Abstract
Evidence-Based Intelligence Practices: Examining the Role of Fusion Centers as a Critical Source of Information
Despite dramatic changes in the intelligence infrastructure and the growth of fusion centers following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the acknowledgement that local intelligence is critical to the prevention and deterrence of terrorist acts, very little research exists in this area generally and there has been little consideration about the development of evidence-based practices in the intelligence area. This chapter draws from fusion center personnel survey data to consider three important issues related to enhancing evidence-based practices within fusion centers. First, we consider the current state of information sharing and communication among agencies and fusion centers. This is important in that it establishes a need to identify best practices for enhancing the flow of good intelligence and considering obstacles by documenting the current experiences of state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in building an intelligence capacity. Second, we explore the type of information, data, and analysis currently used within fusion centers. We are particularly interested in providing a general picture of where fusion centers gather their information and how this information is analyzed with respect to counterterrorism efforts. Third, we discuss opportunities for research-practitioner partnerships, and present ideas and opportunities in which scholarly attention to intelligence issues and terrorism generally could enhance understanding of intelligence practices and move us toward a more scientific approach to the study of law enforcement intelligence.
Author Bios
Jeremy G. Carter, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice at the University of North Florida (UNF). Dr. Carter’s research interests include law enforcement intelligence, policing, organizational behavior, and policy implementation. Dr. Carter is a principal investigator for a project funded by The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) and is currently a member of a project funded by the National Institute of Justice to evaluate information sharing practices among law enforcement fusion centers. Prior to joining the faculty at UNF, Dr. Carter was a research specialist for the “Law Enforcement Intelligence Toolbox” training program for state, local, and tribal law enforcement – a program funded by the Department of Homeland Security and delivered by Michigan State University. His research has appeared in journals such as Criminal Justice & Behavior, Criminal Justice Policy Review, and Police Practice & Research.
Steven M. Chermak, Ph.D., is a Professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. Dr. Chermak is a lead investigator affiliated with The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). Dr. Chermak’s research interests are in the areas of domestic terrorism, right-wing extremism, the evaluation of strategies used to prevent and respond to crime, law enforcement intelligence, and the media’s role in relation to crime and terrorism issues. Dr. Chermak has also received funding to create a National Archive of Terrorism Databases. In addition, Dr. Chermak is working on a project to build a national database on the perpetrators, victims, events, and group characteristics of crimes committed by members of the domestic far-right. Dr. Chermak’s research has also been funded by the Department of Homeland Security and the National Institute of Justice. His research has appeared in a number of journals including Criminology & Public Policy, Justice Quarterly, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Journal of Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, and the Journal of Crime, Conflict, and the Media.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The three studies included in Lum et al. (2009) were Davis et al. (2004) When Terrorism Hits Home: How Prepared are State and Local Law Enforcement? by the RAND corporation; The Impact of Terrorism on State Law Enforcement: Adjusting to New Roles and Changing Conditions (2006) by the Council of State Governments and Eastern Kentucky University (CSG/EKU) funded by the National Institute of Justice; and the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) (2003) Sample Survey of Law Enforcement Agencies by the Bureau of Justice (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006).
- 2.
Grant number 2008-IJ-CX-0007 awarded to Michigan State University, School of Criminal Justice in 2009. Principal Investigators include Dr. David Carter, Dr. Edmund McGarrell, and Dr. Steve Chermak – all from Michigan State University, School of Criminal Justice.
- 3.
The National Fusion Center Conference is sponsored by the following agencies: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DOJ’s Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Office of the Program Manager, Information Sharing Environment, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
- 4.
For more information on this new department, visit: http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/crcl.shtm.
- 5.
“Reasonable Suspicion” or “Criminal Predicate” is established when information exists that establishes sufficient facts to give a trained law enforcement or criminal investigative agency officer, investigator, or employee a basis to believe there is a reasonable possibility that an individual or organization is involved in a definable criminal activity or enterprise (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006).
- 6.
Federal regulations guiding law enforcement intelligence pertain to 28 Code of Federal Regulation Part 23.
- 7.
Crime reports and fusion center reports do require a level of analysis; however, the analytic process applied to these reports is consistent with identifying trends based on incidents that have already occurred.
- 8.
Geographic profiling is a technique designed to identify areas where habitual offenders or commonly occurring crimes are likely to be located. This technique, also referred to as geospatial analysis, requires the manipulation of large amounts of crime, offender, and geographic data.
- 9.
Data used for this chapter is from the “Understanding the Intelligence Practices of State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies,” grant funded by the National Institute of Justice which will be the first empirical exploration of regional and state fusion centers at the national level.
- 10.
Such as the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative – focused on local law enforcement’s collection of documented suspicious behaviors – this initiative is also known as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s “See Something, Say Something” campaign.
- 11.
It should be noted that not even the most advanced and comprehensive statistical data techniques can be used to identify specific crime and threat locations as human behavior is not an exact science.
References
Bayley, D. H., & Weisburd, D. (2009). Cops and spooks: The role of the police in counterterrorism. In D. Weisburd, T. Feucht, I. Hakimi, L. Mock, & S. Perry (Eds.), To protect and to serve: Police and policing in an age of terrorism – and beyond (pp. 81–99). New York: Springer.
Boba, R. (2010). A practice-based evidence approach in Florida. Police Practice and Research, 11(2), 122–128.
Boba, R. (2009). Evil done. In G. Newman & R. Clarke (Eds.), Reducing terrorism through situational crime prevention. Crime prevention studies series (pp. 71–92). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.
Carter, D. (2009). Law enforcement intelligence: A guide for state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies (2nd ed.). Washington: US Department of Justice.
Carter, D. L., & Carter, J. G. (2009). The intelligence fusion process for state, local and tribal law enforcement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(12), 1323–1339.
Carter, J. (2011). Police innovation: Exploring the adoption of intelligence-led policing. Dissertation, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Clarke, R. V., & Newman, G. (2006). Outsmarting the terrorists. Portsmouth: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Davis, L. M., Riley, K. J., Ridgeway, G., Pace, J., Cotton, S. K., Steinberg, P. S., et al. (2004). When terrorism hits home: How prepared are state and local law enforcement? Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
General Accounting Office. (2003). Efforts to improve information sharing need to be strengthened. Washington: General Accounting Office.
General Accounting Office. (2006). Homeland Security guidance and standards are needed for measuring the effective of agencies’ facility protection efforts. Washington: General Accounting Office.
General Accounting Office. (2007a). Numerous federal networks used to support homeland security need to be better coordinated with key state and local information sharing initiatives. Washington: General Accounting Office.
General Accounting Office. (2007b). Federal efforts are helping to alleviate some challenges encountered by state and local information fusion centers. Washington: General Accounting Office.
Global Intelligence Working Group. (2003). National criminal intelligence sharing plan. U.S. Departent of Justice. Retrieved February 12, 2011 from http://www.it.ojp.gov/documents/National_Criminal_Intelligence_Sharing_Plan.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. International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts Journal, 19(1), 54–76.
Johnston, R. (2005). Analytic culture in the US intelligence community: An ethnographic study. Washington: Central Intelligence Agency.
Lum, C., Haberfield, M., Fachner, G., & Lieberman, C. (2009). Police activities to counter terrorism: What we know and what we need to know. In D. Weisburd, T. Feucht, I. Hakimi, L. Mock, & S. Perry (Eds.), To protect and to serve: Police and policing in an age of terrorism – and beyond (pp. 101–142). New York: Springer.
Lum, C., Kennedy, L. W., & Sherley, A. (2006). Are counter-terrorism strategies effective? The results of the Campbell systematic review on counter-terrorism evaluation research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(4), 489–516.
Masse, T., O’Neil, S., & Rollins, J. (2007). Fusion centers: Issues and options for Congress. Washington: Congressional Research Service.
McNamara, T. F. (2006). Information sharing environment implementation plan. Washington: Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report. Retrieved February 23, 2011 from: http://www.9-11commission.gov/.
Newman, G., & Clarke, R. (2008). Policing terrorism: An executives guide. Washington: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Osborne, D. (2006). Out of bounds: Innovation and change in law enforcement intelligence analysis. Thesis, Joint Military Intelligence College, Washington.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. Reading: Addison Wesley.
President’s National Strategy on Information Sharing. (2007). Retrieved February 25, 2011 from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/infosharing/index.html.
President’s National Strategy on Homeland Security. (2007). Retrieved June 2, 2011 from http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/nat_strat_homelandsecurity_2007.pdf.
Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment. (2006). Information sharing environment implementation plan. Washington: Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Randol, M. A. (2009). Terrorism information sharing and the nationwide suspicious activity report initiative: Background and issues for Congress. Washington: Congressional Research Service.
Riley, K. J., & Hoffman, B. (1995). Domestic terrorism: A national assessment of state and local law enforcement preparedness. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
Riley, K., Gregory, J., Treverton, F., Wilson, J. M., & Davis, L. M. (2005). State and local intelligence in the war on terrorism. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
Rojek, J. R., Kaminski, J., Smith, H., & Cooney, M. (2010). 2010 South Carolina law enforcement census: Local law enforcement use and evaluation of the South Carolina Intelligence and Information Center. Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology. Columbia: University of South Carolina.
Russell, A., & Taylor, R. (2011). The failure of police “fusion centers” and the concept of a national intelligence sharing plan. Presentation. Panel: Emerging trends in intelligence-led policing and homeland security. Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Toronto, Ontario.
Saari, S. C. (2010). Fusion centers: Securing America’s heartland from threats. Master’s Thesis, Naval Post Graduate School, Monterey.
Strom, K., Hollywood, J., Pope, M., Weintraub, G., Daye, C., & Gemeinhardt, D. (2010). Building on clues: Examining successes and failures in detecting U.S. terrorist plots, 1999–2009. Institute for Homeland Security Solutions. Retrieved March 2, 2011 from https://www.ihssnc.org/portals/0/Building_on_Clues_Strom.pdf.
The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. (2005). Report of The commission on the intelligence capabilities of the United States regarding weapons of mass destruction. Retrieved June 2, 2011 from http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/wmd_report.pdf.
The White House. (2003). The National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets. Washington. Retrieved March 6, 2011 from: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/Physical_Strategy.pdf.
Treverton, G. F., Jones, S. G., Boraz, S., & Lipscy, P. (2006). Toward a theory of intelligence: Workshop report. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
Uchida, C. (2010). A national discussion on predictive policing: Defining our terms and mapping successful implementation strategies. Washington: National Institute of Justice.
U.S. Congress. (2001). Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act). Passed on October 26.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2006). Criminal intelligence systems. Washington: Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved March 4, 2011 from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/txt/chap13.txt.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carter, J., 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 Series on Evidence-Based Crime Policy, vol 3. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0953-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0953-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-0952-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-0953-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)