The 9/11 terrorist attacks proved that coordination between federal and local law enforcement agencies and emergency service providers was woefully inadequate. Subsequent funding and legislative actions have served to shore up this relationship, yet efficient and effective coordination remains problematic. Surveys have shown that local law enforcement personnel, who are predominantly the ones responsible for protecting citizens, are not adequately trained in anti-terrorism response techniques and policies. There is a new awareness of the importance of utilizing all available emergency service and protection services in the planning process. The events of the past 10 years have proven that local communities cannot rely on timely and effective practical aid from federal agencies – that help must come from the community itself.
law enforcement must lead in planning initiatives but cannot be expected to shoulder the entire burden
Just over a decade ago, the role – indeed, the very meaning - of law enforcement in the United States changed in the course of just 24 hours. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in the air over Pennsylvania ushered in a new reality for every American. Most Americans felt an unaccustomed vulnerability, made worse by the uncertainty over who exactly was to be charged with safeguarding ordinary citizens from acts of such carefully planned and diabolical terrorism. The Oklahoma City bombing had been devastating, to be sure, but had originated on American soil, seemingly a matter for the FBI. Yet it left lingering questions over how to coordinate between law enforcement agencies in detecting, preventing and responding to terrorism. After 9/11, questions over inter-agency cooperation turned into a fierce debate.
One point that was all too clear was that a reactive course of action was no longer acceptable. A handful of fanatical terrorists had proven that all available law enforcement resources would be needed from now on. Federal officials could track Al Qaeda’s movements but when it came to protecting American citizens in the nation’s cities, in office buildings, on subways and in the streets, the flexibility, expertise and community-based orientation of local law enforcement agencies are absolutely indispensable. None are better positioned to know how to fashion effective emergency response plans based on population size, geography, availability of medical facilities and transport resources. Perhaps for the first time since World War II, community-based law enforcement personnel have found themselves forced to think of their towns and cities as targets of mass destruction. In this environment, local law enforcement must lead the emergency response planning initiative, but every public safety agency must participate.
The most overt institutional change made in the wake of 9/11 has been the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and its constituent sub-agencies. One such department, the Office of State and Local Governments Cooperation and Preparedness (SLGCP), was established and empowered to coordinate first-responder terrorism preparedness efforts at the state and local levels (RAND, 2004). This huge responsibility includes such tasks as training, scenario-based preparation exercises and equipment support; in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the RAND Corporation found that the two greatest needs in terms of preparedness, at the local level, were training and equipment (2004). A survey of law enforcement agencies revealed that the perception of terrorism as a credible and lethal threat varied widely among state and local officials. Consequently, it was deemed a priority to convince everyone that terrorism threatens all Americans, and to ensure that adequate funding is available to provide the resources needed nationwide (2004).
Not surprisingly, larger communities have dedicated (on average) more resources and attention to terrorism preparedness planning and training. Even so, it was determined that perceived risk was a more reliable determinant of local law enforcement agencies taking a proactive approach in emergency preparedness and response planning (RAND, 2004). In many cases, smaller jurisdictions have been able to incorporate their needs, or combine resources, with other, larger communities. Taken as a whole, emergency response planning for the kind of terrorist attack that took place on 9/11 has been an issue of both resources and perceived danger. The fact remains that local law enforcement, whether in a high or low potential target area, must be convinced of the need and adequately funded.
In December 2004, the U.S. Dept. of Justice published a comprehensive prospectus that included a number of assumptions and contingencies concerning local law enforcement and their status within the larger emergency preparedness picture. Many of these assumptions are self-evident, such as the fact that a terrorist attack may happen at any time or place (U.S. DOJ, 2004). However, others are much more substantive and make predictions that carry potentially dire consequences. Many of these are symptomatic of the uneven “buy-in” that has taken place at the local level of law enforcement agencies. In the event of an attack, unpreparedness at the local level may manifest itself in a lack of centralization, including an absence of an “Incident Command System” or “Joint Field Office,” through which federal officials must coordinate their activities with local representatives (2004).
Coordination has traditionally been a hoped-for, but seldom-attained, state of affairs. The 9/11 attacks, in particular, “highlighted a number of interoperability problems between first responders involved in multiagency response” (Davis, p. xxii). Training, or the lack of it, has exacerbated the problem. In a post-9/11 RAND survey, it was found that only about 50 percent of state law enforcement agencies had taken part in the Office of Justice Programs’ First Responder Equipment Acquisition Program, and 37 percent had participated in the crucial State and Local Anti-Terrorism Training (U.S. DOJ, 2004). The numbers went down significantly at the local level, where less than a fourth of all local law enforcement agencies had taken advantage of federal first responder training programs.
In response, the federal government required each state to prepare and submit a Statewide Domestic Preparedness Strategy that could be used to determine where funding was needed, and Establish controls to ensure that grantees use available funds expeditiously
Ensure that agencies are properly trained in using and maintaining first-responder equipment
Ensure that agencies either take part in or conduct training programs to maintain a high-state of readiness
Develop standards to be used to determine whether individual agencies have improved in their capabilities as first responders (Office of Justice Programs, 2002)
Without such quality control measures, the likelihood that communities will continue to be unprepared increases. According to that scenario, “An act of terrorism, particularly an act directed against a large population center within the United States involving nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical materials, will have major consequences, that can overwhelm many local (or) State governments” (U.S. DOJ, 2004). The report concedes that a lethal terrorist attack requires an “extraordinary level of coordinationacross all levels of government” (2004). In response, Homeland Security has sought out the expertise and resources of commercial entities that provide specific services required to coordinate emergency response plans among agencies.
One such entity is a Louisville, Ky.-based technology company called Appriss, which began as a provider of computer-based criminal offender information for individual victims of crime. Appriss’s sophisticated database technologies and extensive links to law enforcement agencies nationwide have placed the company in a position to arrange data networking and sharing at all levels. As such, Appriss and its products, such as JusticeXchange, help eliminate information barriers between communities and law enforcement agencies. As part of a preparedness and emergency response plan, local law enforcement can use such resources to track and apprehend known terrorists in the company’s massive database. More importantly, this information can be networked instantly among local and federal agencies.
Sharing between federal and state/local agencies is an important component of emergency response planning, but even more important from a hands-on standpoint is the need to coordinate between all local first-responder agencies. These include the police and fire departments, and EMS and other emergency services. Thus, emergency response planning requires coordination across multiple levels. “Interoperability should be occurring locally among neighboring law enforcement agencies, regional task forces, across levels of government, with emergency services such as fire and rescue, and within the community itself” (Chapman, Baker, Bezdikian, Cammarata, P., Cohen, D., Leach, N., Schapiro, A., Schneider, M. and Varano, R., 2002). All available resources are needed to ensure sufficient coordination across all levels.
Integration of available technologies is the key. Computer and geographic information systems are indispensable to emergency response planning among multiple, diverse agencies (U.S. DOJ, 2002). The latest technologies can help law enforcement and other agencies plan for terrorist attacks through:
Computer simulations, which can be used to not only predict attacks, but can help mitigate the potential loss of life and property
The creation of response scenarios that can be included in plans and rehearsed on a regular basis
Establishing community escape routes that law enforcement can publicize to the local population
The inclusion of community-based notification systems in crisis management plans (Chapman, Baker, Bezdikian, et al, 2002)
The Broward County, Florida, Sheriff’s Department has successfully coordinated among the county’s first responder agencies using technology. In one notable example, the county has instituted a software package called “Operation Safe Schools,” which provides law enforcement and other first responders with contact information, floor plans and other essential information on all of the county’s schools (Chapman, Baker, Bezdikian, et al, 2002). Through planning and logistical scenarios, county law enforcement has determined that this software program should be expanded and adapted to include government buildings, hospitals and airport terminals (2002). “Within less than a minute, the responder can acquire a substantial amount of information on the facility that will decrease the response time and set immediate actions in place” (2002).
Other municipalities have turned to technology for efficient coordination between first responders and members of the community. In Rochester, N.Y., police incorporated a 311 system in their emergency response plans, a tool which gives police a direct means of communicating information about a terrorist attack to citizens. The police were able to use the 311 system to disseminate details about the 9/11 attacks to the community in a timely fashion.
Conversely, citizens were able to use it as an important resource for up-to-date, round-the-clock information (Chapman, Baker, Bezdikian, et al, 2002). The Austin, Texas, police department also successfully utilized a 311 system in a similar manner.
Such resources are the product of foresighted planning, in which law enforcement must play an integral role. An important first-step in any emergency response plan is the assessment of necessary resources and equipment. Law enforcement must take the lead in determining current and future needs in the event of a terrorist attack, which includes assessing who else needs to be included in the (local) planning process. As such, it is desirable that local law enforcement should take the lead role in developing a comprehensive first-responder plan. “The on-site evaluation of needed resourcescannot be conducted in the absence of extensive, preincident planning” (Erickson, p. 329). Federal funding for anti-terrorism planning is funneled through police and sheriff’s departments, but it is up to local law enforcement to see that these resources are used as inclusively and comprehensively as possible in marshalling all available first-responder assets. This is particularly important given that “prevention must be the first objective of any emergency response planning” (Erickson, p. 79).
Federal law has limited the ability of federal agencies to take advantage of available surveillance technologies, however, local law enforcement often finds itself under no such constraints. In fact, local authorities may sometimes employ techniques that allow them to keep track of entire populations rather than a particular suspect, a highly useful tool in the tracking and prevention of terrorist activities. In the nation’s larger cities, surveillance cameras can be installed in public locations, which are monitored 24 hours a day by officers from a remote location (Siegel, p. 337). In Washington, D.C., more than 60 such cameras are in operation at various locations around the city (p. 337). GPS tracking can also be used to track the movements
of a suspect’s vehicle without a warrant. While surveillance is not necessarily a component of emergency response planning, it is nevertheless an indispensable tool in the hands of local law enforcement, particularly in tracking suspected terrorist activities.
Terrorism has been a fact of life for American justice and law enforcement ever since 9/11. Monitoring and surveillance has raised many questions about the right to privacy and the nature of the state’s relationship to the public at large, particularly when it comes to protecting innocent citizens. The FBI, Department of Justice and the federal security establishment is responsible for formulating anti-terrorism tracking and prevention policy at the national level. But at the local level, police officers, sheriff’s deputies, emergency workers and other first responders carry the direct responsibility of saving lives. There really is no federal department capable of effective, direct intervention at the grass roots level (witness FEMA’s post-Katrina performance in the New Orleans region, for example).
The breakdown of federal/local coordination over the past 10 years bears out the importance of local preparedness and the importance of involving all emergency service personnel in the planning process. As previously mentioned, law enforcement and emergency officials must assume that their communities are vulnerable targets, perhaps for the first time in more than a half century. In such an environment, law enforcement must lead in planning initiatives but cannot be expected to shoulder the entire burden. Everyone with a stake in public safety has a critical role to play in preparing for the worst.
References
Chapman, R., Baker, S., Bezdikian, V., Cammarata, P., Cohen, D., Leach, N., Schapiro, A.,
Schneider, M. and Varano, R. “Local Law Enforcement Responds to Terrorism: Lessons in Prevention and Preparedness. U.S. Dept. of Justice. 2002.
Davis, L. (2004). When Terrorism Hits Home: How Prepared are State and Local Law
Enforcement? Washington: Rand Corporation.
Erickson, P.A. (2006). Emergency Response Planning for Corporate and Municipal Managers.
Waltham, MA: Academic Press.
“How Prepared are State and Local Law Enforcement for Terrorism?” Rand Corporation. 2004.
Web. http://www.rand.org.
Siegel, L.J. (2009). Introduction to Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
“State and Local Domestic Preparedness Grant Programs.” Office of Justice Programs. 2002.
Web. http://www.justice.gov.
“Terrorism Incident Law Enforcement Investigation Annex.” U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2004.
