PROTECTING YOUR COMMUNITY FROM TERRORISM: Strategies for Local Law Enforcement Series Volume 2: Working With Diverse Communities Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Police Executive Research Forum 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 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 Leader’s Perspective .......................... 7 Racial Profiling Takes on a Different Meaning............................................................ 12 Federal Resources........................................................................................ 15 Community Outreach Program .............................................................................. 21 Local Law Enforcement.................................................................................... 25 Chicago’s Multi-Cultural Forum........................................................................... 31 One Community’s Response ................................................................................ 35 Locals Aid Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Florida’s 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 session—the second in a series of five—all 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 Chicago’s Multi- Cultural Forum—which receives support to convene forums from another COPS-funded project, the Value Based Initiative—who 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 another’s 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 enforcement—at 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. America’s multicultural neighborhoods, particularly Arab and Muslim communities, were initially affected by backlash violence and hate crimes following the terrorist attacks. Yet in some cases, their willingness to reach out to local law enforcement to prevent or report these crimes was ham-pered by their fear that police would use the opportunity to help deport, interrogate or otherwise act against them. Such skepticism of law enforcement’s goals and misunderstandings about local law enforcement’s 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 policing—ensuring the safety of all by partnering with community leaders to better understand the needs and concerns of those affected by local law enforcement’s 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 jurisdiction, face new risks that have the potential to bring down the very foundations they have created. In some areas, we see Arab and Muslim communities— and others perceived to have the same religious or ethnic backgrounds associated with the terrorists—developing 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 Director, COPS Chuck Wexler Executive Director, PERF CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN, REGARDLESS OF THEIR RACE, ETHNICITY, RELIgion or immigration status, shared in the tragedy of September 11th. The terrorist attacks were not just an assault on nationality and citizenry, 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 visitors, particularly Arabs, Muslims and Sikhs, were harassed or attacked because they shared—or were perceived to share—the 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 enforcement’s 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. 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 policing’s 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’ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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. victimization, thwarting future attacks and maintaining critical relationships that, in some cases, took years to build. Historically, law enforcement’s relationships with minority communities have been strained—even contentious at times. More recently, public opposition of certain organizations to federal legislation meant to facilitate law enforcement’s 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 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 enforcement’s 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 enforcement’s 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 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 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. 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 nation’s 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. information. These sessions provide law enforcement practitioners with opportunities to share and develop effective strategies for addressing terrorism 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.) The first executive session held on November 7–8, 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 5–6, 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 PERF’s 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. 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 Department’s 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. 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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. 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. enforcement’s 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 section—community 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 section—federal law enforcement issues—focuses on federal programs and resources that affect the ability of local law enforcement to work with diverse communities. The third section—local 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. Quote: “Law enforcement investigates activity and behavior—not 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 (98–1) and the House of Representatives (357–66). 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 relationships 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. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6 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 Department’s response to criticisms. Quote: “After September 11th, law enforcement bombarded the ethnically diverse communities looking for terrorists, but often found only a law-abiding community.” —Community Leader Quote: “In a country of laws, people make the difference.” —FBI SAC Community members expressed their concern that the government’s 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. 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. _________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 General’s 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. TEXT BOX: COMBATING MISPERCEPTIONS AND MISUNDERSTANDING: A COMMUNITY LEADER’S 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 serve—most 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 America’s 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 leaders—the 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 issue—the 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 paradigm—the stability of our society depends on us. END TEXT BOX Law enforcement must establish credibility and be able to clearly inform community members of law enforcement’s 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 officials—and more must be done to address these communications challenges. 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 people’s 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. government’s 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 crimes—acts of violence and destruction Quote: “Our community lost the most from September 11th. We lost the right to be average Americans.” —Community Leader Quote: “We believe ignorance is fear and that causes violence.” —Community Leader against individuals, their religious gathering places, as well as their homes and businesses. Executive session participants discussed those individuals most vulnerable to hate crimes after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—again, 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 jobs—including 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 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 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). often not well known to the greater student population or the community at large. Quote: “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, America’s 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 ethnic 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 enforcement’s 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 group’s 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 Justice’s 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. START TEXT BOX 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 Detroit’s metropolitan area is home to the largest Arab and Muslim population in the country.11 Further, Detroit’s 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. 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 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 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. 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. END TEXT BOX 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. Quote: “To stand united we must do so regardless of religion, culture, and immigrant status.” —Community Member Quote: “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, and—as of November 2003—the 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 laws within the United States, the protection of Transportation Security at this time, which is specified federal buildings, and conducting air and tasked with securing our nation’s borders and safe- marine enforcement. The bureau is composed of guarding its transportation infrastructure. ICE the following operational divisions: Office of focuses on enforcing immigration and customs 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 Quote: “Law enforcement agencies who refuse to work with ICE are ignoring a valuable tool in the fight against crime.” —ICE Representative Quote: “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 immigration—believing 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 enforcement’s 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 ______________________________________________________________________________ 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/. 15 At this writing, this figure was found at the DHS website at www.dhs.gov. 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. 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 visitor’s 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. 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 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 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, 1731–31; Federal Register 69, no.2, 5 January 2004). 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 immigrants—that 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 enforcement—recognizing the potential for its impact on minority relations—has largely refrained from enforcing anything but criminal law violations.20 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 __________________________________________________________________________________ 18 8 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 communiqué 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. electronically to ICE and the State Department throughout a student or exchange visitor’s 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 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 conciliation 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 mediators are experienced in settling community conflicts and violence related to race, color or national 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 trainings on interfacing, communicating, and collaborating __________________________________________________________________________________ 21 The description of SEVIS was based, in part, on information found on the website www.ice.gov/graphics/enforce/imm/imm_sevis.htm. 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 Justice’s 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 Sikh—recognizing 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. START TEXT BOX 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 Cleveland’s 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 Cleveland’s 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 community’s 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 conference’s 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 year’s 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-don’t 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. END TEXT BOX FBI Civil Rights Program The FBI’s Civil Rights Program is the primary federal agency responsible for investigating allegations regarding criminal violations of civil rights, including federal hate crime legislation. The FBI’s 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. Attorney’s 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 FBI’s 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 FBI’s 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. Federal Initiatives on the Local Level Executive session participants discussed federal initiatives available in their state that impact law enforcement’s relationship with diverse communities. Participants recommended that local chiefs and sheriffs contact their U.S. Attorney’s 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 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. 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 FBI’s Washington Field Office. Regional advisory committees have also been formed. Committee members are responsible for bringing community concerns to the FBI’s 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 NATION’S fight against terrorism—a 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 terrorist 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 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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. 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. Quote: “Law enforcement has to be sensitive to the cultural, social and religious values of diverse communities.” —Community Leader Quote: “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 To further law enforcement’s 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. 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 another’s 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 Department’s 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: 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 host’s 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 enforcement’s 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 women’s 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 Journalist’s Guide that can be found at www.freep.com/jobspage/arabs/index.htm. this is a sign of disrespect. Participants noted that many Arabs and Muslims have been raised to make their homes comfortable for visitors—so 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. Quote: “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 participants 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 individuals—regardless of immigration status—from 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. Quote: “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 Councils—The 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 enforcement 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 commonalities: • Local and federal law enforcement executives, with support from community leaders, initiate and lead the forums. • The forums are inclusive—representatives of diverse groups attend and participate fully. • 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. • 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.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 information 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 Citizen’s 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. 30 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 Consortium’s 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 Justice’s 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 agency’s 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. START TEXT BOX CHICAGO’S 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 city’s 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 Chicago’s 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 department’s actions didn’t 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, PERF’s 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 Superintendent’s 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 department’s 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. END TEXT BOX Quote: “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 Lowell’s diverse community, which meets monthly to discuss such issues as intergenerational issues, gangs, racial profiling and cultural differences. Joined by the police department’s superintendent, police officers and community members discuss improving relations with one another, furthering communication, and understanding the community’s many cultures. The ideas generated from these council meetings are used to provide a foundation for future trainings at the Lowell Police Department’s 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 community perspectives, with presentations 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 Lowell’s 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 curriculum _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 32 The description of the Race Relations Council is based, in part, on information found at www.lowellpolice.com/rrelations/RR_Home.htm. 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 campaign—particularly 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 crimes—and 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 attention—an opportunity that is hard to pass up for both community advocates and police agencies defending their practices—even 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 START TEXT BOX ONE COMMUNITY’S 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 gathered—be 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 protected. 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. END TEXT BOX 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. 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 unity—efforts 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 enforcement’s 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. 34 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. Quote: “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 nation’s 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 enforcement’s 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 city’s 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 school’s students 24 hours a day. Quote: “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 history—significant 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 enforcement—with 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 enforcement’s 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 public’s 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 jurisdiction’s 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.” START TEXT BOX LOCALS AID IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE) IN FLORIDA’S 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 Florida’s 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 project’s purpose and reassure members of Florida’s 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 Florida’s 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 accessibility—the 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 Florida’s 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 program—training 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. END TEXT BOX 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 another’s 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 possible—allowing 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 jurisdiction. The community leaders also reported positive interactions with federal agencies when local law enforcement officers are involved in the federal operation—as they have greater contact and trust with community members and can effectively preempt rumors and misconceptions about an effort. Quote: “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 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 driver’s 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 driver’s licenses in some states, especially when they are ineligible to receive a U.S. identification card. Executive session 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 driver’s 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 driver’s 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 investigations—and 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 methods—law 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 Hussein’s 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. 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 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 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 O’Connell at 617-373-8845/s.oconnell@neu.edu. 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. 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 ________________________________________________________________________________________ 37 “Arabic Speakers Answer FBI Call for Translators,” Richard Willing, USA Today online, 18 September 2001. 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 FBI’s 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 department’s 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. Attorney’s Office sponsored training for representatives from all police departments and the sheriff’s office in the County. (The speakers included the special counsel for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, the Region-10 U.S. Attorney, a representative from the U.S. Department of Justice’s 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 proficiency 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 enforcement’s policies, procedures and the means to access services. 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 partnerships ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 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. 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 policing’s 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 areport. 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 inclusive—representatives 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 campaigns—particularly 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. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 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 Sheriff’s 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 Sheriff’s 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 _____________________________________________________________ 39 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. Attorney’s 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 Chicago’s 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 RESOURCES41 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 [Massachusetts’s Governor’s 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 Prosecutor’s 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 Policymaker’s Guide to Hate Crimes. B ureau 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 Instructor’s 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 State’s Attorney, Chicago. 1998. Hate Crime: AProsecutor’s 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 Officer’s 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. O’Malley, Jack, 1994. A Prosecutor’s Guide to Hate Crime, Cook County State’s 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/RESOURCES42 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 Practitioner’s 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. PERF’s 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 Association’s 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 mproving legal and judicial responses to parental kidnapping. She conducted an analysis of legal services provided by the District of Columbia’s 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 department’s strategic plan, researching and developing department policies, managing federal and state grants, and serving as the agency’s 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 master’s 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 master’s 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 FBI’s 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 Richmond’s 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 General’s 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 brochures—one 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 Cleveland’s 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 Baldwin’s 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 Prosecutor’s 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 department-wide community-oriented policing model—the 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 state’s 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 nation’s history. Since 1994, COPS has invested $9.6 billion to add community policing officers to the nation’s 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 nation’s 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. PERF’s 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 organization’s 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.”