Estimating the magnitude of rape and sexual assault against American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) Women.

• Jurisdiction: Australia
• Date: 01 August 2010
• Author: Bachman, Ronet

National surveys indicate that American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN) women have higher rates of rape and sexual assault victimisation compared to women from other race/ethnic groups. These statistics were brought to the forefront of media attention when an Amnesty International (2007) report illuminated the obstacles many AIAN women have when seeking justice for rape victimisations. Despite this attention, empirical research that examines rape and sexual assault against AIAN women is still in its infancy. The purpose of this article is twofold. We first provide a methodological review of the epidemiological research that has attempted to measure the magnitude of rape against AIAN women at both national and local levels. We then examine National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data to determine how the contextual characteristics of rape and sexual assault victimisations against AIAN women differ from those of African American and White women. Results indicate that AIAN victims are more likely to face armed offenders, and more likely require medical care for injuries sustained as a result of the attack. Sexual assaults against AIAN women are also more likely to be interracial and the offender is more likely to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, compared to attacks against other victims. Although victimisations against AIAN women are more likely to come to the attention of police, they are much less likely to result in an arrest compared to attacks against either White or African American victims. Directions for future research are provided.

Keywords: American Indian women, rape, sexual assault, measurement

**********

The history of sexual violence and genocide among Native women illustrates how gender violence functions as a tool for racism and colonialism among women of color in general. (Andrea Smith, 2003, p. 70)

Accurately measuring rape and sexual assaults against women is a difficult task. This difficulty increases at an exponential rate when attempting to accurately measure rape and sexual assaults against American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN) women. Estimates from both the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) indicate that AIAN women have the highest rates of rape and sexual assault victimisation compared to all other race and ethnic groups (Perry, 2004; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). However, it was not until a recent report by Amnesty International (2007) that the scope of the problem came to the attention of the larger society. The realities illuminated in the Amnesty report were not new to those who have worked to combat rape and other violence against AIAN women, but the report did serve to capture media attention for the issue, if only for a short while.

Advocates and researchers alike have been underscoring the importance of understanding violence against women, not as a global entity, but one that is nuanced by factors other than gender such as race, sexuality and social class (Bachman, 1995; Potter, 2008; Richie, 2000; Smith, 1996). However, there have been only limited attempts to systematically assess the state of knowledge regarding rape and sexual assault against AIAN women. Clearly, efforts at preventing this violence against AIAN women cannot begin without an adequate understanding of the problem. Accordingly, the purpose of this article is twofold. We will first provide a synthesis of the empirical literature examining magnitude estimates of rape and sexual assault against AIAN women, both locally and nationally, and the methodologies on which these estimates are based. We will then present a contextual analysis of how the characteristics of rape and sexual assault differentially affect AIAN women compared to White and African-American women. Before we begin, however, it is first important to discuss the inherent complications of measurement related to the American Indian and Alaskan Native populations.

Who is an American Indian or an Alaskan Native?

The first obstacle in estimating the magnitude of sexual assaults against AIAN women is in determining exactly who should be counted an AIAN. Because of the heterogeneity within the AIAN population, generalisations about the characteristics of the entire population of 'AIANs' are extremely problematic. In addition, there is a great deal of variation in 'who counts' across government agencies and also across Indian nations. According to the federal government's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), an American Indian or an Alaskan Native is legally defined as a person who is an enrolled or registered member of a tribe or whose blood quantum is one-fourth or more, genealogically derived (US Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs, 2009). This level varies, however, with some tribes setting their blood quantum requirements much lower and some setting them higher (Canby, 2004). The US Department of the Interior (DOI) currently recognises 561 federal tribes (DOI, 2008), including Alaskan Native entities.

Contrary to this official designation, the US Bureau of the Census relies exclusively on self-identification, that is, you are an AIAN if you say you are (US Bureau of the Census, 2002). This self-identification method is also used in much of the survey research estimating violence against AIAN women, including the NVAWS and the NCVS. In the 2000 Census, respondents were asked to report one or more races they consider themselves to be. In 2000, 2,475,956 people considered themselves to be AIAN alone (0.9% of the population) and an additional 1,6423,345 considered themselves to be AIAN in combination with one or more other races (0.6% of the population), the majority of which were in combination of White. In sum, in 2000, 4,119,301 people, or 1.5% of the US population, described themselves entirely or partially as American Indian or Alaskan Native (US Census, 2002). Males and females represent roughly equal proportions of the total AIAN population, 49% and 51% respectively. About one-third of both males and females are under the age of 18. Regarding socioeconomic factors, many AIANs who reside on isolated tribal lands have very few educational and economic opportunities. This is reflected in national averages for educational attainment and income. A higher percentage of AIANs have less than a high school education and fewer AIANs have a bachelor's degree compared to the general population. The median income for both AIAN men and women is also significantly lower than their male and female counterparts in the general population. Moreover, the percentage of the AIAN population who live under the poverty threshold is almost double that of the total population (25.7% compared to 12.4%) (US Census, 2002).

Many US residents stereotypically believe that AIANs reside only on tribal lands called reservations. However, almost 60% currently reside off reservations in urban areas (US Census, 2002). There are some areas of the country with larger populations. States with the greatest percentage of AIANs include Alaska (19%), Oklahoma (11.4%), New Mexico (10.5%), South Dakota (9%), Montana (7.4%), Arizona, (5.7%), and North Dakota (5.5%; US Census 2002).

In addition to geographical location, there is also a great deal of variability in the extent to which AIANs accept traditionalism or have become acculturated in mainstream society. The continuum stretches from someone who was born and remains on tribal lands to those who were born in a city and feel little connection to their ancestral tribe. Moreover, this cultural and social diversity exists even within a single reservation. For example, some AIANs on a reservation may live in a very traditional manner, speaking the native language and practicing a traditional religion, while others may be fully entrenched in mainstream society with no ties to traditional practices. About one-quarter of individuals who self-identified themselves as AIANs to the US Census did not have formal ties to a tribe. As can be seen, attempting to quantify the epidemiology of any phenomenon within this population must be done with care.

Measuring Rape and Sexual Assault Victimisations

The most widespread source of statistical information on rape and sexual assault in the US is the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) or the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which are compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). These data rely on reports of victimisation to state, county, and city law enforcement agencies across the US, which then voluntarily report these data to the FBI. The original UCR program only collected characteristics of victimisations, such as the victim and offender relationship, for homicides. To expand the collection of incident characteristics to other violent crimes, in 1988 the FBI implemented NIBRS, which now includes information on crime incidents including the characteristics of the victim (e.g., age, gender, race) along with the perceived characteristics of the offender. However, only about half of all jurisdictions currently participate in NIBRS data collection procedures (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009). Moreover, because these FBI statistics rely entirely on reports of victimisation to law enforcement agencies, they are problematic when measuring the magnitude of violence in general, and rape and sexual assault victimisations in particular. This is primarily because only a small fraction of these victimisations are ever reported to police. For example, survey data from the NCVS indicates that less than a quarter of all rape victims attacked by known offenders report their victimisations to police (Hart & Rennison, 2003). Less than 1 in 10 women raped while attending a college or a university reported their victimisations to police (Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2000). Moreover, Mosher, Miether, and Phillips (2002) document that there are other factors that prevent the police from accurately measuring the true...