Intelligence Fusion Centerss: A Case Study

While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is one, centralized agency, securing the homeland involves the cooperation and collaboration of many, different agencies and organizations ranging from local law enforcement to national agencies such as the NSA, CIA, and FBI. Each of these agencies contributes to the development of homeland security intelligence. By carefully analyzing and commenting on the objectives, tasks, strengths, weaknesses, and roles of each agency, a larger picture emerges regarding the capabilities and limitation of intelligence in supporting homeland security efforts.

Homeland Security is characterized by crime control being the primary police function. It is best achieved through a collective effort by all law enforcement agencies. One of the strategies being used is Intelligence Led Policing. This strategy is not new, it can be traced back to the British is the 1990’s (Bailey, 2011). Intelligence Led Policing is an approach to crime that deals with all crimes and threats including terrorism. This approach is unique because it is threat driven instead of incident driven. It also is a long term approach and focuses on causes and conditions that add to crime through a collection of data.

DHS has supported this idea of intelligence centers or information analysis centers by having a “renewed commitment to creating a robust, nationwide network of fusion centers to share and analyze data on citizens and others.”1 As of 2009 DHS contributes 254 million in funding to sate and local

Since 2010, integration has been the vanguard initiative of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). This initiative has been successful in several areas to include: the creation of National Intelligence Managers (NIM) for all primary geographic regions and functional areas; enhanced transparency; and the focus on the negative impacts of over classifying documents. However, not all efforts to integrate the intelligence community (IC) have been successful. For instance, the ODNI did not succeed at creating a comprehensive sharing environment, and has not fully integrated federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. Although, these failed areas of integration can be mitigated in the future through the appropriate initiatives taken by the ODNI.

The devastating events of 9/11 provided a forewarning to our country concerning the dangers of terrorism. However, it has created a particularly greater impact on the duties and standards expected of law enforcement agencies on all levels (local, state, and national). Law enforcement has begun implementing new tactics in an effort to prevent future terrorist attacks from threatening our national security. One aspect of policing in which terrorism has brought about is the process of information sharing between all levels of law enforcement. Our nation has also witnessed a change from traditional policing to that of a militarized one. Furthermore, after the incidents of September 11th, the

The formation of fusion centers is a step in the right direction to countering terrorist threats. By working efficiently and appropriately, information leading to arrests can be shared across county lines, state lines, and all around the world in a timely manner. Fusion centers can make law enforcement agencies more competent and effective in stopping crimes (to include terrorist attacks) before they take place. As long as the centers follow the laws they are governed by, they will remain ethical and can be a helpful addition in protecting the United States. Fusion centers in the United States perform a valuable role in countering terrorist threats, their positive influence far

The 9/11 commission clearly identified a problem with communication between the Intelligence Community and State and Local Law Enforcement which resulted in a new edict (from the IRTPA) of Information Sharing yet clearance levels and accesses quickly became an issue in disseminating information to those with a need to know. To help bridge this gap, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was passed to crate the DHS by bringing 22 under its umbrella with a primary mission of protecting the homeland from terrorism (Blum, 2010). To do so, DHS’s key mission is to collect, analyze, and disseminate key/related information and share it with the IC and nontraditional partners (state/local governments as well as the private sector) (Blum, 2010). Likewise,

Fusion Center was established as the bridge between federal, state and local law enforcement. The need for information sharing among federal, state and local enforcement was established after September 11 attack. Fusion Centers " primary goals are maintaining situational awareness with the state and region, identifying and anticipating both criminal and non criminal threats, and facilitating interagency communication and coordination activities based on these assessment. The analysis and use of the information and intelligence lies at the heart of their activities or should enabling the organization to better define and achieve their varied goals"(Joyal, 2012). Fusion center plays a vital role in enabling effective communication of locally

In preparation for my debate on the topics of intelligence-led policing and Compstat policing, I have discovered the many advantages and disadvantages of using intelligence-led policing and Compstat policing. According to Carter & Carter (2009), intelligence-led policing is the collection of and analysis of data relating to crime, used by law enforcement in “developing tactical responses to threats and/or strategic planning related to emerging changing threats” (p. 317). When applied correctly, intelligence-led policing is a tool used for information sharing in identifying threats and developing responses to prevent those threats from reaching fruition (Carter, 2011). One of the advantages of using intelligence-led policing is its incorporation of data analysts. The role of the data analyst in the context of intelligence-led policing allows them to take specially trained analysts to take raw data from information found in reports and translate it into useful information for the officers, allowing the police to deploy resources more effectively and efficiently (Griffiths, 2016). Another advantage is its application through preventative and predictive policing (proactive policing), in which law enforcement take data and identify crucial variables such as terrorism or the emergence of criminal organizations, in hopes of stopping the problem at its roots (Carter, 2011). Terrorism is especially important and emphasized after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centers in

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.

As one of the most efficient States in fighting terrorism, Florida has avoided the Department of Homeland Security all together. Instead, Florida has an Office of Domestic Security and an Office of Statewide Intelligence in order to stop terrorist, respond, and recover from terrorist attacks (2). Aside from these organizations, Florida has more than a dozen other organizations/centers including the Research and Analysis Unit (RAU) Financial Crimes and Analysis Center (FCAC), and Florida Investigative Support Center (FISC) ("Florida Department of…” 1). What Florida has done well that the nation has not done well as a whole is communication. By splitting Florida into seven regions, communication between the regions has been effective and can be compiled easily. Each quarter, the information is compiled and then sent back to the agents in order to analyze crime and determine where distribution of resources will go (1).

The purpose of this paper is to define and give as much detail information about Homeland Security in the United States and law enforcement and how they are integrated. I hope after reading this paper you will be well informed on the duties and responsibilities of these agencies. People have always lived in fear but with the help of these agencies we will no longer have to live in fear. I will try to give as much detail information as possible to help with any problems or situation that might come up. Homeland Security in the United States and law enforcement have extensive research skills and knowledge in serving and protecting citizens and other important groups and agencies. Homeland

In the State of New York, fusion center is a perfect example of information technology optimizing their performance in reducing crime within their police departments. The New York/New Jersey High Intensity Drug Trafficking Center serves as an information hub for law enforcement. According to (Johnson, 2008), the mass of intelligence data in the central location has proved to be a key factor in identifying individuals and organizations that are facilitating or carrying out terrorist activity in New York City.

Intelligence collection and apprehension of criminals have occurred for many years; however, with the exception of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, these actions were performed by different organizations. Nonetheless, roles and responsibilities have changed since the attacks on September 11, 2001. Intelligence-led policing and the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing program were incorporated, and fusion centers were established to help gather intelligence from different levels of the government. Although law enforcement at the local, state, and tribal levels aid in intelligence collection, it is important to ensure that intelligence gathered to protect national security and law enforcement

Fusion centers were created to improve the efficiency of the state and local level of homeland security. "Fusion centers are owned and operated by state and local entities with support from federal partners in the form of deployed personnel, training, technical assistance, exercise support, security clearances, connectivity to federal systems, technology, and grant funding." (U.S. National Intelligence, 2013, p. 20). This initiative is extremely beneficial, because the state level does not always have the means to comb through data. Training also proves to be a costly burden the state cannot always fund. At the national and international level, the country utilizes the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Fusion centers are been extremely effective, because the intelligence gathered in this manner is much more relevant in terms of locale. For example, if the FBI acquires some intelligence about New York City, it does not do much good for California. If California focuses more on itself with the fusion