State and Local Responses to Terrorism. Series: NIJ Update Published: June 1995 3 pages 5,193 bytes State and Local Responses to Terrorism Horrendous acts of terrorism, such as the recent bombings of Oklahoma City's Murrah Federal Building and New York City's World Trade Center, have focused attention on Federal, State, and local law enforcement preventive and preparedness measures and, in particular, on the reevaluation of domestic security policies and procedures nationwide. To assess how States and municipalities have perceived the threat of terrorism and to identify potentially promising anti- and counter-terrorism programs used by these jurisdictions, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) sponsored a 2-year research effort. The results of this study indicated that State and local law enforcement agencies viewed the threat of terrorism as very real, that they defined it more broadly than their Federal counterparts, and that a jurisdiction's approach to preparedness and prevention varied according to its size, resources, and the nature of the terrorist threats it confronted. Perceptions of terrorism The research project's national survey of State and local law organizations showed that their more expansive definitions of what constitutes terrorist activity led a sizable majority of jurisdictions to believe terrorism to be more widespread than indicated by the official terrorist statistics published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In these broader definitions, States and municipalities considered threatening acts by organizations such as the Skinheads to be terrorist, and they identified right-wing (Neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, anti-federalist) and issue-specific (anti-abortion, animal rights, environmentalist) organizations as the most threatening actual and potential terrorist sources. Approaches to the problem After a survey to assess the perception of the terrorist threat in this country, researchers selected 10 locations (i.e., Whitehall, Pennsylvania; New York, New York; Birmingham, Alabama; Miami, Florida; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Coffey County/Burlington, Kansas; Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; Seattle, Washington; and Los Angeles, California) as case studies. They looked at how different jurisdictions have adapted to the threat of terrorism and developed their preventive and preparedness programs. The case studies confirmed in detail what the survey revealed in general terms, i.e., that communities have been aware of potential terrorism problems and were interested in confronting terrorism before it erupted. A variety of successful terrorism preparedness formulas existed in communities both large and small. Major cities. Large municipalities, such as New York City and Miami, have developed significant counter-terrorism programs in close cooperation with the FBI and its regional joint terrorism task forces. These cities adhere to similar, or the same, guidelines and restrictions on intelligence gathering and collection as are imposed on Federal law enforcement agencies. They communicate regularly with the FBI and benefit from the Bureau's training and guidance. Smaller jurisdictions. Less populated communities, such as Kootenai County/Coeur d'Alene in Idaho, have worked to stay ahead of nascent terrorism threats by forging close regional alliances and capitalizing on available FBI resources. Smaller jurisdictions that house sensitive facilities--such as military installations, nuclear power plants, telecommunications nodes, and fuel supplies--are more likely to have developed and reviewed terrorism contingency plans than communities with no such vital infrastructure targets. For example, Coffey County, Kansas, Home of Wolf Creek Nuclear Station, contracted with a private agency to provide its four-member strategic response team with counter-terrorism training. Resource constraints More generally, the case study findings suggest that, along with the nature of the possible terrorism and the number of people who live within the jurisdiction, budgetary constraints influence both strategic and tactical law enforcement responses. Communities value the intelligence and support the FBI provides and their communication with Federal authorities. Localities are interested in adopting a broad strategic approach, in which intelligence, planning, and advance preparation are used to combat terrorism, but frequently lack the resources to maintain such an expensive approach. ------------------------------ The full report, Domestic Terrorism: A National Assessment of State and Local Law Enforcement Preparedness, was written by Kevin Jack Riley and Bruce Hoffman, analysts at the RAND Corporation. A limited number of copies of the report are available from NCJRS (NCJ-154-149). The study was prepared for the National Institute of Justice under grant number 91-IJ-CX-0019. Copies of the full report (505-NIJ, RAND), published in 1995, can be obtained from RAND by telephoning 310-451-7002 or sending an e-mail request to order@rand.org. ------------------------------