Intelligence Fusion Center Case Study

Paper 1: What are the capabilities and limitations of intelligence in supporting homeland security efforts?

My Forum 4 submission will describe the fundamentals of Intelligence-led policing utilized by various law enforcement agencies.

“In the modern era, law enforcement agencies necessarily engage in a range of intelligence-related activities associated with their broad crime control and public safety mission,” (Logan 2015). Police officers receive extensive training in interview techniques and investigations that make them natural

With the ever evolving threats that we face from both domestic and foreign terrorist groups, law enforcement agencies have been forced to adapt to meet these new challenges. By incorporating guidance provided by the federal government, police agencies have made a greater effort to solidify their relationship with the citizens of their respective communities. This relationship seeks to promote two-way communication and the sharing of information vital to the protection of our communities. Formally titled Intelligence Led Policing (ILP), this ideology “provides strategic integration of intelligence into the overall mission of the organization” “(Baker, 2005, p. 41), and seeks to build upon the interrelationship of intelligence gathering and community policing. The overall success of this

Advising and providing recommendations to the U.S. Attorney General on issues like advanced usage of technology, requirements, and cooperation between intelligence agencies is charged to the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council (CICC) and the Global Intelligence Working Group (GIWG). Working in concert, the CICC and the GIWG advocates for local police force agencies in the development and communicating of criminal intelligence to promote public safety and our Nation’s security. The recognition by the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) of the prominence of the state, local, and tribal law enforcement (SLTLE) are vital ingredients concerning our country’s intelligence process. In order to

The message or theme that I took from the instructional sources in this module, were that Intelligence-led policing takes a collaborative effort, and that there is a distinct difference between “intelligence”, and “information”. Collaboration in sharing information among state, local, and federal agencies were mentioned as an “obvious factor” in successful programs. Dissemination is crucial in our effort to provide valid information to intelligence units. My department meets once a month with several other agencies in the surrounding area to disseminate information and intelligence. The meetings have proven successful especially in a recent counterfeiting case. We were able to verify information that other agencies had received and identified/arrested

Some have expanded their focus to included public safety matters and major threats. Fusions don't just collect information, they integrate new date into existing information, they determine its worth, analyze it for links and trends, and disseminate their findings to the appropriate agency in the best position to do something about it. The FBI has 114 employees working in 38 fusion centers, 36% are agents, 61% are intelligence analysts, and the rest are language specialists, financial analysts. State and local enforcement agencies get acces to certain federal databases and the benefit of big picture terrorism, grant funding, technical assistance, and training. The FBI investigate anywhere even overseas. With fusion centers in our city everybody feels safer at night sleeping peacefully without having to worry about anything bad

Over the course of the last two decades, intelligence led policing has made a major impact on law enforcement. As its usage has emerged, two sides have formed regarding the implementation of this controversial technology. Proponents of this strategy, including law enforcement agencies and technology companies, have backed the efficient and effective nature of predictive policing. Critics of the technology claim that policing tactics such as predictive algorithms and hotspot monitoring have created more problems than they have solved, and that they have placed a wall between law enforcement and the public. As high-tech crime and cyber-terrorism efforts in the United States continue to rise, questions are being raised over what public transparency

Intelligence-led policing is the new standard of information sharing among law enforcement agencies across the country at all levels. Before intelligence-led policing gained popularity most law enforcement agencies did not freely share information amongst each other, which lead to huge gaps in the functioning of law enforcement agencies. Many believe that this laps in sharing is what lead to the 9/11 disaster. All police agencies must form a cohesive approach to a central system of intelligence gathering and information dissemination. By doing so, they may better achieve a common goal for the unified approach to policing. This process of intelligence-led police may seem like a simple concept, but it involve the many departments working together which can cause confusion and angst among them.

A great emphasis has been placed on transforming the Intelligence Community (IC) since the catastrophic events of September 2001, as the tragedy highlighted the requirement for the collective organizations to transform in the face of emerging threats and to support new security agencies. A range of instruments such as the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), the 9/11 Commission Report and multiple Executive Orders, directed the IC to become more collaborative. However, any organizational change has issues and the IC is no different in this respect. Two specific factors are key to successful intelligence collaboration. Firstly, the method in which information is shared across the community is of vital importance because each organization relies on discoverable and accessible information to complete their roles in national security. Secondly, relationships between agencies need to be nurtured to foster a cooperative rather than competitive environment because the information flow is promoted within an organization that is not restricted by vertical integration—that is, information can flow across departments at various levels rather than be

Actionable intelligence pertains to information which will force the consumer of intelligence products to initiate action such as using mitigation techniques as a means by which to lessen the impact of an impending threat. As part of DHS’s information sharing with state and local entities, several provisions of the 9/11 commission Act related to support provided directly to fusion centers. Fusion centers are receiving support and centers have been set up in various states so as to assist the government in addressing the gaps regarding terrorism related information.

The evaluation and analysis focuses on the intelligent based police that is vital in today’s law enforcement. Law enforcement is facing complex challenges around the nation and we need to proactive in addressing them. By focusing on community policing, transparency and professionalism we can meet and address these challenges together.

Identified as first developed in 1996 in Los Angeles Fusion Centers did not become an expanded organization until after 9/11 (Monahan, 2013). Fusion Centers are evolving themselves and in this, are modifying their actions to address some concerns of their critics. In their post-9/11 inception, Fusion Centers were developed with little to no guidance, except to address the intelligence concerns of the modern day terrorism threat. With this broad mission, it should be expected that some issues regarding intelligence gathering would surface. Since that time, Fusion Centers have become an invaluable part of the law enforcement community, bridging a much needed gap in intelligence sharing. However critics exist and some issues are based out

DHS was established to unify organizations and institutions involved in efforts to protect the Nation. Border security is a core government function that involves the coordination of many agencies. CBP/OAM has been charged to prevent the illegal entry of persons and contraband into the United States; it is not appropriate or feasible to relegate that mission to the private sector. The continued success of CBP/OAM is predicated on reliable and sustainable, Persistent Surveillance capability to maintain domain awareness and deterrence against national threats. Persistent Surveillance will improve the efficiency and effectiveness for the CBP law enforcement surveillance capability coupled with CPB/OAM’s ability to partner with other federal

had been previously arrested for domestic violence with his ex-girlfriend. Had the FBI informed local LEAs about his link to terrorism, the police would’ve been able to interview his former girlfriend and found out about his jihadist rants. Such misguided decisions by a federal agency pose a danger to communities. Local LEAs are familiar with a potential terrorist’s environment and could have additional information which may piece the puzzle together. While the FBI stated that information on Tamerlane could’ve been accessed by any member of the JTTF (which included Boston police) through a database, the numerous amount of information records on the database would prove to be an obstacle. It is unclear as to why the FBI could not easily