Metadata record for Impact of Terrorism on State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies and Criminal Justice Systems in the United States, 2004 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research ICPSR metadata records are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License . 2013-05-19 Impact of Terrorism on State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies and Criminal Justice Systems in the United States, 2004 04677 10.3886/ICPSR04677.v1 Foster, Chad Cordner, Gary United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice 2003-DT-CX-0004 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research 2007-07-20 Foster, Chad, and Gary Cordner. IMPACT OF TERRORISM ON STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES, 2004. ICPSR04677-v1. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments [producer], 2006. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2007-07-20. doi:10.3886/ICPSR04677.v1 terrorism terrorist threat government agencies homeland security law enforcement agencies TPDRC.I ICPSR.XVII.E NACJD.VII This study explored the new roles of state and local law enforcement agencies and the changing conditions that came about as a result of the events of September 11, 2001. In order to examine the impact of terrorism on state and local police agencies, the research team developed a survey that was administered to all state police, highway patrol agencies, and general-purpose state bureaus of investigation and a sample population of 400 local police and sheriff agencies in the spring of 2004. The survey asked these state and local law enforcement agencies questions concerning how their allocation of resources, homeland security responsibilities, and interactions with other agencies had changed since September 11, 2001. This study explored the new roles of state and local law enforcement agencies and the changing conditions that came about as a result of the events of September 11. However, the researchers focused particularly on state police for three reasons: (1) historical data and literature about states' operational roles and activities related to terrorism were absent, (2) new terrorism-related activities that may be affecting more traditional and emerging state police priorities needed to be examined, and (3) state police agencies had historically been relatively neglected as the subjects of research and policy work. As state officials seek to improve homeland security, the hope is that results from this project will provide them with a clearer understanding of current conditions and strategic directions for the future. In order to examine the impact of terrorism on state and local police agencies, a survey instrument was developed by a research team with state and local law enforcement experience. Survey items were developed from scratch since the project's focus was to explore new developments. However, the research team reviewed and utilized several existing surveys related to homeland security to gather ideas about survey structure and wording. The project advisory group reviewed the draft survey in December 2003, and their suggestions were incorporated into the survey before the implementation in 2004. The survey was conducted during the spring of 2004, and it was administered to all state police, highway patrol agencies, and general-purpose state bureaus of investigation. Part 1, State Law Enforcement Agency Data, provides survey responses from a total of 64 agencies. Part 2, Local Law Enforcement Agency Data, contains the results of the survey that was also sent to a sample population of 400 local police and sheriff agencies. Each agency received a survey that contained quantitative and qualitative items. To achieve their response rates, the research team administered a multimodal survey, using mailings and the Internet. Each targeted agency received a mailed questionnaire in January 2004. A Web-based instrument was also developed using Quask software. Respondents had the choice of completing the questionnaire online or by mailing in answers. Four weeks later, the research team mailed a reminder to all agencies with outstanding responses and followed the mailing with phone calls to meet the desired response rates. For Part 1, state agencies were asked since September 11 how their allocation of resources to 18 operational law enforcement responsibilities had changed, how their relationship with federal agencies had changed across six items, and how their agency's relationship with local law enforcement agencies had changed across nine areas. Additionally, as contrasted with the period before September 11, 2001, agencies were asked how their interaction with 18 specific federal agencies had changed, how their agencies' level of involvement in 17 homeland security initiatives had changed, how the homeland security mission affected individual state officer's or investigator's duties and responsibilities, what degree of impact homeland security had on nine organizational functions in their agency, as well as how their agency's relationship with the private sector had changed over five criteria. Similarly, questions in Part 2 inquired about local law enforcement agencies' allocation of resources to 18 operational law enforcement responsibilities, how their relationship with federal agencies had changed across six categories, how their relationship with state law enforcement agencies had changed across nine items, as well as how their agencies' interactions with 18 specific federal agencies had changed. Furthermore, the survey asked respondents to describe how officers' duties and responsibilities had been altered by the homeland security mission and how their relationship with the private sector had changed in respect to five specific areas. 2004 2004 United States none agencies All state and local law enforcement agencies in the United States in 2004. survey data All state police and highway patrol agencies, as well as general-purpose state bureaus of investigation, received the survey, for a total of 73 agencies. The survey was also sent to a sample population of local agencies. The sampling frame for the local survey included a total of 400 police and sheriff's agencies. The 200 largest local agencies were included as well as a sample of 200 other agencies randomly selected from the National Public Safety Information Bureau's directory of law enforcement administrators. Initially, the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department was included in the local law enforcement survey. However, the research team omitted its survey response while conducting comparative analysis due to the District of Columbia's unique governmental structure. mail questionnaire, Web-based survey Not applicable

ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes. Data from the five case studies are not available as part of this collection. The final response rates reported were 83.6 percent for state agencies and 46.6 percent for local agencies. For the two subsets of the local survey, the response rates were 58.5 percent for the 200 largest agencies and 35 percent for the 200 randomly-selected agencies. Several Likert-type scales were used. Ann Arbor, Mi.: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Additional special permissions, where applicable, are described in the restrictions field. To protect respondent privacy, certain identifying information is restricted from general dissemination. Specifically, for this study, certain geographic and character variables are restricted from general dissemination. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement form and specify the reasons for the request. A copy of the Restricted Data Use Agreement form can be requested by calling 800-999-0960. Researchers can also download this form as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file from the download page associated with this dataset. Completed forms should be returned to: Director, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, Institute for Social Research, P.O. Box 1248, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248, or by fax: 734-647-8200.

Please read the terms of use below. If you agree to them, click on the "I Agree" button to proceed. If you do not agree, you can click on the "I Do Not Agree" button to return to the home page.

ICPSR adheres to the principles of the Data Seal of Approval , which, in part, require the data consumer to comply with access regulations imposed both by law and by the data repository, and to conform to codes of conduct that are generally accepted in higher education and scientific research for the exchange of knowledge and information.

These data are distributed under the following terms of use, which are governed by ICPSR. By continuing past this point to the data retrieval process, you signify your agreement to comply with the requirements stated below:

Privacy of RESEARCH SUBJECTS

Any intentional identification of a RESEARCH SUBJECT (whether an individual or an organization) or unauthorized disclosure of his or her confidential information violates the PROMISE OF CONFIDENTIALITY given to the providers of the information. Therefore, users of data agree:

To use these datasets solely for research or statistical purposes and not for investigation of specific RESEARCH SUBJECTS, except when identification is authorized in writing by ICPSR (netmail@icpsr.umich.edu )

To make no use of the identity of any RESEARCH SUBJECT discovered inadvertently, and to advise ICPSR of any such discovery (netmail@icpsr.umich.edu )

 Redistribution of Data

You agree not to redistribute data or other materials without the written agreement of ICPSR, unless:

You serve as the OFFICIAL or DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE at an ICPSR MEMBER INSTITUTION and are assisting AUTHORIZED USERS with obtaining data, or

You are collaborating with other AUTHORIZED USERS to analyze the data for research or instructional purposes.

When sharing data or other materials in these approved ways, you must include all accompanying files with the data, including terms of use. More information on permission to redistribute data can be found on the ICPSR Web site.

Citing Data

You agree to reference the recommended bibliographic citation in any publication that employs resources provided by ICPSR. Authors of publications based on ICPSR data are required to send citations of their published works to ICPSR for inclusion in a database of related publications (bibliography@icpsr.umich.edu ) .

Disclaimer

You acknowledge that the original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.

Violations

If ICPSR determines that the terms of this agreement have been violated, ICPSR will act according to our policy on terms of use violations . Sanctions can include:

ICPSR may revoke the existing agreement, demand the return of the data in question, and deny all future access to ICPSR data.

The violation may be reported to the Research Integrity Officer, Institutional Review Board, or Human Subjects Review Committee of the user's institution. A range of sanctions are available to institutions including revocation of tenure and termination.

If the confidentiality of human subjects has been violated, the case may be reported to the Federal Office for Human Research Protections. This may result in an investigation of the user's institution, which can result in institution-wide sanctions including the suspension of all research grants.

A court may award the payment of damages to any individual(s)/organization(s) harmed by the breach of the agreement.

 Definitions authorized user - A faculty member, staff member, or student at a member institutionICPSR - Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Researchmember institution - An institutional member of ICPSROfficial/Designated Representative - An individual appointed to represent a university's interests in ICPSR. This individual is also charged with providing user support to campus users. promise of confidentiality - A promise to a respondent or research participant that the information the respondent provides will not be disseminated without the permission of the respondent; that the fact that the respondent participated in the study will not be disclosed; and that disseminated information will include no linkages to the identity of the respondent. Such a promise encompasses traditional notions of both confidentiality and anonymity. Names and other identifying information regarding respondents, proxies, or other persons on whom the respondent or proxy provides information, are presumed to be confidential.research subject - A person or organization observed for purposes of research. Also called a respondent. A respondent is generally a survey respondent or informant, experimental or observational subject, focus group participant, or any other person providing information to a study or on whose behalf a proxy provides information.

In addition, the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data stipulates the following conditions:

Federal law and regulations require that research data collected by the U.S. Department of Justice or by its grantees and contractors may only be used for research or statistical purposes. The applicable laws and regulations may be found in the United States Code, 42 USC Section 3789g(a), the Code of Federal Regulations, 28 CFR 22, and 62 F.R. 35044 (June 27, 1997) (The Federal Confidentiality Order). Accordingly, any intentional identification or disclosure of a person or establishment may violate federal law as well as the assurances of confidentiality given to the providers of the information. Therefore, users of data collected by or with the support from the U.S. Department of Justice and distributed by NACJD or other ICPSR archives must agree to abide by these regulations and understand that ICPSR may report any potential violation to the U.S. Department of Justice.

AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.

 The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. State Law Enforcement Agency Data Local Law Enforcement Agency Data