Protecting Your Community From Terrorism:
Strategies for Local Law Enforcement 

Volume 2: 
Working With 
Diverse Communities 

COPS Logo

PERF Logo


PROTECTING YOUR COMMUNITY FROM TERRORISM:
The Strategies for Local Law Enforcement Series

VOL. 2: WORKING WITH DIVERSE COMMUNITIES 

Heather J. Davies and Gerard R. Murphy 

with 

Kareem Irfan 
Former Chief Jerry A. Oliver
Linda M. Schmidt
Deputy Superintendent Barbara B. McDonald 
Chief Gil Kerlikowske
Assistant Commissioner James D. Sewell

PERF Logo

COPS Logo


This project, conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), was supported by Cooperative 
Agreement #2002-HS-WX-K001 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services. Points of views or opinions contained in this document are those of the authors and do 
not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or 
the members of PERF. 

The opinions expressed are generally those based on the consensus of executive session attendees. However, not 
every view or statement presented in this report can necessarily be attributed to each individual participant. 

Websites and sources listed provide useful information at the time of this writing, but the authors do not endorse 
any information of the sponsor organization or other information on the websites. 

 Police Executive Research Forum, 
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Police Executive Research Forum
Washington, DC 20036
United States of America
March 2004


ISBN 1-878734-80-6 
Library of Congress Number 2004091990


Photos courtesy of (from top to bottom):
The Arlington County (VA) Police Department (1-3)
Federal Emergency Management Association (4)
The Chicago Police Department (5)


Cover design by David Edelson, PERF
Interior layout by David Edelson, based on a design by Elliot Thomas Grant, etg Design



CONTENTS

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 
Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii 

Chapters 

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 

Community Concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 
Combating Misperceptions and Misunderstanding: A Community Leaders Perspective . . . . . . . . . . .7 
Racial Profiling Takes on a Different Meaning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 

Federal Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 
Community Outreach Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

Local Law Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 
Chicagos Multi-Cultural Forum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 
One Communitys Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .35 
Locals Aid Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Floridas Counterterrorism Effort. . . . . .41 

Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 

Appendices 

Participants and Observers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 
Federal Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 
Forum and Council. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 
Hate Crime Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 
National Associations/Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 

COPS Office-Related Titles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 
PERF-Related Titles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 
About the Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 
About the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 

U.S. Department of Justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 
About the Police Executive Research Forum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE MANY INDIVIDUALS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO 
this paper. Any value this paper has to the field is due largely to their 
commitment to improving how law enforcement serves and works 
with their diverse communities. 

This paper is the result of a compelling executive 
sessionthe second in a series of fiveall made 
possible by the U.S. Department of Justice Office 
of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 
support and guidance. We are grateful to Director 
Carl Peed for so clearly recognizing the need for 
this project, and for his vision and support 
throughout the effort. Project Monitor Amy 
Schapiro has demonstrated her usual patience and 
support as we have worked to convene the series of 
executive sessions and the resulting white papers 
on how local law enforcement can maintain its 
commitment to community policing in a security-
conscious world. 

We must also thank those who participated in the executive session. (See Appendix A.) 
They took part in thoughtful and sincere discussions about how local law enforcement can engage 
community residents and work with federal agencies to provide effective police services under the 
threat of additional terrorist attacks. A special 
thanks is due to former Chicago Police 
Superintendent Terry G. Hillard and Deputy 
Superintendent Barbara B. McDonald and their 
dedicated staffs for hosting the executive session. 
We thank the members of Chicagos Multi-
Cultural Forumwhich receives support to convene 
forums from another COPS-funded project, 
the Value Based Initiativewho graciously allowed 
us to observe one of their police/community meetings. 
Their dedication to building a stronger relationship 
between the community and law enforcement is truly
 remarkable. Just as impressive was 
their willingness to engage in a candid discussion 
of sensitive issues regarding community concerns 
and law enforcement efforts, demonstrating their 
commitment to understanding one anothers perspective, 
and developing effective solutions to 
problems. 

We want to thank those who contributed 
to this paper by writing sidebar pieces: Kareem 
Irfan, Chairman of the Council of Islamic 


Organizations of Greater Chicago; Former Chief 
Jerry A. Oliver, Detroit Police Department; Linda 

M. Schmidt, FBI Community Outreach Specialist; 
Deputy Superintendent Barbara B. McDonald, 
Chicago Police Department; Chief Gil 
Kerlikowske, Seattle Police Department; and 
Assistant Commissioner James D. Sewell, Florida 
Department of Law Enforcement. 

Several members of the PERF staff spent 
countless hours planning the executive session, 
fact-checking the content of the paper, reviewing 
drafts, and correcting mistakes. Executive Director 
Chuck Wexler was instrumental in supporting and 
facilitating the executive session. Research 
Assistant Judy Lim managed the logistics of the 
two-day event. We thank Research Assistant Alex 
Hayes for assisting with logistics at the session 
and researching documentation, as well as casting 
a critical eye in providing feedback and editing. A 
special thanks goes to Legislative Assistant Steve 
Loyka who spent many hours verifying legislative 
issues and facts in the report. We also thank Stacy 
Osnick Milligan for her thoughtful review of the 
report. David Edelson did an outstanding job 
completing the layout of this document on a demanding 
schedule. As always, we are very grateful to 
Martha Plotkin for her patience, professional 
assistance and unflagging efforts in editing and 
producing this document. 

We also thank Michael Lieberman at the 
Anti-Defamation League for reviewing early drafts 
of the document related to hate crime enforcement 
and resources for law enforcement. 

To those of you in the community and in 
law enforcementat every level of government 
who work to make our communities places where 
respect and dignity for all who live there are truly 
valued, and who keep us safe from crimes of hate 
and terror, we hope this paper provides you with 
resources and information to assist you in your 
efforts. 



FOREWORD



LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE STILL FEELING THE 
effects of September 11, 2001. In the years that have passed since those 
tragic events, law enforcement professionals have been working to redefine 
their roles as they continue traditional crime-fighting efforts while also 
taking on tremendous new counterterrorism responsibilities. Local police agencies 
are not only training with new equipment and response tactics, they are engaging 
in intelligence gathering, multi-agency response planning and other domestic 
security work. They are receiving increasing authority under national legislation 
to support federal law enforcement efforts to identify and interview individuals 
with information that could be critical to preventing another terrorist act. Yet, 
these domestic investigations have far-reaching implications for local law 
enforcement and the communities they serve. 

Americas multicultural neighborhoods, particu-
larly Arab and Muslim communities, were initial-
ly affected by backlash violence and hate crimes
following the terrorist attacks. Yet in some cases,
their willingness to reach out to local law enforce-
ment to prevent or report these crimes was ham-
pered by their fear that police would use the oppor-
tunity to help deport, interrogate or otherwise act
against them. Such skepticism of law enforce-
ments goals and misunderstandings about local
law enforcements role can impede effective service
delivery to their communities and hinder the 
information sharing so necessary to keep all of our
cities safe. The answer to these problems may well
lie in the tenets of community policingensuring
the safety of all by partnering with community 
leaders to better understand the needs and con 
cerns of those affected by local law enforcements 
new role in counterterrorism and then working 
collaboratively to solve them. 

The successes achieved through community policing, 
and the requisite structures for 
building lasting relationships between the police 
and the various communities within their jurisdic 
tion, face new risks that have the potential to bring 
down the very foundations they have created. In 
some areas, we see Arab and Muslim communi-
tiesand others perceived to have the same 
religious or ethnic backgrounds associated with the 
terroristsdeveloping tense relationships with law 
 


enforcement officers who are sworn to protect 
them. Many members of these communities have 
difficulty distinguishing between local and federal 
law enforcement authority, and are unclear how far 
either will go to protect the country from another 
terrorist attack. At the same time, they know police 
should be protecting these vulnerable neighborhoods 
from crime and disorder. Many issues and 
obstacles are unresolved at this writing, and the 
answers lie in the hands of those most affected by 
them: local law enforcement organizations and the 
diverse ethnic communities they want to 
effectively serve and protect. 

The Police Executive Research Forum 
(PERF), with support from the U.S. Department of 
Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services (COPS), has been addressing these issues 
by engaging law enforcement agency executives and 
multicultural community leaders in discussion and 
debate over the topics most crucial to post-
September 11th America. PERF has been convening 
a series of forums for law enforcement chief 
executives, other policing professionals and 
government policy makers to explore, debate and 
exchange information on providing community-
policing services in a security-conscious world. 
This white paper is the result of the second 
executive session in a series of five, which brought 
together ethnically diverse community leaders and 
advocates, police chiefs, sheriffs, and federal law 
enforcement officials. The report offers practical 
suggestions for meeting the needs of our diverse 
communities and protecting against future terrorist 
threats. Conducted as a forum open to the many 
voices, opinions and views offered by the participants, 
the session provided insight on such issues 
as interviewing and interrogation, bias crimes, 
racial profiling and immigration enforcement. 
Participants discussed problems, debated solutions, 
agreed, and agreed to disagree, but perhaps most 
importantly, they identified the concerns most 
significant to their respective agency or neighborhood. 

The COPS Office and PERF are pleased to 
facilitate these forums and other work that will 
provide the profession with strategies to apply 
community-policing principles to our efforts to address 
the threat of terrorism and to protect our diverse 
communities. 


Carl R. Peed 		Chuck Wexler
Director, COPS 		Executive Director, PERF




CHAPTER ONE



INTRODUCTION


MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN, REGARDLESS OF THEIR RACE, ETHNICITY, RELI
gion or immigration status, shared in the tragedy of September 11th. 
The terrorist attacks were not just an assault on nationality and cit
izenry, but also on heritage, cultural pride and even faith. Within hours of the 
Twin Towers collapse and the attack on the Pentagon, U.S. residents and visi
tors, particularly Arabs, Muslims and Sikhs, were harassed or attacked because 
they sharedor were perceived to sharethe terrorists national background or 
religion. 

President George W. Bush, the U.S. Justice 
Department, and local, state and federal law 
enforcement quickly denounced such acts and 
warned that individuals who committed violent 
acts against or intimidated any individual because 
of his or her skin color, religious affiliation, 
or ethnicity would be prosecuted. 

Law enforcements challenge since then 
has been to maintain an appropriate balance 
between the security interests of our country and 
the constitutional rights of every American. From 
the start, they were entrusted with treating all 
individuals with fairness and dignity while following 
up on suspect descriptions and leads that took 
them primarily to ethnically and/or religiously 
diverse communities.1 For local law enforcement 
this included not only searching for additional 
terrorists and answers, but also preventing hate 
crimes, protecting civil and constitutional rights, 
and building or strengthening relationships with 
these communities. 

1 For the purposes of this paper, the term diverse 
communities will be used to include ethnically, 
religiously and/or culturally diverse groups of individuals.

The significance of community policing in 
diverse neighborhoods after the terrorist attacks on 
the United States cannot be overstated. After the 
attacks, there was an opportunity and need to 
enhance and redefine ongoing community-policing 
efforts with these communities. Community 
policings focus on partnerships, trust and problem 
solving has been essential to police agencies 
efforts to better serve and learn from dynamic and 
diverse groups of individuals. These partnerships 
are vital to preventing community members vic-


timization, thwarting future attacks and maintaining 
critical relationships that, in some cases, took 
years to build. 

Historically, law enforcements relationships 
with minority communities have been 
strainedeven contentious at times. More recently, 
public opposition of certain organizations to 
federal legislation meant to facilitate law 
enforcements information sharing and intelligence 
gathering has served to create concern, whether 
warranted or not in all cases, for diverse communities, 
civil rights advocates and others. They are concerned 
that such laws may fuel government 
infringement of individuals privacy and due 
process rights, and increase unwarranted scrutiny 
by law enforcement. The U.S. Justice Department 
states that many of the federal law enforcement 
actions that have been criticized have been misunderstood 
or were actually sanctioned by federal law 
in effect well before the enactment of the Uniting 
and Strengthening America by Providing 
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and 
Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT Act), but were 
wrongly attributed to the legislation enacted at the 
time of this writing.2 

2 A copy of the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56) can be 
found at www.policeforum.org in the Terrorism documents 
folder for the USA PATRIOT Act. Also, see U.S. Department 
of Justice, The USA PATRIOT Act: Myths and Realities 
(September 2003) at www.lifeandliberty.gov. For more on 
the PATRIOT Act and the relevant debate, see Chapter 2. 

For this website and all follow-up footnotes to websites 
or sources, please note that they provide useful information 
at the time of this writing, but the authors do not endorse 
any information of the sponsor organization or other information 
on the website. 

Many jurisdictions across the country 
have spent decades addressing the underlying 
issues related to police-minority community tensions. 
And, as local law enforcement is increasingly asked 
to aid state and federal law enforcement 
in gathering information and otherwise assisting 
in antiterrorism work, those efforts to build 
bridges with diverse communities have never been 
more critical. Effective community policing 
demands law enforcements awareness of community 
concerns, sensitivity to cultural norms and 
practices, and an open dialogue about policing 
tactics that will help law enforcement eliminate fear 
and enhance protection in multicultural neighborhoods. 
It means clarifying local law enforcements 
role in the national effort to prevent the next 
terrorist attack and in ongoing investigations that 
have a disparate impact on minority community 
members. 

The challenge before law enforcement and 
immigrant communities is significant. Homeland 
security, civil rights and hate crime prevention 
often require a careful balance of law enforcement 
tactics and strategies. It is only through partnerships 
with the community that this balance can be 
achieved. 

The Project: Community 
Policing in a Security-
Conscious World 

The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF),3 
with support from the U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
(COPS), has been convening a series of executive 
sessions for law enforcement chief executives, 
other policing professionals, and government 
policy makers to explore, debate and exchange infor


mation. These sessions provide law enforcement 
practitioners with opportunities to share and 
develop effective strategies for addressing terror
ism while continuing to advance community 
policing. The discussions are captured in subsequent 
white papers that are widely disseminated to 
law enforcement and decision makers at all levels 
of government. (Additional white papers are 
planned for such topics as bioterrorism, intelligence 
and homeland security initiatives.) 

3 PERF is a nonprofit membership organization of progressive 
policing professionals dedicated to advancing law enforcement 
services to all communities through experimentation and national 
leadership. Its members serve more than half the nations 
population and the organization provides training, technical 
assistance, research, publications and other services to them 
and the profession. More information about PERF can be found 
at www.policeforum.org. 

The first executive session held on 
November 78, 2002 resulted in a white paper on 
Local-Federal Partnerships. It is the first in the 
series on Protecting Your Community from 
Terrorism: Strategies for Local Law Enforcement. 
(This report is available as a free download at 
www.policeforum.org.) 

The Executive Session on 
Working With Diverse 
Communities 

On June 56, 2003 in Chicago, PERF convened the 
second executive session of a group of local law 
enforcement executives, federal law enforcement 
professionals, diverse community leaders and 
criminal justice practitioners. (See Appendix A for 
a list of the participants and observers.) The session 
focused on how law enforcement should 
engage diverse communities, especially those with 
significant Arab, Muslim and Sikh populations. To 
facilitate a comprehensive discussion of the issues, 
PERF asked chief law enforcement executives from 
across the country to bring a team of key individuals
specifically a leader representing the views of 
diverse community members, and their FBI or 
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE) Special Agent in Charge (SAC).4 Moderated 
by PERFs Executive Director, the day-and-a-half 
session resulted in participants thoroughly discussing 
the issues and identifying strategies for 
delivering policing services in diverse communities 
as the work to prevent terrorist attacks continues. 

4 The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
was reorganized, in part, to separate its enforcement 
and services divisions. The enforcement arm was placed 
within ICE. 

In addition to a candid debate and discussion, 
the participants had a chance to observe a 
successful community engagement effort in 
action. The Chicago Police Department has been 
involved in another COPS-funded project, the 
Value-Based Initiative, to strengthen its bond with 
the community. Each month, at different venues 
around the city, local police personnel, federal law 
enforcement and community members meet for a 
community forum. This Chicago Multi-Cultural 
Forum provides law enforcement and community 
leaders a regular occasion to raise issues and 
discuss common solutions. (See page 31 for a more 
in-depth discussion of the Forum.) The executive 
session participants also viewed two tapes from 
the Chicago Police Departments multicultural 
series on understanding Judaism and Islam.5 The 
Chicago Multi-Cultural Forum and the tapes facilitated 
executive session participants discussions 
on how to emulate the effective methods they 
observed for engaging multicultural communities 
as well as other approaches that could work in 
their jurisdictions. 

5 The multicultural series includes the following tapes: 
a Diversity Public Service Announcement, Sikhism, Islam, Judaism, 
Airport Security, Diversity and Respect, and a Racial 
Profiling Public Service Announcement. 

The Resulting White Paper 

This white paper, the second in the series, 
summarizes the PERF executive session participants 
comments, and is intended to advance law 



enforcements delivery of police services in diverse 
communities. It is divided into three main sections: 
community concerns, federal law enforcement issues, 
and local law enforcement matters. 
The paper is written primarily for local law 
enforcement agencies to identify the opportunities and 
challenges for effectively delivering police services 
and gaining support in diverse communities. 

The first sectioncommunity concerns 
details the fears that diverse community residents 
have about federal laws, law enforcement practices, 
and the insidious effects of hate-motivated violence 
and property destruction. The section also includes 
residents perceptions about what law enforcement 
is doing right. The second sectionfederal law 
enforcement issuesfocuses on federal programs 
and resources that affect the ability of local law 
enforcement to work with diverse communities. 
The third sectionlocal law enforcement matters
discusses the challenges facing local police 
practitioners. This section builds upon the first two 
sections and identifies a number of strategies and 
tactics that agencies can tailor to the unique 
concerns of a particular jurisdiction. It also reiterates 
the need for local and federal law enforcement to 
strengthen their partnerships and make them more 
effective. Some of the promising approaches discussed 
in this section are taken directly from agencies 
that have had success with them. Others are 
based on the session participants exchange of ideas 
and suggestions. 

The paper includes several sidebars written 
by executive session participants that provide more 
detailed accounts of selected programs or points of 
view. The paper concludes with recommendations 
for local law enforcement agencies committed to 
serving all individuals with respect, fairness and 
understanding as they navigate their new role in 
policing in a counterterrorism context. 



CHAPTER TWO

COMMUNITY CONCERNS 

Introduction 

THROUGHOUT THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, SOME COMMUNITY MEMBERS VOICED 
their concerns about law enforcement practices, such as perceived 
racial/ethnic profiling and accounts of individual officers insensitivities. 
At the same time, community members also recognized the difficult task that law 
enforcement has in attempting to prevent future terrorist acts while working in 
diverse communities. They also discussed the fear of backlash violence against 
anyone thought to be of an ethnic or religious background shared by known or 
suspected terrorists that pervades their communities. Some of their apprehension 
at the session focused on the debate at the time of this writing about the impact 
of federal laws on the delivery of police services in diverse communities. 

Law enforcement investigates 
activity and behaviornot religion or culture. 

FBI SAC 

Community Apprehension 
Federal Law 

Enacted on October 26, 2001, a little more than a 
month after the September 11th terrorist attacks, 
the USA PATRIOT Act6 was passed by both the 
Senate (981) and the House of Representatives 
(35766). At this writing, political officials, law
enforcement executives and community members
are still discussing its effects on civil liberties and
its ultimate usefulness. The executive session
group recognized that this Act and other federal
laws are not yet fully understood. Concerns about
local and federal law enforcement roles and
responsibilities has affected, in part, the extent to 
which residents of diverse communities trust law 
enforcement efforts and engender positive rela
tionships between local police agencies and the  
neighborhoods they serve. Specifically, participants 
were apprehensive about the involvement of local 
law enforcement in matters of immigration 
enforcement and in federal surveillance efforts. 

For more on the debate regarding what the PATRIOT Act does 
permit, how it has been used and how it relates to other 
federal laws that enable federal law enforcement to search,
detain and otherwise investigate suspected terrorist activity, see 
the U.S. Department of Justice website at www.lifeandliberty.gov. 
Their resources provide a section-by-section analysis about 
the Act, its commentary and the Justice Departments response 
to criticisms. 



After September 11th, law 
enforcement bombarded the 
ethnically diverse communities 
looking for terrorists, but often 
found only a law-abiding community. 

Community Leader 

In a country of laws, people 
make the difference. 

FBI SAC 

Community members expressed their 
concern that the governments attempts to protect 
our country from another terrorist attack might 
put local law enforcement in the position of conducting 
interviews and interrogations within communities 
in which illegal aliens, immigrants and 
minorities are disproportionately represented. 
Fearing they could become the focus of investigations, 
which they believe may lead to detention or 
deportation, many of these individuals would then 
be unwilling to communicate with authorities. 
Executive session participants acknowledged the 
challenges local law enforcement faces as they 
define their role and authority under the law while 
maintaining positive working relations with 
diverse communities. The key to addressing those 
challenges, they agreed, will be effective and open 
communication between police and the individuals they serve. 

The Material Witness Law 

Some minority community leaders also suggested 
that the Material Witness Law7 has been increasingly 
used by the U.S. Justice Department to augment 
other federal tools. Several members of the 
community fear the indiscriminate use of this law 
and, more generally, do not understand its application. 
Many community members sometimes do 
not distinguish between federal and local law 
enforcement actions in interrogation and detention 
and, as a consequence, turn to local law 
enforcement to explain the law. Unfortunately, 
they learned that local law enforcement officials 
may not be privy to federal actions, and may be 
unable to explain why the law was applied to a 
particular individual. 

7 The Material Witness Law, 18 USC, Part 2, Chapter 207, 
Section 3144, was enacted in 1984. U.S. Justice Department 
officials have stated, however, that while the Material 
Witness Law has been used more frequently since September 11, 2001, 
it is being applied at this time in the same consistent manner 
with which it has always been. The law authorizes, through 
court order, the arrest and detention of an individual whose 
testimony is deemed material to a criminal 
proceeding, and when it is shown that it may become 
impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena. More 
details on the Material Witness Law can be found at the 
following link www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/congress/hjcpatriotwcover051303final.pdf. 
This link is to a letter from the Attorney Generals Office 
on May 13, 2003 in response to a House 
Judiciary Committee inquiry into the USA PATRIOT Act. 
The Material Witness Law discussion begins on page 50 of the 
response. 

Other Related Factors 

Executive session participants from the community 
agreed that if law enforcement lacks awareness 
of and is insensitive to ethnic, cultural and 
religious differences, their interactions could become 
more difficult and time consuming. They must 
communicate how they will be working with federal 
law enforcement and with community members. Community 
leaders reinforced the importance of agencies having 
the ethnic, racial and gender diversity to reflect the 
make-up of the communities they serve. Law enforcement must establish 
credibility and be able to clearly inform community 
members of law enforcements duties, role and 
commitment as they deliver services as well as 
protect all individuals from terrorists. Community 
leaders also posited that the inability by some 
residents to speak or comprehend the English language 
is a barrier to the proposed effective interaction 
with law enforcement officialsand more 
must be done to address these communications 
challenges. 




COMBATING MISPERCEPTIONS AND MISUNDERSTANDING:
A COMMUNITY LEADERS PERSPECTIVE 

by Chairman Kareem Irfan,
Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago


Since the tragic September 11th attacks, America has 
traversed extremely trying times. The war against 
terrorism has spawned unprecedented law enforcement 
initiatives aimed at achieving homeland security. 
Actions aimed at ferreting out potentially subversive 
actions and perpetrators undertaking or somehow supporting 
acts of terrorism have been ratcheted up in both scope 
and intensity to significant levels. 

The resultant impact on minority communities like Muslim 
and Arab Americans has been dramatic. Combined with media 
frenzy, sensationalistic reporting and stereotyping, these efforts have led to 
actual and certainly perceived targeting and profiling of 
such minorities. The end result has been a drastic deterioration 
of the sensitive relationship between our law enforcement 
agencies and the communities they servemost distressingly, 
this decline occurs precisely when we need improved communications 
and interactions as our society confronts an era of global and 
local conflicts and increasingly violent approaches by disenchanted citizens. 

It is time to step back and recognize the true nature of 
this all-important relationship that is so 
critical to societal stability. Law enforcement agencies 
and the citizens they represent are in this game 
together as partners with distinct, yet cooperative roles. 
Law enforcement agencies must remember that 
they exist exclusively to serve the communities they are 
sworn to literally serve and protect. This 
understanding, while elementary, needs solid reinforcement, 
in order to avoid an approach whereby a law 
enforcement agency assumes its role of providing security 
as an authoritative one with little or no consideration 
for the communities needs or sensitivities. 
It sometimes presumes that it knows best what 
the security needs are and dictates how best to 
achieve this independent of the communities perspective. 

Communities, by way of their representative leadership, 
must realize that they have responsibility for the law 
enforcement agencies that have, in the final 
analysis, been commissioned and authorized 
by them to serve and protect them. Communities need 
to remember that the law enforcement agencies 
are doing their best to achieve a secure environment 
and that certain compromises must be made in 
terms of personal rights and liberties to achieve 
desired success. Communities must recognize the 
urgency of staying involved with their law enforcement 
agencies to avoid a sense of isolation. 

Considering the above-noted roles, it is abundantly 
clear that true security may only be 
approached by a collaborative partnership that 
dispels the us-versus-them mentality on both sides of the 
law enforcement agency-community divide. The lessons 
of the September 11th aftermath have reinforced 
and confirmed the need for such a partnership. 

At the national level, we have failed to recognize 
and/or implement meaningful partnerships 
between federal law enforcement agencies and 
American communities. Coupled with ineffective 
communication, our law enforcement approaches 
have generated unprecedented suspicion and paranoia 


across the spectrum of Americas minority communities. 
On the other hand, community leaders 
themselves have largely been ineffective in 
understanding or engaging law enforcement agencies. 
Enterprising leadership has been lacking especially 
in forceful representation of the communities 
concerns while simultaneously maintaining cordial 
and meaningful relationships with key law enforcement 
agency officials. 

Committed efforts will be required from both 
sides in the days ahead to establish the desired 
partnerships and communications based on the 
positive and successful experiences of the Chicago-area 
Muslim-American community in the post-September 
11th context. Some important suggestions come 
to mind: 

 Visionary, relationship-building leaders are needed on both sides; 
 Law enforcement agencies need to take the lead in reaching out 
to key community leadersthe approach should be one of open and honest communications; 
 Law enforcement agency leaders should avoid focusing on contacts solely for information 
extraction; instead, the relationship should be driven by information sharing relevant to 
the community; 
 Community leaders should, to the greatest extent possible, be broadly representative of 
the diverse groups forming the minority community at issuethe presence of an 
umbrella organization like the Council of Islamic Organizations in Chicago, for instance, 
has been instrumental in ensuring effective communications and responsive initiatives; 
 Periodic formal as well as informal meetings among representative 
leaders of law enforcement agencies and the community are essential; and, 
 Community leaders must be committed to, and actively implement, practical 
mechanisms for identifying current concerns, communicating the same to law enforcement 
agencies, and relaying any related feedback to the involved community. 


The foregoing provides a skeletal framework for a 
more effective, collaborative relationship 
between law enforcement agencies and the communities 
they serve. By appropriately fleshing out the 
details, it is hoped that a trusting and relatively 
candid relationship will evolve. Differences and 
disagreements will arise, but should not lead to 
a disruption of essential communications. Instead, both 
law enforcement agencies and communities should be 
driven by the over-riding goal of a team-based 
partnership approach. Both sides will hopefully 
focus on their common objective of achieving lasting 
peace and security. I conclude with an appeal for 
leaders on both sides to rise to the occasion and be 
passionately committed to realizing this partnership 
paradigmthe stability of our society 
depends on us. 


Our community lost the most 
from September 11th. We lost 
the right to be average 
Americans. 

Community Leader 


We believe ignorance is fear
and that causes violence.


Community Leader 


Violence and Fear 

Among the concerns discussed, session participants 
raised the issue of protecting vulnerable 
individuals from backlash violence and hate 
crimes, as well as reducing fear within diverse 
communities.8 Community leaders passionately 
spoke about residents becoming victims twice: 
first as American citizens, and then as victims of 
hate crimes. Session participants discussed how 
hate crimes can weaken a peoples resolve and 
even alienate them from the larger community if 
the crimes are not condemned, investigated and 
prosecuted. Some session representatives suggested 
that the terrorist attacks of September 11th and 
the U.S. governments antiterrorism campaign 
have fueled the public perception that Arab, 
Muslim and Sikh communities in particular are 
filled with potential terrorists. These misperceptions 
have prompted some Americans to commit 
hate crimesacts of violence and destruction 
against individuals, their religious gathering 
places, as well as their homes and businesses. 

8 Hate crimes are those crimes that manifest evidence 
of prejudice based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or 
ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder; 
non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; aggravated assault; 
simple assault; intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage 
or vandalism of property (Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA), 
28 U.S.C. 534).

Executive session participants discussed 
those individuals most vulnerable to hate crimes 
after the attacks on the World Trade Center and 
the Pentagonagain, primarily Arabs, Muslims 
and Sikhs. Some of these men and women are easily 
identifiable because, based on religious practices, 
Muslim women often wear the hijab, many 
Muslim and Sikh men wear thick beards and most 
Sikh men wear turbans. Participants also discussed 
the misperception that many Arabs, 
Muslims and Sikhs have clustered themselves into 
certain jobsincluding driving taxis and running 
small businesses, gas stations, convenience stores 
and motels. This form of stereotyping may direct 
backlash violence against people engaged in these 
occupations. Along with targeting certain groups, 
bias-motivated attacks are also often directed at 
properties such as mosques and other places of 
worship. Prayer houses on campuses, for example, 
are vulnerable to hate crimes even though they are 
often not well known to the greater student 
population or the community at large. 


The purpose of terrorism is to 
divide a community based on 
race, ethnicity, religion and 
national affiliation. 

FBI SAC 


Concerns for Student Safety 

Each year, Americas universities and colleges 
attract diverse groups of students from all over the 
world. While many international students are not 

U.S. citizens, participants agreed they still deserve 
the same protections. Many international students 
have become fearful of both law enforcement and 
their classmates, for many of the same reasons 
cited above, and are apprehensive about the 
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System 
(SEVIS), which is discussed later in this document. 
Many international students come from countries 
where they have little experience dealing with law 
enforcement and are fearful of those interactions. 
These fears may require special efforts by campus 
police and even school resource officers in junior 
and senior high schools. 

Fear of Racial Profiling 

Law enforcement has been working to address the 
incidences and perceptions of police using race 
inappropriately to make decisions. Racial profiling 
is the improper reliance by law enforcement on 
race, religion, ethnicity or national origin in 
deciding whom to target and investigate. Executive 
session participants believe that just as African 
Americans, Hispanics and other minorities have 
complained about being targeted by police officers 
investigating street crime and immigration violations, 
respectively, Arabs, Muslims, Sikhs and others 
who appear to be from Middle Eastern countries 
have been targeted in an antiterrorism campaign. 
Participants stated that these latter groups have 
been stopped, searched, detained and deported, 
based in whole or in part, on their race, ethnicity, 
national origin or religion. These experiences have 
given rise to the expression flying while Arab. 

Executive session participants discussed 
the strains that past racial profiling and the current 
terrorism profiling have put on community-policing 
efforts, and their inappropriateness. 
Community speakers stressed that profiling is not 
useful as a law enforcement tactic for fighting 
terrorism, street crimes or immigration violations. 
Further, expansive law enforcement attention on 
Arabs, Muslims, Sikhs and others who share or are 
perceived as sharing some outward characteristics 
that fit a certain terrorist profile, but who pose no 
threat to national security actually detracts from 
the antiterrorism efforts. These efforts divert limited 
law enforcement resources away from investigations 
of individuals, including Arabs, Muslims and 
Sikhs, who are linked to terrorist activities by 
specific and credible evidence. Profiling ignores the 
possibility that someone who does not fit the 
profile may be engaged in terrorism, or may be an 
accomplice. Racial profiling is not a substitute for 
behavior-based and activity-based enforcement. 

Community member participants noted 
that the events of September 11th and the 
legislative activity at this writing regarding terrorism 
appear to have put a hold on significant 
congressional efforts to address racial profiling. 
Nonetheless, session participants stated that 
federal and state resources can help end racial and eth-


nic profiling. They propose that nationwide 
standards be developed by law enforcement agencies, 
and such standards should include explicit 
guidance on preventing and addressing racial profiling.9 
A public education campaign is also necessary to 
explain misperceptions, the myths related to racial 
profiling, and the effects of its practice.10 

Implications for Policing All 
Minority Communities 

While the primary focus of the executive session 
was on law enforcements working with primarily 
Arab, Muslim and Sikh communities, participants 
discussed the effects of the terrorist attacks on 
African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans 
and other minority groups. Many voiced their concern 
that law enforcement agencies are now focusing on 
improving relations with Arab Americans 
and Muslims at the expense of these other 
minorities. A few executive session participants 
questioned why law enforcement is prioritizing Arab, 
Muslim and Sikh relations, when African 
Americans relationships, for example, have been 
strained for years without receiving such an 
immediate and positive response. Executive 
session participants expressed that many minorities feel they 
are perpetually victimized and that crime and 
violence that plagues their neighborhoods can be as 
destabilizing to a community as terrorism. 

Executive session participants discussed 
how minority communities are putting pressure 
on law enforcement to remember the positive 
efforts to build relationships in their communities 
before September 11th. A local law enforcement 
executive stated that prior to that time, their 
officers spent more time in Hispanic and African-
American communities than they do today. The 
groups consensus, however, was that law 
enforcement agencies must work at understanding and 
maintaining relationships in all communities; 
otherwise, inattention to partnerships 
between multicultural communities and law 
enforcement that have taken years to achieve may 
suffer long-term damage. Indeed, the positive 
developments between African-American communities 
and law enforcement in some cities, for 
example, could serve as models for strengthening 
such partnerships in other jurisdictions. 

Conclusion 

Community members at the executive session 
expressed their concerns about law enforcement 
practices, including perceived profiling and 
insensitivity issues. The executive session included a 
debate of the impact of federal laws on the delivery 
of police services in diverse communities. The 
discussion also addressed fears in multicultural 
communities of backlash violence if a domestic 
terrorist incident involves suspected terrorists with the 
same apparent ethnic or religious background. 

9 The U.S. Attorney General issued federal guidelines 
in June 2003 to all federal agencies on how and when race can be 
appropriately used as a factor in conducting traditional 
law enforcement duties and in cases of national security. The U.S. 
Department of Justices Civil Rights Division publication, 
Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement 
Agencies can be accessed at www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/guidance_on_race.htm. 

10 A recent PERF report, Racially Biased Policing: A 
Principled Response, provides recommendations for an effective law 
enforcement response to racially biased policing and 
the perceptions thereof. The COPS Office-supported report provides 
recommendations for addressing police policy, recruitment/hiring, 
training/education, community outreach, 
supervision/accountability, and data collection. 
The publication is available as a free download 
at www.policeforum.org. 


RACIAL PROFILING TAKES ON A DIFFERENT MEANING 

by Jerry A. Oliver, Former Chief, Detroit Police Department 

Upon the second anniversary of the September 11th tragedy, I recalled my last visit to the World Trade 
Center. It was just prior to the attacks and I was attending a law enforcement conference on racial 
profiling. At that time, the dialogue on racial profiling was almost exclusively centered on its impact upon 
the African-American community. 

In the aftermath of the attacks, the landscape of policing has changed as dramatically as the 
skyline of New York City. Local police chiefs must now chart a new course to successfully fulfill and 
balance the demands of our pre- and post-September 11th policing demands. In many instances, the 
terrorist attacks eliminated the slow pendulum effect that law enforcement issues usually experience, 
where we see our demands and priorities make gradual shifts over time. Rather, September 11th has 
had more of a sledgehammer effect on local policing issues. 

Before the terrorist hijackings, a law enforcement dialogue on racial profiling could conceivably 
be narrowly focused upon the African-American community, and to some extent, the Hispanic-
American community. After the attacks, rarely is the issue of racial profiling raised unless we 
are dealing with its impact upon the Arab and Muslim communities. Yet, we must strike a balance between 
the competing demands that our local communities face. How do we do that? 

First, consider that Detroits metropolitan area is home to the largest Arab and Muslim population 
in the country.11 Further, Detroits overall population is approximately 80 percent African 
American, 5 percent Hispanic and has a growing Asian population.12 Even though September 11th has 
shifted our attention to balancing the civil rights of the Arab and Muslim communities, our challenges 
with meeting the needs of other diverse communities remains. We must be vigilant in our strategic 
planning not to marginalize any segments of our community, nor to lose any ground that we gained 
through the community policing efforts that came before the terrorist attacks. 

11 U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000) For more information, see www.aaiusa.org/demographics/population_highlights.pdf. 

12 Detroit Population and Demographics (US Census 2000). For more information see 
www.detroit.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm. 

Before September 11, law enforcement had responded to the call for more customer-friendly 
policing. We had achieved great successes with our communities by making departments less militaristic, 
less secretive and less intimidating to the citizens we serve. Now, local police departments are 
fit-testing all our officers to don gas masks as first-responders to chemical and biological attacks. 
With this counterterrorism horizon as our backdrop, how much latitude will we have to continue in 
our efforts to improve citizens access and partnerships with their police? 

What did our citizens expect of their local police before September 11th? Our mandate then 


was that if a citizen called 911 for a burglary, they wanted a fast response. When drug dealers plagued 
their neighborhoods, we were to take the bad guys off the corners. Additionally, we know that our 
citizens demanded that in all of our efforts, we also balanced and protected the civil rights of those in the 
communities. 

What do our citizens expect of their local police after September 11th? Our mandate is still a 
fast response to traditional crime such as burglary and drug dealing. Now however, we have the 
additional responsibility of what were traditionally national security duties. Acts of terrorism 
seek to intimidate the masses by causing large-scale disaster and human loss. Therefore, every large local event has 
local and national security implications. A Detroit Lions football game or an Aerosmith concert now 
present an opportunity for terrorism. Local police are now called upon to detect, prevent and, in the 
event of an attack, be first responders to these terrorist attacks. Our challenge is finding the resources 
and developing the strategies to balance these often competing mandates of our pre- and post-
September 11 communities. 

It remains to be seen how our new mandates will affect our traditional responsibilities. Our 
successes in community policing could serve as a model for achieving a synthesis between the two. 
One thing is certain, however: None of us will find the solutions in a vacuum. Along the way, local law 
enforcement must share its challenges, failures and successes to bring the best of what we have 
accomplished to the tasks we face ahead. 


CHAPTER THREE

FEDERAL RESOURCES 

Introduction 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES PLAY A CRITICAL ROLE AND OFFER SIGNIFicant 
resources that influence how local law enforcement delivers police 
services in diverse communities. Since September 11th, federal programs 
have been reorganized and renamed, and new programs have been implemented. 
These reforms affect partnerships with state and local law enforcement, though 
their full impact may not be realized until years from now. The executive session 
participants discussed the need to work more closely with federal partners. 
Community members also noted that they often do not distinguish federal from 
local law enforcement actions, which may have consequences for ongoing local 
community policing efforts. 

To stand united we must do so 
regardless of religion, culture, 
and immigrant status. 

Community Member 

Individuals have rights in this 
country, regardless of their 
immigrant status. 

Community Member 

Bureau of Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement 

With the establishment of the Department of 
Homeland Security, the investigative and intelligence 
resources of the U.S. Customs Services, 
Federal Protective Services, Immigration and 
Naturalization Services, andas of November 
2003the Federal Air Marshall Services were 
consolidated into the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is the investigative 
arm of the Directorate of Border and 
Transportation Security at this time, which is
tasked with securing our nations borders and safe-
guarding its transportation infrastructure. ICE
focuses on enforcing immigration and customs 
laws within the United States, the protection of 
specified federal buildings, and conducting air and
marine enforcement. The bureau is composed of 
the following operational divisions: Office of
Investigations, Office of Detention and Removal, 




Office of Air and Marine Operations, Office of 
Federal Protective Service, Office of Intelligence, 
and the Federal Air Marshall Service.13 Executive 
session participants discussed how essential it is 
for local law enforcement to understand the roles 
and responsibilities of ICE, and to coordinate with 
their local ICE office to raise community concerns 
of which they may be aware.14 

13 More information on ICE can be found at www.bice.immigration.gov. 

14 The contact information for all the ICE offices Special Agents-In-Charge 
or the Resident Agents-In-Charge can be found
at the time of this writing at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/contacts/saic_raic/

Law enforcement agencies 
who refuse to work with ICE are 
ignoring a valuable tool in the 
fight against crime. 

ICE Representative 

Registration programs are 
used to keep terrorists off bal
ance and protect our country. 

Chief Law Enforcement 
Executive 

Registration Programs 

Immigration can be a contentious issue in U.S. 
public policy debates. Since September 11th, some 
commentators have blamed lax immigration policies 
for the terrorist attacks. Fear of additional terrorist 
acts has intensified public opposition to illegal 
immigrationbelieving stricter enforcement 
would better protect homeland security by controlling 
U.S. borders. Congress has enacted legislation 
that authorizes the U.S. Justice Department to 
implement entry-exit programs designed to screen 
and track those entering the country. Executive 
session participants discussed the registration 
programs used by the federal government, especially 
ICE, and local law enforcements role in assisting 
federal agencies in enforcing violations of those 
programs. 

Special Registration Program Under 
the National Security Entry-Exit 
Registration System (NSEERS)/ 
United States Visitor and Immigrant 
Status Indicator Technology Program 
(USVISIT) 

The Special Registration Program under the 
National Security Entry-Exit Registration System 
(NSEERS) initiative was meant to track the estimated 
35 million foreign visitors who have come 
to the United States each year.15 The U.S. Justice 
Department-designed system, administered by 
Naturalization and Immigration Services, was 
modeled in part after those already in place in 
many European countries (e.g., France, Great 
Britain and Germany). The Special Registration 
System was developed as a three-part comprehensive 
entry-exit monitoring system to increase border 
security. NSEERS required temporary visitors 
who were natives or citizens of countries designated 
by the U.S. Attorney General, who warranted 
monitoring for national security or law enforcement 
reasons, to submit fingerprints, photographs 
and other information upon entry into the United 
States. The program was intended to be an initial 


step towards a full entry-exit system. In 2002, the 
direction of NSEERS as well as the Office of 
Naturalization and Immigration Services was 
transferred from the U.S. Justice Department to 
the Office of U.S. Immigration and Citizenship 
Services under the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS). In December 2003, DHS 
announced that it had suspended the formal 
requirement for individuals previously registered 
in the NSEERS to re-register after 30-days and one 
year of continuous presence in the United States. 

15 At this writing, this figure was found at the DHS website at www.dhs.gov.

On January 5, 2004, the first phase of a 
new DHS entry-exit program was implemented, 
integrating and building upon existing NSEERS 
functions. The U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status 
Indicator Technology project (USVISIT)16 is 
designed to meet the national security needs that 
NSEERS addressed and to improve upon the previous 
system, incorporating biometric identifiers 
in its registration process.17 The program is a result 
of the pooled resources and efforts of the 
Transportation Security Administration, 
Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), 
Customs and Border Patrol and State Department. 
The goal of the program is to capture more 
complete arrival and departure data for those who 
require a visa to enter the United States, thus 
enhancing the security of citizens and visitors 
while expediting legitimate commerce and travel. 
The law requires that an automated entry-exit 
system be implemented at air and seaports by 
December 31, 2003; the 50 most highly trafficked 
land ports of entry by December 31, 2004; and all 
ports of entry by December 31, 2005. At this 
writing, only the airport and seaport entry portion of 
the USVISIT program has been implemented. 
USVISIT uses scanning equipment to collect biometric 
identifiers, such as a digital photograph of 
the visitor and fingerprints, in an inkless process. 
Together with standard biographical information 
gathered from a visitor concerning country of origin 
and reasons for travel, the new program will 
verify the visitors identity and compliance with 
visa and immigration policies at points of entry. 
This approach is meant to reduce the need for 
tracking and for enforcement of immigration violations 
within our borders. The automated system 
also allows border security officials to check the 
names of visitors and immigrants against terrorist 
and criminal watch lists. 

16 For more information on the USVISIT program, visit the DHS website at www.dhs.gov. 

17 Certain aliens whose presence in the United States warrants 
monitoring for national security or law enforcement reasons 
remain subject to the NSEERS special registration procedures. 
The special entry and exit registration procedures under 
NSEERS will meet the requirements of this USVISIT rule for 
entry and exit inspection for persons who are also subject to 
NSEERS. The information that NSEERS aliens provide on arrival 
and departure is kept in a special NSEERS system that 
will be integrated with all of the other foreign national 
arrival and departure data that are required to be kept in the entry-
exit system component of USVISIT (8 U.S.C. 1187, 1365a and 
note, 1379, 173131; Federal Register 69, no.2, 5 January 
2004). 


Exit controls can enable DHS to monitor 
who leaves the country on time and to facilitate 
the removal of those who overstay their visas. 
According to U.S. Justice Department materials, 
failure to comply with the Special Registration 
Programs is a misdemeanor violation. If ICE determines 
that aliens who are subject to Special 
Registration have not complied with these federal 
obligations, warrants will be issued on the Wanted 
Aliens, and their name and information will be 


entered into the National Crime Information 
Center (NCIC) because it constitutes a violation of 
Title 8.18 

State and local law enforcement have 
experience with handling individuals who have 
committed a crime and are also in violation of 
immigration laws. The U.S. Justice Department 
has indicated that any contact local law enforcement 
might have with Wanted Aliens during the 
routine course of their duties should follow current 
protocol and procedures for dealing with ICE 
hits in the NCIC system. Policy requires that 
local ICE offices respond to all NCIC hits in an 
efficient and effective manner. When ICE cannot 
make a timely response and take custody of the 
detainee, local law enforcement officials are 
encouraged to obtain all relevant information. 
Local law enforcement must then determine 
whether the offense warrants a fine, detention or 
other disposition and report their findings to ICE.19 

Local law enforcement participants 
described how they have taken a measured role in 
enforcing violations to immigration law. They 
believe that the majority of local law enforcement 
agencies have enforced Title 18 criminal violations 
by illegal immigrantsthat is, they have taken 
enforcement action when a criminal act has been 
committed. For the most part, they have not, however, 
acted on violations of Title 8, which include 
such offenses as willful failure to register or failure 
to notify immigration authorities of a change of 
address. Local law enforcementrecognizing the 
potential for its impact on minority relationshas 
largely refrained from enforcing anything but criminal 
law violations.20 

18 USC, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VII, Section 1306; 
Federal Register 67, no. 155, (12 August 2002) (8 CFR Parts 
214 and 264). 

19 U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization 
Service communiqu to local law enforcement. Immigration 
Security and Law Enforcement. October 2002 (distributed by 
PERF at IACP meeting in Minneapolis, MN). 

20 Some congressional efforts to more directly involve local 
law enforcement are reflected in such proposals as the Clear Law 
Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal (CLEAR) Act of 2003. 
More information could be found at this writing on the 
Library of Congress legislative search engine (http://thomas.loc.gov/) 
by typing in the bill number HR2671 for the 108th 
Congress.

At this time, it is suggested that local law 
enforcement work with their local ICE office to 
discuss policies and procedures that will support 
their community policing goals. Local agencies are 
also encouraged to check with their local government 
and state attorneys to ensure there is a clear 
understanding of the local law enforcement role 
and legal authority. 

Student and Exchange Visitor 
Information System (SEVIS) 

SEVIS requires educational institutions to maintain 
information about foreign students studying 
at their institutions. The system is based on an 
automated process to collect, maintain and manage 
information about international foreign students 
and exchange visitors during their stay in 
the United States. SEVIS is a centralized Internet-
based system that is meant to maintain accurate 
and current information on non-immigrant students 
(F and M visas), exchange visitors (J visa), 
and their dependents (F-2, M-2, and J-2). SEVIS 
enables the schools to transmit this information 


electronically to ICE and the State Department 
throughout a student or exchange visitors stay in 
the United States. 

SEVIS attempts to capture international 
student or exchange visitor activity, such as port of 
entry, date of entry, failure to enroll, disciplinary 
action by the school or early graduation, change of 
address, change in program of study and other 
details. Schools are required to report any change 
in status for full-time foreign students, at which 
time the student may be subject to deportation. 
SEVIS will provide system alerts, event notification, 
and basic reports to the end-user schools, 
programs, and Immigration-related field offices. 
The filing deadline was August 1, 2003 for foreign 
students and educational institutions to comply 
with the SEVIS System.21 

21 The description of SEVIS was based, in part, 
on information found on the website 
www.ice.gov/graphics/enforce/imm/imm_sevis.htm. 

Executive session participants discussed 
their perceived role in assisting ICE in the 
implementation and compliance with the SEVIS 
registration program. Some community participants 
were still unclear about their role in helping 
students comply with the registration program. Local 
law enforcement also was concerned about what 
role, if any, they would have in encounters 
involving off-campus students who failed to comply with 
the SEVIS system. 

Federal Assistance 

There are many federal programs and resources 
that executive session participants recommended 
for local law enforcement agencies to use in working 
with diverse communities. The programs listed below 
are among those designed to serve both 
law enforcement and the community. Contact 
information for the federal resources can be found 
in Appendix B. 

U.S. Department of Justice, 
Community Relations Service 

The 1964 Civil Rights Act established the 
Community Relations Service (CRS), an agency 
within the U.S. Department of Justice. CRS is the 
only federal component that is a specialized con
ciliation service available to work with state and 
local officials to help prevent and resolve racial and 
ethnic conflict, violence and civil disorder. There 
are currently 56 CRS employees throughout the 
United States located in ten regional offices 
(Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Kansas 
City (MO), Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia 
and Seattle) and four field offices (Detroit, 
Houston, Miami and San Francisco) who are 
trained as professional mediators. These media
tors are experienced in settling community con
flicts and violence related to race, color or nation
al origin. CRS is a free, neutral and confidential 
service available 24 hours a day. 

Immediately following the September 
11th attacks, CRS began arranging meetings 
across the country between law enforcement, city 
officials, and Arab, Muslim and Sikh communities 
to enhance mutual understanding and encourage 
cooperation. By January 2004, CRS had conducted 
more than 250 such forums across the country in 
such states as California, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, 
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Michigan 
and Texas. In addition, CRS organized police train
ings on interfacing, communicating, and collabo


rating with Arab, Muslim and Sikh Americans. 
These programs were designed to assist law 
enforcement officials in their outreach efforts to 
targeted communities and to help gain community 
support for their hate crime and bias incident 
investigations. The training addressed cultural 
behaviors and sensitivities, information on Islam, 
stereotypes, and expectations encountered when 
interacting and communicating with Arab, 
Muslim and Sikh Americans. In addition, CRS 
developed several helpful resources for law enforcement, 
including the publications Twenty-Four Plus 
One Things Local Law Enforcement Agencies Can 
Do to Prevent or Respond to Hate Incidents 
Against Arab-Americans, Muslims and Sikhs and 
the video, The First Three to Five Seconds: Arab 
and Muslim Cultural Awareness Training for Law 
Enforcement.22 

In addition, the Community Relations 
Service of the Department of Justice, has conducted 
several Train-the-Trainer programs, in which 
Arab, Muslim and Sikh American volunteers are 
trained to help local law enforcement and other 
government officials acquire a fundamental understanding 
of Arab, Muslim and Sikh cultures. The 
trainings have been held in high-hate crime areas 
or in primarily Arab, Muslim and Sikh American 
communities. Recent trainings have been held in 
San Francisco, CA; Middlesex, NJ; Miami, FL; 
Denver, CO; Philadelphia, PA; and Washington, 
DC. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil 
Rights Division 

The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights 
Division,23 in partnership with the FBI, is the 
institution within the federal government responsible 
for enforcing federal statutes prohibiting discrimination 
on the basis of race, sex, handicap, 
religion and national origin. One component of 
the U.S. Department of Justices Civil Rights 
Division is the National Origin Working Group,24 
which investigates alleged civil violations of 
federal rights laws specifically against individuals who 
are perceived to be Arab, Muslim or Sikhrecognizing 
the backlash from the events of September 
11th. If there is a criminal violation of civil rights 
laws, then the FBI has jurisdiction for the investigation. 
The National Origin Working Group 
receives reports of violations based on national origin, 
citizenship status and religion, including 
those related to housing, education, employment, 
access to government services and law enforcement. The 
results of criminal investigations conducted by 
the FBI are used by the Civil Rights 
Division to initiate federal hate crime prosecutions. 
The group works with other Justice 
Department components and other government 
agencies to ensure accurate referral, effective 
outreach and service provision to victims of civil 
rights violations. 

22 The publication and video can be found online at 
www.usdoj.gov/crs/24things.htm and 
www.usdoj.gov/crs/training_video/3to5_lan/Intro.htm, respectively. 

23 More information about the U.S. Department of Justice, 
Civil Rights Division can be found at www.usdoj.gov/crt/. 

24 More information about the U.S. Department of Justice, 
Civil Rights Division, National Origin Working Group can be 
found at www.usdoj.gov/crt/nordwg.html. 


COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAM 

by Linda M. Schmidt, FBI Outreach Specialist, Cleveland 


The FBI has a Community Outreach Program (COP) in all of its 56 divisions across the country. Each 
program has the same basic requirements, but elements vary based on the particular needs of their 
communities. The COP is the conduit between the community and the FBI division, balancing the 
requirements of the program with the needs of its community partners. Both the FBI and the 
communities served benefit from COP because it provides an opportunity for open dialogue in a safe environment. 

One of Clevelands most important projects is the Northern Ohio Hate Crimes Working 
Group (NOHCWG), specifically the Community Outreach/Education Committee. This committee is 
made up of members from many of Clevelands ethnic communities. They bring the richness of their 
cultures to the table as we work side by side in developing hate crime prevention and education 
conferences, brochures and training events, as well as small discussion groups. The Cleveland Division 
Special Agent in Charge, Assistant Special Agents in Charge, Chief Division Counsel, Supervisory 
Special Agents, Agents, Community Outreach Specialist and professional employees provide requested 
presentations at group meetings. In this way, the community gets answers to many of their questions 
and gains an understanding of the FBI and its jurisdiction. Through this dialogue, participants 
learn and accept reasons why there are cases about which the FBI cannot publicly comment; and, the 
FBI has an opportunity to hear the communitys perspective on our crime-fighting efforts. Oftentimes 
we receive their support for our efforts. 

After September 11, 2001, the NOHCWG and the Community Outreach/Education 
Committee expanded to include new members from Arab and Asian communities. They added a new 
perspective to our hate crime prevention efforts and this committee. In June 2002, this group hosted 
the first annual three-day hate crimes conference. It was the result of spending many long hours 
working with each other developing an agenda, deciding on speakers and sending out invitations. As a result 
of the conferences success, members of the planning committee were invited to participate in an FBI 
on-line chat on the first anniversary of the September 11th attack. We had individuals with such 
diverse religious and ethnic perspectives as Asian, Arab, Jewish, Caucasian and African American 
answering questions from across the country on what the NOHCWG did to combat hate crime immediately 
following the terrorist attack and what the group was continuing to do. A bond of friendship 
has developed between the Cleveland Division FBI and members of this working group. We continue 
to learn from one another, sharing cultural beliefs, holidays, language, food, humor, cultural taboos and 
social norms. Most importantly, we work together to share what we have learned from others. Our 
second annual three-day hate crimes conference was held in June 2003, and planning has already begun 
on next years conference.  


Another important program is the Citizens FBI Academy. Many of the FBI divisions host at 
least one academy a year. The academy can run seven to nine sessions, providing participants 
opportunities to discuss historic closed cases from their hometowns, new crime trends, ethics, shoot-dont 
shoot scenarios, criminal jurisdiction, drugs, gangs, fugitives and much more. Through the FBI 
Community Outreach Program the FBI and the community can work together for a safer tomorrow. 



FBI Civil Rights Program 

The FBIs Civil Rights Program is the primary federal 
agency responsible for investigating allegations 
regarding criminal violations of civil rights, including 
federal hate crime legislation. The FBIs Civil 
Rights Program consists of subprograms divided 
into two units: the Color of Law Unit, which 
includes police misconduct investigations; and the 
Hate Crimes Unit, which is responsible for overseeing 
and managing all criminal investigations 
involving animus based on race, sex, religion, 
ethnicity, national origin, criminal violations of the 
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, and 
involuntary servitude and slavery.25 

FBI Hate Crimes Working Group 

In 1998, the U.S. Attorney General directed the 

U.S. Attorneys Offices (USAOs) and the FBI to 
cosponsor a Hate Crimes Working Group (HCWG) 
that would operate through field offices throughout 
the country. These groups represent a collaborative 
effort among city, state and federal officials, and 
individuals from diverse communities, universities 
and businesses. These working groups develop 
strategies to address local hate crime problems that 
draw on community and law enforcement 
resources. 

For example, in March 1998, the USAO for 
the Northern District of Ohio and the FBIs 
Cleveland Division developed a proactive hate 
crimes working group.26 They have created education/
awareness programs, provided public speakers, 
and produced posters and a brochure that detail 
local hate crime resources. The mission of the program 
has been to provide outreach to the community 
through the FBIs established community-
based, school-based and partnership programs. The 
program also works with the communities and 
schools directly in developing services that meet 
their needs. A FBI Community Outreach Program 
(COP) Specialist assists this program by identifying 
resources and engaging individuals from every sector 
of the community to build partnerships. The 
Cleveland Division COP of the FBI has also helped 
to reduce crime, drugs, hate/bias, gangs, peer 
sexual harassment, school and community violence. 

25 For more information, see www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights.civilrts.htm.

26 More information on the Northern Ohio Hate Crimes Working 
Group can be found at http://cleveland.fbi.gov/cop.htm.

Federal Initiatives on the Local 
Level 

Executive session participants discussed federal 
initiatives available in their state that impact law 
enforcements relationship with diverse communities. 
Participants recommended that local chiefs 
and sheriffs contact their U.S. Attorneys Office 
and FBI field office to inquire about local programs 
or initiatives in place to improve relationships with 
diverse communities. 

For example, the U.S. Attorney in the 
Eastern District of Michigan and the Michigan 
Director of the American-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee have formed a group 
called Building Respect in Diverse Groups to 
Enhance Sensitivity (BRIDGES). The purpose of 
BRIDGES is to continue the dialogue on issues of 
mutual concern between federal law enforcement 
and diverse communities, and for federal law 
enforcement to convey information to the community. 
BRIDGES is an outgrowth of the monthly 


meetings held since September 11 between the 
U.S. Attorney and local Middle Eastern community leaders. 
Approximately six federal law enforcement heads and twelve 
community group representatives make up the membership of BRIDGES. 

Executive session participants provided 
another example: the ongoing dialogue between 
the Arab American Institute and the FBI 
Washington Field Office, which resulted in the FBI 
establishing a local Arab American Advisory 
Committee. The committee works to improve 
relations between Arab Americans and the FBI and 
is part of a national effort to address community 
concerns. The committee serves as an important 
link between the Arab American community and 
the FBIs Washington Field Office. Regional 
advisory committees have also been formed. 
Committee members are responsible for bringing 
community concerns to the FBIs attention and 
collaborating to find solutions. At these 
committee meetings, the FBI disseminates crucial 
information regarding new policies and 
available resources, helping to build a formal 
relationship that fosters timely cooperation and 
communication. 

Contact information for the BRIDGES 
and the Arab American Advisory Committee can 
be found in Appendix B. 

Conclusion 

Federal assistance is currently available that local 
law enforcement can draw on when delivering 
police services in diverse communities. Local law 
enforcement agencies must be aware that individuals 
in the community often do not differentiate 
between local and federal law enforcement efforts, 
which may have consequences for community 
policing efforts. Executive session participants 
recommended that local law enforcement work closely 
with federal agencies to ensure their operations 
do not undermine local police relations with 
multicultural communities; to understand new 
laws and define their respective roles; to learn 
about federal program reorganizations and available 
sources of assistance. Federal law enforcement 
agencies play a critical role and offer significant 
resources that can influence how local law 
enforcement delivers police services in diverse 
communities. 


CHAPTER FOUR

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

Introduction

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS ASSUMED A DIFFICULT ROLE IN OUR NATIONS 
fight against terrorisma role that involves sometimes-conflicting goals 
and a careful balance of interests and needs. The challenges for local law 
enforcement are perhaps most clearly revealed when they try to serve diverse 
communities while collecting information on and investigating potential terror
ist threats. 

Some policy makers have suggested that local law 
enforcement must change its strategies and policies 
to master its new role in domestic security. 
Yet, many police professionals have contended 
that community policing employs all the tools and 
resources needed to prevent and respond to terrorism. 
It provides local law enforcement with the 
strategies to build the relationships with diverse 
communities needed to better understand their 
priorities and encourage crime-reporting; gather 
information for investigative purposes; coordinate 
with federal law enforcement initiatives; and protect 
these communities from fear, hate crimes and 
other victimization. The following discussion 
focuses on how local law enforcement can effectively 
deliver police services in diverse communities, 
including the tools, tactics and resources to 
help agencies respond to community concerns 
while building strong partnerships with state and 
federal law enforcement to address terrorism. 

Religious and Cultural 
Awareness 

Community session participants stressed, and law 
enforcement officials agreed, that cultural and 
religious awareness is important for police officers 
who regularly interact with diverse residents, such 
as Muslims, Arabs, Sikhs or others perceived as 
sharing a common religious or ethnic background 
with terrorists.27 An informed community policing 
officer must have a basic knowledge of and respect 


for the religious beliefs and the cultural practices of 
the people they serve. When law enforcement 
demonstrates an awareness of cultural and religious 
sensitivities and traditions, they can engender 
a bond of trust with those communities. 
Diverse communities (especially those most 
affected by the September 11 backlash) may well 
be willing to work with investigators who they 
believe will respect their privacy, their traditions 
and act responsibly to keep terrorists out of their 
communities. 

27 For more information about Arab American experiences 
see the document published by the Arab American Institute 
(2002), Healing the Nation: The Arab American Experience 
After September 11. At the time of this writing, the 
publication could be found at www.aaiusa.org/PDF/healing_the_nation.pdf. 

To further law enforcements understanding, 
executive session participants briefly 
explained some religious distinctions and detailed 
why no single religion should be identified with 
terrorism. And while the discussion made clear 
the offensiveness and fruitlessness of trying to 
associate terrorists with an entire religious group, 
it also elucidated the need for greater awareness 
about how police efforts will be perceived by those 
whose religious or cultural belief systems differ 
from the majority of Americans. 

Law enforcement has to be 
sensitive to the cultural, social 
and religious values of diverse 
communities. 

Community Leader 

Not every officer can know 
every nuance of every culture in 
the community, but obtaining a 
better understanding of cultural 
differences  will help an officer 
deliver police services in these 
communities. 

Chief Law Enforcement 
Executive 

Executive session participants recommended that 
law enforcement officers be aware of, 
and in some cases participate in, community 
rallies, religious services or gatherings, and unity 
celebrations to gain a better understanding of other 
religions and cultures. These events give the 
community constructive ways to express concerns and 
provide an opportunity for officers to gain a better 
appreciation for the culture. Participants urged 
officers to go to community gatherings to reach 
out to individuals who might not initiate contact 
with law enforcement. They might even visit 
stores that draw diverse groups and participate in 
after-school activities attended by ethnically 
diverse youth groups. Officers could also work 
with religious leaders by providing them with 
information on law enforcement roles and responsibilities 
to incorporate into sermons that educate 
community members about potential partnerships 
and opportunities to support one anothers efforts. 

Participants discussed how law enforcement should be 
respectful, sensitive, and appreciate the historical, 
cultural and life experiences of 
diverse communities. Police knowledge of individuals 
cultures and customs can offer additional 
investigative opportunities and improve relations. 
And while it is impossible to have extensive 
knowledge of every ethnic or religious group in a 
jurisdiction, executive session participants 
believed that law enforcement agencies should 
attempt to understand the basic, important cultural 
sensitivities of diverse groups represented in 
their communities. 

The following examples were obtained 
from viewing the Chicago Police Departments 


videotapes and from executive session participants.28 
While generalizations will not always 
apply, they are a starting point for law enforcement 
professionals as they learn about different religions 
and cultures: 

28 The Chicago Police Department produced five videos and 
two public service announcements. The project was supported 
by a Cooperative Agreement No. 2000-DD-VX-K002 awarded by the 
Bureau of Justice Assistance. The first video is on airport 
security. Because of the TSA agreement, it is critical for 
local law enforcement to understand all religions and cultures 
in handling airport security. The Chicago Police Department 
produced separate videos on four different religions (Sikhism, 
Islamism, Judaism and Buddhism) to educate and inform both 
local law enforcement and community members about these 
religions. The videos assist police and community members 
to be more cognizant of cultural and religious differences. The 
Chicago Police Department also produced two Public Service 
Announcements (PSAs): 1) A pledge against biased-based 
policing, and 2) A pledge against hate crime. 

For more information on cultural and religious issues 
that law enforcement can use as a resource, see 100 
Questions and Answers about Arab Americans: A 
Journalists Guide that can be found at 
www.freep.com/jobspage/arabs/index.htm. 

Entering and Protecting Mosques 

Members of law enforcement should respect 
mosques and other prayer houses. Officers should 
usually enter a mosque without their shoes. 
Participants recommended that officers find an 
adequate place to put their shoes or follow the 
mosque hosts instructions. In mosques, women 
are often asked to cover their heads and to dress 
modestly, whereas men should wear long pants 
and shirts. Officers should know that women and 
men are separated for prayer in a mosque. 

Sacred Days 

Officers should avoid contacting Arabs and 
Muslims on religious holidays or during prayers 
and should be sensitive about not scheduling 
interviews during their sacred days. Devout 
Muslims may pray five times each day and attend 
weekly communal prayer at noon on Fridays. Even 
seemingly small gestures, such as police being 
aware of parking problems around communal 
praying locations, will demonstrate law enforcements 
sensitivities to the communities concerns. 

Women 

Participants stressed that law enforcement needs 
to be sensitive to how they approach, interact, 
interview and search women. Arab women as well 
as women from south-Asian countries like India, 
Pakistan and Malaysia may wear garments that 
cover their heads and sometimes even their faces 
as a religious practice, not simply a cultural one. 
These coverings are rooted in Islamic requirements 
of modesty for both men and women, and 
specifically the teachings about hijab, a term that 
covers both the practice of, and the garment used 
for, covering womens hair. Muslim women do not 
universally wear such coverings, and often the 
practice varies by region and other factors. 
Participants commented that male law enforcement 
officers should have little, if any, eye contact 
with Arab girls and women when conducting 
interviews or conversing in general. Law enforcement 
should encourage female officers to interview women. 
When possible, male family members should be included 
in conversations. 

Entering the Home 

Participants again cautioned that law enforcement 
officers should not enter an Arab or Muslim house 
uninvited for a routine interview if a man is not 
present. Officers should avoid slouching in chairs 
or baring the soles of their shoes to their hosts, as 



this is a sign of disrespect. Participants noted that 
many Arabs and Muslims have been raised to 
make their homes comfortable for visitorsso 
officers conducting interviews may be offered tea or 
coffee and even generous amounts of food as a 
means of showing hospitality to guests in their 
home. 

Law enforcement leaders do 
not know how valuable community leaders are to their policing 
efforts. 

Community Leader 

Conducting Interviews 

Officers should conduct interviews in private, 
allowing the individual interviewed to explain a 
perceived contradiction or omission without 
embarrassment. Participants suggested that investigators 
raise questions or request clarifications, 
but should allow the interviewee to retain his or 
her dignity. Participants expressed their belief that 
most individuals would respond to well-mannered 
and professional investigators. During interviews, 
law enforcement officers should try to learn more 
about the culture that can further enhance communication 
and prepare them for other interviews 
or encounters with ethnically diverse community 
members. They may even ask the individuals they 
have interviewed for suggestions on how they 
might improve the way they approach others, and 
what made them feel more at ease. 

Greetings 

Officers should attempt to use the appropriate 
greetings when meeting and interacting with people 
from different cultures. Many ethnically 
diverse residents grew up in America, and do not 
require a special greeting. Participants stated, 
however, that law enforcement should be cautious and 
watch for cues for the appropriate greeting (e.g., 
returning a nod of acknowledgment). They also 
noted that the nonverbal cues used in most 
successful interviews, such as smiling at those being 
interviewed, could help relieve tensions. They 
note, however, that shaking hands may be inappropriate 
if the officer does not know the man or 
woman. 

While these examples do not provide an 
exhaustive review of the sensitivities that law 
enforcement should show to improve partnerships 
with community members, they demonstrate the 
range of issues that officers might need to 
consider and their significance to diverse 
community members. 

The Role of the Executive 

Diverse community leaders and law enforcement 
executives must commit to the same goals: to rid 
communities of terrorists and hate crimes, and to 
address more traditional crime and disorder problems 
together. Combating terrorism and protecting 
all individuals civil liberties demands open 
dialogue and collaboration between community and 
law enforcement leaders at every level of government. 
Leadership is essential to starting a meaningful 
discussion as well as building trust between 
the community and law enforcement. 

Participants pointed out that these relationships 
must be formed during nonstressful or 
noncrisis periods, allowing both community members 
and law enforcement representatives ample 
time to work together before a terrorist incident, 
hate crime or other tragedy occurs. Session partic-


ipants who had strong communication structures 
in place before September 11th reported they were 
better prepared to deal with issues surrounding 
backlash violence, and were able to better protect 
and secure their neighborhoods. Strong relationships 
between law enforcement and the community can 
help law enforcement address heightened 
tension and racial conflict, civil disturbances, and 
even riots. 

Chief executives from the session encouraged their 
fellow law enforcement leaders to open 
lines of communication with their diverse community 
members if they have not done so already. 
This can be accomplished through individual 
meetings between community leaders and law 
enforcement executives, or through the formation 
of collaborative working groups representing 
diverse community leaders; civil rights organizations; 
and members of local, state and federal law 
enforcement. Executive session participants discussed 
how some leaders personalities can be a 
determining factor in the extent to which they are 
able to build and sustain relationships, but that 
every executive can succeed in this area. There 
must, however, be a strong institutional commitment 
and structure; otherwise, law enforcement 
personnel turnover, changes in community leadership, 
and crises can erode these relationships. 

Leaders must be perceived as acting 
responsibly, by the public as well as within their 
agency, or they will lose credibility and trust. For 
example, law enforcement executives and political 
officials must partner with ethnically and/or 
religiously diverse community leaders to condemn 
acts of terrorism and backlash violence, and to 
reassure the affected communities that every effort 
will be made to protect them. Law enforcement 
leaders must then ensure that their agencies are 
upholding all laws, especially civil and human 
rights laws that protect individualsregardless of 
immigration statusfrom victimization and 
mistreatment. Community leaders standing with 
police executives should send a signal through the 
ranks that such partnerships and cooperative 
efforts are valued by the law enforcement agency 
and that they should be reflected in officers daily 
interactions and outreach with the community. 

Building relationships within 
the community would be more 
effective for combating terrorism 
than any other single law 
enforcement effort. 

Chief Law Enforcement 
Executive 

Forums or CouncilsThe Road 
to Cooperation 

Multicultural forums and councils are used in 
several communities to open a dialogue between law 
enforcement officials and community members. A 
forum or council can provide a special opportunity 
for discussing current problems, concerns and 
frustrations, as well as identifying which law 
enforcement strategies for delivering police services 
have proven to be effective. Community members 
can voice their anxiety about issues such as 
how police conduct interviews and interrogations, 
hate crimes, terrorist acts, and even fears of law 
enforcement engaging in racial profiling or 
demonstrating cultural insensitivity. In turn, 
law enforcement can stress the importance of community 
support and partnerships; provide information on 
new federal laws that authorize local law enforce-


ment involvement in intelligence gathering or 
other counterterrorism efforts; an explanation and
clarification of police roles and responsibilities;
and their policies and procedures for delivering 
police services. Executives must anticipate and
come prepared with constructive plans to address
tough questions from all members of the forum
and to encourage joint problem solving.

Executive session participants discussed
how successful forums have important commonal
ities: 

 Local and federal law enforcement
executives, with support from com-
munity leaders, initiate and lead the
forums.

 The forums are inclusiverepresen-
tatives of diverse groups attend and
participate fully.

. The forums focus on improving 
understanding of community con
cerns and law enforcement actions.

. The forums encourage a candid discussion 
of how to resolve problems and concerns. 

. Forums use a problem-solving model 
to jointly identify problems, analyze 
them, develop a comprehensive  
shared response plan, assign imple-
mentation tasks and then evaluate the 
-overall effort.29 

Executive session participants recommended 
that each local law enforcement agency 
create a forum or council.30 Below are two 
illustrations from Chicago, Illinois and Lowell, 
Massachusetts that demonstrate how these 
forums can enhance communications and build 
trust between law enforcement and diverse 
communities. (See Appendix C for contact infor
mation for the forum and council at the time of 
this writing.)31

29 See, e.g., Developing a Partnership to Improve 
Race Relations: Kansas City Together (A Final Project Report for the Kansas 
City, Missouri Police Department), June 2003. Police 
Executive Research Forum: Washington, DC (available at 
www.kcpd.org). The KCPD also made use of The Busy Citizens 
Discussion Guide: Facing the Challenge of Racism and Race 
Relations, 3d edition, published by Study Circles Resource 
Center, a project of the Topsfield Foundation. Information about 
this guide and others can be obtained at the time of this 
writing by calling 860.928.2616 or at www.kcpd.org/images/informant/KCTogether.pdf. 

The Community Policing Consortium conducts community 
engagement sessions in 9-hour forums (usually convened 
over one-and-a-half days) to build consensus and collaboration 
between both community and law enforcement stakeholders. 
Local law enforcement chief executives who have made a 
commitment to community policing and engagement can 
employ the Consortiums action plan, which is used to 
conclude their sessions by setting out a problem-solving process. 
More information can be found at www.communitypolicing.org/training.html. 
Also, a free service that can assist in creating a forum in response 
to a community conflict is the U.S. Department of 
Justices Community Relations Service (CRS). 
CRS has nearly forty years of experience in mediation 
and conciliation services, with extensive experience establishing local 
law enforcement and minority community forums to 
communicate disputes and resolve tensions. More information can 
be found at www.usdoj.gov/crs. 

31 For an additional example that reflects a police agencys 
efforts to assess and support the resolution of race-related issues 
within the police department, as well as to use officers with 
diverse backgrounds as resources, see the Kansas City Together 
report cited in footnote 29. 


CHICAGOS MULTI-CULTURAL FORUM 

by Deputy Superintendent Barbara B. McDonald, 
Chicago Police Department 


As former Chicago Police Superintendent Terry G. Hillard embarked on his third year as the citys top 
cop, he reflected on the progress made during his tenure. The Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy 
(CAPS) was recognized as one of the most successful in the country, crime continued a near decade-
long decline, and most police department members were demonstrating compassion and courage in 
their day-to-day functions. Although the department was on the right track, like the head of any good 
customer-oriented business, Hillard believed it was his job to ensure not just good service, but the best 
service possible. He also knew that to do this, he would need the full support and trust of his customers
the community. While relations with the community were generally good, tensions still existed between 
police and the members of some of Chicagos minority communities. 

For a better understanding of the problem, Hillard decided to consult with PERF, and with their 
assistance, initiated a day-long forum on race relations in 2001. This first meeting was the start of 
many such forums held throughout the city. Several themes emerged from these discussions: Key was 
the message that the department needed to balance effective crime control strategies with an equal 
appreciation for how citizens are treated. More precisely, the reduction of crime cannot be accomplished 
at the expense of community partners trust. 

The departments actions didnt stop with just meeting and talking; it set out to address each 
of the concerns raised at the forums. As a first move, Hillard signed into department policy a specific 
directive on bias-based policing. Shortly thereafter, the Superintendent and his entire command staff 
publicly signed a pledge to all members of the department and to the citizens of Chicago to uphold the 
principles of bias-free policing. Additionally, the department produced two Public Service 
Announcements (PSAs) declaring zero-tolerance for racial profiling and hate crimes, as well as a series 
of police training videos to provide officers with tactics to ensure maximum effectiveness while 
emphasizing courtesy and a professional demeanor. 

Then came September 11th, a day that America will never forget. While the events of that day 
united many, unfortunately it also brought out the worst in some. Prior to that time, Chicago was 
enjoying a steady decline in reported hate crimes. After the terrorist acts, however, attacks against 
Arabs, Muslims, Sikhs and other people of Southeast Asian descent increased. This served as a call to 
action for the Chicago Police Department. 

Extending the concept of the forums to communities with special concerns as a result of 
September 11th, PERFs executive director was again called upon to facilitate a dialogue between police 
and these concerned communities. A COPS-funded project (the Value-Based Initiative) supports a 
group, now known as the Multi-Cultural Forum, comprised of long-time American citizens of Middle-


Eastern and Southeast Asian descent as well as recent immigrants, professionals and business people 
from these communities, representatives from numerous religious affiliations, and community advocates. 
Department members, from beat officers to the Superintendents command staff also participated. The 
focus has been twofold: 1) What can the department do to better serve these communities? 
and 2) What should officers know about the customs and practices of our diverse communities 
to provide effective, responsive and respectful service? 

This forum inspired another series of police officer training videos in which community members 
are the faces and voices of the communities concerns. Officers are given an intimate glimpse into 
their lives as they explain their cultures, religions and customs, emphasizing those areas in which 
police need to show special sensitivity. To date, police agency materials on the religion and associated 
customs of Islam, Judaism and Sikhism have been explored and educational resources on Buddhism 
and Hinduism are the subject of ongoing efforts. In addition, a video was also produced specifically 
focusing on the issue of airport security and its impact on people of different cultures and religions. 
Routinely viewed over the departments Intranet by all department members, the information provides 
officers with the tools to build and strengthen police-community relationships through a better 
understanding of the people they serve. 



The biggest defense against 
terrorism is to show we are 
united as a community, regardless of culture. 

FBI SAC 


Race Relations Council, Lowell 
(Mass.) Police Department 

In August 2000, the Lowell Police Department 
received a grant from the Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) titled Police as 
Problem Solvers/Peacemakers. This grant helped 
Superintendent Edward F. Davis, III and the 
department form a Race Relations Council,32 a 
committee composed of law enforcement representatives 
and members of Lowells diverse community, 
which meets monthly to discuss such 
issues as intergenerational issues, gangs, racial 
profiling and cultural differences. Joined by the 
police departments superintendent, police officers 
and community members discuss improving relations 
with one another, furthering communication, and 
understanding the communitys many 
cultures. 

32 The description of the Race Relations Council is based, 
in part, on information found at www.lowellpolice.com/rrelations/RR_Home.htm. 

The ideas generated from these council 
meetings are used to provide a foundation for 
future trainings at the Lowell Police Departments 
Training Institute, which currently trains more 
than 1,100 officers annually from communities 
throughout Massachusetts. As of 2003, the 
department has also received two training and 
technical assistance grants from the COPS Office 
to train, educate and support 82 police and sheriffs 
agencies from across the United States on improving 
police-community relations. 

Recommendations made by the Race 
Relations Council over the past year to improve 
police-community partnerships include the following: 

. Improving an understanding of com
munity perspectives, with presenta
tions from various council members; 

 Detailing logistics for creating Race 
Relations Council initiatives, including the planning process, potential 
barriers, philosophy and resources; 

 Engaging in a discussion about the 
partnerships needed for any race relations effort to succeed; 

 Conducting a case study of Lowells 
Race Relations Council that explores 
its activities and initiatives; 

 Developing a resource guide that 
includes text references and websites 
for topics such as cooperation and collaboration, group facilitation, policing 
issues and community relations; and 

 Evaluating the Lowell Police 
Department training program. 

A critical component of this initiative is 
the evaluation being conducted by Jack Greene 
and Jack McDevitt of Northeastern University. 
The evaluators have already identified the Race 
Relations Council as a model for replication, and 
their project products will include a draft curricu-


lum and resource guide that can be used by police 
agencies nationwide. 

Preventing Hate Crimes in 
Vulnerable Communities 

Participants discussed numerous ways to identify 
and protect vulnerable communities. Perhaps one 
of the greatest tools a community can employ is a 
public education campaignparticularly one in 
which religious and ethnic leaders stand with law 
enforcement leaders to educate all citizens in a 
jurisdiction about the tremendous damage discrimination 
and hate crimes can have on a community. Dispelling 
myths and addressing misplaced fears about entire religious and ethnic 
groups can be an essential first step in preventing 
hate crimes. 

In addition, local law enforcement must 
work with the community to distinguish individuals, 
properties and groups at risk of potential hate 
crimesand collaboratively develop prevention 
and response strategies. Potential targets for bias 
crimes include schools, places of worship, work 
sites and public places where targeted ethnic 
minorities are known to frequent or assemble. 
Identifying these and other high-risk areas enables 
police agencies to assess environmental design factors 
and other security issues, and to respond 
quickly to any outbreaks of violence or property 
damage should prevention efforts fail. 

The chief law enforcement professionals 
participating in the executive session also discussed 
having a contingency plan to deploy officers 
to potential target areas in the event of a terrorist 
incident. Session participants recommended saturation 
patrols in these areas in times of conflict or 
if there is an expectation of a future terrorist 
attack. A police presence in vulnerable areas would 
reduce residents fears and potentially deter hate 
crimes. Participants also recommended that officers 
be familiar with a deployment plan that would 
expedite responses to a hate crime if these 
protective measures are unsuccessful. 

Law enforcement agencies should try to 
assess the basis and severity of tensions felt by 
ethnically diverse residents and workers before a 
terrorist-related incident occurs. Telephone calls, 
in-person meetings, forums with leaders from 
vulnerable communities, and other outreach efforts 
are essential to discuss problems and concerns. 
Community policing officers are an essential 
resource in identifying susceptible groups or 
properties and are the best means for gaining feedback. 
In addition to routine community policing tasks, 
law enforcement agencies can locate staff substations 
in critical areas, hire liaison officers with special 
training, or create dedicated units to help identify 
potential problems, prevent incidents and 
investigate hate crimes. 

Hate crimes tend to garner widespread 
media coverage that can exacerbate already emotionally 
charged situations, so the potential for law 
enforcement-community relations to rapidly deteriorate 
remains high. The media provides a platform for 
bringing concerns and problems to 
national attentionan opportunity that is hard to 
pass up for both community advocates and police 
agencies defending their practiceseven when 
steady progress is being made on the local level to 
resolve them. To avoid having an event polarize 
the views of those who have been working together 
on common solutions, a media plan and other 
contingencies should be put in place before a 
critical incident. With emotions running high, 
executive session participants reiterated the importance 
of all officers being trained to rapidly deploy 
to vulnerable areas to prevent the situation from 
escalating. In cities without preexisting relationships 
with vulnerable communities, police found themselves 
reacting to backlash violence and deploying 
officers to these at-risk communities only after 
hate-crime incidents had occurred.



ONE COMMUNITYS RESPONSE 

by Chief Gil Kerlikowske, Seattle Police Department 


In Seattle, like most cities across this nation, the aftershocks of the September 11, 2001 terrorist 
attacks required quick and innovative responses. Within just a few days of the strikes, we began to see 
a backlash against those in the community that looked like the images of those responsible for the 
events. The most serious incident occurred at one of our local mosques. An individual attempted to 
set the mosque on fire from outside the building. When he was confronted, he raised a handgun and 
shot at several people. After a short vehicle pursuit, the suspect was arrested. I held a press conference 
at the scene to reassure the community that our places of worship and the people who attended services 
there would be protected. Immediately following the incident at the mosque, precincts identified 
sites where the vulnerable communities gatheredbe they religious, social or educational facilities. 
Patrol officers were instructed to be on high alert and to check these locations throughout their shifts. 
For several weeks following the attempted arson and shooting, patrol vehicles made routine area checks 
and provided a visible presence when people were coming and going from the mosque. 

At a meeting after the press conference, the Arab and Muslim community described untold 
incidents of people being questioned, harassed, assaulted and intimidated because they were perceived 
as the enemy. They relayed stories of people being afraid to leave their homes or send their children 
to school. They asked for assistance in restoring a sense of safety to their community. The Seattle 
Police Department began working with the group to identify issues of concern and develop strategies 
to assist them. 

Fear of being singled out and either embarrassed or physically attacked were issues that were 
keeping members of the Arab and Muslim communities from moving freely throughout the city. 
Rumor, as well as exaggerated stories, contributed to this fear. There were also concerns that incidents 
were going unreported. The Arab and Muslim communities had little contact with police prior to 
September 11th. Seattle also posed some unique challenges because of its high number of immigrant 
populations, including East African, South Asian and Iraqi. 

Because many in the community were new to this country, the language barrier became one of 
the first hurdles. The department established a hotline that was staffed by community members who 
could communicate with individuals in their primary language. To assist them in this role, the 
department provided training to various groups on the laws and using 9-1-1, with an emphasis on how to 
indicate the need for a translator, how to access resources, and how to receive follow-up services. The 
department also did extensive outreach to the communities listed above. 

I sent a clear and direct message to every employee of the department emphasizing the responsibility of 
law enforcement to ensure that the civil rights of everyone in the community would be pro-


tected. I expected that the utmost care would be taken when responding to calls of bias crimes, and this 
was communicated from the bottom to the top of the organization. 

Since September 11th, the department has had several opportunities to facilitate meetings 
between these immigrant communities and local and federal officials. We have worked closely with the 
FBI, the U.S. Attorney General as well as others in local law enforcement to improve communication. 
The department has also learned many important lessons about various cultures and customs that 
could potentially influence police officers interactions with those community members. The increased 
level of trust between the community and the department is the most lasting outcome of this effort. 
The community has voiced their support for the department and their willingness to work with the 
police to address issues as they emerge. They continue to participate in an ongoing dialogue regarding 
the shared responsibility involved in ensuring that the civil rights of all people are respected and 
protected in the City of Seattle. 

 

Immediately after September 11th, many 
other law enforcement agencies dispersed officers 
to protect mosques during prayer services as well. 
For example, the Seattle Police Department 
assigned officers to protect mosques during religious 
ceremonies, and community members 
assisted officers in understanding prayer services 
and other religious activities so they could provide 
better security. Held at the front steps of a mosque 
in the week following September 11th, the Seattle 
Police Department and the FBI Seattle Field Office 
conducted a meeting and press conference to show 
unityefforts that included the governor, mayor, 
police chief, and community leaders from the 
Islamic, Jewish and Christian communities. 

Resources for Investigating 
Hate Crimes 

The backlash against Arabs and Muslims is part of 
a larger, longstanding problem of how police prevent, 
identify, respond to, investigate and report 
hate crimes in the United States. While the current 
focus is on violence against Muslims and 
Arabs, the strengths and weaknesses of law 
enforcements response to all hate crimes is under 
renewed scrutiny. Executive session participants 
discussed the importance of local law enforcement 
agencies developing policies and protocols specific 
to their localities. 

Executive session participants recommended that 
local law enforcement agencies 
expand hate crime units or response teams. In 
larger cities, an appointed investigator or a hate 
crimes unit should be assigned the responsibility 
of investigating any incident where there is evidence 
that the motive falls within the definition of 
a hate crime.33 However, participants recognized 
that many law enforcement agencies do not have 
the in-house resources available or a documented 
caseload sufficiently large enough to support a 
solely dedicated unit, appointment of a special bias 
crime investigator, or to comprehensively train all 
officers on how to identify and investigate bias 
crimes. In small agencies, at least one officer needs 
to be trained to ensure that someone has the 
expertise to properly identify and investigate these 
crimes. These specialists should ultimately work 
to improve the ability of other officers to recognize 
the sometimes subtle indicators of hate crimes. 
Through federal grants, many local law enforcement 
agencies are able to provide hate crimes prevention 
training and secure support in investigating and 
prosecuting hate crimes.34 

33 Since 1994, the federal government has defined a hate 
crime as a crime in which the defendant selects a victim, or in the 
case of a property crime, the property that is the object 
of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, 
national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual 
orientation of any person. 28 U.S.C.  994, as amended. 

Federal resources are available under grant programs from 
the Office of Justice Programs of the Department Justice 
prescribed by the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 to prevent, 
investigate and prosecute hate crimes. At the time of this 
writing, the pending legislation Local Law Enforcement 
Enhancement Act of 2003 would provide for further grants 
in addition to the ability to request technical, forensic, 
prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation 
or prosecution of any crime that constitutes criminal violence, 
including but not limited to hate crimes. 


It is important to convey to 
immigrant community leaders 
that meeting with law enforcement officials is not always 
about gathering intelligence 
and information, but about 
strengthening the community 
as a whole. 

Chief Law Enforcement 
Executive 

Executive session participants also discussed 
the importance of developing memoranda 
of understanding (MOUs) with other agencies or 
regional task forces as an effective way of sharing 
information and combining resources to address 
hate crimes. The MOUs should collectively integrate 
all local and federal agencies, district and city 
attorneys, civil rights organizations, community-
based organizations, prosecutors, educational 
institutions, and others that could offer resources 
to address hate crimes and promote positive 
relationships between minority communities and law 
enforcement. 

Existing guidelines, programs and policies 
from local law enforcement agencies and organizations 
can be used as models for those agencies that 
have not yet developed them (see Appendix D). 
Law enforcement agencies should tailor these 
approaches to meet the unique needs of their 
jurisdictions. Executive session participants 
also discussed practical guidelines to prevent 
and investigate hate crimes, including the following: 

 Government officials, law enforcement chief executives and community 
leaders should publicly state and periodically reiterate that bias-motivated 
violence will not be tolerated and that 
those who engage in it will be prosecuted. 

 Government officials, including law 
enforcement executives, must make 
immediate statements and release 
public service announcements condemning discrimination and backlash 
violence after an event that may trigger hate crimes. 

 Local law enforcement must gather 
information on areas of the city especially vulnerable to backlash violence 
and property damage. 

 Local law enforcement must create a 
response plan to deploy officers to bias 
crime-vulnerable areas and show a 
heightened presence in the aftermath 
of a trigger-incident or such a crime. 

 Every law enforcement agency should 
have one or more officers trained to 
identify and investigate bias-motivated crimes. 

 Law enforcement agencies should educate the public on where, to whom, 
and how to report hate crimes. 

Protecting Students and 
Educational Institutions 

The safety of the nations campuses and schools 
depend on students being willing to report crimes 
and suspicious activity, which requires a certain  


level of trust and understanding of law enforcements 
role in policing in a terrorism context. 
Participants suggested that campus police and 
security departments must ensure that their policies 
and strategies go beyond routine crime 
enforcement to address preventing and responding 
to hate crimes and terrorist incidents. Participants 
suggested campus police should continue building 
partnerships with student organizations, religious 
groups, teachers and campus organizations, as 
well as strengthening their community policing 
and problem-solving approaches to identify and 
resolve concerns and problems. 

Law enforcement can go to prayer houses 
as a place to begin building relationships with 
students of all religions and ethnicities. After 
September 11th, many campus police officers 
immediately reached out to Arab and Muslim 
students who often are separated from the main 
campus and sometimes isolated from the rest of the 
city. Campus police should coordinate with the 
citys community policing officers to ensure law 
enforcement is deployed to these areas for their 
students protection. Law enforcement, both on 
and off campus, should support and build 
relationships with these students. 

Participants also suggested campus police 
should reach out to students, their parents and the 
media to educate them on both the law enforcement 
role on campus and the resources available 
to students. Participants from universities 
recommended creating committees representing 
international students, law enforcement and teachers as 
well as crisis management teams comprised of 
campus police, the Dean of Foreign Students, and 
associations available to the schools students 24 
hours a day. 

We have too much to lose to 
have terrorists come from within our community. 

Community Leader 

Participants stressed that campus law 
enforcement should draw on university resources 
to increase their understanding of immigrant 
groups. Many campuses have students and faculty 
who can provide information and courses on language, 
religion, culture and historysignificant 
assets for learning more about the students they 
serve and protect. 

Session attendees recommended that 
campus police agencies enter into mutual aid 
agreements with local, state and federal law 
enforcement agencies. These agreements facilitate 
resource-sharing during a crisis and coordinate 
appropriate operations. For example, participants 
recommended protocols that encourage campus 
police officers to accompany local, state and 
federal authorities who are interviewing students, 
faculty or staff. Campus police have closer ties to the 
student community and can reduce students fear 
and open lines of communication. 

The Community as a Source of 
Information 

Executive session participants discussed how 
residents can provide information to local, state and 
federal law enforcementwith significant 
discourse about the importance of distinguishing 
between information and intelligence. A number 
of the community leaders expressed their 
uncertainties about what information to provide law 
enforcement. Many participants believed that 
community members have the perception that law 


enforcement wants only sophisticated information 
that might include, for example, names, dates and 
details about specific terrorist threats. Law 
enforcement leaders emphasized that they do not 
expect residents to analyze or verify the accuracy of 
information. Rather, police value residents information 
about people or events that seem out of 
place or unusual. It is law enforcements job to sift 
through that information looking for patterns or 
clues, and synthesize it. Participants did note that 
officers must understand that residents may be 
reluctant to provide such information because they 
fear retaliation, and this concern must be 
addressed. 

And contrary to some perceptions, community leaders 
at the session cautioned that terrorists do 
not necessarily live in or interact with 
their ethnically diverse communities. As an example, 
community leaders explained how the 
September 11 terrorists lived in predominantly 
white neighborhoods and not in ethnic communities. 
Community leaders stressed that their flourishing 
immigrant communities have too much to 
lose to allow a terrorist to live and work among 
them. 

Local law enforcement leaders used this 
opportunity to express some of their frustrations 
about not always knowing what to look for, or 
what to do with the information they receive and 
collect from the community. This frustration 
represents the relatively new role of local law 
enforcement in intelligence gathering. As local law 
enforcement agencies continue to refine their 
intelligence functions, they must redouble their 
efforts to improve local-federal methods for information 
sharing. They also need to provide additional 
and ongoing training to patrol officers and 
investigators on the signs and indicators of 
possible terrorist activity.35 

Some executive session participants stated 
that between the first wave of interviews after 
September 11th and the beginning of the war in 
Iraq, law enforcement displayed a greater sensitivity 
towards immigrant concerns. For example, in 
some cities just prior to the war, the FBI educated 
residents about its pending initiative to interview 
many ethnically diverse community members. 
This helped alleviate the publics fear about the 
interviews and led some residents to volunteer to 
be interviewed. Executive session participants 
agreed that informing the community of law 
enforcement actions, when possible, is essential to 
developing trust and collecting useful information 
from interviews. 

Coordination Between Local 
and Federal Agencies 

Executive session participants discussed their own 
jurisdictions experience with communicating and 
coordinating with their local or federal colleagues. 
A local law enforcement chief executive related an 
incident in which INS agents searched several 
homes without informing the local police of the 
operation. From these federal efforts, an individual 
was deported who was helping local police identify 
crime suspects and was influential in building better 
community relations with law enforcement. 

35 For more detailed information about federal-local 
partnerships and information sharing, see the following section of this 
report and the first white paper, Protecting Your 
Community From Terrorism: Strategies for Local Law Enforcement, Volume 
1: Local-Federal Partnerships available for free at www.policeforum.org. 
Please sign in as a PERF member or enter as a guest 
and click on the highlighted topic Terrorism Preparedness. 


LOCALS AID IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE)
IN FLORIDAS COUNTERTERRORISM EFFORT

by Assistant Commissioner James D. Sewell, 
Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) 

While information sharing and effective partnerships are not new concepts, the events of September 
11, 2001 heightened the awareness and urgency of finding ways to improve communications throughout 
all levels of law enforcement and intelligence organizations. In July 2002, the enforcement arm of 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), now part of the Bureau of Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (ICE), entered into a first-of-its-kind partnership (a federal memorandum of 
understanding between ICE, the State of Florida, and FDLE) with state and local law enforcement to 
help improve sharing of critical information and to provide a cadre of officers dedicated to identifying 
and investigating potential terrorist threats in Florida. State and local law enforcement agencies selected 
35 agents and investigators to participate in a one-year pilot program. After attending a comprehensive 
six-week ICE training curriculum focusing largely on the application of immigration law and 
policies, these officers were authorized and prepared to carry out the responsibilities and mandates of 
ICE. Assigned full time to one of Floridas seven Regional Domestic Security Task Forces (RDSTFs), 
these personnel are empowered to use their new federal authority only under the joint direction of the 
regional ICE supervisor and the RDSTF, and in the context of their counterterrorism assignments. 
They do not engage in general immigration enforcement actions. 

Before launching this pilot program, law enforcement made a significant effort to explain the 
projects purpose and reassure members of Floridas diverse ethnic population that its efforts would be 
focused on domestic homeland security efforts and not on sweeps looking for just any immigration violators. 
An informational brochure was published in four languages (English, Spanish, Creole and 
Arabic) and distributed throughout the state. Public information teams, with representatives from the 
Office of the Governor as well as the FDLE and other state and local agencies, met with community 
leaders in all seven of Floridas domestic security regions to educate them about the pilot effort and 
address any questions or concerns they might have. Although no complaints were received during the 
12-month pilot period, a mechanism for community feedback was established through the RDSTFs to 
ensure that any questions or complaints from the public could be promptly addressed. 

In February 2003, a review of the pilot concluded that while there are areas for improvement 
primarily in data accessibilitythe pilot to date had been an overall success. The 35 agents/investigators 
provided every region an avenue for rapidly contributing to and accessing vital ICE information. 
Additionally, they provided every region an ICE presence dedicated to counterterrorism enforcement. 
The limited staffing resources available to ICE could not have produced this kind of result without the 
force-multiplier of trained state and local officers. Personnel assigned to this pilot project assisted with 


interviewing and investigating federal ICE targets, locating suspects linked to terrorist organizations, 
and identifying individuals thought to be a security risk at Floridas airports and seaports. Their 
collective efforts resulted in 93 arrests and more than 2,500 investigative follow-ups. Several long-term 
criminal investigations remain ongoing. 

ICE, FDLE and local law enforcement plan to continue this programtraining additional state 
and local personnel as needed. The essential public outreach component will continue and scheduled 
periodic reviews will remain in place for the duration of the program to ensure its integrity and its 
benefit to the overall counterterrorism mission. 



Law enforcement and community members all learned after 
September 11th that resolving a 
misunderstanding and clearly 
communicating their intentions 
will better accomplish the mission of combating terrorism. 

FBI SAC 

Residents often do not distinguish between local, 
state and federal policing efforts, and in this 
instance, they blamed local law enforcement for 
the loss of their leader. The local agency spent time 
defending federal actions, but also explained that 
they were not privy to advance information about 
the effort. 

Participants agreed that information must 
flow in both directions between local and federal 
agencies to effectively deliver police services in 
ethnically diverse communities. To prevent future 
terrorist attempts, local and federal law enforcement 
agencies must exchange information and intelligence, 
as well as their plans for conducting investigations 
in immigrant communities. Then, they 
must work collaboratively to build upon one 
anothers strengths. Session participants cited the 
need for more integrated problem-solving efforts 
that take into account minimizing overlapping 
roles and responsibilities, as well as making the 
most of existing expertise and relationships. 

Participants felt that federal law enforcement is 
unfamiliar with the knowledge base that 
local law enforcement has developed over the last 
decade in employing community-policing strategies. 
They recommended that federal agencies 
contact local law enforcement before conducting 
interviews or searches whenever possibleallowing 
local agencies to identify any efforts that would 
undermine their ongoing work with the community 
and to provide information that may be critical 
to an investigation. The benefits of this kind of 
notice and coordination are reflected in some 
recent cases in which ICE has delayed immigration 
enforcement until the FBI completed needed 
interviews. In another example, a participant 
stated that the FBI regularly informs local law 
enforcement of their terrorism-fighting efforts in his juris
diction. The community leaders also reported positive 
interactions with federal agencies when local 
law enforcement officers are involved in the federal 
operationas they have greater contact and 
trust with community members and can effectively 
preempt rumors and misconceptions about an 
effort. 

Secure Identification Cards as a 
Resource for Law Enforcement 

Executive session participants discussed the use of 
identification cards issued by the Mexican 
Consulate to its citizens traveling to the United 
States. This identification card, Matricula 
Consular, resembles a drivers license and displays 
a picture, name and the U.S. address where the 
holder will temporarily reside. Mexican immigrants 
in the United States use the card, whether 
or not they are in the country legally. While 
participants focused on the Mexican identification 
card for discussion purposes, they recognized that 
the issues often relate to other countries that issue 
similar cards. 

Immigrants use the identification card to 
establish bank accounts, access government services 
and even obtain drivers licenses in some 
states, especially when they are ineligible to 
receive a U.S. identification card. Executive ses-


sion participants discussed how these Mexican 
Consular identification cards have eased access to 
financial and local government services for immigrants, 
which limit their chances of being victims 
of financial crimes. These identification cards help 
low-income Mexican workers in the United States 
reduce their vulnerability to robberies by allowing 
them to open bank accounts instead of keeping 
their savings in cash. 

Nevertheless, the American Association of 
Motor Vehicle Administrators does not recommend 
its participating states accept these cards for the 
purposes of receiving a license. Yet, some states 
accept the card instead of a drivers license for 
certain purposes, such as those states that permit the 
card to be used to get an Individual Taxpayer 
Identification Number (ITIN) to serve as a substitute 
for a Social Security number. This enables card 
holders to contribute to and benefit from the social 
security system. Note, however, it is likely that 
those individuals who receive an ITIN, but do not 
then file taxes, are simply using it as official U.S. 
government identification for banking, government 
services and drivers licenses in selected states. 

Despite some agencies reluctance to 
accept the foreign government cards, local law 
enforcement participants discussed how the card 
helps identify both legal and illegal immigrants 
who are in need of services, as well as for their 
investigationsand in the end some identification 
is better than none. Some local law enforcement 
representatives commented that they often do not 
make arrests for minor infractions committed by 
individuals who only have a foreign government 
identification card because the card does not 
provide reliable information to conduct background 
checks, fingerprints and criminal database 
searches. 

Executive session participants discussed 
how agencies, especially those enforcing immigration 
laws, are concerned that accepting these types 
of consular identification cards as a substitute for 
U.S.-issued identification has serious implications 
for American immigration policy and homeland 
security. Session participants discussed how the 
Mexican Consulate has been working to address 
standardized issuance procedures, uniform security 
features, and a secure database for verification 
purposes to improve protection for the cards. Though 
a Mexican birth certificate is now required as the 
source document, some executive session participants 
questioned if this is enforced, or if there is 
crosschecking against computerized records in 
Mexico to ensure the verified existence of only one 
person, one identity and one card. 

Executive session participants discussed 
the need for local law enforcement agencies to learn 
more about the foreign government consular identification 
cards and the prevalence of their use in 
the multicultural communities they serve. 
Participants suggested that local law enforcement 
agencies should develop a concrete policy either 
accepting or rejecting the cards as identification 
and disseminating that information to the respective 
communities. 

Agencies are encouraged to contact the 
Mexican Consulate or agencies such as the Central 
Texas Immigrant Worker Rights Center, as 
resources for educating immigrants on their rights 
in the United States and how to obtain identification 
cards, open bank accounts and trust law 
enforcement when reporting crimes. 


Media Role in Informing the 
Community 

The print and broadcast media can play a critical 
role in shaping public attitudes and perceptions. 
The media can educate and foster understanding, 
or it can fan the prejudices of hate-mongers. 
Which role it assumes, and how it covers events 
can go a long way in supporting or undermining 
law enforcement efforts to build relationships, 
prevent hate crimes and collect information about 
possible terrorist activities. A number of law 
enforcement agencies are finding that, with the 
right strategy, the media can be a valuable partner 
in fostering public understanding and alleviating 
fear, suspicion and anger. 

Executive session participants discussed 
how law enforcement agencies can be proactive in 
working with print and electronic reporters by 
hosting press events and encouraging the media to 
launch print, radio and television public service 
announcements (PSAs). The media can inform 
the community of the roles and responsibilities of 
each local, state and federal agency, and the tactics 
and strategies they use to conduct interviews and 
investigations. Law enforcement can communicate 
through the media its commitment to a zero-
tolerance policy for hate crimes and its use of 
behavior-based enforcement methodslaw 
enforcement decision making that is based on 
individuals actions, not on their religion or culture. 

For example, before Operation Iraqi 
Freedom began, the FBI in every city was directed 
to conduct interviews with individuals who might 
have been supportive of Saddam Husseins authority. 
The FBI in Detroit, for example, called a press 
briefing to explain why and how they were conducting 
interviews, to request volunteer interviews 
and to urge residents to report civil rights 
violations and hate crimes. The press event included 
local police and community members. 

Tools and Resources for 
Improving Communication 

A variety of tools are currently available to help 
guide both law enforcement agencies and ethnically 
and religiously diverse community members in 
their efforts to better understand one another.36 
Tools and resources mentioned by executive session 
participants include recruiting, hiring and 
retaining multilingual officers; using translation 
services; disseminating multilanguage brochures 
and statement forms; using community liaisons; 
improving training in religious and cultural differences; 
developing videotapes for training; working 
with national associations; and convening forums 
or councils, as discussed above. 

36 At this writing, a team of researchers at Northeastern 
University is conducting a three-city study focusing on identifying 
strategies to enhance understanding between law enforcement 
agencies and the Arab, Muslim and Sikh communities in the 
United States. This initiative, Partnering for Prevention 
and Community Safety (PfP), will culminate in the development of 
a Promising Practices guide in May 2004 that will be available 
for both community and law enforcement across the country. More 
information on this project is currently available by contacting 
Professor Deborah Ramirez at 617-3734629/d.ramirez@neu.edu or 
Project Manager Sasha OConnell at 617-373-8845/s.oconnell@neu.edu. 


Communicating with Diverse 
Communities 

Recruiting, Hiring and Retaining a 
Diverse and Multilingual Police 
Force 

Since September 11th, law enforcement agencies 
have been more aggressive in their recruiting and 


hiring efforts to ensure greater ethnic, racial and 
gender diversity, particularly in minority communities 
with whom they are increasingly working on 
terrorism-related issues. Agencies are increasingly 
hiring officers who can serve as liaisons to work 
specifically with their ethnic or religious communities. 

While it is impossible for all officers to 
speak the many languages used in their communities, 
ideally there should be bi- or multilingual 
officers on any given shift to ensure community 
access to police officers who speak their primary 
languages. Due to limited resources and the need 
to cover multiple shifts and districts, a significant 
number of officers may need to be recruited and/or 
trained. (Where the applicant pool does not 
include officers with these skills and training 
would be too costly or less effective, agencies can 
consider such options outlined below such as 
translation services and others.) 

Law enforcement agencies should offer 
language training to interested and qualified officers. 
Participants proposed that law enforcement 
officers, at a minimum, should be given reference 
material, such as wallet-sized cards listing important 
phrases in different languages, or cultural 
facts about and resources for ethnic communities 
in that jurisdiction. 

Translation Services 

Law enforcement agencies should have a policy 
and procedure for accessing interpreters. On-scene 
interpreters or 24-hour call-in services are 
extremely beneficial. Law enforcement agencies 
can contract with phone company translation 
services, or establish less formal relationships with 
civilian volunteer translators. 

Immediately following September 11th, 
the FBI recruited Arabic speaking students and citizens 
as translators. The outpouring of support 
from translators overwhelmed the FBI.37 
Community leaders should work with police to 
similarly identify opportunities for students and 
residents to help as linguistics analysts or translators, 
especially during police investigations. Law 
enforcement agencies should also consider designating 
multilingual, multicultural liaisons to communicate 
with limited English-proficient residents. Participants 
noted that universities are a 
good resource for finding translators and potential 
liaison personnel. 

37 Arabic Speakers Answer FBI Call for Translators, Richard 
Willing, USA Today online, 18 September 2001. 


Multilanguage Brochures and 
Statement Forms 

Brochures and victim or witness statement forms 
distributed by law enforcement agencies should be 
printed in the primary languages used in ethnically 
diverse communities. For example, pamphlets 
explaining how victims should report bias-motivated 
crimes should be developed and translated 
into the appropriate foreign languages and distributed 
widely. These will assist officers in communicating 
and conducting interviews with individuals from 
non-English speaking communities. 
These forms should also ask the recipient to seek 
an interpreter when they are communicating with 
law enforcement about hate crimes or terrorism 
information in their communities. 

Materials published and printed by law 
enforcement agencies should be in languages such 
as Arabic, Farsi and Punjabi and should be distributed 
to the Arab, Muslim, Sikh and other communities. 
These materials can be distributed to community 
organizations, individual homes and 


places of worship. Local law enforcement agencies 
might also draw on federal resources to publish 
and distribute multilanguage brochures. On the 
federal level, for example, the FBIs Civil Rights 
Division publishes brochures explaining laws that 
are meant to protect civil rights in the languages of 
those communities at most risk of backlash-violence 
after the terrorist attacks. 

Community Liaisons 

Executive session participants discussed the 
importance of community liaisons when attempting 
to improve communication between residents 
and law enforcement. Some local agencies use 
liaisons to assist in crime prevention programs 
and other services to vulnerable groups. In addition 
to speaking the given language of the community, 
a liaison can act as a facilitator, bringing 
the needs of the community to the departments 
attention. A liaison can also disseminate information 
to immigrant neighborhoods regarding police 
interviews; the reasons behind them; and dispel 
any misperceptions about the nature of investigations 
in predominately ethnic neighborhoods, particularly 
with those mistrustful of law enforcement. The 
liaison can also provide immediate 
assistance to crime victims and their families. 
This assistant may be able to listen to victims 
frustrations and concerns; communicate law 
enforcements methods in investigating hate 
crimes; identify and contact individuals and 
agencies that can be beneficial to the victim; and 
arrange protection and security for the victim. 

Training in Religious and Cultural 
Differences 

In jurisdictions with significant diverse populations, 
police recruits should receive religious and 
cultural awareness training, and should have the 
opportunity to attend refresher courses throughout 
their career. Recruit training may extend academy 
training, or incur costs for instructors, space and 
some materials. Participants agreed that every 
effort should be made to collaborate with community 
groups to minimize costs. Using federal and 
community resources, including free materials and 
training, will help offset any burden to the agency. 
Roll call, personnel meetings, brief presentations 
and other opportunities should also be sought to 
support cultural awareness efforts. 

Larger local police departments are more 
likely to have the resources to devote to training 
and educational awareness programs. Smaller 
jurisdictions can benefit from regional programs 
and initiatives such as the one in King County, 
Washington where the U.S. Attorneys Office 
sponsored training for representatives from all 
police departments and the sheriffs office in the 
County. (The speakers included the special counsel 
for the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Office, the 
Region-10 U.S. Attorney, a representative from the 

U.S. Department of Justices Office of Civil Rights 
and the Seattle police chief.) In addition, the 
Community Relations Service of the U.S. 
Department of Justice has organized countless 
trainings across the country for local law enforcement 
agencies on Arab, Muslim and Sikh cultures 
often conducted by local members of the Arab, 
Muslim and Sikh American communities. 

Language tapes can also be offered to augment 
officers learning process. Agencies should 
consider recognizing officers through special 
awards or bonuses for learning languages on their 
own time and demonstrating cultural sensitivities. 
This is an incentive for officers to retain proficien-


cy and be given professional recognition for their 
efforts. Community members, students and faculty 
at universities can help teach officers new languages 
and educate them about cultures and religions; 
their help should be considered by agencies 
trying to set up collaborative programs. 

Videotapes for Training 

Videotapes can be used by law enforcement 
agencies for training and to improve communication 
between law enforcement and the community. 
The use of videotapes is important for law 
enforcement training purposes because it is an efficient 
means for delivering a uniform message to a large 
audience on important cultural issues. These 
videos can be viewed during roll call or offered at 
other times during and after shift work. They can 
be aired on local cable television, and during town 
hall meetings, forums and councils to demonstrate 
to the community that the law enforcement 
agency is committed to the neighborhoods they 
serve. 

Production of these tapes should involve 
officers and community leaders to make certain 
the perspectives of both groups are effectively 
portrayed and information is accurate.38 Law 
enforcement can also develop their own tapes to explain 
the law enforcement role, priorities and relevant 
laws and policies, including the importance of 
community partnerships and crime reporting. 
These videotapes can be used for public service 
announcements and in public forums to ensure 
that all individuals in the community are aware of 
law enforcements policies, procedures and the 
means to access services. 

38 A free copy of a sample video can be downloaded 
from the Community Relations Service website: The First Three 
to Five Seconds: Arab and Muslim Cultural Awareness Training for Law Enforcement, 
www.usdoj.gov/crs/training_video/3to5_lan/Intro.htm.

National Associations as a Resource 

Numerous national associations provide resources 
for local law enforcement, community leaders and 
residents. The following list is not presented as an 
exhaustive list of national associations, but should 
demonstrate that there are a wide range of associations 
with available resources. The contact information 
for these associations can be found in 
Appendix E. 

. Anti-Defamation League 

. Arab American Institute 

. Center for Immigration Studies 

 National Asian Pacific American 
Legal Consortium 

 National Association for the 
Advancement of Colored People 

. National Council of La Raza 

. National Immigration Forum 

. National Urban League 

. Sikh Coalition 

Conclusion 

Executive session participants reaffirmed that 
community policing provides the tools and 
resources needed to deliver police services to 
diverse communities and to engage in the partner-


ships needed to prevent and respond to terrorism 
and backlash violence. Community policing provides 
an effective way to build relationships with all 
communities by understanding their concerns, 
gathering information for investigative purposes, 
reducing fear and preventing crimes. Local law 
enforcement can effectively work with diverse 
communities by tailoring the tools, tactics and 
resources used successfully in other jurisdictions to 
address their communities unique concerns. Their 
success will be contingent on developing lasting 
trust and open communication with individuals in 
their area, while strengthening effective partnerships 
with state and federal law enforcement. 


CHAPTER FIVE

RECOMMENDATIONS


COMMUNITY POLICING IS UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE LOCAL LAW 
enforcement professionals with the principles and approaches that will 
help them build stronger bonds with their diverse communities as they 
continue to address crime, fear and the terrorist threat. Community policings 
focus on partnerships, community engagement, trust and problem solving has 
been essential to police agencies efforts to better serve and learn from 
individuals of widely varied cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds. 
These partnerships are vital to preventing residents victimization, thwarting future terrorist 
attacks and maintaining critical relationships that are the foundation for continued cooperation. 

The Executive Session on Working With Diverse 
Communities provided an opportunity for law
enforcement and community leaders to discuss a
host of concerns and challenges, and to identify
specific recommendations for other jurisdictions
to consider as they work together for safer 
communities. Listed below are highlights of selected 
recommendations contained throughout this
report. The list is not exhaustive. While there are
some recommendations that could be unique to
only some jurisdictions, these recommendations
represent the range and complexity of the common
issues considered in this paper:

Recommendation Highlights 
Religious and Cultural Awareness  

Law enforcement must learn more about the 
cultural sensitivities, traditions and religions of 
diverse communities to engender a bond of trust. 

Law enforcement officers should be aware of, 
and in some cases participate in, community rallies, 
religious services or gatherings, and unity celebrations 
to gain a better understanding of other 
religions and cultures. 

Law enforcement must work at building and 
understanding relationships, as well as reducing 
fear and protecting all diverse communities. 


Law enforcement must examine how they 
interview and interact with individuals from 
diverse communities, regardless of immigration 
status. 

Law Enforcement Leadership 


Law enforcement leaders must develop relationships 
and communication networks with 
diverse communities prior to a crisis, and should 
rely upon a variety of strategies for building trust. 


Law enforcement leaders must ensure a 
strong institutional commitment to protecting 
diverse communities, including condemning acts 
of terrorism and backlash violence, reassuring 
communities that every effort will be made to 
protect them, and making certain that their agencies 
are upholding all laws, especially those that protect 
the dignity of all individuals. 


Law enforcement leaders must ensure that 
the local police role is clearly defined 
and communicated within the agency and to the community. 

Forums or Councils 


Multicultural forums and councils of law 
enforcement officials and community members 
can provide a special opportunity for discussing 
current problems, concerns and frustrations, law 
enforcement policies and strategies. The forums 
should be built on the following principles: 

 The forums are inclusiverepresentatives 
of diverse groups attend and fully 
participate. 

 The forums include knowledgeable 
and experienced facilitators, who 
must establish ground rules for the 
meeting. 

 The forums focus on improving 
understanding of community concerns 
and law enforcement actions. 

 The forums encourage a candid 
discussion of how to resolve problems 
and concerns. 

 The forums use a problem-solving 
model to jointly identify problems, 
analyze them, develop a comprehensive 
shared response plan, assign 
implementation tasks and then 
evaluate the overall effort. 

Preventing and Investigating Hate 
Crimes 

Law enforcement officials, as well as government 
leaders, must speak out against hate crime 
and reassure the community that their protection 
is of the highest priority. 
Law enforcement agencies should identify 
individuals, properties and areas susceptible to 
hate crimes and assess environmental design factors 
and other security issues in an effort to prevent 
hate crimes. Agencies should consider saturation 
patrols in these areas in times of conflict or if 
there is indication of a possible terrorist attack. 
Agencies should respond quickly to any outbreaks of 
hate violence or property damage should 
prevention efforts fail. 


Law enforcement agencies should ensure 
they have the necessary expertise to investigate 
hate crimes, including having adequately staffed 
bias crime units or, in smaller agencies, at least one 
officer trained to identify and investigate hate 
crime incidents. They should be aware of other 
resources that can supplement their own. 

Local law enforcement agencies should develop 
policies and guidelines on hate crimes specific to 
their localities, including plans to deploy officers to 
potential target areas in the event of a terrorist 
incident. 

Law enforcement agencies should develop 
memoranda of understanding that collectively integrate 
all local and federal agencies, district and city 
attorneys, civil rights organizations, community-
based organizations, prosecutors, educational institutions, 
and others that could offer resources to 
address hate crimes and promote positive relationships. 


Protecting Students and Educational 
Institutions 

Campus police agencies should enter into 
mutual aid agreements with local, state and federal 
law enforcement agencies. These agreements 
facilitate resource sharing to prevent hate crimes and 
coordinate operations during a crisis. 

Law enforcement at all levels of government 
should develop protocols that encourage campus 
police officers to accompany local, state and federal 
authorities who are interviewing students, faculty 
or staff. 

Campus and local law enforcement should 
utilize available university resources for a better 
understanding of religion, culture and language. 
Community members, students and faculty at universities 
can provide useful assistance in translating, teaching 
officers new languages, and educating 
them about culture and customs. 

Coordination Between Local and 
Federal Agencies 

Local and federal law enforcement agencies 
must continually work to improve the exchange of 
information and intelligence, as well as their plans 
for conducting investigations in immigrant communities. 
Local law enforcement agencies should educate the 
community about its role in counterterrorism efforts,
particularly as it relates to assisting federal agencies 
in operations, investigations and 
enforcement. 

Media Role in Informing the 
Community 

Law enforcement agencies should proactively 
work with print and electronic reporters by hosting 
press events and finding opportunities to update 
and familiarize the media on steps the department 
is undertaking. 

Agencies should develop media plans directed 
at preventing hate crimes and responding to a 
critical incident. 

Agencies should consider public education 
campaignsparticularly ones in which religious 
and ethnic leaders stand with law enforcement 


leaders to educate all citizens in a jurisdiction 
about the tremendous damage discrimination and 
hate crimes can have on a community. 

Tools and Resources for Improving 
Communication 

Law enforcement must use all the tools currently 
available to improve the delivery of police 
services in diverse communities. Tools and 
resources mentioned by executive session 
participants include recruiting, hiring and 
retaining multilingual officers; using translation 
services; disseminating multilanguage brochures 
and statement forms; using community liaisons; improving 
training in religious and cultural differences; 
developing videotapes for training; working with 
national associations; and convening forums or 
councils. 

Conclusion

While the recommendations in this white paper 
are somewhat broad and cover a breadth of issues 
influencing both law enforcement and the communities 
they serve, it is hoped that the details in 
the text will be of value to a department or 
community organization. Indeed, the text offers 
suggestions that can be tailored to the unique needs of 
a jurisdiction. These approaches are meant as a 
starting point for law enforcement and community 
leaders to develop a collaborative, proactive, and 
problem-oriented response to combat future 
terrorist attacks, reduce fear within our communities 
and advance community policing across America. 


APPENDIX A

PARTICIPANTS AND OBSERVERS

Participant List 

Nassar Beydoun 
Executive Director 
American Arab Chamber of Commerce 
Dearborn, Michigan 

Jim Burack 
Chief 
Milliken Police Department 
Milliken, Colorado 

Dale Burke 
Assistant Chief 
University of Wisconsin-Madison Police 
Department 
Madison, Wisconsin 

Keith Colvin 
Pastor 
Director NAACP 
Pueblo West, Colorado 

Dan Corsentino 
Sheriff 
Pueblo County Sheriffs Department 
Pueblo, Colorado 

Carmen Cortes-Harms 
Chief of Protection 
Mexican Consulate 
Austin, Texas 

Robert Coughlin 
Deputy Director 
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs 
and Public Liaison 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 

David Dial 
Chief 
Naperville Police Department 
Naperville, Illinois 

John DiFava 
Chief 
MIT Police Department 
Cambridge, Massachusetts 

Robert Driscoll 
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Civil Rights Division 
Washington, D.C. 

Khaled J. Elkhatib 
Attorney 
Cohen and Hussein 
Chicago, Illinois 

Hisham Farajallah 
Executive Director 
Idriss Mosque 
Seattle, Washington 

Sharee Freeman 
Director 
Community Relations Service 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 

Walter P. Hempel 
Senior Special Agent 
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
Washington, D.C. 

Tim Hennessy 
Deputy Chief of Administrative Operations 
Cleveland Police Department 
Cleveland, Ohio 

Terry G. Hillard 
Former Superintendent 
Chicago Police Department 
Chicago, Illinois 

Willie T. Hulon 
Special Agent in Charge 
Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Detroit, Michigan 


Ronald Iden 
Assistant Director 
Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Los Angeles, California 

Kareem Irfan 
Chairman 
Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater 
Chicago 
Naperville, Illinois 

Gil Kerlikowske 
Chief 
Seattle Police Department 
Seattle, Washington 

S. S. Shiva Singh Khalsa 
Minister of Sikh Dharma 
Gurdwara Sahib of Chicago 
Chicago, Illinois 

Tomas J. Kneir 
Special Agent in Charge 
Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Chicago, Illinois 

Rudy Landeros 
Assistant Chief 
Austin Police Department 
Austin, Texas 

Cha Lee 
Executive Director 
South East Asian Community Counsel 
Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Charles E. Mandigo 
Special Agent in Charge 
Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Seattle, Washington 

Eloy Mares 
Trustee, Town of Milliken 
Milliken, Colorado 

Barbara B. McDonald 
Deputy Superintendent 
Chicago Police Department 
Chicago, Illinois 

Thomas A. Nunemaker 
Assistant Special Agent in Charge 
Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Kansas City, Missouri 

Jerry A. Oliver 
Chief 
Detroit Police Department 
Detroit, Michigan 

Robert K. Olson 
Chief 
Minneapolis Police Department 
Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Deborah Strebel Pierce 
Special Agent in Charge 
Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Julien Ross 
Coordinator 
Central Texas Immigrant Worker Rights Center 
Austin, Texas 

Richard K. Ruminski 
ASAC, Counterrorism-Chicago 
Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Chicago, Illinois 

Linda M. Schmidt 
Community Outreach Specialist 
Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Cleveland, Ohio 

James D. Sewell 
Assistant Commissioner 
Florida Department of Law Enforcement 
Tallahassee, Florida 

Jesse Taylor 
Regional Director 
Community Relations Service 
Chicago, Illinois 

William Taylor 
Captain 
Lowell Police Department 
Lowell, Massachusetts 


Joseph Timmons 
Director of Security 
University of Tulsa 
Tulsa, Oklahoma 

Rita Valenciano 
President 
Coalition of Hispanic Organizations 
Kansas City, Missouri 

M. Kim Ward 
Colonel 
Baltimore County Police Department 
Baltimore County, Maryland 

P. Deborah Ye 
Research/Sales Associate 
Edgegroup, Inc. 
Lowell, Massachusetts 

Russell York 
Chief 
Fort Wayne Police Department 
Fort Wayne, Indiana 

Jan Zimmerman 
Major 
Kansas City Police Department 
Kansas City, Missouri 

OBSERVER LIST 

Matt Crowl 
Deputy Chief of Staff to the Mayor 
City of Chicago 
Chicago, Illinois 

Robert Davis 
Senior Research Associate 
VERA Institute of Justice 
New York City, New York 

Roger Gomez 
Senior Assistant to Sheriff 
Pueblo County Sheriffs Department 
Pueblo, Colorado 

Jack Greene 
Dean 
Northeastern University College of Criminal 
Justice 
Boston, Massachusetts 

David Harris 
Balk Professor of Law and Values 
University of Toledo College of Law 
Toledo, Ohio 

Dennis Kenney 
Professor 
John Jay College, City University of New York 
New York, New York 

David Klinger 
Associate Professor 
University of Missouri St. Louis 
St. Louis, Missouri 

Philip Lyons, Jr. 
Executive Director 
Texas Regional Community Policing Institute 
Sam Houston State University 
Criminal Justice Center 
Huntsville, Texas 

Lois Felson Mock 
Senior Social Scientist 
National Institute of Justice 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 

Karen Rowan 
General Counsel to the Superintendent 
Chicago Police Department 
Chicago, Illinois 

Amina Saeed 
Community Relations 
Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater 
Chicago 
Lombard, Illinois 

Anthony Scalise 
Sergeant 
Civil Rights Section 
Chicago Police Department 
Chicago, Illinois 

Wes Skogan 
Northwestern University 
Institute for Policy Research 
Evanston, Illinois 


COPS Office
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20530 
Phone: 800-421-6770 
Fax: 202-616-2914 
www.cops.usdoj.gov 

Pam Cammarata 
Acting Deputy Director 

Sherry Carroll 
Grant Monitoring Specialist 

Maria Carolina Rozas 
Assistant Director 

Marcia Samuels 
Lead Grant Monitoring Specialist 

Amy Schapiro 
Senior Social Science Analyst 

Sheryl Thomas 
Senior Policy Analyst 

PERF Staff
1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 930 
Washington, DC 20036 
Phone: 202-466-7820 
Fax: 202-466-7826 
www.policeforum.org 

Heather Davies 
Research Associate 

Alex Hayes 
Research Assistant 

Judy Lim 
Research Assistant/Conference Coordinator39 

Stacy Osnick Milligan 
Research Associate 

Gerard Murphy 
Deputy Director of Research40 

Melissa Reuland 
Senior Research Associate 

Chuck Wexler 
Executive Director 

Judy Lim has since become a Special Agent for the U.S. 
State Department Diplomatic Security Service. 

40 Gerard Murphy has since become Director of the Homeland 
Security and Technology Division in the National Governors 
Association Center for Best Practices. 


APPENDIX B

FEDERAL RESOURCES


Building Respect in Diverse Groups to 
Enhance Sensitivity (BRIDGES) 
U.S. Attorneys Office for the 
Eastern District of Michigan 
U.S. 
Attorney Jeffrey Collins 
211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001 
Detroit, MI 48226 
Phone: 313-226-9100 
Fax: 313-226-2311 
www.usdoj.gov/usao/mie/ 


Civil Rights Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main 
Washington, DC 20530 
Phone: 202-514-4609 
Fax: 202-514-0293 
www.usdoj.gov/crt/crt-home.html. 

Community Relations Service 
U.S. Department of Justice 
600 E Street, NW, Suite 6000 
Washington, DC 20530 
Phone: 202-305-2935 
Fax: 202-305-3009 
www.usdoj.gov/crs/ 

COPS Office 
U.S. Department of Justice 
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20530 
Phone: 1-800-421-6770 
Fax: 202-616-2914 
www.cops.usdoj.gov 

FBI Arab American Advisory Committee 
Michael J. Anderson, Supervisory Special Agent 
FBI Northern Virginia Resident Agency 
7799 Leesburg Pike, Suite 200 South 
Falls Church, VA 22043 
Phone: 703-762-3352 
Fax: 703-506-8491 

FBI Civil Rights Program 
Jose Vargas (Hate Crime Division) 
935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 
Washington, DC 20535 
Phone: 202-324-4272 
Fax: 202-324-3155 
www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/civilrts.htm 

Northern Ohio Hate Crimes Working Group 
Linda M. Schmidt 
Community Outreach Specialist 
Community Outreach Program 
Cleveland Division, FBI 
1501 Lakeside Avenue 
Cleveland, Ohio 44114 
Phone: 216-622-6615 
Fax: 216-622-6717 
http://cleveland.fbi.gov/cop.htm 


APPENDIX C

FORUM AND COUNCIL


Chicagos Multi-Cultural Forum 
Barbara B. McDonald 
Deputy Superintendent 
Chicago Police Department 
3510 S. Michigan Avenue, 3rd Floor 
Chicago, IL 60653 
Phone: 312-745-5600 
Email: barbara.mcdonald@chicagopolice.org 

Race Relations Council 
Cindy Callahan 
Program Coordinator 
Lowell Police Department 
50 Arcand Drive 
Lowell, MA 01852 
Phone: 978-937-3228 
Email: ccallahan@ci.lowell.ma.us 


APPENDIX D

HATE CRIME RESOURCES 

SELECTED WEBSITES ON HATE CRIME RESOURCES 41 

These websites include resources on hate crimes laws, 
anti-bias and prevention programs, and links to 
other related sites: 

www.adl.org [Anti-Defamation League] 

www.adl.org/learn [Anti-Defamation League Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network] 

www.partnersagainsthate.org [Anti-Defamation League, Leadership Conference Education 
Fund, Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence, Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice] 

www.cphv.usm.maine.edu [The Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence]

www.hatecrime.net [Hate Crimes Research Network] 

www.hrc.org [The Human Rights Campaign]

www.hrw.org [Human Rights Watch] 

www.theiacp.org [The International Association of Chiefs of Police]

www.civilrights.org [Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights Education Fund]

www.stopthehate.org/get_involved/law/tools/Model_Protocol.pdf [Massachusettss
Governors Task Force on Hate Crimes]

www.tolerance.org [Southern Poverty Law Center/Klanwatch]


These references were identified by the Anti-Defamation League, 
as were the resources in the following section. These 
listings may provide useful information at the time of this 
writing, but by including them the authors do not necessarily 
endorse any information of the sponsor or publishing organization 
or other information on the websites. 


SELECTED RESOURCES ON HATE VIOLENCE 

American Prosecutors Research Institute, National District Attorneys Association, 2000. 
A Local Prosecutors Guide to Hate Crimes.

Anti-Defamation League, 2001. Arresting Hate: Training Video For Police Officers and
Discussion Manual. 

Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, 1997. A Policymakers Guide to 
Hate Crimes.

Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, 2000. Addressing Hate Crimes: Six
Initiatives That Are Enhancing the Efforts of Criminal Justice Practitioners.

Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, 2000. Responding to Hate Crimes: 
A Roll Call Training Video for Police Officers [accompanied by 16-page Instructors Guide]. 

Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice, 1997. Preventing Youth Hate 
Crime: A Manual for Schools and Communities. 

Devine, Richard A., Cook County States Attorney, Chicago. 1998. Hate Crime: 
A Prosecutors Guide.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, 1999. Hate Crimes.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2002/2003. Hate Crime Statistics: Annual Report.

International Association of Chiefs of Police, August 1, 1991. Hate Crimes: Model Policy,
accompanied by Concepts and Issues Paper. 

International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1991. Investigating Hate Crimes: Training Key
#409.

International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1999. Responding to Hate Crimes: A Police
Officers Guide to Investigation and Prevention. 


Each of the following four curricula were developed in partnership by the International 
Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training, the National 
Association of Attorneys General, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department 
of the Treasury. 

Hate Crime Training: Core Curriculum for Patrol Officers, Detectives, and Command 

Officers; 

Hate Crime Training: Curriculum for Detectives and Investigators; 

Hate Crime Training: Curriculum for Patrol and Responding Officers; and 

Hate Crime Training: Curriculum for Command Officers. 

Lawrence, Frederick M., Harvard University Press, 1999. Punishing Hate: Bias Crimes Under 
American Law. 

Leadership Conference Education Fund/Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 1997. Cause 
for Concern: Hate Crimes In America. 

Levin, Jack and Jack McDevitt,1993. Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and Bloodshed, 
Plenum Press. 

National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), March 1986. Racial 
and Religious Violence: A Law Enforcement Guidebook. 

National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), September 1985. 
Racial and Religious Violence: A Model Law Enforcement Response. 

Office of Civil Rights, Department of Education and National Association of Attorneys 
General, 1999. Protecting Students from Harassment and Hate Crime: A Guide for Schools. 

OMalley, Jack, 1994. A Prosecutors Guide to Hate Crime, Cook County States Attorney. 

U.S. Department of Justice/CRS, 2001. Twenty-Four Plus One Things Local Law 
Enforcement Agencies Can Do to Prevent or Respond to Hate Incidents Against Arab-
Americans, Muslims and Sikhs, www.usdoj.gov/crs/24things.htm. 


U.S. Department of Justice/FBI, 1996. Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines, Summary 
Reporting System, National Incident-Based Reporting System, Uniform Crime Reporting. 

U.S. Department of Justice/FBI, 1996. Training Guide for Hate Crime Data Collection, 
Uniform Crime Reporting: Summary Reporting System, National Incident-Based Reporting 
System. 


APPENDIX E

NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS/RESOURCES

NATIONAL 
ASSOCIATIONS/RESOURCES 42 

Anti-Defamation League 
1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1020 
Washington, DC 20036 
Phone: 202-452-8310 
Fax: 202-296-2371 
Website: www.adl.org/adl.asp 

Arab American Institute 
1600 K Street, NW, Suite 601 
Washington, DC 20006 
Phone: 202-429-9210 
Fax: 202-429-9214 
Website: www.aaiusa.org 

Center for Immigration Studies 
1522 K Street, NW, Suite 820 
Washington, DC 20005 
Phone: 202-466-8185 
Fax: 202-466-8076 
Website: www.cis.org/aboutcis.html 

National Asian Pacific American Legal 
Consortium 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1200 
Washington, DC 20036 
Phone: 202-296-2300 
Fax: 202-296-2318 
Website: www.napalc.org/contact/index.html 

National Association for the Advancement of 
Colored People (NAACP) 
4805 Mt. Hope Drive 
Baltimore, Maryland 21215 
Phone: 877-NAACP-98 
24-Hour Hotline: 410-521-4939 
Fax. Not available. 
Website: www.naacp.org 

National Council of La Raza 
1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 1000 
Washington, DC 20036 
Phone: 202-785-1670 
Fax: 202-776-1792 
Website: www.nclr.org 

National Immigration Forum 
50 F Street, NW, Suite 300 
Washington, DC 20001 
Phone: 202-347-0040 
Fax: 202-347-0058 
Website: www.immigrationforum.org 

National Urban League 
120 Wall Street 
New York, NY 10005 
Phone: 212-558-5300 
Fax: 212-344-5332 
Website: www.nul.org 

Sikh Coalition 
P.O. Box 7132 
New York, NY 10150-7132 
Phone: Not available. 
Fax: Not available. 
Website: www.sikhcoalition.org 
Email: info@sikhcoalition.org 

The associations listed as a resource may provide 
useful information at the time of this writing, but by including them 
the authors do not necessarily endorse the information 
of the sponsor organization or other information on the websites. 


COPS OFFICE-RELATED TITLES

OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES, U.S. 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (COPS)-RELATED TITLES 

McMahon, Joyce, Joel Garner, Ronald Davis and Amanda Kraus. 2002. How to Correctly Collect and 
Analyze Racial Profiling Data: Your Reputation Depends On It! Washington, D.C.: Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services. 
This publication is the result of a COPS-funded project conducted by the CNA Corporation (CNAC) to 
help law enforcement agencies collect and analyze data. The publication is particularly timely as more 
and more states mandate that law enforcement agencies collect traffic stop data. As part of this project, 
CNAC worked with the Baltimore (MD) Police Department, the Phoenix (AZ) Police Department, the 
Chattanooga (TN) Police Department, and the St. Paul (MN) Police Department, all of which are 
highlighted in the document along with the Oakland (CA) Police Department. At the time of this writing, the 
publication can be found at www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=770. 

Rinehart, Tammy A., Anna T. Laszlo, and Gwen O. Briscoe. 2001. The COPS Collaboration Toolkit: How 
to Build, Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services. 
This toolkit provides practical guidance to law enforcement agencies as they develop and sustain partnerships 
that support community policing. The toolkit will benefit law enforcement personnel, community-based 
organizations, educators, youth, government officials, and others seeking to combine efforts to 
reduce crime and social disorder problems. At the time of this writing, the publication can be found at 
www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=344. 

Walker, Samuel, Carol Archbold, and Leigh Herbst. 2002. Mediating Citizen Complaints Against Police 
Officers: A Guide For Police And Community Leaders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services. 
This guide addresses the implementation, expectations and evaluation of police-citizen mediation programs. 
It addresses how to overcome obstacles to mediation such as police and citizen resistance. Key 
issues discussed include eligibility, cultural barriers and creating a level playing field. The guide presents 
examples of successful mediation processes for communities thinking about developing a 
mediation program. At the time of this writing, the publication can be found at 
www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=452. 

The COPS Office has many other publications related to the advancement of community policing, 
problem solving and other law enforcement-related topics. For more information, call 1-800-421-6770 or visit 
www.cops.usdoj.gov. 


PERF-RELATED TITLES

POLICE EXECUTIVE RESEARCH FORUM (PERF)-RELATED TITLES 

Correia, Mark. 2000. Citizen Involvement: How Community Factors Affect Progressive 
Policing. Police Executive Research Forum. 

DeGeneste, Henry and John Sullivan. 1997. Fresh Perspectives: Policing a Multicultural Community. 
Police Executive Research Forum. 

Eck, John E., and Nancy La Vigne. 1994. Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement Managers. Police 
Executive Research Forum. 

Fridell, Lorie. 2004. By the Numbers: A Guide for Analyzing Race Data from Vehicle Stops. Police 
Executive Research Forum. (Available as a free download at www.policeforum.org by clicking on Racially 
Biased Policing.) 

Fridell, Lorie, Robert Lunney, Drew Diamond, and Bruce Kubu. 2001. Racially Biased Policing: A 
Principled Response. Police Executive Research Forum. 

Geller, William and Michael Scott. 1992. Deadly Force: What We Know: A Practitioners Desk Reference 
on Police Involved Shootings. Police Executive Research Forum. 

Geller, William and Hans Toch, eds. 1995. And Justice for All: Understanding and Controlling Police 
Abuse of Force. Police Executive Research Forum 

Oramas, Nelson. 1994. Drug Enforcement in Minority Communities: The Minneapolis Police 
Department, 1985-1990. Police Executive Research Forum. 

Reuland, Melissa, Chuck Wexler, and Terry Chowanec. June 2003. Developing a Partnership to Improve 
Race Relations: Kansas City Together. Police Executive Research Forum. (Available as a free download at 
www.kcpd.org) 

Walker, Samuel. 1995. Citizen Review Resource Manual. Police Executive Research Forum. 

Walker, Samuel. 2000. Police Interactions with Racial and Ethnic Minorities: Assessing the Evidence and 
Allegations. Police Executive Research Forum. 

PERF has many other publications on community problem solving, evaluating police agencies 
and practices, and other materials used for promotion exams, training and university classes. 
For a free catalog or more information, call 1-888-202-4563. PERFs online bookstore 
can be found at www.policeforum.org. 


ABOUT THE AUTHORS


Primary Authors 
Heather J. Davies, Ph.D., Research Associate 
Police Executive Research Forum 

Dr. Davies has more than five years experience in criminal justice and child welfare research, evaluation, 
training and technical assistance. She is currently managing a variety of PERF projects, including 
Community Policing in a Security-Conscious World and Managing Multijurisdictional Cases: Lessons 
Learned from the Sniper Investigation. 

Prior to joining PERF, Davies was a Senior Research Associate with the American Bar 
Associations Center on Children and the Law and the Criminal Justice Section. She was the principal 
investigator on a project evaluating parental involvement practices of juvenile courts, and one on 
improving legal and judicial responses to parental kidnapping. She conducted an analysis of legal 
services provided by the District of Columbias Office of Corporation Counsel to the Child and Family Services 
Agency. In addition, she served as project associate on such studies as the implementation of the 
Michigan Lawyer-Guardian Ad Litem Statute, a national assessment of law enforcement and community 
partnerships for helping children exposed to domestic violence, and an evaluation of domestic violence 
no-drop policies. Davies was the co-author of a National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 
monograph, Child Pornography: The Criminal Justice Response. She holds a B.S. in Sociology from 
Virginia Tech, and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Justice, Law and Society from American University. Her 
dissertation addressed Understanding Variations in Murder Clearance Rates: The Influence of the Political 
Environment. 

Gerard R. Murphy, Former Deputy Director of Research 
Police Executive Research Forum 

At this writing, Murphy was a senior research and policy analyst with the Police Executive Research 
Forum (PERF). He is currently the Director of the Homeland Security and Technology Division in the 
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. He has directed a number of national projects, 
including Managing Multijurisdictional Cases: Lessons Learned from the Sniper Investigation, An 
Assessment of the Law Enforcement Response on September 11, and Community Policing in a Security-
Conscious World as well as others focusing on port security, police performance measures, recruitment 
and hiring practices. 

Before joining PERF in September 2001, Murphy spent 12 years with the Baltimore County (MD) 


Police Department. He was the Director of Planning and Research, responsible for developing and implementing 
the departments strategic plan, researching and developing department policies, managing federal and state 
grants, and serving as the agencys accreditation manager. Prior to that position, he was the 
Assistant to the Police Chief for eight years spanning the tenure of three chiefs for whom he provided 
policy advice and guidance. Murphy also conducted a variety of special projects to improve organizational 
efficiency. He also served as Executive Director of the Baltimore County Police Foundation. His previous 
experience also includes being an Assistant Professor of Public Affairs at Indiana University, Fort Wayne 
and a previous stint at PERF as a research associate. Murphy holds a masters degree in public policy and 
has completed extensive work towards his doctorate in public policy. He is also a graduate of the Federal 
Executive Institute. 

Contributing Authors 
Kareem Irfan, Chairman 
Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago 

Mr. Irfan has been Chairman of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago since January 
2001. Prior to that he has led many Council projects, co-chairing its Bosnian Refugee Relocation Project 
and chairing its Media Relations Committee. He has collaborated with national Islamic organizations 
including the Islamic Society of North America on social betterment, political awareness and civil rights 
initiatives and managed program development, presentations and media relations for national conventions. 
He has served on the Boards of several Islamic Centers and educational institutions and remains 
committed to pro bono work for professional, religious and nonprofit organizations. 

Mr. Irfan is Assistant General Counsel for the North American Division of Square D Co.
Schneider Electric, a Paris-based global manufacturer of electrical distribution, automation and control 
products. He has been with Schneider Electric for 12 years and is currently responsible for legalities of 
business initiatives in Information Technology and e-commerce for the company. He has served as 
Secretary and Board Director of the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago and as Chairman of 
its Inventor Services Committee. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, he has appeared on local and national radio 
and television programs promoting inter-faith understanding, cooperation and bridge-building amongst 
fellow Americans. He has a M.S. in computer engineering from the University of Illinois and a J.D. from 
DePaul University. 

Jerry A. Oliver, Sr., Former Chief 
Detroit Police Department 

Oliver has been a law enforcement leader and advocate for policing reform. In his more than three decades 
of service, he has served as the Assistant Chief of Police in his hometown of Phoenix, Arizona; the 
Director of Drug Policy in Memphis, Tennessee; and Chief of Police in Pasadena, California, and in 
Richmond, Virginia. From February 2002 until October 2003, he was the appointed Chief of Police for 
the Detroit, Michigan, Police Department. Chief Oliver holds a masters degree in public administration 


(public finance) and a bachelor of science degree in criminal justice, both from Arizona State University. 
He was a member of the FBIs 21st National Executive Institute. 

He is a graduate of the Senior Management Institute for Police; was selected as an Executive 
Fellow with the Police Foundation; and is an active member of the Police Executive Research Forum. 
Oliver was one of the originators of Richmonds Project Exile, a nationally acclaimed and replicated 
program that targeted gun and drug violence. 

His recent awards include the IACP-Motorola Webber Seavy Award for Policing Excellence in 
2001 and The U.S. Attorney Generals Award for Outstanding Contributions to Community Partnerships 
for Public Safety in 2000. 

Linda M. Schmidt, Community Outreach Specialist 
Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Linda M. Schmidt has been with the Cleveland Division of the FBI for ten years. She is the Community 
Outreach Specialist and a certified police instructor. Schmidt works with community organizations as 
chair of the Community Outreach/Education Committee of the Northern Ohio Hate Crimes Working 
Group (NOHCWG) and coordinator of the Citizens FBI Academy. Schmidt, along with members of the 
NOHCWG, co-authored two hate crime brochuresone for students and one for parents and teachers. 
She has also contributed to a FBI Web Page Two article and a FBI On-Line Chat on the effects of 
September 11th on Clevelands multicultural communities and the NOHCWG (2002). She also authored 
the video script Peer Sexual Harassment and co-authored with Mary A. Lentz, Esq., Peer Sexual 
Harassment: A Reference Guide for Educators (1999). In addition, Schmidt has an extensive background 
working with street gangs. She authored a chapter in The Gang Guidebook, published by the Office of 
Criminal Justice Services, State of Ohio (1998); and an article in Baldwins Ohio School Law Journal 
entitled, A Brief History of Ohio Gang Trends: Changes in Legislation as a Result of Gangs and Successful 
Prevention Methods (1999). Schmidt also wrote the script for A Stranger in Your Home (2001), a video 
done with the Cuyahoga County Prosecutors Office and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task 
Force. 

Barbara B. McDonald, Deputy Superintendent 
Chicago Police Department 

Barbara B. McDonald is the Deputy Superintendent of the Bureau of Administrative Services for the 
Chicago Police Department. She directs activities related to information and strategic services, financial 
and personnel services, and oversees five divisions: Personnel, Finance, Information Services, Records 
Services, and Research and Development. Prior to becoming Deputy Superintendent in June 2000, she 
served as the Assistant Deputy Superintendent for Research and Planning. In that capacity she directed 
the activities of the research and development division and also served as the co-manager of the 
departmentwide community-oriented policing modelthe Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS). She 
joined the Chicago Police Department in 1993 as the Director of the Research and Development 


Division. 

Before coming to the department, she served as Deputy Executive Director of the Illinois 
Criminal Justice Information Authority, the states criminal justice planning agency. She has also been 
the Director of the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission and the Associate Director of the Illinois Law 
Enforcement Commission. 

McDonald holds masters degrees in planning and administration and human resource development from the 
University of Vermont, as well as doctoral studies in education at Boston University. In 
1990, she became the first woman president of the National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA), a DC-
based interest group representing state and local governments on issues concerning public safety and 
criminal justice. She is one of the principal architects of CAPS. In 1995, she received the Gary P. Hayes 
Award in part for her work with CAPS. She also served for several years as policy staff to the Major Cities 
Chiefs, an organization of law enforcement executives from 57 of the largest urban areas in the United 
States and Canada. She also serves on the PERF Board of Directors. 

Gil Kerlikowske, Chief of Police 
Seattle Police Department 

Chief Kerlikowske was appointed to his position on August 14, 2000. Previously, he was the Deputy 
Director of the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) at the U.S. Department of Justice. He 
served as Police Commissioner in Buffalo, New York from 1994 to 1998. He began his law enforcement 
career in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 1972. In 1985, he received a one-year fellowship from the U.S. 
Department of Justice to evaluate police procedures throughout the country. Chief Kerlikowske holds a 

B.A. and M.A. in criminal justice from the University of South Florida in Tampa. He is a graduate of the 
National Executive Institute at the F.B.I. Academy in Quantico, Virginia, as well as the Senior 
Management Institute for Policing (SMIP). He was the 1990 recipient of the Gary P. Hayes Award for 
innovation in policing. He served as the President of PERF from 1996 to 1998. 

James D. Sewell, Assistant Commissioner 
Florida Department of Law Enforcement 

James D. Sewell was appointed Assistant Commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement 
on May 23, 2003. During his tenure with FDLE, he has held a variety of administrative positions, including 
Deputy Commissioner, Regional Director of its Tampa Bay Regional Operations Center, Director of 
the Division of Criminal Justice Information Systems, and Director of the Florida Criminal Justice 
Executive Institute. He also served as Chief of Police for the City of Gulfport, Florida, for nearly five 
years. He has held positions with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and the 
Florida State University Department of Public Safety, where he began his law enforcement career in 1973. 
Assistant Commissioner Sewell holds a B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. in Criminology from the Florida State 
University and is a graduate of the FBI National Academy. 


ABOUT THE COPS OFFICE

ABOUT THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING 
SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), U.S. Department of Justice, was created in 
1994 and has the unique mission to directly serve the needs of state and local law enforcement. The 
COPS Office is an innovative agency that has been the driving force in advancing the concept of community 
policing through the creation of locally driven problem-solving strategies and police-community 
partnerships. COPS is responsible for one of the greatest infusions of resources into state, local 
and tribal law enforcement in our nations history. 

Since 1994, COPS has invested $9.6 billion to add community policing officers to the nations 
streets, enhance crime fighting technology, support crime prevention initiatives and advance community 
policing nationwide. COPS funding has furthered the advancement of community policing through innovation 
conferences, the development of model practices, pilot community policing programs and applied 
research and evaluation initiatives. COPS has also positioned itself to respond directly to emerging law 
enforcement needs. Examples include working in partnership with departments to enhance police integrity, 
promoting safe schools and combating the methamphetamine drug problem, and recently, homeland 
security efforts. 

Through its fiscal year 2003 grant programs, COPS has assisted and encouraged local, state and 
tribal law enforcement agencies to enhance their homeland security efforts. Traditional COPS programs 
such as Universal Hiring (UHP) give priority consideration to those applicants that demonstrate a use of 
funds related to terrorism preparedness or response through community policing. The COPS in Schools 
(CIS) program has a mandatory training component that includes topics on terrorism prevention, emergency 
response and the critical role schools can play in community response. In addition, COPS has 
developed interoperability and overtime programs that will assist in addressing the homeland security 
demands that inevitably fall to law enforcement. 

The COPS Office has made substantial investments in law enforcement training. COPS created 
a national network of Regional Community Policing Institutes (RCPIs) that has revolutionized law 
enforcement training. Most recently, the RCPIs have been focusing their efforts on developing and 
delivering homeland security training. COPS also supports the advancement of community policing strategies 
through the national training delivery system provided by the Community Policing Consortium. 
Furthermore, COPS has made a major investment in research that makes possible the growing body of 
substantive knowledge covering all aspects of community policing. 



These substantial investments have produced a significant community policing infrastructure 
across the country as evidenced by the fact that more than two-thirds of the nations law enforcement 
agencies have sought COPS grants and were awarded funding. The COPS Office continues to respond 
proactively by providing critical resources, training and technical assistance to help state, local and tribal 
law enforcement implement innovative and effective community policing strategies. 



ABOUT PERF

ABOUT THE POLICE EXECUTIVE RESEARCH FORUM


The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) is a national professional association of chief executives of 
large city, county and state law enforcement agencies. PERFs objective is to improve the delivery of police 
services and the effectiveness of crime control through several means: 

 the exercise of strong national leadership, 
 the public debate of police and criminal justice issues, 
 the development of research and policy, and 
 the provision of vital management and leadership services to police agencies. 


PERF members are selected on the basis of their commitment to the organizations objectives and 
principles. PERF operates under the following tenets: 

 Research, experimentation and exchange of ideas through public discussion and debate are 
paths for the development of a comprehensive body of knowledge about policing. 
 Substantial and purposeful academic study is a prerequisite for acquiring, understanding and 
adding to that body of knowledge. 
 Maintenance of the highest standards of ethics and integrity is imperative in the improvement of policing. 
 The police must, within the limits of the law, be responsible and accountable to citizens as 
the ultimate source of police authority. 
 The principles embodied in the Constitution are the foundation of policing. 


Categories of membership also allow the organization to benefit from the diverse views of criminal 
justice researchers, law enforcement of all ranks and other professionals committed to advancing law 
enforcement services to all communities. 

Additional color copies of this report can be downloaded for free at www.policeforum.org. Please sign in 
as a PERF member or enter as a guest and click on the highlighted topic Terrorism Preparedness.  


NOTES



Additional Copies of this report can be downloaded free of charge from 
www.policeforum.org. 

Please sign in as a PERF member or enter as a guest and click on the 
highlighted topic Terrorism Preparedness.