How does suspicious activity reporting compare across multiple forms of targeted violence?

So What?

To date, there has been limited evaluation of the efficacy of the sixteen indicators of suspicious activities established by the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Initiative (NSI). Typically focusing on acts of terrorism and mass shootings, prior studies have yet to fully examine the nature of SAR information for targeted violence more generally, and how the SAR process (i.e., gathering, documenting, processing, analyzing, and sharing relevant information) compares across multiple forms of targeted violence.

Project Summary

The project will begin by collecting, codifying, and comparatively examining quantitative data associated with the NSI’s 16 SAR indicators, capitalizing on new access to SAR information provided by multiple fusion centers – state-owned and operated centers that evaluate suspicious activity reports. Next, researchers will conduct semi-structured interviews with fusion center analysts and other representatives to identify and contextualize best practices and hindrances to the SAR process. Findings will inform the development of behavioral threat assessment frameworks.

Purpose/Objectives

The project aims to provide necessary and operationally relevant research using suspicious activity reporting to state fusion centers. To do this, the project will specifically address the following questions:

1. How do fusion center processes compare for suspicious activities and threat assessment?
2. Who are the gatekeepers facilitating the reporting of SARs?
3. What types of suspicious activity reports are amenable to threat assessment processes?
4. How do SAR outcomes compare for threat assessment, criminal, and intel cases?

Method

Researchers will collect data through interviews and data sourcing at fusion centers across the country to develop a trend analysis for attack prevention.

Outputs and Impact

• Protocol development
• Recruit and schedule fusion center participants
• Data collection
• Final reports

	Seamus Hughes University of Nebraska at Omaha Senior Research Faculty and Policy Associate Expertise: Terrorism, homegrown violent extremism, and countering violent extremism
	Jeff Gruenewald, Ph.D. University of Arkansas Professor Director of the Terrorism Research Center Expertise: Terrorism and violent extremism; homeland security policy; homicide; media representations of race, gender, and violence
	Gina Ligon, Ph.D. University of Nebraska at Omaha Director of NCITE Expertise: Counterterrorism, extremist leadership, industrial-organizational psychology