Literature on intergovernmental partnerships suggests the importance of several factors including organizational resources, capacity, and problem severity in understanding the adoption of these partnerships. This research improves our understanding about the adoption of intergovernmental partnerships by examining tribal and nontribal governments that adopted voluntary agreements to improve the administration of justice. Using data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, this research examines how socioeconomic conditions, problem severity, and law enforcement authority influence the adoption of partnership agreements between tribal and nontribal law enforcement. The results suggest that tribes that adopt partnerships have better socioeconomic conditions; nontribal actors have lower levels of authority and higher occurrences of violent crime. The presence of Indian gaming also increases the likelihood of adopting cooperative agreements. The results of this study provide an important insight into understanding intergovernmental cooperation in general and what drives cooperation between native and surrounding non-native communities in particular.
AgranoffRobertMcGuireMichael. 2003. Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
2.
AkeeRaneeTaylorJonathan. 2014. Social and economic change on American Indian reservations: A databook of the U.S. censuses and American community survey. Taylor Policy Group. http://taylorpolicy.com/us-databook (accessed September 12, 2014).
3.
AndersonRobert T.2012. Negotiating jurisdiction: Retroceding state authority over Indian country granted by PL-280. Washington Law Review87:915–64.
4.
AnsellChrisGashAlison. 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18:543–71.
5.
BardachEugene. 1998. Getting agencies to work together the practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
6.
BarkerM.MullenK.1993. Cross-deputization in Indian country. Police Studies: International Review of Police Development16:158–66.
7.
BobeeHannahBoisvenuAllisonDuffAndersonFortKathleen E.SingelWenona T.2008. Criminal jurisdiction in Indian country: The solution of cross deputization. Michigan State University, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Occasional Paper Series 2008-01, July. http://www.law.msu.edu/indigenous/papers/2008-01.pdf (accessed September 12, 2014).
BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics). 2000. Census of state and local law enforcement agencies. U.S. Department of Justice. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=249 (accessed January 11, 2015).
10.
BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics). 2002. Census of tribal justice agencies in Indian country, 2002. U.S. Department of Justice. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ (accessed September 12, 2014).
11.
CanbyWillam C., Jr. 2009. American Indian law in a nutshell. 5th ed. Minneapolis, MN: Thompson Reuters/West.
12.
ConnerThaddieusTaggartWilliam A.. 2009. The impact of gaming on the Indian nations in New Mexico. Social Science Quarterly90:50–70.
13.
ConnerThaddieusTaggartWilliam A.. 2013. Assessing the impact of Indian gaming on American Indian nations: Is the house winning?Social Science Quarterly94:1016–44.
14.
DeloriaVineLytleClifford. 1983. American Indians, American justice. Austin: University of Texas Press.
15.
EvansLaura E.2011. Power from powerlessness: Tribal governments, institutional niches, and American federalism. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
16.
GrinolsEarl L.2004. Gambling in America: Costs and benefits. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HillAndrew. 2010. Another blow to tribal sovereignty: A look at cross-jurisdictional law-enforcement agreements between Indian tribes and local communities. American Indian Law Review3: 291–315.
18.
HuangKunProvanKeith G.. 2007. Resource tangibility and patterns of interaction in a publicly funded health and human services network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory17:435–54.
19.
KickertWalterKlijnErik-HansKoppenjanJohannes. 1997. Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. London, UK: Sage.
20.
LesterWilliam. 2012. Disaster response 2020: A look into the future. In Networked governance: The future of intergovernmental management, ed. MeekJ.ThurmaierK., 150–71. Washington, DC: CQ Press College.
21.
LightStephenRandKatheryn. 2005. Indian gaming and tribal sovereignty: The casino compromise. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
22.
Luna-FirebaughEileen. 2007. Tribal policing: Asserting sovereignty, seeking justice. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
23.
MaysLarryCasillasCarolynMaupinJames. 2006. New Mexico’s experience with Indian casinos and crime. American Journal of Criminal Justice30:193–207.
24.
MaysLarryTaggartWilliam. 2005. Intergovernmental relations and Native American gaming: A case study on the emergence of a new intergovernmental relations participant. American Review of Public Administration35:74–93.
25.
McCullochAnne. 1994. The politics of Indian gaming: Tribe/state relations and American federalism. Publius: The Journal of Federalism24:99–111.
26.
McGuireMichael. 2006. Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review66:33–43.
27.
McGuireMichaelSilviaChris. 2010. The effect of problem severity, managerial and organizational capacity, and agency structure on intergovernmental collaboration: Evidence from local emergency management. Public Administration Review70:279–88.
28.
MeierKennethO’TooleLaurence. 2003. Public management and educational performance: The impact of managerial networking. Public Administration Review63:689–99.
29.
NielsenMarianne. 2009. Introduction. In Criminal justice in native America, ed. NielsenM.SilvermanR., 1–17. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
30.
O’LearyRosemaryGerardCatherineBinghamLisa. 2006. Introduction to the symposium on collaborative public management. Public Administration Review (PAR)66:6–9.
31.
PerrySteven. 2005. Census of tribal justice agencies in Indian country, 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
32.
ReavesBrianHartTimothy. 2000. Law enforcement management and administrative statistics, 1999: Data for individual state and local agencies with 100 or more officers. Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/lema991b.pdf (accessed February 16, 2016).
33.
SteinmanErich. 2004. American federalism and intergovernmental innovation in state-tribal relations. Publius: The Journal of Federalism34:95–114.
34.
TaylorJonathanKaltJoseph. 2005. American Indians on reservations: A databook of socioeconomic change between the 1990 and 2000 censuses. The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied/ (accessed November 24, 2013).
35.
ThompsonWilliams. 2005. Native American issues: A reference handbook. 2nd ed. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
UtterJack. 2001. American Indians: Answers to today’s questions. 2nd ed. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
38.
WilkinsDavid E.StarkHeidi. 2011. American Indian politics and the American political system. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Rowman & Littlefield.
39.
WilkinsDavid E.Tsianina LomawaimaK.. 2001. Uneven ground: American Indian sovereignty and federal law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
40.
WilliamsonOliver E.1975. Markets and hierarchies, analysis and antitrust implications: A study in the economics of internal organization. New York: Free Press.
41.
WilliamsonOliver E.1981. The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. The American Journal of Sociology87:548–77.
42.
WilsonPatrick Impero. 2002. Tribes, states, and the management of lake resources: Lakes Coeur d’Alene and Flathead. Publius: The Journal of Federalism32:115–32.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
