L ''Be Aware for America" Survey

MEMORANDUM

September 16, 1997

TO:

Bob Pentz, Director, Western Region

CC:

Jim Keller, Director, Rocky Mountain Region

FROM:

Karen Duffala, Deputy Director, Rocky Mountain Region

SUBJECT:

Inquiry Regarding "Be Aware" Program

Regarding the "Be Aware" program and the attendant issues/concerns:

I conducted a brief survey of 16 agencies in 8 states of the Rocky Mountain Region that are either largely or totally rural in nature and have significant agricultural operations occurring within their jurisdictions. Agencies represented local police, sheriffs, and state enforcement organizations. Ten agencies responded for a return rate of 62.5 percent.

The following States and agencies were surveyed:



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 356
Containing the Threat from Illegal Bombings: An Integrated National Strategy for Marking, Tagging, Rendering Inert, and Licensing Explosives and Their Precursors L ''Be Aware for America" Survey MEMORANDUM September 16, 1997 TO: Bob Pentz, Director, Western Region CC: Jim Keller, Director, Rocky Mountain Region FROM: Karen Duffala, Deputy Director, Rocky Mountain Region SUBJECT: Inquiry Regarding "Be Aware" Program Regarding the "Be Aware" program and the attendant issues/concerns: I conducted a brief survey of 16 agencies in 8 states of the Rocky Mountain Region that are either largely or totally rural in nature and have significant agricultural operations occurring within their jurisdictions. Agencies represented local police, sheriffs, and state enforcement organizations. Ten agencies responded for a return rate of 62.5 percent. The following States and agencies were surveyed:

OCR for page 356
Containing the Threat from Illegal Bombings: An Integrated National Strategy for Marking, Tagging, Rendering Inert, and Licensing Explosives and Their Precursors States Agencies Kansas Lawrence Police Department; Leavenworth Police Department; Lenexa Police Department Montana Garfield County Sheriff's Office (Jordan); Lewis and Clark County Sheriff's Office (Helena) New Mexico State Department of Public Safety Nebraska Scottsbluff County Sheriff's Office North Dakota Burleigh County Sheriff's Office (Bismarck); State Bureau of Investigation Oklahoma Canadian County Sheriff's Office (Okla. City); Cleveland County Sheriff's Office (Okla. City); Grady County Sheriff's Office (Okla. City); Pottawatomie County Sheriff's Office (Okla. City); Shawnee Police Department South Dakota Sioux Falls Police Department Wyoming Cheyenne Police Department The results are as follows: SURVEY QUESTION YES NO MAYBE Aware of program? 1 9 0 Federal endorsement needed? 5 3 2 Federal mandate needed? 2 4* 4 Program needed in your area? 5 1 4 Program duplicates/interferes       with local program/customs? 0 9 1 * Comment added: "Too much federal involvement already." The most glaring information revealed above is the lack of knowledge, familiarization, and/or awareness of the program by law enforcement personnel. While they are not the primary "target market" of this program, they are an integral part

OCR for page 356
Containing the Threat from Illegal Bombings: An Integrated National Strategy for Marking, Tagging, Rendering Inert, and Licensing Explosives and Their Precursors of any follow-up that might occur subsequent to an unlawful event. I, too, share this lack of awareness so cannot speak to what all of the components of the program are. Therefore, I have many questions as to the more practical aspects of the program after a vendor's awareness has been raised. Issues such as: Calling local law enforcement while the person is still present or has just left the premises so there might be an opportunity to locate the person and conduct an investigation and, perhaps, prevent further criminal activity. What is the vendor supposed to do with the documents that have been saved? Stuffing them in a drawer without proper precaution could damage them for forensic purposes although the content would still be helpful. Vendors also need these documents for their own filing/tracking purposes. Is this a convenient process for them? I applaud the industry's efforts to increase awareness and enhance public safety. In order to enhance the positive aspects of this program, I strongly recommend consideration of the following: Establish a partnership with national law enforcement organizations to increase their members' awareness of this program. The National Sheriff's Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police would welcome the opportunity to review the program, make appropriate recommendations for enhancement, and enter into a joint support program. This program is a natural for such established public/law enforcement partnerships as "Crime Stoppers," "Neighborhood Watch" (and its many derivations), etc. Using the partnerships formed above, advertise the program to the general public. An additional purpose of public awareness programs is prevention. If a potential criminal is aware he/she is dealing with an informed community, they will seek other avenues to commit the crime or decide to not commit the crime. This also enhances the vendors' interest in continuing with the program. One of the biggest problems with volunteer prevention programs is the inability to measure what has been prevented. With little or no activity, participation rapidly drops off. Letting the public know they are the "eyes and ears" for each other and for law enforcement makes public safety everyone's responsibility. Solicit input from respected law enforcement professionals and prosecutors as to any additions/deletions needed in the program in order to optimize enforcement effectiveness. Once the above issues have been addressed, I believe the issue of whether or not this program should be endorsed or mandated at the federal level will become a clearer issue.