Skip to main content

Law Enforcement Fusion Centers: Cultivating an Information Sharing Environment while Safeguarding Privacy

Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology volume 32, pages 11–27 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

The national network of fusion centers, of which there are currently 78 nationwide, was created in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and continue to play an integral role in contemporary law enforcement. Their mission, put simply, is to facilitate information sharing across disparate agencies and organizations. Despite a significant presence within the law enforcement landscape, fusion centers have received relatively minimal scholarly attention. This limited literature alludes to operational challenges and public concerns that inhibit fusion center effectiveness. More specifically, little information is known about how fusion centers develop relationships with external partners as well as institute mechanisms to safeguard against violations of individual privacy. The present research employs a combination of national survey data and three in-depth case studies of fusion centers in Florida, Nevada, and Michigan to provide initial answers to these questions. Implications for improved policy and practice are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Notes

  1. Racial profiling, violations of privacy and the abridgement of First Amendment protections of expressive activity are the most commonly expressed concerns.

  2. Grant award number 2008-IJCX-0007 from the National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice.

  3. The most responses from within a single fusion center was three, which occurred for two centers. Ten fusion centers had two respondents while the remaining 70 fusion centers in the study had a single survey respondent. The findings to follow present responses from all 96 survey respondents as this approach was deemed most appropriate by the research team to reflect perceptions of fusion center practices. For diagnostic purposes, a complex survey design in STATA (ICv14) was employed to adjust for clustered responses from respondents within the same fusion center. Not surprisingly, given minimal multiple responses from the same center and the present research’s focus on descriptives, the findings were consistent.

  4. http://www.dhs.gov/fusion-center-locations-and-contact-information

  5. The Privacy Policy is a national standard required of each fusion center in order to receive federal funding.

References

  • Bossler AM, Holt TJ (2012) Patrol officers’ perceived role in responding to cybercrime. Pol: Int J Police Strat Manag 35:165–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Brod M, Tesler LE, Christiansen TL (2009) Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Qual Life Res 18:1263–1278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carter JG (2015) Inter-organizational relationships and law enforcement information sharing post-September 11, 2001. J Crime Justice 38:522–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter JG (2016) Institutional pressures and isomorphism: the impact on intelligence-led policing adoption. Police Q. doi:10.1177/1098611116639536

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter DL, Carter JG (2009a) The intelligence fusion process for state, local and tribal law enforcement. Crim Justice Behav 36:1323–1339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter DL, Carter JG (2009b) Intelligence-led policing: conceptual considerations for public policy. Crim Justice Policy Rev 20:310–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter JG, Chermak S (2012) Evidence-based intelligence practices: examining the role of fusion centers as a critical source of information. In: Lum C, Kennedy L (eds) Evidence-based counterterrorism policy. Springer, New York, pp 65–88

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carter JG, Rip M (2013) Homeland security and public health: a critical integration. Crim Justice Policy Rev 24:573–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011) Public Health Preparedness Capabilities: National Standards for State and Local Planning. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Chermak S, Carter JG, Carter DL, McGarrell EF, Drew J (2013) Law enforcement’s information sharing infrastructure: a national assessment. Police Q 16:211–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark RM (2007) Intelligence analysis: a target-centric approach, 2nd edn. CQ Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooney M, Rojek J, Kaminski RJ (2011) An assessment of the utility of a state fusion center by law enforcement executives and personnel. IALEIA J 20:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Cope N (2004) Intelligence led policing or policing led intelligence? Br J Criminol 44(2):188–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darroch S, Mazerolle L (2013) Intelligence-led policing: a comparative analysis of organizational factors influencing innovation uptake. Police Q 16(1):3–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deflem M (2004) Social control and the policing of terrorism: foundations for a sociology of counterterrorism. Am Sociol 35:75–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin NK (2012) Triangulation 2.0. J Mixed Methods Res 6:80–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Electronic Privacy Information Center (2008) Information Fusion Centers and Privacy. Retrieved from http://epic.org/privacy/fusion

  • Fitzpatrick JL, Sanders JR, Worthen BR (2003) Program evaluation: alternative approaches and practical guidelines, 3rd edn. Pearson, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Fusch PI, Ness LR (2015) Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qual Rep 20:1408–1416

    Google Scholar 

  • German M, Stanley J (2008) Fusion center Update. New York, NY: American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/privacy/fusion_update_20080729.pdf

  • Glaser B, Strauss A (1999) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction, Pisctataway

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (2003) Fusion Center Guidelines: Developing and Sharing Information and Intelligence in a New Era. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://it.ojp.gov/documents/d/fusion_center_guidelines.pdf

  • Graphia-Joyal R (2010) Are fusion centers achieving their intended purposes? Findings from a qualitative study on the internal efficacy of state fusion centers. IALEIA J 19:54–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene JR (2014) New directions in policing: balancing prediction and meaning in police research. Justice Q 31:193–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper JL (2009) Fusion center privacy policies: does one size fit all? Master’s Thesis. Monterey, CA: Naval Post Graduate School, Monteray, CA

  • Holt TJ, Bossler AM (2012) Police perceptions of computer crimes in two southeastern cities: an examination from the viewpoint of patrol officers. Am J Crim Justice 37:396–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homeland Security Advisory Council (2005) Intelligence and information sharing initiative: homeland security intelligence an information fusion. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes M, Fielding N, Cope N (2005) The application of science? The theory and practice of crime intelligence analysis. Br J Criminol 45(1):39–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King N (1994) The qualitative research interview. In: Cassell C, Symon G (eds) Qualitative methods in organizational research. Sage, London, pp 14–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurlander N (2005) Fighting crime and terrorism through data integration. The Police Chief, 72(2). Retrieved from http://policechiefmagazine.org

  • Lessons Learned Information Sharing (2005) Local anti-terrorism information and intelligence sharing: information sharing overview. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowski C, Carter JG (2014) End-user perceptions of intelligence dissemination from a state fusion center. Secur J. doi:10.1057/sj.2014.38, Advanced online publication

    Google Scholar 

  • Masse T, Rollins J (2007) A summary of fusion centers: core issues and options for congress. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan T (2011) The future of security? Surveillance operations at homeland security fusion centers. Soc Justice 37:84–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan T, Palmer NA (2009) The emerging politics of DHS fusion centers. Secur Dialogue 40:617–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monahan T, Regan PM (2012) Zones of opacity: data fusion in post 9/11 security organizations. Can J Law Soc 27:301–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (2004) The 9/11 Commission Report. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Newkirk AB (2010) The rise of the fusion-intelligence complex: a critique of political surveillance after 9/11. Surveil Soc 8:43–60

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly M, Parker N (2013) ‘Unsatisfactory Saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qual Res 13:190–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearsall B (2010) Predictive policing: the future of law enforcement? NIJ J 266:16–19, NCJ 230414

    Google Scholar 

  • Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment (2006) Information sharing environment implementation plan. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe JH (2008) Intelligence-led policing. Willan Publishing, Cullompton

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe JH (2015) Towards an index for harm-focused policing. Policing: J Policy Pract 9(2):164–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe JH, Walden K (2010) State police and the intelligence center: a study of intelligence flow to and from the street. J Int Assoc Law Enforcement Intel Anal 19:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Riegle R (2009) The Future of Fusion Centers: Potential Promise and Dangers. Testimony of Director Robert Riegle. Committee on Homeland Security. Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC

  • Rollins J (2008) Fusion centers: issues and options for congress. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, Report No. RL34070

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollins J, Connors T (2007) State fusion center processes and procedures: best practice and recommendations. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Retrieved from http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ptr_02.htm

  • Saari SC (2010) Fusion centers: securing America’s heartland from threats. Master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA

  • Sanders CD, Weston C, Schott N (2015) Police innovations, ‘secret squirrels’ and accountability: empirically studying intelligence-led policing in Canada. Br J Criminol 55(4):711–729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senate US (2012) Federal support for and involvement in state and local fusion centers. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Stavros C, Westberg K (2009) Using triangulation and multiple case studies to advance relationship marketing theory. Qual Mark Res 12:307–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor R, Russell A (2012) The failure of police ‘fusion’ centers and the concept of a national intelligence sharing plan. Police Pract Res 13:184–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2014) 2013 Fusion Center Assessment. Final Report. Washington, DC

  • US House of Representatives (2013) Majority Staff Report on the National Network of Fusion Centers. Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood JD, Taylor CJ, Groff ER, Ratcliffe JH (2015) Aligning policing and public health promotion: insights from the world of foot patrol. Police Pract Res 16(3):211–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis, 801 W. Michigan Street, BS 4081, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA

    Jeremy G. Carter

  2. School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    David L. Carter, Steve Chermak & Edmund McGarrell

Authors
  1. Jeremy G. Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David L. Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steve Chermak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Edmund McGarrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy G. Carter.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 2 Glossary for Acronyms
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carter, J.G., Carter, D.L., Chermak, S. et al. Law Enforcement Fusion Centers: Cultivating an Information Sharing Environment while Safeguarding Privacy. J Police Crim Psych 32, 11–27 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-016-9199-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-016-9199-4

Keywords

  • Fusion center
  • Law enforcement intelligence
  • Information sharing