Fusion Center Essay

Fusion centers play an essential role in the fight against terrorism by providing a central point so that various criminal justice agencies can coordinate activities both during the investigation of potential terrorist activity as well as in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. Fusion centers are hubs that share information and provide comprehensive and suitable access, analysis, and dissemination that no other single partner can offer. In addition, The National Network of Fusion Centers brings critical perspective and value to homeland security and law enforcement that no other federal or local organization can replicate.

As defined by the Fusion Center Guidelines a fusion center is a “collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide

resources, expertise and information to the center with the goal of maximizing their ability to detect, prevent, investigate and respond to criminal and terrorist activity. The primary products of a fusion center are situational awareness and warnings that are supported by law enforcement intelligence, derived from the application of the intelligence process, where requirements for actionable information are generated and information is collected, integrated, evaluated, analyzed and disseminated” (FEMA, 2010).
The primary goal of a fusion center is to provide law enforcement personnel, public safety personnel and private partners can unite with a common purpose and improve the ability to safeguard our homeland and prevent criminal activity. Public service personnel should not have to search for bits of information. The information should be accessible at the jurisdiction's fusion center. One unique role of a fusion center is that they fill a significant security gap and serves as a conduit between frontline personnel, state and local leadership, and the rest of the Homeland Security Enterprise. Fusion centers operate as focal points to many state and major urban areas for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information between federal; state, local, tribal, territorial (SLTT), as well as private sector partners. The centers also provide a unique perspective of threats to their state or locality, contributing to the national threat picture.
Experts believe precursor wrongdoings, such as terrorism, illegal drug operations, money laundering, fraud and identity theft can aide in identifying terrorists. The fusion process does not change or duplicate mission-specific intelligence and information management; however, it does affect the information and intelligence developed through these processes and systems to aid in the rapid identification of patterns and trends that may reflect an emerging threat. Recommended functions and goals designed for fusion centers include:
• Serve as the primary point of contact to report criminal/ terrorist information to the local Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) and DHS’s Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC).
• Include the capability of blending law enforcement information and intelligence.
• Collect, analyze, and disseminate “all-crimes” information, so as to identify emerging patterns and trends.
• Evaluate and reevaluate the process, new data, and emerging threats.
• Adopt and adhere to a statewide strategy to examine the information exchanges of the states’ law enforcement and homeland security partners, including dissemination of information by the state Homeland Security Advisor to law enforcement.

• Maintain an up-to-date statewide risk assessment.

• Serve as a receipt-and-dissemination hub for law enforcement information provided by federal entities, such as that provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Regional Data Exchange (R-DEx) and National Data Exchange (N-DEx), when operational, and DHS’s Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN).

The areas mentioned can be lengthened to contain a number of critical tasks and responsibilities. To effectively attain these goals, the first responder and private community, along with the public, must share the concept of the fusion center. A key component of a fusion center is the integration of nontraditional consumers of information and intelligence. The duties of fusion centers are enormous. In order to assist in establishing and operating fusion centers, guidelines, as well as sample policies and templates, must be

developed.
Fusion centers were created to improve information gathering and intelligence surveillance among law enforcement personnel, but questions have been raised since then about their effectiveness and legality. Fusion centers have became controversial and more questions raised about how effective they are in securing the nation from both homegrown and outside threats, and in their approach of intelligence gathering to delicate business. Such as the March 2007 debate between Boston and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Information was reported and published by the Boston police pertaining to an antiwar event at a local church. The ACLU accused the Boston Police of trying to destroy legitimate constitutionally protected speech in a broad-based effort at thwarting terrorism. In response to the claim, the police responded that the information should have been deleted from the records and due to a glitch in the system the computer failed to remove it.
Even though there are instances were the fusion centers have failed, there are also instances that have prevailed. Two years after the church incident in Boston, authorities in North Carolina shut down a terrorist group ran by American Daniel Patrick Boyd, who had prior militant camp training in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the early 1990s. Prior to the arrest of Boyd and seven members of his group, intelligence provided information showing the group had provided money and transportation to help terrorists overseas while amassing a large cache of weapons. The information that led to the destruction of the domestic terrorist group was produced by the North Carolina Information Sharing & Analysis Center. Although some fusion centers produce different outcomes, the need for the centers are a vital part of the war against terrorism.
When a federal based department is created, there is almost always room for growth or one of the first one to get the axe when funding problem arise. According to the Federal Funds Information for States, Federal grant spending on state and local homeland security has been dropping steadily since 2010.
There are 78 fusion center in operation today.

The sizes range from small three-person offices to massive centers with a staff of 250 officers, agents and analysts. President of the National Fusion Center Association, and director of the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center Mike Sena says that of the 78 centers, 49 are state centers, another 26 operate in major urban areas and three are territorial. Inconsistent funding is a major strategic problem. “It’s hard to run an operation like this when you don’t know what your budget will be,” Sena says. “There’s no real funding strategy across the board” (PETERITAS, B., 2013,

June).
Last year, Utah’s legislature stripped out funding for its fusion center, only to reinstate it after pressure from local law enforcement agencies. Due to a lack of grant funding from the federal government Oregon’s two fusion centers are also in danger of closing.

In order for fusion centers to provide an array of services, experts and practitioners from local, state, and federal law enforcement and public safety agencies, as well as representatives from DOJ, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are part of The Fusion Center Focus Group, whose mission was to further many of the principles outlined in the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP). Others participated in the focus group’s efforts included members from national law enforcement and public safety organizations, the private sector, and currently operating fusion centers.
Members of the focus group recommended that the centers provide an array of intelligence services and that the guidelines include all crime types. In addition, the focus group also suggested that the fusion centers be accessible based on the needs of the city, state, or region and should conduct tactical, operational, and strategic intelligence functions in support of criminal investigations.
As a result Eighteen guidelines were developed of the focus work’s collaboration:
1. The NCISP and the Intelligence and Fusion Processes
2. Mission Statement and Goals
3. Governance
4. Collaboration
5. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
6. Database Resources
7. Interconnectivity
8. Privacy and Civil Liberties
9. Security
10. Facility, Location, and Physical Infrastructure
11. Human Resources
12. Training of Center Personnel
13. Multidisciplinary Awareness and Education
14. Intelligence Services and Products
15. Policies and Procedures
16. Center Performance Measurement and Evaluation
17. Funding
18. Communications Plan