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

• NCJ Number: 229014
• Journal: Criminal Justce and Behavior Volume: 36 Issue: 12 Dated: December 2009 Pages: 1323-1339
• Author(s): David L. Carter; Jeremy G. Carter
• Date Published: December 2009
• Length: 17 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Program/Project Description
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: For additional articles in this issue, see NCJ-229010-13.

Annotation

This article discusses support for and criticisms of fusion centers, which provide a means for State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to share information about threats to their communities.

Abstract

The fusion center process relies on the involvement of State, local, tribal, and Federal law enforcement agencies as well as private-sector organizations in providing the input of raw information for intelligence analysis. The fusion process aims to identify threats posed by terrorists or criminal enterprises prior to any crime being committed. Fusion centers locate intelligence analysts from various Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in one physical place. Each representative is intended to be a conduit of raw information from his/her agency, who infuses that agency-specific information into the collective body of information for analysis. Also, when the fusion center requires intelligence information, the representative is the conduit back to the agency in communicating, monitoring, and processing the new information needs. The representative also ensures that analytical products and threat information are channeled back to his/her agency for appropriate dissemination. For the most part, fusion centers are so new that there has been no empirical assessment of their effectiveness; however, there is some anecdotal evidence that suggests fusion centers have increased the amount of information shared among law enforcement agencies, have adhered to policy and legal standards for maintaining their intelligence records systems, and have resulted in the cost-effective prevention of complex multijurisdictional criminality and terrorism. A joint report prepared by the U.S. House of Representatives (Majority Staffs of the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2008), however, views the effectiveness of fusion centers critically, advising that the identification of stakeholders and the quantitative instruments for determining the extent to which their needs are being met has yet to occur. 10 notes and 41 references