of MMIP has gained significant attention in the United States, leading to calls for focused research on and data-driven responses to missingness in Native American communities. This study explored the potential role of victim advocacy for Native missing person cases. Findings suggest that many tribal and non-tribal victim advocates understand that myriad factors make Native persons vulnerable to going missing and that there are barriers and challenges to reporting and investigating missing Native persons. Furthermore, victim service providers identify a potential role for advocates in supporting the loved ones of Native missing persons. Actionable recommendations by advocates, namely expanding policies regarding serviceable populations for providers and expanding funding mechanisms to include specific work on MMIP, were offered as first steps to developing missing person advocacy. Given the distrust of law enforcement by Native American persons and the jurisdictional complexities in Indian county, Native missing person cases will not be solved by police alone. Missing person advocacy may be an innovative way to improve the response to MMIP and better serve vulnerable populations.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Captain Matthew Sutter at the Nebraska State Patrol and Judi Gaiashkibos at the Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs for allowing us the opportunity to add research capacity to the LB 154 Study. We would also like to extend our gratitude to the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, Nebraska Indian Community College, and Little Priest Tribal College for hosting listening sessions; the Tribal and non-Tribal community members and service providers who attended and shared their stories; and Judge William Thorne for serving as the facilitator. These listening sessions provided invaluable information regarding the context of missing Native American person cases, which informed our study methods, our interpretations of findings, and recommendations for the next steps.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: Research reported in this manuscript was sponsored by the National Institute of Justice under NIJ Grant Number 2019-75-CX-0014. The conclusions expressed in this presentation are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Institute of Justice.

ORCID iDs

Sheena L. Gilbert

Tara N. Richards

Notes

Author Biographies

Sheena L. Gilbert is a PhD student in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. She is also a citizen of the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe and identifies as an Indigenous criminologist. Her research focuses on gender-based violence, Indigenous crime & victimization, including Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons (MMIP), victimization in underserved populations, and campus sexual victimization. She has published in academic journals such as Crime & Delinquency, Feminist Criminology, and Race and Justice.

Alyssa Nystrom is currently pursuing a PhD at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. She earned her Master of Arts from the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her research interests include victim centered policy creation and evaluation, campus sexual harassment and assault, Title IX and related policies, domestic violence intervention programming, and missingness. Alyssa is currently working as a Graduate Research Assistant in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice as part of the Victimology and Victim Studies Research Lab.

Caralin C. Branscum received a Master of Science degree in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Florida Atlantic University in 2020. She is currently pursuing doctoral studies in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (SCCJ) at the University of Nebraska at Omaha; she is a Research Assistant in SCCJ’s Victimology and Victim Studies Research Lab. Her research interests include violence against women, victimology, sexual assault, and case processing. Some of her most recent research has been featured in Race & Justice and Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Tara N. Richards is a Distinguished Associate Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (SCCJ) at the University of Nebraska Omaha, and Co-Director of SCCJ’s Victimology and Victim Studies Research Lab. Her research focuses on prevention, intervention, and system responses to sexual assault, intimate partner/domestic violence, and child abuse and neglect. She has published more than 85 articles and book chapters on these topics and has received funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office on Violence Against Women to support her research. Her recent research is featured in Criminology & Public Policy,, Child Abuse & Neglect, and Justice Quarterly.

Emily Wright, PhD, is a Principal Research Associate at the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. Dr. Wright’s research centers on victimization among marginalized populations and improving the criminal justice response to victims/survivors of crime through research and data-driven solutions. She has published over 90 articles, chapters, and reports on these topics and has received funding from the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Violence Against Women, and the National Institutes of Health (among others) to conduct research. She is also a member of the Cherokee Nation. Her recent research is featured in Child Abuse & Neglect, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.

References

Alexander

(2019). Missing and murdered Native American women report. Washington State Patrol. https://www.wsp.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Missing-and-Murdered-Native-American-Women_2019.pdf

Bachman

Zaykowski

Kallmyer

Poteyeva

Lanier

(2008). Violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women and the criminal justice response: What is known. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/223691.pdf

Bayliss

Quinton

(2013). Risk, bureaucracy, and missing persons: An evaluation of a new approach to the initial police response. College of Policing. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283350847_Risk_Bureaucracy_and_Missing_Persons_An_Evaluation_of_a_New_Approach_to_the_Initial_Police_Response

Brown-Rice

(2013). Examining the theory of historical trauma among Native Americans. The Professional Counselor, 3(3), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.15241/kbr.3.3.117

Bryant-Davis

Chung

Tillman

(2009). From the margins to the center: Ethnic minority women and the mental health effects of sexual assault. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 10(4), 330–357. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1524838009339755

Bubar

(2009). Cultural competence, justice, and supervision: Sexual assault against Native women. Women & Therapy, 33(1-2), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703140903404762

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). (2022). Criminal victimization, 2021. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv21.pdf

California Penal Code § 14205 – Online missing persons registry. (2013).

Castillo

(2015). Tribal courts, non-Indians, and the right to an impartial jury after the 2013 reauthorization of VAWA. American Indian Law Review, 39(1), 311–336.

10.

Chakraborty

(2019). Reporting & investigating missing persons: A background paper on how to frame the issue (Report 255934). U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/255934.pdf

11.

Crime Control Act of 1990. Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXVII, §3702 - State requirements. 104 Stat. 4967.

12.

Crossland

Palmer

Brooks

(2013). NIJ’s program of research on violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women. Violence Against Women, 19(6), 771–790.

13.

Deer

(2015). The beginning and end of rape: Confronting sexual violence in Native America. University of Minnesota Press.

14.

Emerson

Fretz

Shaw

(2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

15.

Fillmore

M. L.

Gillespie

L. K.

Growette Bostaph

L. M.

King

L. L.

Gilbert

S. L.

(2021). HCR33 report: Idaho’s missing & murdered Indigenous persons. Idaho Legislature. https://icdv.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HCR33-Report_Idahos-Missing-and-Murdered-Indigenous-Persons.pdf

16.

Finfgeld-Connett

(2015). Qualitative systematic review of intimate partner violence among Native Americans. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 36(10), 754–760. https://doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2015.1047072

17.

Fiolet

Tarzia

Hameed

Hegarty

(2019). Indigenous Peoples’ help-seeking behaviors for family violence: A scoping review. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 22(2), 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1524838019852638

18.

Fox

K. A.

Sharp

Devereaux

Stanek

Julian

Hovel

Dalangyawma

Imus-Nahsonhoya

Morris

Moore

White

H. B.

Roe-Sepowitz

Mars

Edwards

Eaton

(2020). Reducing missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls: Arizona’s statewide study in partnership with the HB2570 legislative study committee. Arizona State University. https://ccj.asu.edu/sites/default/files/rovv-lab/files/ASU_MMIWG_report_November_2020.pdf

19.

Fyfe

N. R.

Stevenson

Woolnough

(2015). Missing persons: The processes and challenges of police investigation. Policing & Society, 25(4), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2014.881812

20.

Ganasarajah

Siegel

Sickmund

(2017). Technical assistance bulletin: Disproportionality rates for children of color in foster care: Fiscal Year 2015. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. https://www.ncjfcj.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/NCJFCJ-Disproportionality-TAB-2015_0.pdf

21.

Gilbert

S. L.

Wright

E. M.

Richards

T. N.

(2021). Decolonizing VAWA 2021: A step in the right direction for protecting Native American women. Feminist Criminology, 16(4), 447–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/15570851211016044

22.

Gillespie

L. K.

King

L. L.

Bostaph

L. G.

Goodson

(2021). Crime victim service providers’ needs and barriers: Rurality and “high need. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(15–16), 7274–7297. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0886260519834100

23.

Indian country defined 18 U.S.C. § 1151 And 40 C.F.R. § 171.3 (1949).

24.

Innes

(2002). Organizational communication and the symbolic construction of police murder investigations. British Journal of Sociology, 53(1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071310120109339

25.

International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children. (2023). What does “missing” mean?. https://globalmissingkids.org/what-does-missing-mean/

26.

James

Anderson

Putt

(2008). Missing persons in Australia. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 353, 1–6.

27.

Kansas Statute § 75-712c – Attorney General; reports of missing persons; duties of law enforcement agencies. (2021).

28.

Kulkarni

S. J.

Lawrence

Roberts

(2023). We’re constantly learning”: Identifying and disrupting white supremacy within a victim services organization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(1-2), n1187–n1203. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221088279

29.

Logan

T. K.

Stevenson

Evans

Leukefeld

(2004). Rural and urban women’s perceptions of barriers to health, mental health, and criminal justice services: Implications for victim services. Violence and Victims, 19(1), 37–62. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.19.1.37.33234

30.

McHugh

M. L.

(2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemical Medicine, 22(3), 276–282.

31.

National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center. (2020). MMIW state legislative tracker. https://www.niwrc.org/mmiw-state-legislative-tracker

32.

National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs). (n.d). Home. https://namus.nij.ojp.gov/

33.

New Mexico Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives Task Force. (2020). Report to the governor and legislature of the task force findings and recommendations. State of New Mexico Indian Affairs Department. https://www.csvanw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/NM_MMIWR_Report_FINAL_WEB_v120920.pdf

34.

Nystrom

Woods

Cox

L. M.

Richards

T. N.

Gross

(2022). Special report: Examining missingness among children in out-of-home care placements in Nebraska. Nebraska Legislature. https://fcro.nebraska.gov/pdf/FCRO-UNO%20Special%20Report_Final.pdf

35.

Richards

T. N.

Schwartz

J. A.

Wright

(2021). Examining adverse childhood experiences among Native American persons in a nationally representative sample: Differences among racial/ethnic groups and race/ethnicity-sex dyads. Child Abuse & Neglect, 111, 104812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104812

36.

Richards

T. N.

Wright

Nystrom

Gilbert

S. L.

Branscum

(2021a). A descriptive analysis of missing and murdered Native women and children in Nebraska, barriers to reporting and investigating, and recommendations for improving access to justice. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/descriptive-analysis-missing-and-murdered-native-women-and-children-nebraska

37.

Richards

T. N.

Wright

E. M.

Nystrom

Gilbert

S. L.

Branscum

(2021b). On assessing the scope of missing Native Americans in Nebraska: Results from a state-wide study and recommendations for future research. Race and Justice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F21533687211047933

38.

Rosay

A. B.

(2016). Violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women and men: 2010 findings from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249736.pdf

39.

Struthers

Lowe

(2003). Nursing in the Native American culture and historical trauma. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 24, 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840305275

40.

Takahashi

James

(2018). Victimology and victim assistance. SAGE Publications, Inc.

41.

Tuck

Wayne Yang

(2021). La descolonización no es una metáfora. Tabula Rasa, 38, 61–111. https://doi.org/10.25058/20112742.n38.04

42.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2022). Report and identify missing persons. https://www.justice.gov/actioncenter/report-and-identify-missing-persons

43.

U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d). Missing or murdered Indigenous persons. https://www.justice.gov/tribal/mmip.

44.

Wahab

Olson

(2004). Intimate partner violence and sexual assault in Native American communities. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 5(4), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838004269489

45.

Weaver

H. N.

(2009). The colonial context of violence: Reflections on violence in the lives of Native American women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1552–1563. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0886260508323665

46.

Yun

Swindell

Kercher

S. G

., (2009). Victim services delivery: A comparison of rural and urban communities. The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 6(2), 145–162.