The Intelligence Fusion Process for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement

Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to David L. Carter at School of Criminal Justice, 560 Baker Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1118; e-mail: carterd@msu.edu.

Intelligence fusion centers have rapidly grown as state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies aim to share information regarding community threats.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Information Sharing Environment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) endorse fusion centers for sharing terrorism information among law enforcement, private sector, and the intelligence community.
The Justice Department, through the Global Intelligence Working Group, provides guidance on the development and management of fusion centers, including standards for structure and processes.
Concerns arise from critics regarding inadequate privacy and civil rights protections.

Funding: Over recent years, the DHS has allocated millions to help with the setup of intelligence fusion centers, though efficiency and effectiveness issues have been raised (Allen, 2008; GAO, 2007).
Concept Nature: The fusion process is complex; it requires:
- A reimagining of the intelligence function in agencies or creating new entities.
- Engagement of diverse organizations and personnel as contributors and consumers.
- Changes in attitudes and internal processes.
- New functional and information-sharing processes among law enforcement partners.

Fusion centers started as regional intelligence centers without a standard model, evolving based on local initiatives to address crime, drug trafficking, and terrorism (Carter, forthcoming).
Initial establishments happened in the 1980s under counterdrug initiatives with High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) intelligence centers serving as models for collaboration among various law enforcement agencies.
After September 11, 2001, there was increased adoption of regional intelligence centers to tackle new terrorism-related challenges, leading to federal funding support.
Collaborative Integration: State and local fusion centers became integral for combining local data from law enforcement with federal intelligence sources, thereby fostering enhanced situational awareness for threats.

Diversity of Models: There is no single model for a fusion center; structural differences account for local needs and environmental contexts. Examples include:
- Montana’s fusion center focusing on all threats.
- New Jersey incorporating emergency operations with fusion.
Customization: Each center is structured to address the specific needs of its jurisdiction, enhancing local control and flexibility (Johnson & Dorn, 2008).
Guidelines Bright: National standards exist for best practices, yet significant variability across centers is seen as a strength, allowing them to meet local demands effectively.

National responses prompted the creation of fundamental baseline operational capabilities for enhancing information-sharing effectiveness, outlined collaboratively by various federal bodies and following established guidelines (Global Intelligence Working Group, 2005a).
These capabilities cover terrorism information and integrate with the federal Information Sharing Environment (ISE). Still, no initiative currently defines baseline capabilities for non-terrorism specific crime analysis.

Definition: The fusion process is a method to manage information flow across governmental tiers, promoting analytical integration of input from various agencies to yield intelligence.
Common Misconceptions: There are widespread misunderstandings regarding the fusion center’s role, often conflated with operational or investigative support centers. A fusion center is primarily an analytic entity aiming to proactively avert threats.
Collaboration Dynamics: Fusion centers are collaborative efforts allowing agencies to maximize their capabilities in crime prevention, through a shared intelligence process involving integration, evaluation, and dissemination of information.

Successful information sharing requires diversified raw input and robust analysis leading to actionable intelligence. Various models have emerged:
- Operation Nexus (NYPD): Engages private sector partners in reporting suspicious activities.
- Terrorism Early Warning Group (TEW): Integrates surveillance among different agencies for preventive measures against threats.

Despite rapid development post-9/11, there remain challenges for fusion centers, including:
- Effective collaboration between diverse agencies and organizations.
- Policy frameworks that balance intelligence utility while safeguarding civil liberties.
Private Sector Implications: There is recognition of the significant role private enterprises can play in enhancing information flow, but with accompanying concerns for privacy and security.
Resistance to Change: Historical reluctance within law enforcement to share information persists, compounded by fears of loss of control over data and agency egos.
Counteracting Stovepiping: The prevalent challenge of information being siloed within agencies must be overcome to realize the full potential of fusion centers.

Privacy advocates highlight potential risks to civil rights associated with fusion center activities.
- Concerns exist about the safeguarding of personal information collection and the possibility of misuse.
The fusion center guidelines stress the need for policies to protect civil rights while facilitating information sharing (Global Intelligence Working Group, 2005a).

Current Status: While the operational status of fusion centers is still evolving, initial successes are noted in:
- Increased information sharing across agencies.
- Adherence to legal and policy standards protecting civil rights and privacy.
- The anecdotal evidence of fusion centers aiding in crime prevention.
Need for Continued Evaluation: Discussion on refining measures of success and developing empirical assessments remains paramount as fusion centers mature.

The intelligence fusion process holds promise for enhanced security operations, with an emphasis on cooperation among stakeholders, the establishment of effective policies, and commitment to intelligence analysis. The evolution of fusion centers is ongoing as they adapt to emerging threats and the complexities of modern law enforcement.

Intelligence-led policing references the philosophy where law enforcement utilizes information and intelligence to guide operations effectively.