Article Preview
Top1. Introduction
State and local fusion centers were initially created in the wake of the 9/11 Commission Report to help “connect the dots” of seemingly disparate threat indicators and, through information sharing, aid the federal counterterrorism mission at the grassroots level. Today, this system consists of 79 centers: Forty-two states and territories each has single primary centers, while a dozen states (notably Texas and California) have additional “recognized” centers to cover key regions (Department of Homeland Security, 2019). While fusion centers have assisted in identifying leads for what would become counterterrorism investigations, their day-to-day utility is increasingly an all-crimes, all-hazards mission (Rollins, 2008). Fusion centers are made up of personnel from multiple law enforcement organizations at the state and local levels and federal agencies, and may include civilian analysts as well.
The value of fusion centers is far more than the sum of their parts; and recognizing the many non-counterterrorism functions they fulfill is important in demonstrating this. This is not always easy to validate, and fusion centers have come under significant criticism and scrutiny since their inception. The criticism that fusion centers receive stems from the poorly defined and loosely understood method in which they are evaluated. Assessments of fusion centers are based on metrics having to do with percentage of products answering national requirements, customers’ satisfaction with fusion center products, numbers of products produced, and the perception of supported agencies (DHS, 2018). The difficulty with having a report card tied to arbitrary production metrics rather than results is that the focus inevitably shifts to meet expected numbers instead of meeting expected results. An example consequence of national grading requirements is that only 10% of the fusion center distributable products created in 2016 addressed state/local customer information needs (DHS, 2016).
The goal of any endeavor in intelligence is to increase the understanding of a particular problem set within a target audience. Whether the target audience consists of decision makers, action takers, or those who are only tangentially affected, the reason for conducting the function of intelligence is to analyze information in order to answer the question, “so what?” (Fingar, 2011). Quite often that function is much easier said than done due to both the subjectivity and complexity involved with interpreting partial and incomplete data to draw meaningful conclusions. As with many complex processes, the function of intelligence is at the same time highly structured and very fluid. Governed by recognized standards at the national level, organizations that belong to and adhere to these Intelligence Community Directives (ICDs) establish strict procedures to review and handle quality control for any analytical products they create (Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2020). Likewise, these standards guide every part of the analytical process.
The member organizations of the Intelligence Community (IC) each operate under specific charters, whose actions and foci are made distinct by varying authorities within the mission of the organization. Because many aspects of those specific missions have a domestic aspect, even more complexity is introduced as protections are enacted to preserve the privacy and respect the First Amendment Rights of U.S. Persons (Rollins, 2008). Additionally, the domestic realm is where the national security responsibilities of federal agencies most often intersect and have the potential to overlap with state and local law enforcement organizations.