Homeland Security Advisory Council

Spring 2010

Countering Violent Extremism (CVE)

Working Group

1
Secretary’s Tasking of HSAC

Recognizing that there have been many successful cases of local law 

enforcement working with communities to fight violent crime, at the 

February 2010 HSAC Meeting Secretary Napolitano tasked the HSAC to 

“...work with state and local law enforcement as well as relevant 

community groups to develop and provide to me recommendations 

regarding how the Department can better support community-based 

efforts to combat violent extremism domestically – focusing in 

particular on the issues of training, information sharing, and the 

adoption of community-oriented law enforcement approaches to this 

issue.” 

2
Secretary’s Tasking (Con’t.)

Specifically, the initial recommendations will focus on the following issue 

areas:

 Best Practices:What are some best practices that demonstrate how 

information driven, community-based efforts can be effective in 

reducing violent crime within a community?

 Information Sharing:What type of information and intelligence 

should DHS be providing state and local authorities so that they are 

better able to leverage existing community-oriented policing efforts to 

identify and address ideologically-motivated violent crime?

 Training and Other Support:What type of training, technical 

assistance and funding support is required so that local authorities are 

better able to integrate information driven, community-oriented 

policing activities into overall efforts to establish safe and secure 

communities?

3
Development of Recommendations

 Recommendations were developed through a series of telephonic and face to 

face meetings that included working group members, state, county and local 

government officials, and representatives from community organizations.

 Discussions of the Working Group were organized around four major themes:

 Every day, across the Nation, local, state, and tribal law enforcement agencies work 

with community members to prevent violent crime – what are some of the best 

examples of how police/community partnership can lead to significant reductions in 

violent crime?

 Does this approach lend itself to preventing violent crime that is motivated by 

extreme ideological beliefs – and how does this effort to counter violent extremism 

impact the police-community partnership?

 If local law enforcement were to incorporate efforts to counter violent extremism 

into pre-existing, community-oriented violent crime reduction efforts – what 

information would these local entities need from the Federal Government – specifically DHS.

 If local law enforcement were to incorporate efforts to counter violent extremism 

into pre-existing, community-oriented violent crime reduction efforts, what type of 

training would front line officers, investigators and management personnel require?

4
General Findings

 Community-Oriented Policing works in preventing violent crime – The Working Group found that 

information-driven, community-oriented policing efforts have proven effective in reducing and/or preventing 

violent crime in numerous jurisdictions across the Nation. 

 Emphasis should be on building safe, secure, resilient, and crime resistant communities – In 

working with community members, law enforcement seeks to understand and proactively address factors 

which enable violent criminal activity to occur. 

 Effective public –private partnerships, designed to enable civic engagement, problem-solving, and violent crime 

mitigation provide the foundation for efforts to prevent, protect against and respond to violent criminal activity –

including that which may be motivated by ideological objectives. 

 While acknowledging that information-driven, community-based law enforcement efforts hold great promise in 

preventing violent crime that is terrorism-related, that promise will be best realized when local authorities work with 

community members to understand and mitigate all threats facing local communities. 

 The current level of understanding regarding the sociology of “radicalization” and “extremism” is still immature. 

Accordingly, Working Group members believe that the concept of building safe, secure, resilient and crime resistant 

communities should be the priority and operationally, efforts should focus on stopping violent behavior regardless of the 

motivation. 

 Working Group members felt that discussions regarding how to improve local law enforcement crime reduction efforts 

should be delinked from the current academic and policy discussions on “radicalization” and “countering violent 

extremism” until such time that the understanding of these phenomena matures. 

5
General Findings (Cont.)

 All violent crime is local – While there may be some common indicators of 

ideologically-motivated violence, each circumstance is unique, needs to be viewed 

individually, and viewed within the context of the specific community in which the 

suspect lives, works, and operates.

 There can be tension between those involved in law enforcement 

investigations and those collaborating to establish local partnerships to 

stop violent crime – Community policing can be impeded if other enforcement 

tactics involving a community are perceived as conflicting with community partnership 

efforts. Crime control efforts at the local level involve a variety of operational activities 

that can be – if properly coordinated – supportive and complementary. Roles and 

responsibilities of federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement, and the community 

need to be clearly defined and articulated. Law enforcement should be sensitive to the 

fact that perceptions regarding enforcement actions and intelligence gathering can 

impact community-oriented policing goals.

6
Best Practices of Local Law Enforcement/Community 

Partnerships Are Leading to Significant Reductions in Violent 

Crime

 Multiple examples exists of effective community/local government partnerships which have led to significant 

reductions in violent crime including:

 Los Angeles, California

Law enforcement joins communities and government agencies to improve quality of life issues and reduce violent crime.

 Cincinnati, Ohio

College professors collaborate with law enforcement and communities to lower crime.

 Austin, Texas

Law enforcement works with community on rapid response teams to mitigate tough issues and work in partnership to reduce violent crime.

 Las Vegas, Nevada

Grassroots community effort led by faith based organizations that assist in reducing violent crimes and gangs.

 Dearborn, Michigan

Collaborative effort to engage the community in the identification and resolution of community issues to include combating violent crime.

 State of Maryland

Established an executive level coordinating office within the Governor's Office to work with community groups, ethnic groups,and faith based 

organizations to address quality of life and other issues of concern. 

 State of Ohio 

Established a community engagement office which built a collaborative and cooperative relationship with the communities based on trust and 

mutual respect. 

 Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Designated crime professional specialists who are liaisons between the community and local law enforcement and have safety centers that are 

funded by the neighborhoods.

The Working Group recognized that these are only a few examples of best practices by community-oriented 

policing efforts across the country. The Working Group also noted that it should be a continuing priority to 

identify best practices as well as to document instances where partnerships have not worked well in order to 

identify and compile lessons learned.

7
Community-Oriented Policing

Community-oriented policing is a viable strategy to address crimes 

of violence if the approach involves: 

Developing meaningful partnerships between the government 

and communities in which all partners contribute to the 

identification of community issues and needs; 

Collaborative problem solving; and 

Law enforcement and other government agencies implement 

institutional and organizational changes to support the effort.

8
Key Elements of Community-Oriented Policing to 

Reduce Violent Crime

 Partnerships – Establishing advisory councils/focus groups to include civic and community 

organizations, faith based and education entities, private sector security, and the media. Encourage 

participation through these partnerships to draw involvement from all segments of the community.

 Leadership – Executive Leadership/Guidance of local law enforcement heads in taking the lead in 

outreach to communities.

 Multidisciplinary – Leverage all available public and private resources within a local 

environment including social services, medical, mental health and family/school counseling 

professionals to help build bridges to communities; an excellent example has been the 

outreach/athletic programs for community youth spearheaded by some local police departments as 

well as outreach programs for community youth to include enrichment, education, and 

participatory programs like Police Explorers and Internships, and other self esteem building 

initiatives.

 Training – Continuous training is key to both law enforcement and the community and should 

focus on:

 Improving capacity of law enforcement and other government personnel to communicate and 

collaborate with individuals from diverse religious, ethnic and racial communities; and

 Better understanding the threats facing a local community and recognizing behavior and 

indicators associated with those threats.

9
Key Elements of Community-Oriented Policing to 

Reduce Violent Crime (Cont.)

 Consistency – Maintaining a presence at community events year-round including 

religious events. Law enforcement is partnering with religious and community activists, 

community leaders and business leaders to hold community events (i.e. barbecues, park 

events, and rallies), where ideas to reduce or eliminate violence are discussed and 

relationships are established or enhanced. 

 Broad approach – Work with community and government partners to reduce 

violence in all forms. Help design interventions to be included in a community or city 

anti-violence program. 

 Trust – Effective partnership requires a relationship built on trust and two-way 

communication between government personnel and community members.

 Collaboration/coordination – Efforts should be proactive and designed to prevent 

crime, reduce fear, and improve the quality of life within a community.

 Minimize harmful outside influences – Local crime reduction efforts can be 

affected by events occurring outside the community.

 Some localities have established “rapid response” teams to work with communities to 

better understand and place into context international, national, and local incidents 

that “raise the temperature” in terms of targeting the community may face (either for 

hate crimes or by ideologically-motivated recruiters). 

10
Key Elements of Community-Oriented Policing to 

Reduce Violent Crime (Cont.)

• Conduct research – A “best lesson learned,” is to ensure the up-front effort of proper 

research and the identification and inclusion of important under-represented 

communities is a foundational part of any Community Policing initiative. To that end, the 

inclusion of all representative sections of a community will lead to a safer and more 

secure country.

• Remember the past – An important facet to supporting and implementing 

Community Policing initiatives is to recognize that those who cannot remember the past 

are condemned to repeat it. In analysis of previous major crimes and critical incidents, 

dating back to the 1960’s, a common theme can be developed. Law enforcement entities 

that properly researched all segments of the community and developed relationships 

based on elicited input and free exchange of information did much better in the 

detection, investigation, and mitigation of these situations. 

• Law enforcement personnel should come from the communities they serve

– Law enforcement should make a concerted effort to hire more individuals 

representative of the communities served by that agency. 

11
Recommendations to DHS on 

Community Policing

 Document and make available best practices – DHS should work with 

external groups to (a) identify and document those information-driven, community based violent crime reduction efforts that represent “best practices” AND making 

“best practices” resources available online for other law enforcement agencies and 

the community to be able to have access; and (b) identify challenges and 

unsuccessful practices so that best practices can be strengthened. 

 Information-driven, community based violent crime reduction efforts should be recognized as a critical element of national efforts to protect the homeland from 

terrorism and other threats.

 DHS should work closely with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

(COPS) at the Department of Justice (DOJ) to better incorporate the concept of 

community-oriented policing into programmatic and policy efforts associated with homeland security preparedness.

 Increased resources should be made available (funding, training, technical 

assistance) to state and local authorities.

 Establishing information-driven community-based violent crime reduction 

capabilities should be considered a preparedness priority by DHS. 

 Community-oriented policing costs should be included as an allowable expense within DHS grant programs.

12
 Emphasis should be placed on supporting local efforts to establish safe and 

secure communities – this could mean securing them against all types of 

threats from outside as well as from within. 

 Dealing with ideologically-motivated crime is done best when there is a pre- existing relationship between communities and local law enforcement and 

needs to be done in the broader context of dealing with all crimes. 

 Information-driven, community based violent crime reduction efforts should 

emphasize stopping violent behavior regardless of the motivation.

 Communities may be hesitant to enter in relationships with local, state, 

tribal or federal law enforcement if they perceive that they are viewed as 

incubators of violent extremism. 

Key Elements of Applying Violent Crime Prevention to Stopping 

Ideological-Motivated Crime

13
Key Elements of Applying Violent Crime Prevention 

to Stopping Ideological-Motivated Crime (Cont.)

 Information regarding specific threats should be shared with local law 

enforcement, who in turn should share with the community, so there is a shared 

understanding of the threat:

 Work together to develop a plan to mitigate the threat;

 Place police actions into context;

 Be more aware of indicators and behavior associated with a specific threat; 

and

 Define roles and responsibilities associated with threat mitigation. The 

federal government should ensure adequate safeguards for basic rights in 

cases of individuals about whom information is provided by communities. 

This is extremely important to maintain trust and cooperation among 

communities and local authorities.

 Offer the community a separate clear point of contact to open a regular channel 

of communication and gain information from the government to learn about 

new programs, initiatives and policies (Protective Security Advisors in the 

states).

14
Recommendations to DHS

 Develop and use common terminology – Use of various terms to 

describe ideologically-motivated violent crime (radicalization, violent 

extremism, etc...) causes confusion. DHS should work with the federal 

government, and state and local partners to establish common use lexicon and 

consistent use of terminology. This product should be made available to the 

public via the internet.

 Expand CRCL engagement efforts separate from support of 

community-oriented policing – Recognizing that policies implemented by 

DHS can affect local community partnerships, DHS Civil Rights Civil Liberties 

(CRCL) and other relevant DHS offices should continue and expand their 

engagement and grievance resolution efforts at DHS. DHS should also work 

with other federal agencies to come up with a verification process for groups it 

interacts with. This in turn will help establish a national environment conducive 

to the establishment of local partnerships.

15
Recommendations to DHS (Cont.)

• Incorporate information-driven, community-based violent crime 

reduction into local preparedness efforts – Efforts to increase support to local, 

community-based violent crime reduction should be viewed as a core element of 

preparedness programs as opposed to being part of national efforts to understand the 

phenomena of domestic violent extremism. 

• Support efforts to establish local dispute resolution capabilities – DHS 

should provide resources and guidance to support local partnerships efforts to address 

community issues and grievances. These resources can be an empowering tool that 

generate a greater role for communities to extend themselves to law enforcement and 

have greater input in addressing violence and violent extremists. Moreover, it serves the 

long term objective of engaging the communities to view violence not only as a law 

enforcement concern but as society's concern.

• Through Policy, DHS should utilize the philosophies based on 

communication, trust, and mutual respect to develop relationships with 

local law enforcement –These are the same principles local law enforcement is using 

through Community Policing to build relationships in their respective communities. 

Relationships between local law enforcement and DHS must be broader than just 

communication at the executive level. Individual Agents and Individual Officers must 

form relationships at the “grassroots” level to effectively communicate and achieve 

mutual goals.

16
Information Partnerships Need from DHS

 To be effective, efforts to combat violent crime should be information-driven, which 

requires that local partnerships have a shared understanding of:

 Specific threats facing an individual community;

 Groups and/or individuals associated with a threat; and

 Behavior and indicators associated with a threat.

 State and major urban area fusion centers play a critical role in local crime prevention 

efforts in that they receive intelligence/information from federal authorities regarding 

threats to the homeland and evaluate those threats from a local context. These fusion 

centers must share that knowledge with local law enforcement so that it can inform the 

community on violent crime reduction efforts. 

 Knowledge regarding specific threats should be blended with awareness of societal and 

religious practices so that local authorities can place reported and observed behavior into 

context, thereby allowing them to distinguish legal behavior from criminal activity.

 The timely sharing of accurate threat-related information is an essential component of 

community-based efforts to combat violent crime.

 There can be an inherent tension between federal law enforcement investigations and 

local partnerships to stop violent crime. While this tension can be healthy or unhealthy, 

it must be managed by senior officials.

17
Recommendations to DHS on 

Information-Sharing

 Generate threat-related information products – DHS should increase 

the availability to local authorities of accurate, threat-related information in a 

format that allows broader sharing with community members. DHS should 

work with fusion centers to demystify the process for the community. This 

information should include: 

 Trends observed internationally regarding types of attacks and recruitment efforts;

 Specific threats to the community; and 

 Behavior and indicators associated with such threats.

 Establish communication platform to share threat-related 

information directly with faith-based or other communities – DHS 

should explore expanding the Secure Community Network concept to other 

faith-based communities and put together a task force to look at best practices 

for faith-based communities.

 DHS should publicly welcome organized community-based engagement efforts 

on CVE policy development and best practices promotion around the country.

18
Recommendations to DHS on 

Information-Sharing (Cont.)

 Increase public awareness regarding terrorism and other homeland 

security related trends so that they can be demystified and incorporated 

into local violent crime reduction efforts – DHS should explore ways in which it 

can provide the public, particularly the more youthful segments of the population, with a 

better understanding of terrorism-related trends, and training so that communities are 

better able to recognize behavior associated with terror-related criminal acts, the variety 

of government offices that could play a role in a response, and the relationship between 

these offices. This process should also include education to communities on law 

enforcement processes and procedures to help demystify law enforcement.

 DHS should consider building a website that “speaks to” parents, caregivers, 

educators, counselors, etc.. The website should take a holistic approach and include 

tools for schools and parents to keep an eye on behavioral traits, as well as the use of 

internet social networking sites, reporting hate crimes, human trafficking, child 

predators, and other security issues.

 DHS should also work with the American Ad Council on public service 

announcements, which could be for awareness messages that indicate characteristics 

of individuals who engage in dangerous and anti-social behavior. 

19
Recommendations to DHS on InformationSharing (Cont.)

 Develop case studies – DHS, in partnership with other federal 

law enforcement agencies and community representatives, should 

package and release analytical reviews of major events of domestic 

violent extremism (Zazi, Holocaust museum shooting, Ft. Hood 

shooting, etc.) and develop case studies that can be used by local 

authorities as a learning tool for law enforcement personnel. The 

use of real life examples of the threats will better illustrate the 

dangers faced by specific local communities as well as the 

Nation. Involving community representatives in the development 

process will help build trust and engage the community in 

dialogue and greater cooperation that serves the common good.

 DHS should work with its federal partners to increase 

collaboration to ensure community partnerships and intelligence 

community (IC) are not undermined by each other but instead 

work in a complementarily effective manner.

20
Recommendations to DHS on 

Information-Sharing (Cont.)

 Continue efforts to ensure that fusion centers have the capacity to 

receive and understand threat-related information and to share 

that knowledge with local authorities. DHS should work with fusion 

centers so that fusion centers have a greater capacity to understand (a) the 

threat posed by ideologically-motivated criminal activity and share that 

knowledge with local law enforcement, and (b) cultural, societal, and religious 

customs so that intelligence is placed in context and legal behavior is 

distinguished from criminal activity.

21
Findings on Training 

 Continuous training of government personnel is a key element of 

successful community-oriented policing efforts. Law enforcement 

officers must have the ability to have honest conversations with 

people in their community and must recognized the value that 

comes from effective, proactive problem solving. 

 The capacity to interact with members of the public in order to 

address crime and quality of life issues needs to be a fundamental 

skill set of front line and management personnel. Effective and 

open communication by law enforcement officials provides the 

foundation for effective collaboration and partnership at both the 

organizational and individual levels.

22
Findings on Training (Cont.)

 Training should focus on:

 Improving capacity of law enforcement and other government personnel to 

communicate, collaborate, and partner with individuals from diverse 

religious, ethnic, and racial communities; and

 Better understand the threats facing a local community and recognizing 

behavior and indicators associated with those threats.

 Training should be provided to community members so they better understand 

how government, and in particularly law enforcement, operates. This will de- mystify and minimize tensions due to misperceptions.

 Members of the community should be invited to provide training to 

government personnel.

 Training is needed for school officials and parents on a variety of issues 

including: how to recognize behaviors consistent with criminal activity or specific 

threats; the use of internet social networking sites by sexual predators and extremist 

recruiters; recognizing hate crimes; human trafficking; child predators; gangs; and other 

security issues.

23
Findings on Training (Cont.)

 Current training programs should be re-evaluated and priority given to 

supporting those programs that introduce or support the community policing 

model. Good training is essential as bad training not only is ineffective – but 

can serve to escalate tensions between law enforcement and the community. 

 Enforcing hate crimes is one way for law enforcement to build trust with 

minority communities. 

 Law enforcement and communities rarely reported hate crimes before they 

received hate crime training. Law enforcement personnel generally respond 

to crime rather than report it.

 Local law enforcement should train communities on what constitutes a hate 

crime and encourage them to report hate crimes. This will help strengthen the 

community-police relationship.

24
Recommendations to DHS on 

Training

 Expand availability of training and technical assistance focused on the 

understanding, identifying and mitigating threats through community- oriented policing – DHS, working in partnership with the COPS office, should 

explore how best to expand the training and technical assistance provided to state, tribal, 

and local personnel so that they are better able to: 

 Understand and mitigate threats facing their communities;

 Identify behavior and indicators associated with ideologically-motivated crime;

 Engage more effectively with communities; and

 DHS and DOJ’s COPS should consider providing additional support for efforts that 

trains law enforcement on community policing such as the Regional Community 

Policing Institutes and the National Counter-Terrorism Academy for State and Local 

Law Enforcement in Los Angeles. 

 Improve quality of training – DHS should institute quality control processes to 

ensure that training provided through DHS, or paid for by DHS provided grant funding, 

meets minimum quality control.

 Training should seek to instill greater understanding regarding the “us versus them” 

perspective that many cultures have toward law enforcement and government and enable 

law enforcement personnel to better understand and address unrest or anger within the 

community (whether it be ideologically-based or not) in order to prevent violent 

activities.

25
Recommendations to DHS on 

Training (Cont.)

 Expand availability of training for state, local and tribal law enforcement

and DHS components – Operational and law enforcement personnel including 

corrections personnel, should possess an understanding of cultural and religious 

practices so that they are better able to distinguish between criminal activity and lawful 

behavior. A collaborative effort comprised of community, academia, and law 

enforcement professionals should be involved in helping develop these trainings.

 DHS should fund efforts to expand Federal Law Enforcement Training Center’s hate 

crime training. 

 DHS should explore expanding FLETC’s role to include training in the building of 

community capacity, partnerships, cultural knowledge awareness and development of 

specialized training modules for community leaders and non-governmental 

organizations. 

 DHS should reassess its hate crime training to include understanding extremism and 

ideological violence.

 DHS should work with state and local partners to provide training for schools and 

parents on a variety of issues including: how to keep an eye on behavioral traits, the use 

of internet social networking sites, reporting hate crimes, human trafficking, child 

predators, gangs, and other security issues.

26
Members of the Countering Violent Extremism 

Working Group

Martin O'Malley Governor, State of Maryland, (Working Group Chair)

Art Acevedo Chief of Police, Austin Police Department

Nimco Ahmed Policy Aide, Vice-President of the Minneapolis City 

Council 

Omar Alomari Community Engagement Officer, Ohio Homeland 

Security

Asli Bali Acting Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law 

Richard Cañas Former Director, New Jersey Office of Homeland 

Security and Preparedness

Richard Cohen President and CEO, Southern Poverty Law Center 

Michael Downing Deputy Chief, Commanding Officer, Counter Terrorism 

and Criminal Intelligence Bureau, Los Angeles Police 

Department

Mohamed Elibiary President and CEO, The Freedom and Justice Foundation

Clark Ervin Director, Homeland Security Program, The Aspen Institute

27
Members of the Countering Violent Extremism 

Working Group (Cont.)

Paul Goldenberg National Director, Secure Community Network

Doug Gillespie Sheriff, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Ellen Gordon Associate Director, Naval Postgraduate School Center for 

Homeland Defense and Security

Ronald Haddad Chief of Police, Dearborn Police Department

Amin Kosseim Deputy Inspector, New York City Police Department 

Cathy Lanier Chief, Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department

Imam Mohamed Magid Executive Director, All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS 

Center)

Mary Marr President, Christian Emergency Network

Dalia Mogahed Senior Analyst and Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim 

Studies

Jeff Moss Director, Black Hat/Techweb

Dan Rosenblatt Executive Director, International Association of Chiefs of Police

Asim Rehman President, Muslim Bar Association of New York 

28
Members of the Countering Violent Extremism 

Working Group (Cont.)

Nadia Roumani Director, American Muslim Civic Leadership Institute

Frances Townsend Partner, Baker Botts, L.L.P.

Chuck Wexler Executive Director, Police Executive Research Forum

Skip Williams Provost and Vice President for Health Affairs, The George 

Washington University

29
Subject Matter Experts

Arif Alikhan Assistant Secretary, Policy Development, DHS

John Cohen Special Advisor to the Secretary on Information Sharing, DHS

Bart Johnson Principal Deputy Under Secretary, Intelligence and Analysis, DHS 

David Schanzer Associate Professor of the Practice for Public Policy and Director, 

Triangle Center of Terrorism and Homeland Security, Sanford 

School of Public Policy, Duke University

Bob Wasserman Chairman, Strategic Policy Partnership

Laurie Wood Analyst, Southern Poverty Law Center/Instructor, Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center

30