DOI: 10.3886/icpsr06566.v1
title: Domestic Terrorism: Assessment of State and Local Preparedness in the United States, 1992
title: Version 1

description: This project sought to analyze states' and municipalities'
 terrorism preparedness as a means of providing law enforcement with
 information about the prevention and control of terrorist activities
 in the United States. To accomplish this objective, a national survey
 of state and local law enforcement agencies was conducted to assess
 how law enforcement agencies below the federal level perceive the
 threat of terrorism in the United States and to identify potentially
 promising anti- and counter-terrorism programs currently used by these
 jurisdictions. For the purposes of this survey, the researchers used
 the legal definition of terrorism as provided by the Federal Bureau of
 Investigation (FBI), which is "the unlawful use of force or violence
 against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the
 civilian population, or any segment of either, to further political or
 social objectives." However, incidents reported by state or local law
 enforcement agencies as potential terrorist incidents often are
 reclassified as ordinary crimes by the FBI if the FBI investigation
 does not reveal evidence that more than one crime was intended to be
 committed or that a network of individuals had prepared to carry out
 additional acts. Since these reported potential terrorist incidents
 may provide important early warnings that an organized terrorism
 effort is emerging, the researchers broadened the official definition
 to include suspected incidents and state and local officials'
 perceptions of crime due to terrorism. Three distinct jurisdictions
 with overlapping responsibilities for terrorism preparedness were
 surveyed in this study: (1) state law enforcement agencies, in most
 cases the state police, (2) organizations with emergency preparedness
 responsibilities and statewide authority but with limited powers of
 law enforcement, and (3) local law enforcement agencies, such as
 municipal police and sheriff departments. Similar questions were asked
 for all three jurisdiction groups. Variables pertaining to the
 organization include questions about contingency plans, guidelines,
 and special police training for dealing with threats of terrorism, the
 amount and types of information and resources exchanged among various
 agencies, and whether the agency had a special terrorism unit and, if
 so, its duties. Variables dealing with threat assessment include
 whether the agency had identified right-wing, left-wing,
 international, ethnic/emigre, or special-issue terrorist groups within
 their jurisdiction and how many incidents were attributed to each
 group. Additional variables provide information on whether the agency
 was involved in investigating any terrorist incidents and the type of
 support received from other agencies for these investigations. The
 risk assessment section of the survey sought information on whether
 the agency had conducted a risk assessment and what potential
 terrorist targets were present in their jurisdiction. Questions in the
 threat environment section cover the respondent's assessment of the
 impact of the Persian Gulf War, the agency's sources of information
 pertaining to terrorism, the likelihood of terrorist attacks on
 various major installations nationally, and the likelihood of a major
 attack in their jurisdiction. Administrative variables include the
 number of sworn officers or professional staff, number of support
 staff, department's budget for the current fiscal year, whether the
 agency received federal funds, and what percentage of the federal
funds were used for anti-terrorism efforts.
description: Recent events, such as the bombing of the World
 Trade Center and the arrest of Los Angeles members of the Fourth
 Reich, have led to heightened security measures in the United
 States. The concern generated by terrorism has focused attention on
 federal, state, and local law enforcement crime prevention measures
 and preparedness and, in particular, on the reevaluation of domestic
 security policies and procedures nationwide. This project specifically
 sought to analyze states' and municipalities' terrorism preparedness
 as a means of providing law enforcement with information about the
 prevention and control of terrorist activities in the United
 States. To accomplish this objective, a national survey of state and
 local law enforcement agencies was conducted to assess how law
 enforcement agencies below the federal level perceive the threat of
 terrorism in the United States and to identify potentially promising
 anti- and counter-terrorism programs currently used by these
 jurisdictions. For the purposes of this survey, the researchers used
 the legal definition of terrorism as provided by the Federal Bureau of
 Investigation (FBI), which is "the unlawful use of force or violence
 against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the
 civilian population, or any segment of either, to further political or
 social objectives." In addition to this definition, the FBI also
 seeks a conspiratorial dimension when evaluating potential acts of
 terrorism. Incidents reported by state or local law enforcement
 agencies as potential terrorist incidents often are reclassified as
 ordinary crimes by the FBI if the FBI investigation does not reveal
 evidence that more than one crime was intended to be committed or that
 a network of individuals had prepared to carry out additional
 acts. Since these reported potential terrorist incidents may provide
 important early warnings that an organized terrorism effort is
 emerging, the researchers broadened the official definition to include
 suspected incidents and state and local officials' perceptions of
crime due to terrorism.
description: Three distinct jurisdictions with overlapping
 responsibilities for terrorism preparedness were surveyed in this
 study: (1) state law enforcement agencies, in most cases the state
 police, primarily concerned with enforcing laws and maintaining public
 order, (2) organizations with emergency preparedness responsibilities
 and statewide authority but with limited powers of law enforcement,
 such as state departments of public safety, departments of justice,
 and state emergency management organizations, and (3) local law
 enforcement agencies, such as municipal police and sheriff
 departments, that have law enforcement authority which may extend to
 city, county, or township boundaries, but not to statewide
 matters. The survey process consisted of three mailings. Each selected
 agency received an initial packet that included a survey instrument, a
 letter requesting their participation, a statement of confidentiality,
 and a brief description of the RAND Corporation. Ten days after the
 first packet was sent, a second letter was sent. This letter served as
 a reminder to those who had not yet responded and a thank-you to those
 who had. Three weeks from the initial mailing, a second packet
 containing the same materials as the first was mailed to all who had
 not responded to the initial survey. Two weeks after the second packet
 was sent, follow-up phone calls were made to the remaining agencies
 that had not responded. If an agency failed to respond 20 days after
 the follow-up phone call, it was replaced with a jurisdiction
previously selected in the sampling process.
description: Similar questions were asked for all three
 jurisdiction groups. Variables pertaining to the organization include
 questions about contingency plans, guidelines, and special police
 training for dealing with threats of terrorism, the amount and types
 of information and resources exchanged among various agencies, and
 whether the agency had a special terrorism unit and, if so, its
 duties. Variables dealing with threat assessment include whether the
 agency had identified right-wing, left-wing, international,
 ethnic/emigre, or special issue terrorist groups within their
 jurisdiction and how many incidents were attributed to each
 group. Additional variables provide information on whether the agency
 was involved in investigating any terrorist incidents and the type of
 support received from other agencies for these investigations. The
 risk assessment section of the survey sought information on whether
 the agency had conducted a risk assessment and what potential
 terrorist targets were present in their jurisdiction. Questions in the
 threat environment section cover the respondent's assessment of the
 impact of the Gulf War, the agency's sources of information pertaining
 to terrorism, the likelihood of terrorist attacks on various major
 installations nationally, and the likelihood of a major attack in
 their jurisdiction. Administrative variables include the number of
 sworn officers or professional staff, number of support staff,
 department's budget for the current fiscal year, whether the agency
 received federal funds, and what percentage of the federal funds were
used for anti-terrorism efforts.
description: Response Rates: At the state level, of the 52 law enforcement
 agencies surveyed, 39 (75 percent) responded with completed or
 partially completed surveys. Of the 13 agencies that did not complete
 the survey, 5 returned incomplete or blank instruments, 5 responded by
 stating that they would decline to answer the survey, and 3 did not
 return the survey. Of the 52 state emergency management agencies, 37
 (71 percent) responded with completed questionnaires. The
 nonrespondents from this group included six that returned incomplete
 or blank instruments, six that responded by stating that they would
 decline to answer the survey, and one that did not return the
 survey. For the local law enforcement agencies, 84 municipalities from
 the 160 agencies in the population-based pool responded, resulting in
 a 53-percent response rate. From the targeted group, 64 of the 139
 agencies sampled responded, resulting in a 46-percent response
 rate. Among the population-based sample, the potential nonresponse
 bias was mitigated by the replacement of the local agency that refused
 to complete the survey with a similar local agency from the same
 region of the country and from the same population category. No such
 mechanism was used to replace targeted agencies that refused to
 participate. However, the targeted communities already shared the
 important characteristic that they were more likely to have
 experienced terrorism or to house a facility that might be a potential
 terrorist target. Caution should be used when attempting to generalize
 or extrapolate these survey results both because the inclusion of the
 targeted sample specifically selected to oversample communities more
 likely to experience terrorism and the exclusion of the targeted
 sample leaves very small case counts for many of the survey
responses.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
description: No sampling was necessary for the state law enforcement
 and emergency management agencies. For the local law enforcement
 agencies, a two-part sampling frame was used. For the population-based
 sample, 12 counties in each census region were selected. To select
 these 12 counties, the three largest counties from each region were
 selected using the 1990 Census population estimates, subject to the
 constraint that no two came from the same state. Next, from each
 regional pool, a simple random sample of three counties was drawn for
 the remaining counties in which the population exceeded 500,000, for
 counties with populations between 100,000 and 500,000, and for
 counties with populations less than 100,000. For each county selected,
 the municipal or county enforcement agency of the county seat and two
 additional jurisdictions were selected to complete the survey. When
 possible, the selection process of those jurisdictions was random. To
 supplement the population-based sample, 139 locations were
 specifically targeted that had experienced terrorist activity in the
 past or that housed potential terrorist targets, such as nuclear
facilities and military installations.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: State Law Enforcement Agency Data
DS2: State Emergency Management Organization Data
DS3: Local and Municipal Law Enforcement Agency Data
DS4: SAS Data Definition Statements for State Law Enforcement Agency Data
DS5: SAS Data Definition Statements for State Emergency Management Organization Data
DS6: SAS Data Definition Statements for Local and Municipal Law Enforcement Agency Data
DS7: User Guide
description: All state and local law enforcement agencies in the United
States.
description: Research for this project was completed in January
 1993, one month before the bombing of the World Trade Center in New
 York City. The effect that this incident may have had on state and
 local law enforcement terrorism planning or response measures would
not be reflected in this data.