Long-Term Effects of Law Enforcement's Post-9/11 Focus on Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, 2007-2010, United States (ICPSR 29461)

Version Date: Sep 25, 2014 View help for published

Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Lois M. Davis, RAND Corporation; Jeremy Wilson, Michigan State University

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29461.v1

Version V1

This study examines the state of counterterrorism and homeland security in five large urban law enforcement agencies (the Boston Police Department, the Houston Police Department, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and the Miami-Dade Police Department) nine years following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It explores the long-term adjustments that these agencies made to accommodate this new role.

Researchers from the RAND Corporation, in consultation with National Institute of Justice project staff, selected law enforcement agencies of major urban areas with a high risk of terrorist attacks from different regions of the United States that have varied experiences with counterterrorism and homeland security issues. The research team conducted on-site, in-depth interviews with personnel involved in developing or implementing counterterrorism or homeland security functions within their respective agency. The research team used a standardized interview protocol to address such issues as security operations, regional role, organizational structures, challenges associated with the focus on counterterrorism and homeland security issues, information sharing, training, equipment, and grant funding.

Davis, Lois M., and Wilson, Jeremy. Long-Term Effects of Law Enforcement’s Post-9/11 Focus on Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, 2007-2010, United States. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2014-09-25. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29461.v1

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (2007-IJ-CX-0012)

Jurisdiction

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
2007 -- 2010
2008-03 -- 2008-12

These qualitative data are available through restricted access procedures. Each law enforcement agency studied has one combined data file for all respondents from the agency. In the datasets, the law enforcement agencies are referred to as "departments." Dataset 1 (Department A) consists of data collected from interviews with 6 respondents. Dataset 2 (Department B) consists of data collected from interviews with 10 respondents. Dataset 3 (Department C) consists of data collected from interviews with 9 respondents. Dataset 4 (Department D) consists of data collected from interviews with 14 respondents. Dataset 5 (Department E) consists of data collected from interviews with 9 respondents.

Prior to depositing these datasets to ICPSR, the RAND Corporation anonymized these five datasets produced by this study as Department A, B, C, D, and E in order to ensure the confidentiality of individual interviewees.

The purpose of this study is to provide an in-depth understanding of the long-term adjustments that five large urban law enforcement agencies made in order to accommodate the renewed focus on counterterrorism and homeland security during nine years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as well as the advantages and challenges associated with this focus.

The research team visited five large urban law enforcement agencies and conducted on-site, in-depth interviews with personnel involved in developing or implementing counterterrorism or homeland security functions within their agency. Interviewees included agency leadership, sworn and civilian personnel involved with fusion centers, counterterrorism units, homeland security bureaus or divisions, specialized response units, training bureaus, grants management, and administration.

To select the five case study law enforcement agencies, the research team, in consultation with National Institute of Justice project staff, identified the following criteria: The agencies must be (1) located in major urban areas and jurisdictions with a high risk of terrorist attacks, (2) from different regions of the country, and (3) varied in their experience with counterterrorism and homeland security issues.

Five law enforcement agencies were selected: the Houston Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, the Boston Police Department, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and the Miami-Dade Police Department.

Houston and Los Angeles are Tier I urban areas (considered to be at the highest risk for terrorism), and Boston, Las Vegas, and Miami-Dade are Tier II urban areas (next highest risk for terrorism). Las Vegas was selected because of the potential terrorist threat the city faces given its iconic status, while Houston, Miami-Dade, and Boston were selected in part because they are major port cities. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was selected because it represents the largest sheriff's office in the United States and is responsible, along with the Orange County Sheriff's Department, for Region One Homeland Security in California.

Cross-sectional

Law enforcement agencies existing in the United States between March 2008 and December 2008

Individual
survey data

To guide the interviews, the research team developed a standardized protocol that addressed the following issues:

  • The agency's counterterrorism and homeland security operations and regional role
  • Organizational structures specific to counterterrorism and homeland security and how they have evolved over time, including internal adjustments such as shifting personnel, consolidating units, and expanding existing structures
  • Perceptions about internal and external challenges associated with the focus on counterterrorism and homeland security, as well as developing relevant functions
  • Information-sharing and fusion center issues
  • Training and equipment issues related to counterterrorism and homeland security needs, including National Incident Management System (NIMS) compliance
  • Resourcing of counterterrorism and homeland security efforts, including advantages and challenges associated with homeland security grant funding
  • Impacts of federal, state, or local grant requirements on agencies and ways in which requirements either facilitate or hinder internal initiatives
  • Suggestions about modifications to existing grant mechanisms to facilitate the use of funding, staff, or other resources for counterterrorism or homeland security.

Not applicable.

None.

2014-09-25

2018-02-15 The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented. The previous citation was:
  • Davis, Lois M., and Jeremy Wilson. Long-Term Effects of Law Enforcement's Post-9/11 Focus on Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, 2007-2010, United States. ICPSR29461-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2014-09-25. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29461.v1

Notes

  • The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

  • One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.

NACJD logo

This dataset is maintained and distributed by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), the criminal justice archive within ICPSR. NACJD is primarily sponsored by three agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.