HS AC HOMELAND SECURITY OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS CENTER Practical Terrorism Prevention Appendixes BRIAN A. JACKSON, ASHLEY L. RHOADES, JORDAN R. REIMER, NATASHA LANDER, KATHERINE COSTELLO, SINA BEAGHLEY APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED Published in 2019 Preface As part of an overall reexamination of terrorism prevention (superseding the programs and activities previously known as countering violent extremism [CVE]) policy, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asked the Homeland Security Opera- tional Analysis Center (HSOAC) to examine the state of knowledge regarding terror- ism prevention organization, coordination, programming, and policy. HSOAC was tasked to examine past CVE and current terrorism prevention efforts by DHS and its interagency partners, and explore options for this policy area going forward. The appendixes supplement the findings presented in the main report. Appen- dix A presents international case studies of CVE programs, including a detailed discus- sion of their selection. Appendix B presents summaries of the lessons learned in each of the U.S. cities visited during the study, and includes a discussion of how the cities were chosen. Appendix C includes a more substantial discussion of measures and metrics for terrorism prevention, and Appendix D provides more detail on the spending calcula- tions discussed in Chapter Nine of the main report. As with the main report, this research was sponsored by the Office of Policy, DHS, and conducted within the Strategy, Policy, and Operations Program of the HSOAC federally funded research and development center (FFRDC). About the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Section 305 of Public Law 107-296, as codified at 6 U.S.C. § 185), authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, to establish one or more FFRDCs to pro- vide independent analysis of homeland security issues. The RAND Corporation oper- ates HSOAC as an FFRDC for DHS under contract HSHQDC-16-D-00007. The HSOAC FFRDC provides the government with independent and objective analyses and advice in core areas important to the Department in support of policy development, decisionmaking, alternative approaches, and new ideas on issues of sig- nificance. The HSOAC FFRDC also works with and supports other federal, state, local, tribal, and public- and private-sector organizations that make up the homeland iii iv Practical Terrorism Prevention: Appendixes security enterprise. The HSOAC FFRDC’s research is undertaken by mutual consent with DHS and is organized as a set of discrete tasks. This report presents the results of research and analysis conducted under Task Order HSHQDC-17-J-00532, titled “Ter- rorism Prevention Study and Threat Prevention and Security Policy Support.” The results presented in this report do not necessarily reflect official DHS opin- ion or policy. For more information on HSOAC, see www.rand.org/hsoac. For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2647. Contents Preface ................................................................................................. iii Figures .................................................................................................vii Tables .................................................................................................. ix Abbreviations ......................................................................................... xi APPENDIX A International Case Studies .......................................................................... 1 Rationale for International Case Study Selections ................................................. 3 Analytic Approach ..................................................................................... 4 Canada .................................................................................................. 5 Australia ................................................................................................14 United Kingdom ..................................................................................... 24 France ...................................................................................................33 Belgium................................................................................................ 40 Germany ...............................................................................................47 Denmark .............................................................................................. 56 Appendix A References .............................................................................. 64 APPENDIX B Lessons from U.S. City Visits ..................................................................... 77 Boston, Massachusetts ................................................................................78 Denver, Colorado .................................................................................... 86 Houston, Texas ....................................................................................... 92 Los Angeles, California ............................................................................. 101 Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minnesota ................................................................ 111 Appendix B References ............................................................................. 120 v vi Practical Terrorism Prevention: Appendixes APPENDIX C What Does Success Look Like? Measures and Metrics for National-Level Terrorism Prevention ........................................................................ 125 Measuring National Terrorism Prevention Efforts ............................................. 126 Measurement of Terrorism Prevention Options ................................................. 129 Conclusions: Measuring What Matters ......................................................... 136 Appendix C References ............................................................................. 139 APPENDIX D Resourcing Analyses .............................................................................. 141 Cross-National Comparison ....................................................................... 141 Terrorism Prevention Break-Even via Criminal Justice Cost Avoidance ..................... 143 Appendix D References ............................................................................ 149 Figures A.1. The CVE Centre’s Government Partners ............................................17 A.2. Summary of LST Programs, 2016 .................................................... 22 A.3. Prevent and Channel Process Flow ................................................... 27 A.4. Interagency Collaborations to Prevent Extremism and Radicalization ...........58 A.5. Prevention Pyramid .....................................................................59 D.1. National Spending Extrapolations (in millions of U.S. dollars) .................. 142 vii Tables A.1. Overlap Between DHS Focus Areas and Canadian Programs .....................11 A.2. Overlap Between DHS Focus Areas and Australian Programs ................... 23 A.3. Overlap Between DHS Focus Areas and UK Programs ............................29 A.4. Overlap Between DHS Focus Areas and French Programs ....................... 38 A.5. Overlap Between DHS Focus Areas and Belgian Programs ....................... 46 A.6. Live Democracy! Active Against Right-Wing Extremism, Violence, and Hate Program ............................................................................51 A.7. Overlap Between DHS Focus Areas and German Programs ...................... 54 A.8. Overlap Between DHS Focus Areas and Danish Programs ........................62 ix Abbreviations ADS Federal Antidiscrimination Society (Germany) AFP Australian Federal Police AfVT French Association of Victims of Terrorism AMF Australian Multicultural Foundation ASIO Australian Security Intelligence Organisation BAMF Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Germany) BCR Building Community Resilience BIM Behavioural Indicators Model BMBF Federal Ministry for Education and Research (Germany) BMI Ministry of the Interior (Germany) BpB Federal Agency for Civic Education (Germany) CAB Community Awareness Briefing CAMP Case Assessment Management Program CBPR Community-Based Participatory Research CGET General Commission for Territorial Equality (France) CIPDR Interministerial Committee for the Prevention of Delinquency and Radicalization CoPPRa Community Policing and the Prevention of Radicalisation CRCL U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties CUTA Coordination Unit for Threat Assessment (Belgium) xi xii Practical Terrorism Prevention: Appendixes CVE countering violent extremism DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security DOJ U.S. Department of Justice EU European Union FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation FY fiscal year GETZ Joint Center for Countering Extremism and Terrorism (Germany) HA Department of Home Affairs (Australia) HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HSOAC Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center LST Living Safe Together NCTC National Counterterrorism Center NGO nongovernmental organization NSW New South Wales OSCT Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism (United Kingdom) OTPP Office of Terrorism Prevention Partnerships PA Prince Albert PATHE Providing Alternatives to Hinder Extremism PET Danish Security and Intelligence Agency PIRUS Profiles of Individual Radicalization in the United