Search results

The Homeland Security in Small Law Enforcement Jurisdictions study drew upon data collected from 350 small (1-25 full time sworn officers) law enforcement agencies nationwide to address four gaps in the homeland security research literature and clarify/expand upon an empirically-derived model of homeland security preparedness and organizational efficacy.

• Whether physical and relational proximity to large agency peers facilitates the development of homeland security preparedness and improves perceptions of organizational efficacy (the capacity of an organization to respond) in small agencies and, conversely, whether the geographic isolation of small, rural agencies inhibits homeland security efforts.
• Whether efficacy of efforts to enhance homeland security is not just a function of perceived/actual risk or funding, but also other "institutional pressures", such as books and journal publications, as well as conferences, training, and other professional networks and channels.
• Assessments of preparedness outcomes through "organizational efficacy", the perception about the organization's ability to accomplish its goals.
• The lack of theoretical context, such as contingency and institutional theory frameworks, used to examine data on preparedness and organizational efficacy.

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.

The School Emergency Preparedness Study, United States, 2018, was conducted to better understand the state of knowledge concerning violent emergency preparedness in schools and the interrelationship between federal, state, district, and school perspectives on safety planning. RTI International conducted a two-year study in four phases. In Phase I, the project team reviewed federal and state guidelines and mandates for school safety planning. In Phases II and III, a survey was administered to district safety and security directors and superintendents, then the team reviewed guidelines and mandates for a subset of districts. In Phase IV, interviews were conducted with administrators from 37 schools and results were analyzed from all four phases.

In this study, the research team investigated emergency operations plans (EOPs) content and comprehension in a purposive sample of 10 U.S. schools using a phased, mixed-methods study design. The four primary goals of the study were to:

1. Gain access to EOPs for 10 schools and examine their appearance, layout, and content, and empirically document the comprehensiveness of EOP materials according to federal guidelines;
2. Assess access to emergency planning efforts and perceptions of emergency preparedness, including to what extent different types of staff members have read and received training on their school's EOP, serve on emergency planning or school crisis response teams, and believe that their school has prepared them for a violent event (e.g., an armed intruder incident);
3. Assess staff and student comprehension of emergency concepts and protocols and identify areas of high and low comprehension and respondent- and school-level correlates of comprehension; and
4. Understand from the perspectives of staff, students, district representatives, local law enforcement officials, and other key stakeholders how EOPs and school emergency preparedness more broadly could be improved and what are the most pervasive challenges and vulnerabilities in school emergency preparedness efforts.

The study was conducted in four phases. In Phase 1, the team recruited 10 schools and gained privileged access to their EOPs. A comprehensive rubric was developed based largely on guidance put forth in 2013 by six federal agencies, including the United States Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Each EOP was systematically reviewed using this rubric; school-specific and aggregated analyses were conducted to identify common strengths and limitations of the plans. In Phase 2, leveraging insights gained from school-specific analyses of EOPs, the team developed and administered comprehension surveys for staff and students to evaluate the extent to which each school community was knowledgeable of the concepts, protocols, and other details described in their plans. Following survey data collection, the team conducted extensive analyses to identify areas with high and low levels of comprehension and uncover statistical associations between comprehension and respondent characteristics (e.g., staff type, years employed at the school, perceptions of preparedness).

In Phase 3, for a subset of schools, the team conducted site visits and group interviews with students and different types of staff regarding their perceptions of their school's EOP, their school's vulnerability to extreme violence, and how emergency planning and preparedness could be improved. Finally, in Phase 4, the team analyzed and synthesized the results from each data collection activity to draw conclusions about EOP development and emergency preparedness and develop actionable recommendations for enhancing safety efforts in K-12 educational settings.

Qualitative data (interviews, focus groups, drill observations) are not currently available for this collection.