Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of California, San Francisco]On: 21 December 2014, At: 07:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Criminal Justice Studies: A CriticalJournal of Crime, Law and SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gjup20
Policing Terrorism: The Response ofLocal Police Agencies to HomelandSecurity ConcernsChristopher W. Ortiz , Nicole J. Hendricks & Naomi F. SugiePublished online: 26 Jul 2007.
To cite this article: Christopher W. Ortiz , Nicole J. Hendricks & Naomi F. Sugie (2007)Policing Terrorism: The Response of Local Police Agencies to Homeland Security Concerns,Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society, 20:2, 91-109, DOI:10.1080/14786010701396830
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786010701396830
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Criminal Justice Studies,
Vol. 20, No. 2, June 2007, pp. 91–109
ISSN 1478–601X (print)/ISSN 1478–6028 (online) © 2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14786010701396830
Policing Terrorism: The Response of Local Police Agencies to Homeland Security ConcernsChristopher W. Ortiz, Nicole J. Hendricks, & Naomi F. SugieTaylor and Francis LtdGJUP_A_239569.sgm10.1080/14786010701396830Criminal Justice Studies1478-601X (print)/1478-6028 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis202000000June [email protected]
Policing has always been responsive to social and attitudinal shifts in society. Beginning
with the shift to modern policing, systems of policing have changed in important ways in a
relatively short period of time. Most recently, scholars, practitioners, and elected officials
have called for a new paradigm shift in policing. In response to the terror attacks of
September 11, 2001 some have called upon the police to take a more active stance in
counter terrorism initiatives and move toward a homeland security model of policing, a
system that emphasizes intelligence gathering, covert investigations, information sharing,
and immigration enforcement. The findings from this study suggest that local police
departments operationalize homeland security priorities to varying degrees. Data from this
study revealed that the police agencies under study did not make attempts to move toward
a homeland security focus. While none of the agencies completely disregarded homeland
security efforts, the majority of agencies continued to conduct business as usual. What
did change was the level of cooperation with federal agencies and information sharing.
This change was fostered, in major part, by the increased participation in the FBI’s Joint
Terrorism Task Force program. In the final part of the analysis, police officer perceptions
concerning the ability of community policing to adequately respond to the threat of terror-
ism are explored.
Chris Ortiz, PhD is a Senior Research Associate at Vera Institute of Justice. His work has focused on issues of police
management and accountability. Chris is currently an adjunct associate professor at New York Institute of
Technology. In addition, Chris is a Sergeant in the City of Glen Cove (NY) Police Department. Nicole Hendricks
is a Research Associate at the Vera Institute of Justice. She has worked on a wide range of research projects relating
to crime and victimization, prosecutorial discretion, and issues related to racial disparity in the criminal justice
system. Her primary focus has been on police accountability and the study of police–community relations. Naomi
F. Sugie is a research analyst with the Vera Institute of Justice. Her research interests include police–community
relations, prisoner reentry services, and intersections between the criminal justice system, mental illness, and
homelessness. Correspondence to: Christopher W. Ortiz, Vera Institute of Justice, 233 Broadway, 12th Floor, New
York, NY 10279, USA. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
92 C. W. Ortiz et al.
Keywords: Police Departments’ Priorities; Shifts in Policing Paradigm; Homeland
Security Policing; Counter Terrorism Units; Interagency Cooperation
History has demonstrated that the structure and core philosophy of policing in the
USA has been anything but stagnant. Since its inception, formalized policing in the
USA has been forced to respond to changes in society with like changes in principles
and practice. Although scholars have suggested that reforms in police structures are in
essence just reorganizations in the core principles of crime control, order maintenance,
and service delivery (Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990; Zhao, He, & Lovrich, 2003),
these shifts nonetheless represent important philosophical changes. Over the past
century, policing has undergone no less than three paradigm shifts in response to major
social events (Kelling & Moore, 1988). What distinguishes each shift and makes each
remarkable in its own right is the implication each has had for the manner in which the
police function in our society and the way in which the public experiences and
perceives policing.
Most recently, a cadre of practitioners, scholars, and elected officials has called upon
law enforcement to undergo yet another paradigm shift. Forwarding the proposition
that the events of September 11, 2001 and the ongoing threat of terrorism have forever
changed American society, and indeed the global community, this cadre has called for
reorganization in police priorities and a shift to what has been termed homeland secu-
rity policing.
This paper explores the response of policing to the events of September 11, 2001 in
terms of homeland security policing. Through an examination of 16 diverse police
agencies operating under federal pressures to increase anti-terrorism enforcement and
intelligence gathering practices, we suggest that many of these agencies have not shifted
to a paramilitary homeland security style of policing. To the contrary, of the agencies
studied, the majority were found to rely on traditional community policing philoso-
phies to strengthen their community partnerships and respond to terrorism. By
committing themselves to increased outreach efforts and publicly resisting federaliza-
tion efforts, these agencies have been able to ensure public safety and preparedness in
a time of terror while simultaneously strengthening community ties.
Shifts in Traditional Policing Paradigms
Policing does not operate in a vacuum. Rather, policing is greatly affected by ripples in
the social fabric of the communities served. During times of great social upheaval,
policing is forced to change in ways that mirror the emerging needs and wants of soci-
ety. Although these periods are played out over many years, a simple examination
reveals that the seeds of change are often sewn in one pronounced movement. It is easy
to envision the events of September 11, 2001 being one such movement.
The first major shift in policing occurred in response to the rapid changes in
American society during the industrial revolution. According to Greene (2000), polic-
ing was forced to change as American society ‘transformed-from an agrarian to a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 93
complex society, and from the farm to the factory’ (p. 304). As society coalesced into
large urban centers already burgeoning with large influxes of new immigrant laborers,
policing became more formalized. The ‘Modern Era’ of policing saw a move from a
relaxed body of sheriffs and constables to more rigid structures of paid urban law
enforcement officers.
The shift to modern policing also witnessed increased tensions between the police
and the public they served. By the early twentieth century, policing had been character-
ized as being the brutal arm of strong and often corrupt local political leaders
(Fogelson, 1977; Kelling & Moore, 1988). Greene (2000) notes that, ‘The lawlessness of
the police had become legend by the beginning of the [twentieth] century’ (p. 307). It
was during this time that the elites in society banded together in an effort to reform
society. The progressive movement, as it has come to be known, ushered in the second
shift in policing: the professional era. During the professional era, policing responded
to the calls for reform by divorcing themselves from political control and formalizing
corruption control policies (Fogelson, 1977).
Although the move away from political patronage and the increased reliance on
technology and accountability were viewed as positive, these decisions would portend
future troubles as the next wave of social upheaval grasped American society. As the
USA increased its global stance and engaged in wars overseas, a more onerous social
revolution was occurring at home. Beginning with the Civil Rights Movement and
flowing into anti-war demonstrations, the American public began a period of civil
unrest that professional policing proved ill-equipped and unprepared to effectively
respond to.
The policies and practices of the professional era had caused the police to become
alienated from the communities they served. Coupled with a significantly rising crime
problem, the realization that the professional policing model was not working would
lead to the most recent shift in policing; the movement toward community policing
(Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990). Community policing emerged in the 1970s as
scholars, practitioners, and the public took a critical look at the role of the police in
their communities (Zhao, Lovrich, & Thurman, 1999). Critics argued that police
departments were isolated, both bureaucratically from other government agencies that
were attempting to address social problems and from the citizenry due to an over-
reliance on motorized patrol. This isolation reduced effectiveness by constricting infor-
mation flow between the police and the public, and made attempts to address hostilities
between the two much more difficult—especially in communities whose residents were
primarily people of color (Grinc, 1994). Indeed, the urban unrest in the 1960s led some
critics of big city departments to describe the police as occupiers rather than public
servants. The level of isolation many departments practiced in an effort to reduce
opportunities for corruption was followed in the late 1960s and early 1970s by scandals
in some departments, seriously calling into question the professional policing move-
ment (Uchida, 1997).
In contrast to earlier models of policing, community policing emphasized the co-
production of public safety by the police and the community rather than the tradi-
tional enforcement model (Grinc, 1994; Skogan & Hartnett, 1997). The vision for a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
94 C. W. Ortiz et al.
community-oriented police force focused on public outreach, problem solving, and
crime prevention in place of reactive strategies that centered narrowly on arresting
individual perpetrators. The promise was that police departments that proactively
engaged the citizenry and developed strategies to address community concerns would
increase legitimacy and effectiveness, as well as make patrol officers more accountable
to the communities in which they worked (Sherman & Eck, 2002). Most succinctly
summed up by Trojanowicz, Kappeler, Gaines, and Bucqueroux (1998):
Community policing is a new philosophy of policing, based on the concept that police
officers and private citizens working together in creative ways can solve contemporary
community problems related to crime, fear of crime, social and physical disorder, and
neighborhood conditions. (p. 3)
As a policing philosophy, the shift toward community policing arguably became one
of the most important advancements in the field (Lyons, 2002; Skogan & Hartnett,
1997). Although anecdotal evidence from the field would indicate its widespread
acceptance, empirical data has been less straightforward. In a study that sought to
assess how the shift to community policing in the USA changed the core functions of
policing, Zhao et al. (2003) found that the core functions changed little and were
aligned with that of the professional model of policing. They argue that the change to
community policing may be more of a symbolic change, with all of the rhetoric and
posturing of a well-run political campaign, while the actual work of policing still
centers on crime control. In a similar study, Maguire and Katz (2002) found that the
adoption of community policing strategies by local police could be described best as
‘loose coupling.’ Their analysis revealed that the community policing initiatives under
study were adopted in an inconsistent manner by police agencies and that the incon-
sistencies extended to various levels within the same police agency. In the end, the
lesson to be learned from the shift to community policing in the USA may very well be
that changes in policing may be more cosmetic, with the core function of crime control
remaining largely intact and even dominating (Lyons, 1999; Zhao et al., 2003).
In spite of this critique, the history of policing clearly reveals that policing is capable,
and indeed does, respond to events and changes in society. In a relatively short period
of time, policing has moved from a localized ward system to a centralized professional
model and finally, to a decentralized community policing model. Most recently, schol-
ars, practitioners, and government officials have began to call for yet another paradigm
shift in policing. They argue that the events of September 11 have demonstrated that
local policing needs to take a more pronounced stance in the fight against terrorism. In
essence, they are calling for a shift to homeland security policing.
Homeland Security Policing
The events of September 11 raised a different kind of concern about safety and security:
communities—from small towns to large cities—throughout the USA are now
concerned with how terrorism and the effects of international conflict impact their
communities. In the months and years following the terrorist attacks, many people
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 95
across the nation felt a sense of vulnerability and anxiety about their safety that they
had not experienced before (Henderson, Ortiz, Sugui, & Miller, forthcoming). The
2001 attacks pulled the USA into a new era of increased activity and heightened atten-
tion to the threat of terrorism which some see as a fundamental shift toward what they
term homeland security policing. In a recent paper, Pastor (2005) comments on this
apparent shift. He states:
We are at a cusp of a silent, yet fundamental shift that will change the notion of public
safety. This new policing model will emphasize tactical methods, technology, and alterna-
tive service providers, such as security personnel. It will replace the ‘community policing’
model. (p. 4)
In a more cautionary paper, Oliver (2005) begins with the premise that since
September 11, ‘… it has become evident that many state and local police agencies
across the country have found themselves adapting to [a] new role in policing’ (p. 7).
Ultimately, he concludes that, ‘Homeland security has become the new era of policing
and its focus brings forth a new model of policing’ (p. 9). This apparent shift in policing
has not only caught the eyes of policing scholars: in his recent book about his tenure as
Commissioner of the New York City Police Department during the 2001 terror attacks,
Howard Safir states that ‘Homeland security, and the threat of terrorism, has become
the focus of law enforcement …’ (Safir, 2003, p. 148).
Due to logistical considerations, local law enforcement agencies and personnel have
been tasked with making significant changes in the way they work and have had to take
on more responsibility at a time when resources are limited. In fact, it is possible that
the expansion of local police powers will soon become federally mandated with the
passage of the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal (CLEAR) Act. The
CLEAR Act affirms state and local police authority to investigate, apprehend, detain, or
remove aliens in the USA and enables the enforcement of civil immigration violations.
All of this led Lyons (2002) to conclude, ‘A war on terror is likely to place new and
powerful pressures on local police forces’ (p. 531).
While some local law enforcement executives and community leaders have been
vocal about the impact that increased pressure to engage in counter terrorism has had
on their communities, discourse on the implications of such a strategy is limited. What
does flow from the literature is the idea that increased participation in homeland secu-
rity efforts is a legitimate role for police. Some have even argued that it is the most
recent emerging paradigm in policing.
In a paper seeking to define the future role of local police in counter terrorism
efforts, Henry (2002) argues that the current model of policing is insufficient to
prevent, respond to, and identify terrorists. He envisions a more robust system
whereby police agencies become more attuned to intelligence gathering and operate in
a more fluid interdependent system. Additionally, Henry notes that
two key elements in successfully exploiting the vast repository of intelligence information
that resides in American police agencies, then, are shifting the police mindset to include
the notion of fighting terrorism and educating police officers about terrorist practices,
methods, and activities. (Henry, 2002, p. 325)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
96 C. W. Ortiz et al.
In order to drive these ideas home, Henry reports on the efforts of the NYPD to include
intelligence gathering curriculum in their recruit training and the creation of an
Intelligence Bureau within the department, a unit of nearly 700 specially trained inves-
tigators. Ultimately, Henry concludes that, ‘If American policing and public safety are
to face and overcome the threat of terrorist activities, they must dramatically change
their policies, their training, their operational practices and their relationships with
each other’ (p. 335).
Sloan (2002) appears to agree with Henry’s assessment. Sloan agues that the threat
of terrorism necessitates the need for increased efforts to collect intelligence by local
law enforcement agencies. He argues that ‘beyond the training there is also the require-
ment to strengthen the capability of state and local agencies and departments to
develop their own counter terrorism intelligence capabilities and therefore become
more equal partners in the intelligence “war on terrorism”’ (p. 343).
Both Henry (2002) and Sloan (2002) start with the premise that a terrorist attack
could potentially happen anywhere in the USA, even small cities and rural areas. Given
this assumption, they argue that local police agencies are uniquely situated to respond
to this new threat and should play an integral role in gathering intelligence. They both
envision local police agencies moving toward homeland security styles of policing char-
acterized by their increased involvement in broad investigations involving the cooper-
ation of multiple federal and local law enforcement agencies with the core of these
investigations centering on covert information gathering activities. Former New York
City Police Commissioner Howard Safir agrees with Henry and Sloan and goes as far
as criticizing the police effort in homeland security noting that, ‘The role of local law
enforcement in homeland security is still less than it should be’ (Safir, 2003, p. 150).
Some scholars have cautioned against a complete shift to homeland security polic-
ing. While many agree that local police agencies can play a role in counter terrorism
efforts, they caution against the paramilitarization of local policing. Lyons (2002)
argues that a more aggressive policing stance may serve to alienate the communities
that may have the most information to share. Instead, he recommends
partnering with those citizens who have the information we need … For the war on terror,
this will similarly mean rebuilding trust in Arab American and Islamic American commu-
nities, not with empty promises but in the ways we police and protect them … (p. 532)
Murray (2005) suggests that community policing offers a more ‘sensible and effective’
response to dealing with the new pressures placed on local law enforcement because it
promotes mutual respect among communities and police, a condition which is likely
to foster an open exchange of information and is oriented towards prevention. In a
similar vein, Lehrer (2002) argues that local agencies have something to teach the FBI
when it comes to community outreach; he suggests that intelligence gathering efforts
at the local level, which have primarily dealt with conventional crime concerns, have
been effective because police officers understand how to engage the community by
simply making themselves accessible to tipsters.
In a study of the response of the Dearborn (MI) Police Department to homeland
security needs, Thacher (2005) breaks down homeland security efforts into two distinct
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 97
activities: community protection and offender search. Thacher describes the current
pressure for local departments to engage in counter terrorism as the tension between
community protection and offender search activities. He argues that if the federal
government wants to ask local departments to engage in offender search—mainly
intelligence gathering and surveillance—this ‘would require fairly deep structural
changes in American government, and even then federal expectations would probably
need to be modest’ (Thacher, 2005, p. 672). Ultimately, Thacher concludes that local
police should address local concerns and calls for a community protection posture in
homeland security policing.
Critics of an expanded local mission focused on counter terrorism caution that the
expansion of powers could easily lead to ethnic profiling and threaten to further
compromise an already tenuous relationship between communities and law enforce-
ment. Because intelligence gathering and counter terrorism efforts have largely
targeted people of Arab descent as well as American Muslims, this tension is likely to
persist, particularly in areas with large Arab American communities.
This exact phenomenon has played out in other countries. In a study of the counter
terrorism efforts untaken in India, Jafa (2005) observed multiple problems in the police
response to domestic terrorism. Seeking a solution to the rising levels of terrorist activ-
ity within the Muslim community, Jafa reports that Indian police forces took on a more
paramilitary stance and began proactive intelligence gathering initiatives and expanded
their partnerships with military forces. The result was widespread police abuses includ-
ing ‘unrestrained shooting,’ ‘prejudice,’ and ‘excessive force’ (p. 156). Ultimately, Jafa
concludes that as a result of these activities, ‘the police forces in Jammu & Kashmir
[have been] perceived as instruments of repression’ (p. 160).
The call for a dramatic shift to a homeland security style of policing raises several
pertinent questions including: ‘To what extent has American policing embraced home-
land security initiatives?,’ ‘Is there wholesale acceptance of the idea that policing needs
to undergo a metamorphosis, becoming more attuned to intelligence gathering activi-
ties and ferreting out potential threats?,’ and finally, ‘What future does this portend for
community policing?’ This paper attempts to answer these questions through an
empirical analysis of the practices and policies of police agencies operating in areas of
heightened governmental pressures to increase counter terrorism activities.
Methodology
The data for this project was collected as part of a larger study in which we sought to
assess the state of relations between local law enforcement and Arab American commu-
nities in a post September 11 environment. The end goal of that project was to identify
promising and innovative practices aimed at building mutually beneficial relationships
between the two. Due to the nature of the larger study, the unit of analysis was police
agencies operating in jurisdictions of high Arab American concentration. Therefore,
the sample is representative of these police agencies and may not be generalizable to the
universe of police agencies in the USA. That said, this sample does have a unique utility
for the following analysis. Due to the nature of the terror attacks in the USA, Arab
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
98 C. W. Ortiz et al.
American communities have found themselves the unfortunate focus of anti-terror
initiatives and the law enforcement agencies responsible for providing for public safety
in these communities have arguably faced increased pressure to broaden their home-
land security stance (Henderson et al., forthcoming; Lyons, 2002; Weiss, 2002).
Sample and Sample Descriptions
Utilizing data from the 2000 Census, we identified 37 communities within the USA
with the highest concentrations—based on both percentage and absolute number—of
Arab American residents. From these 37 sites, we compiled a sample of 20 sites for anal-
ysis and identified the local police agency in each jurisdiction. The locations were
selected in an attempt to compile a diverse sample, based upon geographic region, size,
and demographic make-up of the Arab American community.
The police agencies included in this study were similarly diverse. According to Law
Enforcement and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) statistics for 2000, the numbers of
sworn officers range from a few hundred to many thousand, with departments located
in sites ranging from small cities and suburbs to large metropolitan areas.1 Of the 20
sites included in the initial sample, law enforcement agencies in four sites declined to
participate in the study leaving a final sample of 16 municipal jurisdictions.
Data Collection Strategy
Due to the global nature of the events surrounding September 11 and the federal level
policy responses to them, the study took on a dual focus looking at both national and
local level law enforcement. In order to chart general trends, topics, and sentiments on
the national and local levels, we employed a largely qualitative study design that
included a telephone survey in 16 sites across the country.
Telephone survey instruments were designed to include semi-structured open-
ended questions, which allowed respondents to talk about concerns and issues on their
own terms, without the constraints of a predetermined line of questioning. Given that
there is little work specifically on relations between law enforcement agencies and Arab
American communities, we employed a grounded theory approach which allowed
themes to emerge from the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). We generally began the
project with few preconceived notions, though it is important to note that we did hold
several hypotheses about the role of community policing in outreach efforts.
Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with local law enforcement (n
= 38), the FBI (n = 16), and community leaders (n = 53). Each interview consisted of
18 semi-structured open-ended questions across 10 topics including victimization,
immigration enforcement policies, police outreach, policing structure, and commu-
nity structure.
In local law enforcement agencies, we interviewed police department administrators,
such as the Chief of Police, officers working in specialized units, liaisons to the Arab
American community, community outreach officers and administrators, and zone/
precinct-level staff (see Table 1). The interview process typically began by contacting
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 99
the Chief of Police. The Chief in turn typically nominated the next three interview
subjects based upon our guiding criteria.
For the FBI, we first attempted to interview the Special Agent in Charge of the juris-
diction of interest. In some of the smaller sites, this entailed interviewing the resident
agent that covered the jurisdiction. In three instances, we interviewed the individual in
charge of community outreach or other appropriate personnel with knowledge of the
community of interest (see Table 2).
Unlike the law enforcement interviews, the process of identifying community
leaders required a different approach. We employed a snowball networking method-
ology to draw upon a wide range of sources. Initially, researchers partnered with a
Washington, DC-based nonprofit organization that works nationally on issues that
affect the Arab American community. The initial round of the sampling techniques
utilized a combination of sources to nominate relevant contacts, including lists accu-
mulated from outreach organizations and academics, Internet searches, a national
Muslim resource guide, and referrals from other interviewees. The final makeup of
our interviews consisted of a mix of community leaders engaged in policing issues
including leaders representing clergy (Muslim and Christian), heads of community-
based organizations, business figures, and local politicians and government person-
nel (see Table 3).
Interview Content
Due to the broader goals of the larger project, the local law enforcement, FBI, and
community leader interviews centered around ten distinct topic areas: general infor-
mation about the agency/community; outreach efforts; community concerns; intelli-
gence gathering; hate/bias crime victimization; training; interagency cooperation;
official policy; the role of community policing; and barriers to cooperation. Each topic
area contained numerous prompts and interviewers remained free to further explore
answers given in each topic area. Although this study yielded a vast amount of data
across these topics areas, this paper focuses on data stemming from five areas: general
information; intelligence gathering; interagency cooperation; departmental policy; and
Table 1 Interviews with Local Law Enforcement.
Police department administration
Specialized units Liaison
Community outreach
Zone/precinct level
Total completed
9 3 3 8 15 38
Table 2 Interviews with Personnel from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Special Agent in Charge
Assistant Special Agent in Charge
Head of JTTF
Supervisory Special Agent/Resident Agency
Community outreach
Total completed
2 2 6 3 3 16
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
100 C. W. Ortiz et al.
the role of community policing. In addition, the larger study relied heavily on data
collected from the community leader interviews, but this analysis utilized this informa-
tion as a validity check on the law enforcement responses. For example, if an agency
stated that they do not enforce immigration law then the community responses should
also reveal that.
Interviews began by collecting general information about the law enforcement
agency. Topics included the size of agency, setting, and policing philosophy. In addi-
tion, each respondent was asked about their role in the agency. The interview then
moved to intelligence gathering. Respondents were asked about the role intelligence
gathering and outreach played within their agency, who was charged with gathering
intelligence and conducting outreach for the agency, what the role of patrol officers was
in intelligence gathering and outreach, and if their agency had formed a counter terror-
ism unit. Interviewers then asked the respondents about interagency cooperation.
Respondents were asked if cooperation with federal law enforcement agencies had
improved since September 11, if their agency participated in a Joint Terrorism Task
Force, and about information sharing. The interview then shifted to official depart-
ment policy. Respondents were asked if their agency had a formal policy concerning
immigration enforcement and racial profiling. In each area, respondents were asked to
elaborate on the current formal or informal departmental policy regarding these topics.
Finally, respondents were asked about the role of community policing in terrorism
enforcement.
Data Analysis
Interview data was analyzed utilizing the constant comparative method (Dye, Schatz,
Rosenberg, & Coleman, 2000; Lacey & Luff, 2001; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). First,
we used the technique of charting; grouping data by site, respondent type, and inter-
view question. Once charted, comparisons were made within agency to check the valid-
ity of interview data between respondents from the same agency. Once completed,
between agency responses were analyzed noting the effect variables such as agency size
and commitment to community policing played in responses. Whenever possible, the
interview data was coded and collapsed into bivariate variables in order to quantify
prevalence.
Additional analysis sought to quantify the number of agencies in our sample that
have taken a strong homeland security posture. Within each police agency, interview
data was aggregated in order to reveal each department’s formal and/or informal poli-
cies surrounding four key elements of homeland security policing: the creation of
Table 3 Interviews with Community Leaders.
BusinessCommunity-based
organizationChristian
clergyMuslim clergy Government
Elected or political official
Total completed
14 18 6 2 3 10 53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 101
counter terrorism units, interagency cooperation, information sharing, and intelli-
gence gathering.
The final part of the analysis entailed grouping the 16 sample agencies by their
reported commitment to community policing initiatives. Utilizing interview data from
the sample and self-reported agency data for the sample agencies from LEMAS 2000,
each agency was grouped into one of three basic typologies based upon their commit-
ment to community policing. The typologies included active agencies, passive agencies,
and inactive agencies. Once grouped by typology, interview data concerning the
respondents’ perceptions of the utility and need for community policing in the
response to terrorism was analyzed. The results of all three levels of analysis are
presented below.
Findings
The goal of this paper is to assess what, if any, shift toward homeland security policing
has occurred in the years since September 11. Below, several key aspects of homeland
security style policing are explored at length. Each has been forwarded as a possible
strategy in the fight against terrorism and will be discussed in relation to the findings
emerging from our sample of 16 police agencies. In the final section, we analyze the role
that community policing plays in the effort to police terrorism.
Counter Terrorism Units
None of the 16 police agencies involved in this study had established formalized inde-
pendent counter terrorism units as a result of September 11. In many jurisdictions,
police officials noted that they simply did not have the resources to devote officers to
any such endeavor. This is not to say that the departments in the sample were not
conducting counter terrorism activities. Rather, it appeared that most of the police
agencies in the sample deferred these activities to federal agencies, limiting their partic-
ipation to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) program. In fact, the greatest reorga-
nization efforts as a result of September 11 were reported in response to questions
concerning participation in JTTFs. While the JTTF program has existed in the FBI for
many years, it has recently been expanded as part of an effort to increase the commu-
nication between local and federal law enforcement. Prior to September 11, there were
approximately 35 JTTFs across the USA, but that number was increased to nearly 70 in
post September 11 restructuring. In its present day form, the JTTF operates in every
field office and approximately ten additional resident agencies.
Although none of the 16 police agencies had formed an independent counter
terrorism unit, a total of 14 (88%) police agencies in the sample participated in the
FBI JTTF program. Of the agencies that did not participate, size appeared to be the
biggest factor for non-participation (see Table 4). This makes logical sense. Participa-
tion in the program entails the devotion of one or more officers to the unit. Smaller
agencies do no have the resources to make such a commitment and will usually forego
participation.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
102 C. W. Ortiz et al.
Interagency Cooperation
Interagency cooperation is seen as the keystone to homeland security policing (Henry,
2002; Sloan, 2002). Respondents in all 16 police agencies reported increased coopera-
tion between federal law enforcement agencies and their department. This was espe-
cially true of the FBI, but some respondents were more critical of other federal
agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE). This finding was supported by data from the FBI interviews. FBI
respondents in all 16 sites reported increased dialog with local law enforcement agen-
cies. In nine of the sites, the FBI respondents said that their JTTF serves as the primary
communication bridge between local and federal law enforcement. In addition to the
JTTFs, activities such as jointly sponsored town hall meetings, community working
groups, and community leaders meetings were mentioned as ways that have increased
cooperation. FBI trainings with local police were another example, with respondents
in 7 of the 16 sites reporting engaging in trainings addressing a range of topics, includ-
ing hate crimes, cultural awareness, and intelligence gathering.
It appears that national directives aimed at increasing collaboration between federal
and local law enforcement agencies have led to enhanced working relationships and the
development of interagency initiatives and working groups. Telephone interviews with
law enforcement officials, both at the federal and local levels, suggest that nearly all
police departments are involved in some type of activity, ranging from, as one officer
mentioned, getting ‘involved with the Threat Risk Assessments since terrorism became
a big issue’; to working closely with the FBI on investigations, to sitting on a JTTF.
In all, 29 (76%) police respondents believed that the cooperation between their
police agency and federal law enforcement agencies had increased since the events of
September 11, four (11%) respondents were unsure, and five (13%) respondents
believed that it had either stayed the same or had worsened.
Information Sharing
Although the vast majority of police respondents reported that there was increased
interagency cooperation between federal and local law enforcement agencies, nearly
two-thirds felt that the working relationship could be improved, with greater informa-
tion sharing or better communication being the most frequently given responses. As
one officer stated, ‘There is a belief that the information is flowing one way. We get the
orange alert but they get the detailed information and don’t share it.’ Other respon-
dents referred to the tendency of federal agencies to withhold information, a practice
Table 4 JTTF Participation by Agency Size.
Over 250 sworn Under 250 sworn
JTTF No JTTF JTTF No JTTF
14 0 0 2
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 103
that may be necessary to the job but nonetheless frustrating to some local police. One
officer noted that, ‘If there was more open communication, it would help with the
cooperation. I think that there is still a culture within the federal agencies that they need
to keep their intelligence to themselves and closely guard it.’
A total of 28 (74%) police respondents reported that the level of information sharing
between local police and federal level law enforcement agencies could be improved,
three (8%) reported that they did not know if it could be improved, and seven (18%)
reported that they believed that the level of information sharing was sufficient and
needed no improvement.
Intelligence Gathering
One of the most controversial practices in homeland security policing is covert intelli-
gence gathering. Many have argued that the local decentralized structure of policing
makes police particularly well situated to collect intelligence on community members
(Henry, 2002). Of the 16 sample police agencies under study, 12 did not have formal
intelligence units. Of the four agencies in the sample that had intelligence units, all were
established prior to September 11. Additionally, interview data revealed that these units
either did not change substantially or that they focused on multiple intelligence needs
and not solely on counter terrorism initiatives.
Interview data revealed that both the police and the community harbored uneasy
feelings about intelligence gathering initiatives. Police chiefs in this study speculated
about the effectiveness of using police officers untrained in intelligence gathering and
the impact that an unexplained canvass would have on their community building
efforts. In one site, officers explained how prior to September 11, all outreach to Arab
American communities came from the criminal intelligence unit. They have since
changed this orientation, and encouraged outreach from all units. In another site, an
overzealous intelligence officer was forced to retire over an incident with the Arab
American community and his role was replaced with a community outreach officer.
Interviews with community members also gave important insights on intelligence
gathering efforts. As one community leader said, ‘A community that trusts law enforce-
ment would be vigilant in stopping terrorism.’ There was a sense among community
respondents that a focus on counter terrorism will not be successful without an existing
degree of trust and confidence in local police.
Of the 38 police respondents we interviewed, 10 (26%) stated that their agencies
actively participate in intelligence gathering, 12 (32%) reported that they did not, and 16
were unsure. Of the ten police respondents that reported that their agency actively gathers
intelligence, eight (80%) were from agencies with formalized intelligence units and two
(20%) stated that it was done as part of the agency’s participation in the JTTF program.
Immigration Enforcement
Although increased enforcement of immigration violations has not been forwarded as
a tool in the response to terrorism to any great extent by policing scholars, the proposed
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
104 C. W. Ortiz et al.
CLEAR Act and other federal policies have put pressure on local law enforcement agen-
cies to undertake such enforcement efforts. It is for this reason that questions regarding
immigration enforcement were included in this analysis.
Two departments in our sample were located in states that had agreements with ICE
to deputize state and local police for immigration enforcement. One city followed the
state agreement and deputized its local police, while the other city’s police chief decided
to actively speak against the Memorandum of Understanding. When asked to describe
the relations between the community and the police, the head of a community-based
organization stated:
There is not that much of a level of trust. In this state the police can investigate people for
immigration status now. They don’t have to do anything to get investigated so people don’t
want anything to do with the police.
In the other city, the Chief felt that the negative effects on community relations would
outweigh any positives gained by federalizing his officers.
There was a new law passed in our state that allows us to detain individuals based upon
immigration law, but we do not do this in our department. In fact, when the law was first
announced, we actively went to the newspapers and publicized the fact that we were not
going to enforce immigration violations.
In other departments with clear guidelines to only look at the status of those arrested,
police chiefs as well as officers affirmed the importance of maintaining separation
between immigration enforcement and regular police activities. Many felt this was essen-
tial in order to maintain trusting relationships with their immigrant communities. A lieu-
tenant explained, ‘We need community support to do our jobs. We cannot have people
afraid of us.’ In another city, which has been particularly active in promoting its policy
to not enforce immigration violations, the Assistant to the Chief describes their stance:
We can only check someone’s status if they are arrested. We cannot do it for a traffic violation
or anything like that because their immigration status is irrelevant. We have gotten a lot of
slack for that from the feds, but we’ve had this policy for 20 years. And I personally think it’s a
good one because if we were able to check up on people’s status then they would be afraid to
come to us if they needed help. And we don’t want that.
In response to the questions surrounding the enforcement of immigration viola-
tions, police officer responses were rarely consistent with others in their site, with
responses only aligned in four (25%) of the 16 sites. Further, out of the total officer
responses, five (13%) respondents said they either did not know what officers might do
if confronted with an immigration violation. Thirty-three (87%) officers reported that
they do not actively engage in immigration enforcement. Twenty-four (63%) stated
that they do not enforce immigration violations themselves but do sometimes forward
the information to ICE. However, there was little consistency within each site.
The Role of Community Policing
One of the most important findings from this project concerned the role of commu-
nity policing in the fight against terrorism. Results from the telephone interviews
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 105
demonstrated that agencies actively engaged in robust community policing efforts
were more apt to have meaningful dialog with and benefit from information sharing
within the community. Those that did not have community policing or had a more
passive relationship with the community were more likely to be disconnected and have
little to no information about the communities they served. This can have negative
implications on the ability of police to solicit information from the community and
can have a dire effect on police/community relations.
In active community policing sites, police officials felt strongly that maintaining
relations with communities was essential to intelligence efforts. As the chief of a major,
big city police department expressed,
With 9/11, the challenges we have to face are much greater … For the very first time, America
is under threat. The fact is, no one knows who lives in these communities but the collection of
intelligence will come from the community. So a relationship and confidence within the
community is important. We are walking a tightrope. It’s [community policing] very neces-
sary, it enhances the importance of the relationship. We can’t afford to alienate them.
Otherwise, we cut off our sources of information.
Although 12 of the 16 (75%) sample police agencies reported that they engaged in
community policing, the level of engagement varied from active to passive to non-
existent. Among the sample agencies, five (31%) police departments were actively
engaged in community policing efforts, six (38%) were passively engaged, and five
(31%) did not appear to be engaged in community policing at any significant level and
were therefore categorized as inactive. Below, each typology is characterized by their
involvement with the Arab American community.
Active community policing departments engaged in ongoing and consistent
outreach with the community, which many times included the formation of an advi-
sory board of community leaders, monthly or quarterly meetings, and officer atten-
dance at community events or cultural organizations. In turn, community
organizations often led cultural sensitivity or diversity classes for the police academy
and in some instance participated in in-service trainings. Perhaps most important to
facilitating regular dialogue and outreach, active departments often assigned an officer
on full or part-time basis to serve as a liaison to the Arab American community. Active
departments also exhibited considerable knowledge of the concerns of Arab American
communities.
Passive community policing departments may have conducted one or two meetings
with Arab American leaders since September 11, but the sporadic and inconsistent
nature of outreach suggested they were more passive than active. Officers in passive
departments sometimes had personal relationships with Arab American community
members, but this dialogue never entered formal, department-wide channels.
Similarly, in a few passive departments Arab American officers took it upon themselves
to engage in outreach on their own time. While informal liaisons can be important
contributors to spurring police–community dialogue, the informal nature of these
relationships, by themselves, did not allow for wider dissemination among officers or
a formal response by the department.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
106 C. W. Ortiz et al.
Inactive community policing departments appeared to be reactive in their polic-
ing philosophy and engaged in little to no formal dialogue with Arab American
communities in their jurisdiction. In some of these departments, officers had
personal relationships with community members, but similar to the passive sites,
these informal channels did not seem to translate to formal responses. Responses
from the study suggest that there was very little to no institutional knowledge of the
concerns of Arab American communities.
In the short term, these relationships can help to stem the negative effects of federal
policies such as the voluntary interviews and increased immigration enforcement. In
the long term, these relationships can aid the police in forming active partnerships
with communities such as the Arab American community. These partnerships, in
turn, can yield a great deal of information about various public safety problems
including terrorism.
Discussion
The findings from this study suggest that local police departments operationalize home-
land security priorities to varying degrees. This may be due to ways in which law enforce-
ment personnel from local police departments have diverse perspectives on what their
role in the ‘war on terrorism’ should be or to priority setting. Data from this study
revealed that the police agencies under study did not make attempts to move toward a
homeland security focus. Contrary to popular calls for the use of more pronounced anti-
terror tactics by local police, the data presented in this study reveals that local police are
not participating in covert intelligence gathering, immigration enforcement, or other
counter terrorism initiatives to any significant extent. While none of the agencies
completely disregarded homeland security efforts, the majority of agencies continued
to conduct business as usual. This finding falls in line with the extant research surround-
ing the adoption of community policing (see Lyons, 1999; Maguire & Katz; 2002;
Zhao et al., 2003). Perhaps police agencies are once again engaging in loose coupling;
making minimal attempts to respond to public will while remaining wedded to their
core functions of crime control, order maintenance, and service delivery.
This is not to say that homeland security concerns have not registered with local
police or that these agencies are not attempting to proactively address the threat of
terrorism at some level. Our data suggests that local and federal law enforcement agen-
cies have undergone some important changes in policy and practice. These changes
were most often reported in the way local and federal law enforcement agencies coop-
erate with one another. To the one, each police agency in the sample reported increased
cooperation with federal law enforcement agencies after September 11. The data
suggests that the apparent driving factor behind this is participation in the FBI’s JTTF
program.
The most important finding from this project concerned the role of community
policing in homeland security efforts. Community policing—the engagement of
communities in problem-solving partnerships to address crime and public safety
concerns—has been the dominant policing philosophy in the USA for the past two
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 107
decades. It appears that many of the police agencies we studied increased their
community policing efforts, especially in Arab American communities, after
September 11. This allowed the police agencies we studied to be responsive to
community concerns in a post September 11 environment and will pay untold divi-
dends in the future. In police agencies with active community policing partnerships,
police officials almost universally viewed community policing as important in the
fight against terrorism. Many point to the fact that these initiatives have allowed
them to build important relationships with the community and have been a source
of information and intelligence they otherwise would have been cut off from. The
majority of police respondents commented that the events of September 11 had a
positive impact on police community relations, ushering in greater communication
and a broader understanding of the issues facing the communities they served. As
one police official stated, ‘No one is banging on doors and pulling people out of
their homes, but we have a duty and we can’t take this lightly.’
Conclusion
Policing has always been responsive to priority and attitudinal shifts in society.
Beginning with the shift to modern policing, systems of policing have changed in
important ways in a short period of time. Over the past two decades, the evolution of
policing has led to the phenomenon of community policing, a system that values citi-
zen input and places an emphasis on the co-production of public safety by both the
police and the public they serve. Most recently, scholars, practitioners, and elected
officials have called for a new paradigm shift in policing. In response to the terror
attacks of September 11, some have called upon the police to take a more active stance
in counter terrorism initiatives and move toward a homeland security model of polic-
ing, a system that emphasizes intelligence gathering, covert investigations, informa-
tion sharing, and immigration enforcement. National security concerns following
September 11 have prompted debate among policing scholars and practitioners about
whether local agencies should take advantage of their unique street-level position to
be more involved in homeland security efforts.
This project has demonstrated that many local police agencies are resisting the call
to move toward a homeland security model of policing. Although most of the police
officials that were interviewed suggested that September 11 did indeed have deep reper-
cussions on policing, the majority have reported that they did not shift their core goals
and priorities in ways that reflect homeland security policing. In fact, it appears that
many have bolstered their community policing and outreach efforts, first in an effort
to respond to increased reports of hate crimes in Arab American communities and
second, in an effort to build relationships and outreach in communities that were silent
before September 11.
According to the accounts of study participants, the events of 9/11 signaled big
changes for law enforcement agencies. In a way, these agencies, as with the communi-
ties they served, faced new pressures and a changed atmosphere. A chief from a large
suburban department reflected,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
108 C. W. Ortiz et al.
It is a unique situation that we find ourselves in after 9/11. September 11 was so unusual. It
was so well orchestrated that it caused widespread paranoia. It caused panic in people, and they
wondered do we have others [potential terrorists]?
The panic that this chief describes is essentially part of a greater debate about domes-
tic security. The events of September 11 were coordinated on an effort unimaginable
just a few years earlier. The mere fact that the perpetrators of the attacks were residing
within our communities has demonstrated that counter terrorism efforts need to take
a local focus. But to what extent should local police join in these efforts and how should
it be accomplished? Should community policing be abandoned for a more paramilitary
homeland security style for policing? These and other pertinent research questions
should form the basis of future research on the intersection between community polic-
ing and homeland security concerns.
Acknowledgements
This project was prepared by the Vera Institute of Justice and supported by Grant No.
2003-IJ-CX-1020 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, US Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the US Department of
Justice.
Note1
[1] The sample of 20 included five sites from each of the following types of cities: (1) total popu-
lation greater than 500,000, (2) total population between 250,000 and 500,000, (3) total popu-
lation between 100,000 and 250,000, and (4) total population under 100,000.
References
Dye, J. F., Schatz, I. M., Rosenberg, B. A., & Coleman, S. T. (2000). Constant comparison method: A
kaleidoscope of data. The Qualitative Report, 4(1/2).
Fogelson, R. (1977). Big-city police. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Greene, J. R. (2000). Community policing in America: Changing the nature, structure, and function
of the police. In Criminal Justice 2000: Vol. 3. Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal
justice system. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Grinc, R. M. (1994). ‘Angels in marble’: Problems stimulating community involvement in commu-
nity policing. Crime & Delinquency, 40(3), 437–468.
Henderson, N., Ortiz, C., Sugui, N., & Miller, J. (forthcoming). Beyond the numbers: Hate crimes
and cultural trauma within Arab American immigrant communities. International Review of
Victimology.
Henry, V. E. (2002). The need for a coordinated and strategic local police approach to terrorism: A
practitioner’s perspective. Police Practice and Research, 3(4), 319–336.
Jafa, Y. (2005). Defeating terrorism: A study of operational strategy and tactics of police forces in
Jammu & Kashmir (India). Police Practice and Research, 6(2), 141–164.
Kelling, G. L., & Moore, M. (1988). From political to reform to community: The evolving strategy of
police. In J. R. Greene & S. Mastrofski (Eds.), Community policing: Rhetoric or reality. New
York: Praeger.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 109
Lacey, A., & Luff, D. (2001). Trent Focus for research and development in primary health care: An
introduction to qualitative data analysis. Leicester: Trent Focus.
Lehrer, E. (2002, July 29). What cops can teach the FBI. The Weekly Standard, p. 17.
Lyons, W. (1999). The politics of community policing: Rearranging the power to punish. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Lyons, W. (2002). Partnerships, information and public safety: Community policing in a time of
terror. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25, 530–542.
Maguire, E., & Katz, C. (2002). Community policing, loose coupling, and sensemaking in American
police agencies. Justice Quarterly, 19(3), 503–536.
Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide.
Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Murray, J. (2005). Policing terrorism: A threat to community policing or just a shift in priorities?
Police Practice and Research, 6(4), 347–361.
Oliver, W. (2005). The era of homeland security: September 11, 2001 to … Crime and Justice
International, 21(85), 9–17.
Pastor, J. (2005). Terrorism and public safety policing. Crime and Justice International, 21(85), 4–8.
Safir, H. (2003). Security. New York: Thomas Dunne Books.
Sherman, L., & Eck, J. (2002). Policing for crime prevention. In L. Sherman, D. Farrington, B. Welsh,
& D. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention. London: Routledge.
Skogan, W., & Hartnett, S. (1997). Community policing, Chicago style. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Sloan, S. (2002). Meeting the terrorist threat: The localization of counter terrorism intelligence.
Police Practice and Research, 3(4), 337–345.
Thacher, D. (2005). The local role in homeland security. Law & Society Review, 39(3), 635–676.
Trojanowicz, R., & Bucqueroux, B. (1990). Community policing: A contemporary perspective.
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Trojanowicz, R., Kappeler, V., Gaines, L., & Bucqueroux, B. (1998). Community policing: A contem-
porary perspective (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Uchida, C. D. (1997). The development of the American police: An historical overview. In R. G.
Dunham & G. P. Alpert (Eds.), Critical issues in policing (3rd ed., pp. 18–35). Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland.
Weiss, P. (2002). Terrorism, counterterrorism, and international law. Arab Studies Quarterly, 24(2/
3), 11–24.
Zhao, J., He, N., & Lovrich, N. (2003). Community policing: Did it change the basic functions of
policing in the 1990s? A national follow-up study. Justice Quarterly, 20(4), 697–724.
Zhao, J., Lovrich, N., & Thurman, Q. (1999). The status of community policing in American cities:
Facilitators & impediments revisited. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &
Management, 22(1), pp. 74–92.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
07:
54 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
