Fusion Centers: Issues and Options for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Although elements of the information and intelligence fusion function were conducted prior to
9/11, often at state police criminal intelligence bureaus, the events of 9/11 provided the primary
catalyst for the formal establishment of more than 40 state, local, and regional fusion centers
across the country.
The value proposition for fusion centers is that by integrating various streams of information and
intelligence, including that flowing from the federal government, state, local, and tribal
governments, as well as the private sector, a more accurate picture of risks to people, economic
infrastructure, and communities can be developed and translated into protective action. The
ultimate goal of fusion is to prevent manmade (terrorist) attacks and to respond to natural
disasters and manmade threats quickly and efficiently should they occur. As recipients of federal
government-provided national intelligence, another goal of fusion centers is to model how events
inimical to U.S. interests overseas may be manifested in their communities, and align protective
resources accordingly. There are several risks to the fusion center concept—including potential
privacy and civil liberties violations, and the possible inability of fusion centers to demonstrate
utility in the absence of future terrorist attacks, particularly during periods of relative state fiscal
Fusion centers are state-created entities largely financed and staffed by the states, and there is no
one “model” for how a center should be structured. State and local law enforcement and criminal
intelligence seem to be at the core of many of the centers. Although many of the centers initially
had purely counterterrorism goals, for numerous reasons, they have increasingly gravitated
toward an all-crimes and even broader all-hazards approach. While many of the centers have
prevention of attacks as a high priority, little “true fusion,” or analysis of disparate data sources,
identification of intelligence gaps, and pro-active collection of intelligence against those gaps
which could contribute to prevention is occurring. Some centers are collocated with local offices
of federal entities, yet in the absence of a functioning intelligence cycle process, collocation alone
does not constitute fusion.
The federal role in supporting fusion centers consists largely of providing financial assistance, the
majority of which has flowed through the Homeland Security Grant Program; sponsoring security
clearances; providing human resources; producing some fusion center guidance and training; and
providing congressional authorization and appropriation of national foreign intelligence program
resources, as well as oversight hearings. This report includes over 30 options for congressional
consideration to clarify and potentially enhance the federal government’s relationship with fusion
centers. One of the central options is the potential drafting of a formal national fusion center
strategy that would outline, among other elements, the federal government’s clear expectations of
fusion centers, its position on sustainment funding, metrics for assessing fusion center
performance, and definition of what constitutes a “mature” fusion center. This report will be
Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Fusion Center Value Proposition...............................................................................................3
DHS’s Value Proposition....................................................................................................3
Importance of Intelligence and Intelligence Sharing..........................................................4
Importance of Fusion, Including Non-Traditional Intelligence/Information......................4
Unique Role of State, Local and Tribal (SLT) Public Sector..............................................6
Benefits of Fusion Being a Team Function.........................................................................7
Potential Risks to Fusion Centers....................................................................................................8
Potential Risk—Underlying Philosophy.............................................................................8
Potential Risk—Civil Liberties Concerns or Violations.....................................................9
Evolution of Fusion Center Concept.............................................................................................13
Intelligence-Led Policing and Other Policing Models............................................................13
H IDTA .......................................................................................................................... ........... 14
Grassroots Support—Governors and Homeland Security Advisors.......................................15
Shift in Homeland Defense and Security Responsibility........................................................15
Characteristics of State/Regional Fusion Centers.........................................................................16
Ownership/Stewardship .......................................................................................................... 17
Multiple Fusion Centers..........................................................................................................18
Miss ion/Scope .................................................................................................................. ....... 18
All-Cr imes ........................................................................................................................ 19
All-Haza rds ....................................................................................................................... 19
Operational v. Analytical.........................................................................................................20
Prevention and/or Response....................................................................................................20
Prevention ......................................................................................................................... 21
Response ........................................................................................................................... 21
Proactive v. Reactive...............................................................................................................22
Access to Information/Intelligence.........................................................................................22
Clearance s ......................................................................................................................... 23
Classified Systems Access................................................................................................23
Responsibility to Share Replaces Need to Know..............................................................24
Information/Intelligence Sharing and Management................................................................25
Access to Private Sector Systems.....................................................................................26
Lack of Interoperability of Systems..................................................................................26
Plethora of Federally-Sponsored Systems........................................................................26
Over-classification and Excessive Number of Security/Handling Instructions................27
Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU).....................................................................................28
Over-c lassification ............................................................................................................ 28
Funding: A State Perspective...................................................................................................29
St affi ng ....................................................................................................................... ............. 30
Law Enforcement Personnel.............................................................................................30
Non-Sworn Personnel from Law Enforcement Agencies.................................................31
Non-Law Enforcement Personnel.....................................................................................31
Federalism and the Federal Role in Fusion Centers......................................................................32
Recognition of Homeland Security Role for Non-Traditional Actors.....................................34
Federal Fusion Center Guidelines...........................................................................................35
Fusion Process Technical Assistance Program........................................................................36
Federal Financial Support for Fusion Centers.........................................................................36
Human Capital Support...........................................................................................................40
“Lanes in the Road”—Roles and Responsibilities of Federal Detailees...........................42
Enhanced Information Sharing................................................................................................43
Congressional Oversight and Funding....................................................................................45
Promulgation of Federal Regulations—28 CFR, Part 23........................................................46
Private Sector Purposes and Roles in Fusion Centers...................................................................47
Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs)...............................................................47
Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII)...............................................................48
Privacy Concerns and Private Sector Data Use by the Federal Government..........................48
Fusion Center Challenges and Potential Options for Congress.....................................................49
I. Federal Challenges and Potential Options for Congress......................................................49
Option 1: Draft a National Fusion Center Strategy.................................................................49
Option 2: Answer the Sustainment Funding Question............................................................50
2a. Status Quo...................................................................................................................50
2b. Status Quo “Plus”—Enhance Flexibility of the Current HSGP or Establish a
Fusion Center Grant Program Within HSGP.................................................................51
2c. Develop a Sustainment Funding Approach.................................................................52
2d. Direct and Sustainable Fusion Center Functional Support.........................................52
Option 3: Training...................................................................................................................53
3a. Philosophy—Develop National Intelligence and Information Lexicon and
Standards for Fusion Centers.........................................................................................54
3b. Enhance Civil Liberties and Privacy Training............................................................54
3b-Part II. Enhance Training of 28 CFR, Part 23..............................................................55
3c. Establish a Fusion Center Mentor Program................................................................55
3d. Enhance Private Sector Outreach and Information.....................................................56
3e. Enhance Public Sector Outreach.................................................................................57
3f. Additional Training for SLT Cleared Personnel..........................................................57
Option 4: Build Additional Linkages to the Federal Intelligence Community.......................58
4a. Formalizing, Creating a Statutory Basis For, and Strengthening the
Interagency Threat Assessment Coordination Group....................................................58
4b. Intelligence Analyst Exchange—Fusion Centers and NCTC Directorate of
Intelligence ................................................................................................................... .59
4c. Draft a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Concerning the Potential Nexus
Between Criminal Activity and Terrorism.....................................................................60
4d. Enhance Mechanisms for Fusion Centers to Task the IC for Information and
4e. Establish a Mechanism for Fusion Centers to Have Input into the NIPF...................61
4f. Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection—A Role for the IRTPA-Established
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.................................................................62
4g. Create a Statutory Basis For an Intelligence “Confidence” Ranking System
for All Federal Intelligence Products.............................................................................63
Option 5: Consider Structural Issues.......................................................................................64
5a. Support the Current Path of Development..................................................................64
5b. Support the Designation of One Lead Fusion Center Per State..................................64
5c. Expand the FBI FIGs to be the Federal Strategic Analysis Fusion Centers................65
5d. Establishment of a National Fusion Center Representative Organization..................66
5e. Move Toward Regional Fusion Centers......................................................................68
Option 6: Enhance Information Access and Management......................................................69
6a: Federal Regulations of SLT Criminal Intelligence Systems—28 CFR, Part 23.........69
6b. Require All Federally Funded Systems to be Interoperable........................................70
6c. Standardize Reporting Formats...................................................................................70
6d. Consolidate Federal Information Sharing Systems.....................................................71
6e. Consider Increasing the Number of Cleared SLT Personnel at Fusion Centers..........71
6f. Urge Compliance with Intelligence Reform Act and 9/11 Commission
Option 7: Create a True Trusted Partnership...........................................................................72
Option 7a. Enhance Coordination Efforts Through Personnel Exchanges.......................74
II. Fusion Center Options With No Unique Federal Remedy.................................................74
State Legal Authorities......................................................................................................74
State Option 1: Add or Revise State Legal Authorities.....................................................74
State Option 2: Consider Revising Statutory Language Impeding Information
Sharing ........................................................................................................................ ... 75
State Fusion Center Personnel and Management Issues...................................................75
Personnel Option 1: Selection of Fusion Center Leaders.................................................75
Personnel Option 2: Assignment and Performance of Fusion Center Personnel..............75
Personnel Option 3: Employee Performance Metrics.......................................................76
Option 4: Sub-State Competition and Lack of Planning...................................................76
Option 5: How States Can Achieve Enhanced Buy-In......................................................77
Figure 1. Organizational Network Models....................................................................................67
Figure A-1. The Intelligence Cycle...............................................................................................79
Figure B-1. Map of Current and Planned Fusion Centers.............................................................81
Table 1. FBI and DHS Interaction with Fusion Centers................................................................41
Appendix A. Philosophies of Intelligence.....................................................................................78
Appendix B. Map of Current and Planned Fusion Centers...........................................................81
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................82
The creation of post-9/11 intelligence/information1 fusion centers2 does not represent a totally
new concept, but suggests an extension of pre-9/11 state and local law enforcement intelligence
activities. Most state police/bureau of investigation agencies have run intelligence or analytic
units for decades. Many of the fusion centers examined for this report were the outgrowth of
those units, prompting some to refer to fusion centers as ‘state police intelligence units on
steroids.” Conceptually, fusion centers differ from their predecessors in that they are intended to
broaden sources of data for analysis and integration beyond criminal intelligence, to include
federal intelligence as well as public and private sector data. Furthermore, fusion centers broaden
the scope of state and local analysis to include homeland security and counterterrorism issues.
Despite being an expansion of existing sub-federal intelligence/information activities, fusion
centers represent a fundamental change in the philosophy toward homeland defense and law
enforcement. The rise of fusion centers is representative of a recognition that non-traditional
actors—state and local law enforcement and public safety agencies—have an important role to
play in homeland defense and security. In addition, there has been a shift towards a more
proactive approach to law enforcement in the United States.
Numerous national strategies have assessed the primary threat to U.S. national security as 3
terrorism, both at home and abroad. Indeed, the National Strategy on Homeland Security
provides that “the American People and way of life are the primary targets of our [terrorist] 4
enemy and our highest protection priority.” The means for combating this threat are broad and
1 Intelligence is information to which value has been added through analysis and is collected in response to the needs of
policymakers. At the most generic level, there are two types of intelligence: raw and finished. Raw intelligence is that
which has not been vetted, verified and validated. Finished intelligence, which includes information of unknown
credibility, has been through an analytical process which has resulted in conclusions and judgments being made. As
opposed to evidence, which is generally gathered in support of a prosecution, intelligence is gathered to inform
policymakers and those individuals responsible for taking actions, including national security, law enforcement and
public safety officials. While intelligence may occasionally be introduced into legal proceedings, generally it is not.
The distinction between intelligence and information is discussed at length in Appendix A.
2 The Fusion Center Guidelines define a fusion center as “a collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide
resources, expertise, and information to the center with the goal of maximizing their ability to detect, prevent,
investigate, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity.” Fusion Center Guidelines: Developing and Sharing
Information and Intelligence in a New Era, August 2006, available from http://it.ojp.gov/documents/
fusion_center_guidelines_law_enforcement.pdf, accessed on June 26, 2007, p. 2. Some apply this definition broadly to
include any multi-jurisdictional anti-crime or response effort that may utilize intelligence and/or information, to include
federally-owned and operated collaborative efforts, like FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) or High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). The authors, however, limit their discussion of fusion centers to those 40+ largely
state and regional entities created to enhance the ability of the jurisdiction to prevent, mitigate, and in some cases,
respond and recover, from man-made threats, attacks, and natural disasters.
3 For example, the National Strategy on Counterterrorism states that “The paradigm for combating terrorism now
involves the application of all elements of our national power and influence. Not only do we employ military power,
we use diplomatic, financial, intelligence, and law enforcement activities to protect the Homeland and extend our
defenses, disrupt terrorist operations, and deprive our enemies of what they need to operate and survive.” See The
National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, September 2006, p. 1. and According to the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI), “Terrorist threats to the Homeland, to our national security interests, and to our allies remain the
pre-eminent challenge to the Intelligence Community....” See “Annual Threat Assessment of the Director of National
Intelligence,” Testimony of Ambassador John D. Negroponte, Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
January 11, 2007, p. 2.
4 See The National Strategy on Homeland Security, July 2002, p. 7.
encompass all elements of national power, to include non traditional sectors. From a law
enforcement perspective, it has been argued that state and regional intelligence fusion centers,
particularly when networked together nationally, represent a proactive tool to be used to fight a
global jihadist adversary which has both centralized and decentralized elements. This network of
fusion centers is envisioned as a central node in sharing terrorism, homeland security, and law
enforcement information with state, local, regional, and tribal law enforcement and security 5
Today, there are over 40 intelligence fusion centers across the country (see Appendix B for a map
and list of these centers). Research suggests that there is no “one-size-fits-all” model for these
centers and there are significant differences between them. There are, however, some common
themes, and more importantly, common questions, that arise when examining fusion centers, to
• Do fusion centers solve the pre-9/11 information sharing problems, and as such,
make Americans safer?
• Can fusion centers work if they aren’t part of an integrated philosophy of
intelligence and security?
• Who “owns” and benefits from fusion centers? Who should staff, fund, and
oversee them? What role, if any, should fusion centers play in the Intelligence
Community (IC), and what role should federal agencies play in fusion centers, to
• Do fusion centers represent a shift in the security v. civil liberties pendulum?
How active and pro-active, if at all, should fusion centers be in the collection of
intelligence that is not directly tied to a specific and identifiable criminal act?
• There is no single model for how each center is structured or operates. Is some
basic level of common standards necessary in order for fusion centers to offer a
national benefit? Moreover, does the federal government have an integrated
national strategy towards fusion centers?
• Is the current configuration of 40 plus fusion centers, with, in some cases, several
operating within one state, the most efficient organizational structure?
• Is the current approach to creating, authorizing, funding, and supporting fusion
centers sustainable? What are the risks to the fusion center concept and how have
those risks been specifically weighed and balanced against the stated goals of
fusion center operations?
In order to provide context for the analysis of these fundamental questions, this report will
highlight how the concept and development of these centers continue to evolve, as well as
provide an overview of current national trends in fusion centers, the federal role in supporting
such centers, and the role of the private sector. Finally, the report will provide Congress with a
5 This vision is promoted by the Program Manager - Information Sharing Environment (PM - ISE), which was created
by Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Section 1016 and was placed under the administration
of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The functions, but not necessarily the authorities, of the ISE
transcend the boundaries of the federal intelligence and law enforcement communities. See Chapter Seven “Sharing
with Partners Outside the Federal Government,” in Information Sharing Environment Implementation Plan, Office of
the Director of National Intelligence, November 2006.
number of legislative options for consideration. Prior to examining these topics, it is necessary to
consider the value proposition these centers pose, as well as potential risks to fusion center
Conceptually, the argument that fusion centers represent a vital part of our nation’s homeland
security relies on at least four presumptions:
• Intelligence, and the intelligence process, plays a vital role in preventing terrorist
• It is essential to fuse a broader range of data, including non-traditional source
data, to create a more comprehensive threat picture.
• State, local, and tribal law enforcement and public sector agencies are in a unique
position to make observations and collect information that may be central to the
type of threat assessment referenced above.
• Having fusion activities take place at the sub-federal level can benefit state and
local communities, and possibly have national benefits as well.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has stated that the value of fusion centers to both
DHS and state and local authorities includes a number of common and distinct functions. The
following four areas were assessed by DHS as being common benefits fusion centers would yield
to DHS and state and local authorities:
• Clearly defined information gathering requirements.
• Improved intelligence analysis and production capabilities.
• Improved information/intelligence sharing and dissemination.
• Improved prevention, protection, response, and recovery capabilities.6
DHS also outlined areas of how it and state and local authorities would benefit uniquely from
participation in the fusion centers. Unique benefits to DHS include:
• Improved information flow from state and local entities to DHS.
• Improved situational awareness.
• Improved access to local officials.
• Consultation on state and local issues.
• Access to non-traditional information sources.
According to DHS, the unique benefit of fusion centers to state and local authorities includes:
6 DHS, Support Implementation Plan for State and Local Fusion Centers: Executive Summary, June 2006.
• Improved information flow from DHS to states and localities.
• Increased on-site intelligence and DHS law enforcement expertise and
• Clearly defined DHS entry point.
• Insight into federal priorities.
• Participation in dialogue concerning threats.
The extent to which DHS’s vision of the fusion center value proposition has developed will be
addressed throughout this report. Given that the tenure of DHS Office of Intelligence and
Analysis (OIA) personnel detailed to fusion centers is less than one year, it could be argued that it
may be premature to assess the extent to which DHS’s vision for fusion center payoffs is being
realized. However, as will be further explained below, research indicates that DHS personnel are
being used currently more as a “clearly defined DHS entry point,” than as tools to improve
“...intelligence analysis and production capabilities.” Moreover, the development of a process for
gathering information according to clearly defined information requirements in fusion centers
To briefly expand upon the four presumptions which are often cited in arguments that fusion
centers are valuable to homeland security, it is important to first focus on the role of intelligence
in homeland security, especially with regard to prevention efforts. At the First Annual National
Fusion Center Conference, Secretary Chertoff reiterated to the hundreds of state and local
conference participants that he views intelligence as an early warning system that allows public 7
safety officials to get a jump on the adversary. The 9/11 Commission states, “Not only does good
intelligence win wars, but the best intelligence enables us to prevent them from happening 8
altogether.” All major post-9/11 government reorganizations, legislation, and programs have
emphasized the importance of intelligence in preventing, mitigating, and responding to future
terrorist attacks. This includes the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, specifically
the Department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the passage of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2005 (P.L. 108-458), intelligence sharing provisions of the
USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56), as well as the creation of the Intelligence Sharing Environment
(ISE), among numerous other developments.
Another presumption that is often cited is that to prevent attacks intelligence needs to include a
broad range of data, including that from non-traditional sources—state and local homeland th
security-related personnel and the private sector. The Commission found that the September 11
7 Derived from CRS transcription of Secretary Chertoff’s Keynote Address to the first annual National Fusion Center
Conference, March 6, 2007.
8 The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission of Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
Authorized Edition (New York: WW Norton & Company, 2004), 420.
fell into the void between foreign and domestic threats. The foreign intelligence agencies
were watching overseas, alert to foreign threats to U.S. interests there. The domestic agencies 9
were waiting for evidence of a domestic threat from sleeper cells within the United States.
As such, the 9/11 Commission concluded there was a necessity for fusing domestic and foreign
Fusing foreign intelligence with a wide spectrum of domestic information is the stated primary
purpose of most fusion centers. Locally gathered information collected from a broad array of law
enforcement, public health and safety, as well as private sector sources, is fused with intelligence
collected and produced by the federal Intelligence Community to better understand threat and
assist in directing security resources. The authors of the Fusion Center Guidelines: Developing
and Sharing Information and Intelligence in a New Era stated:
Data fusion involves the exchange of information from different sources—including law
enforcement, public safety, and the private sector—and, with analysis, can result in
meaningful and actionable intelligence and information. The fusion process turns this 10
information and intelligence into actionable knowledge.
The Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) finds that this process should be continual,
“...More than one-time collection of law enforcement and/or terrorism-related intelligence
information and it goes beyond establishing an intelligence center or creating a computer 11
network.... Furthermore, HSAC believes that out of the fusion process,
one of the principal outcomes should be the identification of terrorism-related leads—that is,
any nexus between crime-related information and other information collected by State, local, 12
tribal, and private entities and a terrorist organization and/or attack.
By fusing state and local information with federal threat intelligence, it could be argued, fusion
centers serve as a vital linkage or “translator” for state and local authorities. For example, when a
bombing occurs overseas, it can be very helpful for modus operandi and other tactical
information surrounding that bombing to be communicated to states and localities in a timely
fashion so they may align their protective resources accordingly. The fusion centers, through their
connectivity with the federal Intelligence Community via either systems and/or federal personnel
collocated at the centers, can serve as the single focal point for timely dissemination of that
information. The imperative, according to Charles Allen, Chief Intelligence Officer at DHS, is to
push the defensive perimeter outward. According to Allen:
Our ability to move, analyze, and act on information is our greatest strength. And, we must
use the (national fusion center) information in that network to push our defensive perimeter 13
9 The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission of Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
10 See Fusion Center Guideline: Developing and Sharing Information and Intelligence in a New Era, August 2006, p.
11 See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Advisory Council, Intelligence and Information
Sharing Initiative: Homeland Security Intelligence and Information Fusion, April 28, 2005, p. 3.
13 Derived from CRS transcription of speech by Charles Allen at the First Annual National Fusion Center Conference,
March 6, 2007.
While providing an important indication and warning function in a counterterrorism sense, the
fusion process can also be harnessed for preventing other types of crime, and/or responding to
natural disasters as will be discussed in-depth below.
It has been argued that state, local, tribal law enforcement, first responders, and other public and
private sector entities are uniquely positioned to collect information to identify emerging threats
and assist in the development of a more comprehensive threat assessment. Secretary Chertoff,
speaking from his experience as a former federal prosecutor and judge, has noted that many
organized crime cases were intelligence driven and that state and local police were best placed to 14
discover anomalies in their communities that can lead to the prevention of violent acts.
Although the fusion process as outlined above goes beyond law enforcement or criminal
intelligence, the counterterrorism role of state and local law enforcement has been outlined in 15
numerous reports. Those who agree with Secretary Chertoff are apt to argue that the 800,000
plus law enforcement officers across the country know their communities most intimately and,
therefore, are best placed to function as the “eyes and ears” of an extended national security
community. They have the experience to recognize what constitutes anomalous behavior in their
areas of responsibility and can either stop it at the point of discovery (a more traditional law
enforcement approach) or follow the anomaly or criminal behavior, either unilaterally or jointly
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to extract the maximum intelligence value from 16
the activity (a more intelligence-based approach).
Numerous examples are cited by officials as demonstrating the counterterrorism role that state,
local, and tribal governments and, by extension, fusion centers which have law enforcement as
their core function, can play. Ambassador Thomas McNamara—the Program Manager for the 17
Information Sharing Environment—cited three examples at the First Annual National Fusion
Center Conference. The first was a narcotics investigation conducted by federal, state, and local
law enforcement that “...revealed a Canadian-based organization supplying precursor chemicals
to Mexican methamphetamine producers was in fact a Hezbollah support cell.” A second case
involved a local law enforcement investigation in Torrance, California in which an individual
engaged in a series of gas station robberies dropped his cell phone. The phone was exploited by
law enforcement officers who “... uncovered a homegrown Jihadist cell planning a series of
attacks.” Another investigation into cigarette smuggling by a county sheriffs office “... uncovered 18
a Hezbollah support cell operating in several states.” One additional incident often cited case
15 See When Terrorism Hits Home: How Prepared Are State and Local Law Enforcement (RAND, 2004) and State and
Local Intelligence in the War on Terrorism (RAND 2005). See also The Impact of Terrorism on State Law
Enforcement: Adjusting to New Role and Changing Conditions, April 2005, The Council of State Governments and
Eastern Kentucky University.
16 At the Federal level, some have argued the FBI has shifted between these two approaches over time. See “FBI Alters
Tactics in Fight Against Terrorists,” in Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2007.
17 The Information Sharing Environment was established pursuant to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458), section 1016.
18 See “Building a Trusted Partnership,” Remarks of Ambassador Thomas McNamara at the National Fusion Center
Conference, Destin, Florida, March 6, 2007, p. 2.
originated in Los Angeles, California where an investigation of a car theft ring led to the 19
discovery of a domestic group supporting Chechen terrorists.
One school of thought suggests that sound law enforcement alone can disrupt terrorist plots. This
theory may be accurate as it pertains to individual terrorists or terrorist groups that are not
particularly well-trained or resourced and, as a result, may be more aspirational than operational.
However unsophisticated and low-tech these amateur extremist groups may be, their intent is
hostile and their activities are, it could be argued, worthy of disruption, generally through law 20
enforcement actions. One important question regarding this theory is—are basic law
enforcement tools, which demand a criminal predicate prior to the collection of intelligence, 21
likely to only uncover less sophisticated terrorists and forms of terrorist activity? Are current
law enforcement methodologies, including those that are deemed “proactive,” such as
intelligence-led policing, effective tools for discovering the unknowns about potential terrorist 22
activity in one’s community, or are different approaches necessary? It could be argued that
sophisticated terrorist operatives may be so well-trained as to avoid any potential illegal activity
that may undermine their inimical plots. These operatives may dissociate themselves from direct
interaction with supporters who may engage in criminal acts. Do all terrorists or terrorist
supporters within the United States engage in criminal activity? The answers to this question are
arguable. If, however, the premise that sophisticated terrorists do not necessarily engage in
criminal activity is accepted, is reactive and ex post facto collection of intelligence sufficient to 23
uncovering sophisticated terrorist plots? Moreover, what are the limits of aggressive and pro-
active intelligence collection by state, local and tribal security and law enforcement personnel?
Secretary Chertoff has also stated that fusion centers are one of the most important tools that the
community has to collect and connect the dots that can protect people and critical infrastructure.
He was, however, cautious to stipulate that he views these centers as entities of the state and local
governments that established them, and that the federal government had no intention of
controlling the centers. According to Secretary Chertoff, the desired “end state” is as follows:
19 See “Criminal Intent: An L.A. Police Bust Shows New Tactics for Fighting Terror—Officers Use Local Laws to
Arrest Small Offenders with High-Risk Potential—Foiling a Chechen ‘Charity’,” in Wall Street Journal, December 29,
2006, p. A1.
20 See Daniel L. Byman, “The Rise of Low-Tech Terrorism,” in Washington Post, May 6, 2007, p. B3. An example
which may support Byman’s argument is the recent arrest of a group of men accused of plotting to attack a military
base in New Jersey (NJ). The would be terrorists were ultimately discovered because they took one of their terrorism
training videos into a Circuit City store to be copied into DVD format. While the clerk’s actions in calling the local
police, who subsequently called NJ Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, are laudable, one could question
whether a well-trained terrorist operative would have engaged in such amateur behavior.
21 Levels of sophistication in terrorist activity would include the extent to which terrorists have received training—and
are experienced in—secure communications; clandestine movement of funds; spotting, assessment, and recruitment of
suicide bombers to implement attacks; target selection (including political implications of various attacks); logistics and
technical aspects of bomb-making and delivery, among other functions.
22 Intelligence-Led Policing is defined as “...a collaborative enterprise based on improved intelligence operational and
community-oriented policing and problem solving...information sharing must become a formal policy not an informal
practice. Most important, intelligence must be contingent on quality analysis of data.” See U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Intelligence-Led Policing: The New Intelligence Architecture, September 2005.
23 For a description of criminal activity terrorists may engage in to support operational or logistical activities see CRS
Report RL34014, Terrorist Precursor Crimes: Issues and Options for Congress, by Siobhan O’Neil.
Ultimately, what we want to do is not create a single [fusion center], but a network of
[centers] all across the country, a network which is visible not only to us at the federal level,
but as important, if not more important visible to each of you working in your own
communities so you can leverage all the information gathered across the country to help you 24
carry our your very important objectives.
The Secretary’s emphasis on the importance of fusion centers serving the state and local 25
communities that largely “own” and operate them has been echoed by others. A counter-
argument for concentrating fusion resources at the sub-federal level suggests that state and local
authorities may not have the necessary resources and experience to conduct the level of advanced
and/or strategic analysis necessary for achieving true “fusion.”
There are several potential risks associated with fusion center development. One risk focuses on
the hazards associated with creating fusion centers without the requisite philosophical and
organizational changes necessary within the intelligence and law enforcement communities to
sustain the work of the centers. The other risks focus on factors that could ultimately diminish
political and popular support for fusion centers, and ultimately result in their demise or
marginalized contribution to the national homeland security mission.
Some might argue that the rise of state and regional fusion centers may have been premature—
that is, the establishment of these entities in the absence of a common understanding of the
underlying discipline. Creating a fusion center is a tangible action that seeks to enhance state
and/or regional coordination and cooperation to prevent and mitigate, and in some cases, respond
and recover from, homeland security threats. However, if fusion center development occurs
devoid of a more fundamental transformation, is any real progress made? Is the country any safer
or more prepared with fusion centers or have we created a false sense of security? Given recent
terrorist activity overseas, including plots and activity in the United Kingdom, what should fusion
centers do to recognize potential indicators of similar plots in the homeland? It could be argued
that if information flow into fusion centers is limited, the quality of the information is
questionable, and the center doesn’t have personnel with the appropriate skill sets to understand
the information, then the end result may not provide value. Furthermore, if fusion center
constituent agencies don’t buy into a common fusion and prevention philosophy that arguably
needs to accompany fusion centers (i.e., responsibility for security, a proactive approach, and
24 Derived from CRS transcription of Secretary Chertoff’s Keynote Address to the first annual National Fusion Center
Conference, March 6, 2007.
25 For example, Charlie Allen, DHS Chief Intelligence Officer, has made numerous statements regarding the
simultaneous benefits of fusion centers at both the state and local level, for example, Charlie Allen, “Assessment of
Information Sharing Centers,” Testimony before the Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment
Subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee, September 7, 2006, transcript provided by Federal News,
available from http://www.lexis.com, accessed on July 26, 2007. Kentucky officials took a similar view about how
their center will benefit the state and its citizens, see Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, “Governor Ernie
Fletcher Unveils Intelligence Center to Help Federal, State Agencies Prevent and Track Criminal Activity,” Press
Release, October 11, 2006, available from http://www.kentucky.gov/Newsroom/justice/pr1011a.htm, accessed on July
need for understanding their environment to discern potential threats) can fusion centers be
It is also important to ask: If fusion centers offer some benefit, who are the beneficiaries? Are the
benefits limited to the states and regions the fusion centers were largely designed to serve, given
the centers were largely molded by the needs, politics, and resources of the given jurisdiction? Or,
is there a “free-rider” benefit for the federal government and the nation as a whole? It could be
argued that with little or no investment in state and/or regional fusion centers, the federal
government stands to gain some benefit. If it is possible for state and regional fusion centers to
serve state, local, regional, and national interests, what is an equitable division of responsibility,
labor, and resources?
Another philosophical concern stems from the different conceptions of intelligence among the
intelligence and law enforcement communities (see Appendix A). In the absence of a common
understanding about what constitutes intelligence, fusion center development and progress may
be impeded. Ultimately, without a common framework among disparate fusion centers and other
homeland security agencies, it is possible that benefits of the their efforts will remain narrow,
rather than having a national impact. While fusion center guidelines (discussed more in-depth
below) represent a movement to provide fusion centers with a common framework, and were
generally well-received by the centers, arguably, the Guidelines have the following limitations:
(1) they are voluntary, (2) the philosophy outlined in them is generic and does not translate theory
into practice, and (3) they are oriented toward the mechanics of fusion center establishment.
The essence of fusion, as outlined above, is the integration and analysis of existing streams of
information and intelligence for actionable public policy ends—be they counterterrorism, broader
counter-crime issues, or natural disaster response. Embedded in the fusion process is the
assumption that the end product of the fusion process can lead to a more targeted collection of
new intelligence, to include private sector data, which can help to prevent crime. It could be
argued that through a more pro-active and targeted intelligence process, one that has as its starting
point an intelligence gap, or unknown about a particular threat, it is possible that sophisticated
criminal groups could be undermined. However, the potential fusion center use of private sector
data, the adoption of a more proactive approach, and the collection of intelligence by fusion
center staff and partners has led to questions about possible civil liberties abuses. Director of
National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, acknowledges the difficulty of balancing effective
intelligence efforts with civil liberties concerns, stating:
The intelligence community has an obligation to better identify and counter threats to
Americans while still safeguarding their privacy. But the task is [a] inherently a difficult
one...[one] challenge is determining how and when it is appropriate to conduct surveillance
on a group of Americans who are, say, influenced by al Qaeda’s jihadist philosophy. On one
level, they are U.S. citizens engaging in free speech and associating freely with one another. 26
On another, they could be plotting terrorist attacks that could kill hundreds of people.
Arguments against fusion centers often center around the idea that such centers are essentially
pre-emptive law enforcement—that intelligence gathered in the absence of a criminal predicate is
26 Mike McConnell, “Overhauling Intelligence,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007.
unlawfully gathered intelligence. The argument is that the further law enforcement, public safety
and private sector representatives get away from a criminal predicate, the greater the chances that
civil liberties may be violated. Furthermore, it could be argued that one of the risks to the fusion
center concept is that individuals who do not necessarily have the appropriate law enforcement or 27
broader intelligence training will engage in intelligence collection that is not supported by law.
The concern is to what extent, if at all, First Amendment protected activities may be jeopardized
by fusion center activities. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “We’re
setting up essentially a domestic intelligence agency, and we’re doing it without having a full 28
debate about the risks to privacy and civil liberties.” Furthermore, the ACLU is also concerned
with having DHS perform a coordinating role at the federal level with respect to these centers.
“We are granting extraordinary powers to one agency, without adequate transparency or 29
safeguards, that hasn’t shown Congress that it’s ready for the job.”
Most of the fusion center representatives interviewed for this report appeared to be aware of the
need to be respectful of privacy and civil liberties as a result of 28 CFR Part 23, the Fusion Center 3031
Guidelines, the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP), DHS/Department of
Justice (DOJ)-sponsored fusion center conferences, and DHS—provided Technical Assistance
Training, as well as interactions with peer fusion centers. Several fusion centers had, or were in
the process of creating, a governance board, to serve an oversight function, especially on civil
liberty concerns. In one case, a fusion center cited concern for civil liberties as the reason it had
specifically chosen a former judge to sit on its governing board. Many centers also claim to have
privacy policies, a couple of which were reviewed by local ACLU or other civil liberties 32
However, few of the centers had aggressive outreach programs to explain to the public the type of
intelligence activities their centers could and could not engage in. There are exceptions; for
example, one state fusion center works closely with the most active civil liberties organization in
the state, provides the center’s standard operating procedures to the public, and has appointed a
state attorney general office representative to the center’s governing board in order to pro-actively 33
address civil liberties issues. Another state center has brought in a nonprofit research and
training organization to audit their operations, plans to invite civil liberties groups into the center
to show its operations, and even stenciled the First Amendment and the following quote by Harry
Truman on its walls:
27 Some might argue that the entire concept for fusion centers, particularly those aspects involving the incorporation of
private sector data that may not be accurate or based on any criminal predicate is fundamentally flawed. If there is little
legal recourse for citizens to challenge information related to them that resides in commercially available databases,
and such information is included in fusion center operations, privacy rights and civil liberties could be undermined.
28 See Shane Harris, “Issues and Ideas - Fusion Centers Raise a Fuss,” in National Journal, February 10, 2007.
30 One of the prominent Fusion Center Guidelines recommends fusion centers “Develop, publish, and adhere to a
privacy and civil rights policy.” See U.S. Department of Homeland Security & U.S. Department of Justice, Fusion
Center Guidelines: Developing and Sharing Information and Intelligence in a New Era, available from
http://it.ojp.gov/documents/fusion_center_guidelines_law_enforcement.pdf, accessed on May 31, 2007, p. 49.
31 Available at http://www.it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=93 (accessed June 5, 2007).
32 Interview with state fusion center representative, April 23, 2007.
33 Interview with state fusion center representative, May 1, 2007.
In a free country we punish men for the crimes they commit but never for the opinions they 34
An official from a fusion center that advocated a proactive approach to civil liberties-related
outreach warned colleagues of the dangers of civil liberties abuses, saying, “even the perception 35
of abuse associated with a single center, will be devastating for us all.”
Those centers not engaged in a proactive civil liberties outreach effort cited the lack of need
and/or the lack of funds as impediments for undertaking such an effort. Several fusion centers
suggested they did not need such a proactive outreach program on civil liberties because there
had been no local complaints about civil liberties abuses. In a few cases, fusion centers had done
targeted outreach to assure specific communities that the fusion center and other law enforcement
agencies were not out to target them, but these programs did not reach a large audience. Others
suggested that other state/local agencies were responsible for such programs (although most of
them were described as general homeland security-related, rather than specific to concerns related
to the fusion center). In several cases, fusion centers suggested they wanted to do a public
relations campaign, but they didn’t have the necessary funds.
While this report is not meant to provide an authoritative legal interpretation of related law, due to
disparate state laws authorizing fusion center or criminal intelligence activities, for purposes of
criminal intelligence systems, most fusion centers operate under federal regulations, in addition to 36
any applicable state policies, laws or regulations. At the federal level, the authorities which
guide the FBI in collection of intelligence are the Attorney General’s Guidelines for FBI National 37
Security Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection. At the state and local levels, if there
is any analogue to the Attorney General’s guidelines for multi-jurisdictional criminal intelligence
systems, it is 28 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) -(Judicial Administration), Chapter 1
(Department of Justice), Part 23 (criminal intelligence systems operating policies). Many centers
cite 28 CFR, Part 23 as the guiding legal mechanism for their criminal intelligence operations. By
its terms, 28 CFR, Part 23, applies to “all criminal intelligence systems operating through support
under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended.” From the
perspective of intelligence collection, the 28 CFR, Part 23 standard is reasonable suspicion. One
of the operating principles of 28 CFR, Part 23 is that “A project shall collect and maintain
criminal intelligence information concerning an individual only if there is reasonable suspicion
that the individual is involved in criminal conduct or activity and the information is relevant to 38
that criminal conduct or activity.” Further:
34 Interview with state fusion center representative, May 17, 2007.
35 Remarks by State Fusion Center Official, National Fusion Center Conference, CRS Notes, March 6, 2007.
36 See e.g. Burns Ind. Code Ann. §§5-2-4-1, 10-19-10-1 through 10-1-10-4; Va. Code Ann §§52-47, 44-146.22 note.
37 The Guidelines stipulate three level of investigation into threats - threat assessments, preliminary investigation, and
full field investigation; each level has certain legal thresholds and investigative tools attached to it. Depending on
available information, these investigative tools and techniques range from non-intrusive (open source collection) to
intrusive (electronic surveillance). The least intrusive of all level of investigation is the threat assessment, which allows
the FBI to pro-actively “...use available information to identify terrorist threats and activities...when the FBI receives
information or an allegation about possible terrorist activity, and the matter can be checked out promptly through
relatively non-intrusive techniques.” See U.S. Department of Justice, Fact Sheet, Attorney General’s Guidelines for
FBI National Security Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection, November 3, 2003, pp. 2-3.
38 See 28 CFR, Part 23, Section 23.20 (a) and (c) (Operating Principles).
Reasonable Suspicion or Criminal Predicate is established when information exists which
established sufficient facts to give a trained law enforcement or criminal investigative agency
officer, investigator, or employee a basis to believe that there is a reasonable possibility that 39
an individuals or organization is involved in a definable criminal activity or enterprise.
The question of how to balance civil liberties with security remains an open issue Congress and
the country often weighs. The balancing is, arguably, a moving target driven by the country’s
collective sense of security and safety. The nation cannot necessarily have absolute security, nor
absolute liberty; a pendulum swings between relative amounts of each of these “public goods.”
The question, to which there is no definitive answer, raised here is how aggressive should fusion
centers be in pro-actively collecting and analyzing intelligence that may go beyond that which
may be entered into criminal intelligence systems that fall under federal law? Which entity at the
federal level is auditing the activities of fusion centers to ensure civil liberties are not violated?
Given that these centers are creations of state and local governments, should an entity of the
federal government be the ultimate arbiter of civil liberties protection?
Some homeland security observers suggest that the rush to establish and enhance state fusion
centers is a post-9/11 reaction and that over time some of the centers may dissolve. It could be
argued that in the absence of another terrorist attack or catastrophic natural disaster, over the
course of the next 5 to 10 years, state and regional fusion centers may be eliminated and/or
replaced by regional fusion organizations. The state fusion regional representation organizations
may be an entity to facilitate future center consolidation efforts. Issues that may lead to state and
regional fusion center consolidation into regional organizations include:
• Perceived lack of need by state leaders;
• State and federal financial constraints;
• Duplication of effort without showing tangible products and services within a
given center; and
• Reduction of risks to a given geographic location.
Alternatively, if there are additional terrorist attacks or natural disasters in the near future and
fusion centers can demonstrate their tangible value by serving as proactive, analytic and/or
operational information/intelligence hubs, it is plausible that substantial additional federal, state,
and local funds may flow to these centers.
A potentially time-related risk is the threat diminished or eliminated federal and/or state funding
poses to fusion center development. If the United States is not the target of a successful terrorist
attack, homeland security funding, arguably, may decrease. If overall federal funding levels for
homeland security decrease, it is possible that there will be some level of decrease in Homeland 40
Security Grant Program (HSGP) funding. Such a decrease might force states to re-prioritize
40 Homeland Security Grant Program is comprised of five interconnected grant programs: (1) State Homeland Security
Program, (2) Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), (3) the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP),
funds for those programs deemed the most critical to their jurisdiction. Specific federal programs
that fund and/or support fusion centers (i.e. DHS and FBI detailee programs) could potentially
also suffer under funding cuts. It is unclear how fusion centers would fare in such a situation. It is
likely that the fate of fusion centers would differ drastically from state to state, depending on a
range of factors, to include, their level of maturity, buy-in from other agency partners, their
resource needs, and noted successes, balanced with other critical issues and programs within the
During research for this report, one fusion center official stated that if federal funding went away,
his fusion center would continue to operate, albeit with less staff and possibly with a more limited
scope. It could be argued in some states that fusion centers would not be able to continue long
after federal dollars and support ceases to exist. Others might disagree, believing it is quite
possible that many fusion centers would survive despite dwindling federal support. It is even
possible that many fusion centers would survive even after drastic decline in state and local
funding because states and localities would be in a difficult position to officially dismantle these
As previously mentioned, almost all state and regional fusion centers were created after the th
September 11 attacks. While the attacks were the direct impetus for the creation of most state
and regional centers, the fusion center movement did not occur in a vacuum and can be best
understood as a continuum of a mounting tide. Important influences include the increasing favor
of the Intelligence-Led Policing model, among others; the perception that the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Center structure was successfully enhancing coordination; rising
agreement amongst Governors that each state should have a fusion center; and the support of the
President and key federal homeland security entities, such as the Homeland Security Advisory
Council (HSAC), and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)—Information Sharing
Environment Program Manager’s Office.
In the decade prior to the attacks, the Intelligence-Led Policing (ILP) model41 was gaining favor
in the United States following the dramatic drop in crime in Kent, England, where it was 42
originally developed, and the reported increase in use of the model in Europe and Asia. The
model, according to the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, is a
(4) the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS), and (5) the Citizens Corp Program (CCP). See DHS, Office
of Grants and Training, FY 2007 Homeland Security Grant Program—Program Guidance and Application Kit, January
2007, p. 1.
41 Other policing models such as Community Oriented Policing and Problem Oriented Policing were also gaining
momentum and popularity during this time - each model also relies heavily on intelligence and situational awareness,
although less explicitly than Intelligence-Led Policing.
42 Three years after adopting this policing model, Kent experienced a 24% decrease in crime - US Department of
Justice (DOJ), “Intelligence-Led Policing: The New Intelligence Architecture,” US Department of Justice Website,
September 2005, available from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov, accessed on May 18, 2007 - hereon known as DOJ,
“Intelligence-Led Policing.” Law enforcement agencies in Europe and Asia reportedly were increasingly adopting
collaborative enterprise based on improved intelligence operations and community-oriented
policing and problem solving.... To implement intelligence-led policing, police organizations
need to reevaluate their current policies and protocols. Intelligence must be incorporated into
the planning process to reflect community problems and issues. Information sharing must
become a policy, not an informal practice. Most important, intelligence must be contingent
on quality analysis of data. The development of analytical techniques, training, and technical 43
assistance needs to be supported.
Additional law enforcement strategies, like Community-Oriented Policing (COP) and Problem-
Oriented Policing (POP), which were becoming in vogue during the same period, also rely
heavily on intelligence and situational awareness, although less explicitly than Intelligence-Led 44
Policing. These models highlighted the importance of intelligence and/or situational awareness
in crafting proactive, preventative, and targeted law enforcement strategies. The focus of these
models on both intelligence and the importance of a proactive stance are likely to have influenced 45
the later support for fusion centers.
The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Center model also impacted the rise of state
and regional fusion centers. Since 1990, 28 areas have been designated as HIDTAs across the 46
country. HIDTAs are designed to be multi-agency entities that facilitate the coordination of law
enforcement counterdrug efforts across all levels of government. Prior to 9/11, the benefits of
collocation, coordination of resources, and information sharing across agencies was apparent to
many in the law enforcement communities, and there were several states and regions that were
looking to replicate the HIDTA model in their communities. In one case, a state had discussed
creating a HIDTA-like center in the area of the state that was not serviced by the existing HIDTA 47
prior to 9/11, however, the initiative lacked the political support to facilitate funding. After the 48
attacks, the proposal was revised and soon thereafter became that state’s fusion center. In
several cases, post-9/11 state/regional fusion centers have been located with HIDTA centers, and
in one case, organizationally linked with the local HIDTA—perhaps an indication of the
importance of the HIDTA model influence on the fusion center movement.
intelligence-led policing - PR Newswire Association, “International Spies And Analysts Define New Model For
Intelligence: Global Intelligence Forum Brings Together Twenty-Three Countries Including Saudi Arabia, Japan, And
Israel,” May 23, 1998, available from http://www.lexis.com, accessed on May 21, 2007.
43 DOJ, “Intelligence-Led Policing.,” vii.
44 Ibid., 10-11.
45 It should be noted that many critics of the ILP and COP find the lack of a commonly adopted explicit definition of
the terms leads to confusion. A report on ILP by the Australian national crime and criminal justice research agency
found, “Although there is a growing literature on intelligence-led policing...it has been generally assumed that the term
speaks for itself, and definitions are rare.” It could be argued that these models are more intangible theories that are not
easily translated into strategic actions. As a result, it could be argued that ILP, COP, and other policing models may
mean very different things to different people and even when there is agreement, they are difficult to implement. Quote
from Jerry H. Ratcliffe, “Intelligence-led Policing,” Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends & Issues, No. 248,
April 2003, available from http://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti248.pdf, accessed June 4, 2007.
46 “The High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program: An Overview,” White House Website, available from
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/hidta/overview.html, accessed on May 18, 2007.
47 Interview with state fusion center official, May 4, 2007.
The growing focus on more intelligence-oriented policing models and the success of multi-
agency law enforcement efforts, like the HIDTAs, combined with post-9/11 public demand and
political support to create a strong movement toward including sub-federal law enforcement and
non-traditional stakeholders in counterterrorism. However, unlike HIDTAs, which are largely
federally funded and managed, this new movement was largely a grassroots movement with state
and regional leaders leading the charge. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is an
advocate of the role states and locals would play, stating:
Fundamentally, we recognize that we can’t protect the homeland by just putting a cop out on
the corner of the street. We have too many bridges, roadways, hospitals, schools, tunnels,
trains. You just can’t protect all of the possible terrorist targets. You have to find the bad
guys before they carry out their bad acts. That requires intelligence. And the states and 49
localities are going to finally have to be a major part of that.
This appears to be a manifestation of a fundamental shift in thinking regarding responsibility for
national security in which state and local officials are increasingly taking responsibility for
traditionally conceptualized federal roles. This may have been the result of a belief that regardless
of origin—a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan or a radicalized cell in Lackawanna, NY—
state and local public officials are ultimately responsible for the safety of their citizens.
Furthermore, there was a strong sentiment among state and local officials and law enforcement
agencies that the federal government had not provided enough of the right information and
intelligence to enable them to potentially prevent a future attack or at least mitigate its impact and
Traditionally, national defense and security were the responsibility of the federal government. The
Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) acknowledged this reality when it addressed
intelligence sharing in its 2005 report, which states:
For the most part, terrorism-related information has traditionally been collected outside of
the United States. Typically, the collection of this type of information was viewed as the
responsibility of the intelligence community and, therefore, there was little to no 50
involvement by State and local enforcement entities.
It could also be argued the nature of post-Cold War, transnational, sub-state threats increasingly
requires all levels of government, all levels of law enforcement and a wider spectrum of public
and private officials to work together to protect the United States. This may be especially
important given the possibility that:
49 CNN American Morning, “Breaking News: Bin Laden Tape, Interview With Governor Mitt Romney,” CNN
Transcript, December 16, 2004, available from http://www.lexis.com, accessed May 18, 2007.
50 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Advisory Council, Intelligence and Information Sharing
Initiative: Homeland Security Intelligence & Information Fusion, April 28, 2005, 2.
those wanting to commit acts of terrorism may live in our local communities and be engaged
in criminal and/or other suspicious activity as they plan attacks on targets within the United 51
States and its territories.
There appears to have been two waves of post-9/11 fusion center development: the first occurring
in 2003, and the second wave of fusion centers that gained momentum in approximately 2005.
Based on conversations with some fusion centers, this second wave gained momentum following
the National Governor’s Association (NGA) meeting in 2005. Indeed, the NGA published its
fusion center” ranked as their third priority. The importance of fusion centers to “enhance states’
ability to collect, analyze and disseminate intelligence [and] intelligence sharing among federal,
state, and local government,” was a priority in the previous survey NGA released in January 53
2005. Other catalysts include the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) meeting in
March 2005, the preliminary conclusions of which included that:
each state should establish an information center that serves as a 24/7 “all source,” multi-54
disciplinary, information fusion center.
Many fusion centers also stated that their elected leaders, law enforcement, and other officials
realized that this was a national trend and recognized that the federal government was starting to
provide funding to support existing centers. A defining moment in this realization appears to have
been when the National Governors Association issued its 2007 “A Governor’s Guide to
Homeland Security,” which identified intelligence fusion centers as one of 10 “key points” a new
governor should examine in an effort to enhance their state’s security. Intelligence fusion centers,
according to the NGA, are:
the focal point for information and intelligence sharing among local, state, and federal 55
agencies from a variety of disciplines.
The continued efforts of Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global),56 the
establishment of the ISE, and the publication of the Fusion Center Guidelines, amongst other
developments, also appear to have validated the growing fusion efforts at the state and local level.
Furthermore, several fusion centers suggested Hurricane Katrina was influential in either
52 National Governor’s Association (NGA), “2006 State Homeland Security Directors Survey: New Challenges,
Changing Relationships,”available from http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0604HLSDIRSURVEY.pdf; accessed on May
23, 2007, 3.
53 For more information on HSAC, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020321-9.html, accessed
May 21, 2007.
54 On the other hand, however, there was a note in the meeting notes following this suggestion that read “to be further
investigated by the Working Group,” Homeland Security Advisory Council, Summary of Meeting Notes December 14,
2004, Dated March 7, 2005, available from http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/HSAC_MtgSummary_121404.pdf,
accessed on May 21, 2007.
55 NGA, A Governor’s Guide to Homeland Security, 2007, available from http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/
0703GOVGUIDEHS.PDF, accessed on May 22, 2007, 8.
56 The Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global) serves as a Federal Advisory Committee and advises the
Attorney General on Justice information sharing and integration activities.
solidifying their conviction that coordination of multiple stakeholder agencies via the fusion
center was important for their state, and/or influencing their interest in an all-hazards approach.
The overwhelming majority of the centers examined by the authors are state-wide in jurisdiction
and are largely operated by the state police or state bureau/division of investigation. These state
fusion centers are largely the outgrowth or expansion of an existing intelligence and/or analytical
unit or division within the state’s law enforcement agency. In many cases additional personnel,
slightly expanded mission/scope, and additional resources were added to the existing intelligence
unit infrastructure. As such, these state centers were more likely to stand up in a shorter period of
time than those centers that regions established anew. As previously stated, due to their origins
and development, some have referred to this type of state fusion center as “state police
intelligence on steroids.”
Less than 20% of fusion centers studied for this report were regional/local in jurisdiction. The
majority of regional centers exist in Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) regions, usually large
cities with substantial populations and numerous critical infrastructure sites. The regional centers
were more likely than state centers to have multiple agencies involved in their development and
day-to-day operational management.
The majority of fusion centers do not operate under a separate and fusion center-specific legal
authority. Currently, the states legal authorities recognizing or establishing a fusion center range
from nonexistent, to memorandums of agreements by the partnering agencies, and in one case a
state statute which defines the center and its responsibilities. The majority of the existing fusion
centers are not currently recognized by a governor’s executive order or by state legislation—
rather, as most centers are an outgrowth of the existing state law enforcement agency. As such,
they tend to derive their authority from statutes that created those state police agencies or bureaus
of investigation. Many of the fusion centers rely on internal policy documentation to demonstrate
the establishment of the centers: policy memoranda signed by leaders of the state offices of
homeland security or law enforcement organizations, Memoranda of Understanding (MOU)
between agencies participating in the center, and/or internal center directives discussing the roles
and responsibilities of the organization. In one case, prior to the issuance of an executive order, a
regional center operated simply by partner agency consensus in the absence of specific legal 57
The DHS and DOJ-produced Fusion Center Guidelines58 are silent on the issue of recommended
authorities desired to support the establishment and continuing operation of a state fusion center.
The lack of official state recognition of these centers could prove troubling for fusion centers in
the future. If there is a reduction in future federal funding or moves to a cost-sharing model,
federal grant deciding bodies may view those fusion centers with sustained in-state funding
streams and/or a statutory recognition as more attractive candidates for continued federal funding.
57 Interview with state fusion center official, May 2, 2007.
58 Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice, Fusion Center Guidelines, August, 2006.
In several states there are more than one fusion center. The number of fusion centers, as variously
defined, within a single state ranges from two to eight. In some states, the fusion centers appear to
work well together, or at least have taken steps to enhance their working relationship. In several
states, they have worked to prevent the creation of multiple, non-integrated information silos by
ensuring automatic electronic data sharing or using the same information management system. In
at least two states, representatives from the fusion centers and/or it’s managing agency sat on the
governing board of the other center in the state. There was one case in which a regional fusion
center worked to help secure more funding for the state center, which was having trouble getting 59
homeland security grant funds due to the 80/20% mandated split for local and state governments
(this will be addressed in more depth later in the report). In other cases, there appeared to be
friction when several fusion centers are operating (or are proposed for development) within a
single state—some even appeared to be in competition with each other. Overall, the relationships
between the multiple fusion centers within a single state haven’t been long established and well
tested. It has been reported that in November 2007, DHS Secretary Chertoff and Attorney General
Mukasey sent a letter to each state governor asking for the designation of a single fusion center to 60
interface with the federal government for purposes of sharing homeland security information.
Given the fractured development of grassroots fusion centers around the country, and the broad
nature of federal guidelines on the subject, fusion centers have significantly different roles and
responsibilities. Some fusion centers are solely counterterrorism focused, while others have a
broader mission. Some are prevention oriented, while others have a response and/or recovery
With regard to the ultimate purpose of state and regional fusion centers, the topic remains open to
debate. In some cases the stated purpose of these centers has shifted in the few years they have
been operating. Many of the “first-wave” centers, those created soon after 9/11, were initially
solely focused on counterterrorism. Today, less than 15% of the fusion centers interviewed for
this report described their mission as solely counterterrorism. In the last year, many
counterterrorism-focused centers have expanded their mission to include all-crimes and/or all-
hazards. For some this shift is official, for others it is defacto, reflected in the day to day
operations of the center, but not in official documentation.
This shift towards an all-crimes and/or all-hazards focus can be explained by several factors:
appearance of a national trend, need for local and non-law enforcement buy-in, and need for
resources. First, leadership at several fusion centers interviewed for this report noted they
believed the country was moving towards an all-crimes and/or all-hazards model and they felt
they needed to move with the changing tide. Others suggested it was impossible to create “buy
in” amongst local law enforcement agencies and other public sectors if a fusion center was solely
focused on counterterrorism, as the center’s partners often didn’t feel threatened by terrorism, nor
59 See CRS Report RL33858, The Department of Homeland Security’s Risk Assessment Methodology: Evolution,
Issues, and Options for Congress, February 2, 2007.
60 Jason Miller, “States Must Designate Fusion Center to Work With Feds,” Federal Computer Week, December 11,
did they think their community would produce would-be terrorists. Rather, most police
departments and public sector agencies are more concerned with issues such as gangs, narcotics,
and street crime, which are more relevant to their communities. Lastly, one fusion center
mentioned that having a wider purpose, that is all-crimes and/or all-hazards, allowed the fusion
center to apply for a greater array of grants and draw on resources from more public agencies and
A little more than 40% of fusion centers interviewed for this report describe their center’s mission
as dealing with “all-crimes.” There were shades of meaning in the definition of “all-crimes”
across fusion centers. Some fusion centers were concerned with any crime, large or small, petty
or violent. Such centers provided support to investigations into single criminal acts and larger
criminal enterprises. Some centers, however, focused on large-scale, organized, and destabilizing
crimes, to include the illicit drug trade, gangs, terrorism, and organized crime. One such center
made the distinction that this approach was “homeland security focused,” rather than all-crimes,
which appears to recognize the potentially destabilizing impact the aforementioned crimes can
have on the overall security of a community or region.
A little more than 40% of fusion centers interviewed for this report describe their center as “all-
hazards”as well as all-crimes. It appears as if all-hazards means different things to different
people. The term itself appears to have come out of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) work in the early 1980s to develop evacuation plans not only in response to nuclear 61
attack, but to address all-hazards. The all-hazards approach to preparedness and mitigation—
two of the four interrelated emergency management actions (the other two being post-event,
response and recovery)—soon became part of the federal government and FEMA’s approach to
emergency management. In many ways the concept has evolved from a preparedness focus to a
more proactive stance.
After the September 11th attacks, the federal government continued to emphasize an all-hazards
approach to preparedness. Indeed, the December 2003 Homeland Security Preparedness Directive
(HSPD) No. 8 encourages an all-hazards approach to homeland security preparedness and
specifically defines “all-hazards preparedness” as “preparedness for domestic terrorist attacks, 62
major disasters, and other emergencies.” However, the focus of the term seems to have shifted
with the help of the fusion center movement, as some fusion centers appear to have adopted an
all-hazards mission with a more proactive, prevention-focused stance.
61 “Intimations of Mortality,” The Economist, November 26, 1983, available from http://www.lexis.com, accessed on
June 4, 2007 & see U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations
Planning, September 1996, available from http://www.fema.gov/pdf/plan/slg101.pdf, accessed on June 4, 2007, which
states, “flexible enough for use in all emergencies—including unforeseen events—provides a community with an
emergency management “bottom line.” From there, a community can proceed confidently with long-term mitigation
efforts directed at specific hazards. Or, it can devote more resources to risk-based preparedness measures (e.g.,
specialized training, equipment, and planning). Whatever the initiative, an all-hazard EOP helps the community start
from a position of relative security.”
62 “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-8,” December 17, 2003, available from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031217-6.html, accessed on May 18, 2007.
Moreover, there are some indications that different fusion centers viewed “all-hazards” as
pertaining to either their data streams, agency partners, or the center’s role. For some, all-hazards
suggests the fusion center is receiving and reviewing streams of incoming information (i.e.,
intelligence and information) from agencies dealing with all-hazards, to include law enforcement,
fire departments, emergency management, public health, etc. To others, all hazards means that
representatives from the aforementioned array of public sectors are represented in the center
and/or considered partners to its mission. At some centers, all-hazards denotes the entity’s
mission and scope—meaning the fusion center is responsible for preventing and help mitigating
both man-made events and natural disasters. For others, “all-hazards” indicates both a pre-event
prevention role as well as a post-event response, and possibly recovery, role.
Several fusion center officials that described their center as having an all-hazards focus
mentioned the influence of Hurricane Katrina on their center’s development. In most cases, the
fusion centers with an all-hazards mission sought to facilitate intelligence/information sharing
and analysis pre-event (whether man-made or natural disaster), but unlike some entirely
prevention-oriented, all-crimes- or counterterrorism-focused centers, also facilitated situational
awareness post-event (again for both man-made or natural disaster). In most cases, all-hazards-
oriented fusion centers sought to act as a force multiplier and support structure for existing
Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs), which remain responsible for coordinating the response
to large-scale incidents and disasters.
The majority of fusion centers interviewed for this report serve a solely, or at least primarily,
analytic role. These centers operate a support function for operations and investigations, but are
not directly engaged in such activities, although there were some exceptions. Those centers that
are more operational in nature tended to be either largely “owned” and operated by a single state
police/bureau of investigations agency, and/or predominately staffed by sworn law enforcement
personnel (as compared to more analyst-heavy fusion centers).
The fusion center leadership of state-wide centers, which were largely “owned” by one state
agency, tended to have a more direct relationship with the “boots on the ground.” These centers
operated under the same parent agency, usually a state police or investigation agency, making it
easier to have direct access to both investigators and their information/intelligence collection
efforts. Regional and more-multi-agency “owned” centers appeared unable, largely due to chain
of command issues, to directly task their partner agencies’ staffs. The operational activities of
these centers included responding to incident scenes, running/assisting with investigations, and
tasking collectors. In one case, a fusion center provided an operational support unit to assist local 63
law enforcement with investigations where it lacked appropriate equipment and/or personnel.
Most fusion centers fulfill both prevention and response functions, with a bias toward prevention.
Many states that have a separate emergency management organization can direct greater attention
63 Interview with state fusion center official, May 4, 2007.
The overwhelming majority of fusion center officials interviewed for this report saw their centers
as primarily prevention-oriented entities. In order to prevent, as well as mitigate, a variety of
threats, fusion centers work to enhance information sharing, conduct threat assessments and
analysis, and support and/or facilitate preparedness efforts. To those ends, most fusion centers
• intelligence/information relay centers;
• collocation centers for personnel from various agencies (often with access to
their agencies’ databases);
• facilitators of coordination on a variety of projects;
• analytic centers; and
• case support centers.
For example, some centers operated largely as filtering stations—sifting through many finished
information and intelligence products from federal agencies, other state fusion centers, and state
and local law enforcement agencies to identify relevant information for the center’s jurisdiction,
which would be distributed to customer agencies in the region. Others added analytic value to
existing products by supplementing local information or explicitly highlighting local connections
to the larger trends. Some fusion centers check the variety of databases they and their partner
agencies have access to in response to inquires from local police departments, as the result of a
private citizen tip relating to a suspicious incident, or as a result of information gleaned from
another information product. Sometimes fusion centers provide case support to law enforcement
agencies (at all levels of government). As a general trend, it appears as if all of the fusion centers
interviewed for this paper are involved in at least one step of the intelligence cycle, but none
appears to be involved in all steps of the cycle.
In most states, there is an emergency management agency and/or operation center that is 64
responsible for response activities to both man-made and natural disasters. However, in
numerous cases, the fusion center is described as playing a situational awareness role to support
the emergency operations center (EOC) during events. Some fusion centers said they had a
reserved seat at the EOC that they could access during events. In a few cases, fusion centers had a
more active role: at least two have sent analysts to the command posts at both high profile events
(i.e. pro golf tournaments) and relevant emergencies (i.e. a fire or an explosion) to relay
information back to the fusion center.
64 According to NGA survey data, “100 percent of respondents have established a statewide emergency operations
center”—based on 2004 survey for 2005 report, with 38 of the 55 U.S. states and territories responding, the survey
achieved a 69 percent response rate -Homeland Security in the States: Much Progress, Much Work, January 24, 2005,
available from http://www.nga.org/cda/files/0502HOMESEC.pdf, accessed on May 23, 2007.
As previously stated, the overwhelming majority of fusion centers reviewed for this report were
described by their leadership as being primarily prevention focused. In order to be successful in
preventing (and mitigating) threats, fusion center officials across the county frequently advocate
the proactive stance their centers have adopted. Many fusion centers state their proactive
orientation marks a departure from traditional policing, which is often reactive, post-event, and
prosecution focused. However, research indicates that while fusion centers want to become more
proactive, many continue to follow a reactive model.
Most fusion centers respond to incoming requests, suspicious activity reports, and/or finished
information/intelligence products. This approach largely relies on data points or analysis that are
already identified as potentially problematic. As mentioned above, it could be argued that this 65
approach will only identify unsophisticated criminals and terrorists. The 2007 Fort Dix plot may
serve as a good example—would law enforcement have ever become aware of this plot if the
would-be perpetrators hadn’t taken their jihad video to a video store to have it copied? While
state homeland security and law enforcement officials appear to have reacted quickly and passed
the information to the FBI, would they have ever been able to find would-be terrorists within their
midst if those individuals avoided activities, criminal or otherwise, that might bring to light their
It is unclear if a single fusion center has successfully adopted a truly proactive prevention
approach to information analysis and sharing. No state and its local jurisdictions appear to have
fully adopted the intelligence cycle. While some states have seen limited success in integrating
federal intelligence community analysis into their fusion centers, research indicates most continue
to struggle with developing a “true fusion process” which includes value added analysis of broad
streams of intelligence, identification of gaps, and fulfillment of those gaps, to prevent criminal
and terrorist acts.
An important consideration when assessing the maturity of fusion center information sharing and
analysis efforts is the centers’ access to and quality of relevant information and intelligence. th
Following the September 11 attacks, there was an outcry about the failure of information sharing
between the federal intelligence and law enforcement communities and state and local officials.
The 9/11 Commission concluded, “The biggest impediment to all-source analysis—to a greater 66
likelihood of connecting the dots—is the human or systemic resistence to sharing information.”
As some homeland security observers have noted those who do not share information outside
their agency may use the classification barrier (not having appropriate clearances) or the
reciprocity challenge associated with security clearances (having a clearance sponsored by an
agency other than the one that owned the information) as an excuse for failing to probatively
share information. This was especially true with regards to vertical information sharing - sharing
65 For more information see DOJ, “Six Individuals Charged with Plotting to Murder U.S. Soldiers at New Jersey
Military Base,” Press Release, May 8, 2007, available from http://newark.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/2007/nk050807.htm,
accessed on July 26, 2007.
66 The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission of Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
between federal agencies and sub-federal entities, like state and local law enforcement and other
In the nearly six years since the attacks, it appears as if federal intelligence agencies have made a
concerted effort to provide clearances to numerous state and local personnel. Almost all fusion
centers studied for this report had multiple personnel with security clearances, although there
were a couple of exceptions that had few if any cleared personnel. On average, fusion centers 67
appear to have 14 staff with Secret clearances, which is not insignificant considering the
average staff size of the fusion centers interviewed for this report was approximately 27 full-time 68
persons. Clearances for state and local personnel were not restricted to Secret-level clearances,
but also included some Top Secret (approximately 6 persons on average) and Top Secret-Secure
Compartmentalized Information (SCI) (approximately one person on average) clearances as 69
well. In some cases federal detailees to the centers held the highest level clearances, in other
cases, state, and local officials assigned to the center held TS/SCI clearances. It is important to
note that discussions with fusion center officials suggest there is a lag between obtaining
clearances and obtaining the necessary equipment for receiving and storing classified intelligence.
It appears the FBI provided most of the initial security clearances for state and local authorities th
following September 11. According to the FBI, as of August 2005, 6,011 such clearances have 70
been authorized since the program began in 2002. However, based on interviews with fusion
centers, that appears to be changing. Fusion center representatives claimed that in recent months
DHS has increasingly conducted security clearances for state and local personnel at fusion
centers. Fusion centers claimed that the DHS process has improved to the point that it was faster
than the FBI’s. In a few cases, fusion centers reported turning to DHS after local FBI leadership
no longer offered to clear state and locals in their fusion center. Others suggested the FBI only
provided high-end (Top Secret, TS SCI) clearances, while DHS conducted investigations for
Secret clearances. Regardless of who is sponsoring security clearances for non-federal
government personnel, issues remain regarding reciprocity among agencies in recognizing
another’s clearance which at times hinders an individual from accessing facilities and computer
In the past few years, state and local authorities have received increased and enhanced access to
classified information systems. This appears to be largely facilitated by the proliferation of
systems designed for state and local law enforcement and other public sector use, and due to
67 For information on the various security clearances mentioned in this report see FBI, “Security Clearance Process for
State and Local Law Enforcement,” available from http://www.fbi.gov/clearance/securityclearance.htm, accessed on
July 27, 2007, and Derrick Dortch, “Getting a Security Clearance,” The Washington Post, June 25, 2004,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52768-2003Feb10?language=printer, accessed on June 27, 2007.
68 For the purposes of this report, the authors attempted to focus on full-time personnel with clearances, although in
some cases fusion centers have a large number of cleared part-time personnel.
69 It should be noted that in some cases those individuals with Top Secret and Top Secret SCI clearances are actually
federal detailees assigned to the center - however, although that may impact what information is shared and when is
shared, it does represent the capability to receive highly classified information in the fusion center.
70 Kevin Johnson, “FBI Gets Local Police in the Loop,” USA Today, August 2, 2005, News Section, 3A.
increased collocation with federal agencies, and, as previously mentioned, a growing number of
security clearances for state/local officials. DHS created HSIN, HSIN-Secret, and the Homeland 71
Security Data Network (HSDN) as portals to facilitate information sharing with and among state
and local agencies, including at the classified level. Reportedly, DHS is considering replacing or
upgrading the HSIN with a more efficient system for sharing homeland security information with 72
state and local entities.
In addition to the significant number of cleared state and local personnel at the fusion centers,
fusion center collocation with federal agencies has also increased state/local access to threat
intelligence and information. However, often that access was indirect (i.e. a federal official may
need to access the information on behalf of state and local fusion center staff). For example,
state/regional fusion centers collocated with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) or Field 73
Intelligence Group (FIG) often have indirect, and sometimes direct, access to FBI information
systems and/or the other systems housed in the facility’s Sensitive Compartmentalized 74
Information Facility (SCIF). Fusion centers that are not collocated, but that have federal agency
detailees often have indirect access through those representatives. There are several fusion centers
who have built, or are in the process of building, their own SCIF or secure room in order to have
direct access to such systems.
The support within the federal IC and law enforcement agencies to share sensitive information
with state and local law enforcement, fusion centers, and other public sector entities appears to
have increased in recent years. Moving from a “need to know” rule to a “responsibility to share” 75
rule for information sharing and addressing the security designation and handling restrictions
71 HSIN-Intel is a portal DHS uses “primarily to disseminate current homeland security intelligence information and
integrated intelligence assessments derived from both DHS and Intelligence community sources” to both law
enforcement, first responders, and private sector homeland security partners. According to DHS officials, HSIN-Secret
(HSIN-S) is the portal through which the Department”provides intelligence products up to the collateral SECRET
classification level to our State and local partners...” HSDN is “analogous to the Department of Defense’s Secret
Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNET).” Charles E. Allen, “The Homeland Security Information Network: An Update
on DHS Information Sharing Efforts,” Statement for the Record before the House Homeland Security Committee,
Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment, September 13, 2006, 5, 6, 7,
72 Spencer S. Hsu and Robert O’Harrow Jr., “DHS to Replace ‘Duplicative’ Anti-Terrorism Data Network,” The
Washington Post, January 17, 2008.
73 The purpose of the Field Intelligence Groups (FIG) as described by the FBI is to “manage and coordinate intelligence
functions in the field. The FIGs are the mechanism through which the FBI contributes to regional and local
perspectives on a variety of issues, including the receipt of and action on integrated investigative and intelligence
requirements. In addition, FIGs provide the intelligence link to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF), Fusion Centers,
FBIHQ, and other intelligence community agencies. FIGs are staffed by intelligence analysts (IAs), special agents
(SAs), language analysts (LAs), and surveillance specialists.” John S. Pistole, Statement before the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, January 25, 2007, available from http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress07/
pistole012507.htm, accessed on June 27, 2007.
74 It should be noted that the terms SCIF and secure room are often incorrectly used interchangeably to describe a
separate office within a facility. A SCIF, according to the National Security Agency, is “an accredited area, room,
group of rooms, buildings, or installation where Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) may be stored, used,
discussed, and/or processed.” See NSA Website, available from http://www.nsa.gov/business/busin00010.cfm,
accessed on June 19, 2007. By contrast, a secure room is an office that has simple locking devices in place to control
the flow of personnel into the area. A secure room is not built to the same structural specifications as that of a SCIF and
can only store sensitive unclassified information.
75 It is recognized that, notwithstanding a renewed effort to enhance information sharing, there remains a need to
that act as barriers to effective information sharing appears to be a priority for the DNI’s office, as
is evident by the efforts of the Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment (PM-
ISE or ISE). However, it could be questioned whether the PM-ISE has authorities commensurate 76
with the office’s responsibilities to implement its initiatives across all levels of government.
Numerous fusion centers officials claim that although their center receives a substantial amount 77
of information from federal agencies, they never seem to get the “right information” or receive
it in an efficient manner. According to many state fusion center leaders, often pertinent threat
intelligence must be requested by fusion centers, rather than federal agencies being proactive in
providing it. The obvious difficulty arises regarding the inability to request relevant threat
information that is unknown to members of the fusion center. The 9/11 Commission criticized the
lack of incentives to share information and penalties for those who didn’t share within the
Intelligence Community. Even if federal IC agencies have instituted incentives and penalties for
information/intelligence sharing, it is unclear if these requirements would apply to vertical
sharing with state and local authorities, as well as the private sector counterparts and what
mechanisms might be in place to assess effectiveness. Both H.R. 1 and S. 4, two bills pending
before Congress, address enhanced information sharing mechanisms, including monetary and 78
non-monetary awards to federal employees as incentives for information sharing.
By all accounts information sharing between federal and sub-federal agencies has improved since th
the September 11 attacks. However, according to some fusion officials it appears that
information sharing from the federal government to the state and local fusion centers continues to
be a largely reactive, especially when it comes to information state and local officials believe is
relevant to their jurisdiction. Several fusion center officials remarked that they receive such
intelligence and/or information when they request it, which is an improvement over pre-9/11
situation, however according to fusion center officials, federal agencies are still not proactive in
reaching out to state and regional fusion centers, sometimes even when a connection to that
locality is apparent in an analytic product. Other fusion centers cited a lack of feedback when the
fusion center or one of its state/local partners provides information up to the federal government.
Research indicates that there may be a misconception that all states and regions are operating
sophisticated intelligence management systems that have access to all databases available within
their jurisdiction. Not every state has a state-wide intelligence system, in fact many don’t. Such
systems are expensive and potentially problematic in getting all agencies with homeland security-
protect intelligence sources and methods.
76 The responsibilities and authorities of the PM-ISE are outlined in P.L. 108-458, Section 1016.
77 As mentioned above, this could be a perception problem amongst state and local personnel unfamiliar with the limits
of national intelligence and/or an issue related to extent to which federal products are tailored to state and local needs.
For more information, CRS Report RL34061, Intelligence and Information-Sharing Elements of S. 4 and H.R. 1, by
Todd Masse, June 26, 2007.
78 See Tile VII, section 723 of H.R. 1 RFS, Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007; and
Title I, section 114, of S. 4.ES, “Improving America’s Security Act of 2007.”
related missions to adopt a particular system. Even states that have such a system, often don’t
have access to all the data pools outsiders believe they do. For example, one center that is more
mature than many of its counterparts reported having access to only 30% of the law enforcement 79
data in the state—and that was good compared to other respondent fusion centers. One state is
preparing to go online with a statewide database that will have access to 92% of law enforcement 80
records (state and local), but this is the exception rather than the rule.
There is also a misconception that fusion centers, and the information management systems that
some of them manage, have access to vast amounts of private sector data. This is largely
unfounded. Even within fusion centers that have long established relationships with private sector
organizations and individual companies, as some do, fusion centers do not typically appear to
have access to their data. The flow of information from the private sector to fusion centers is
largely sporadic, event driven, and manually facilitated. It does not appear that these databases are
directly linked together. In general, the private sector seems very wary of that level of sharing—
concerned with lack of government safeguards, industrial espionage, exposing weaknesses to
competitors, as well as privacy and civil liberties concerns.
There are areas of concern related to these information management systems, specifically that
there is a lack of coordination regarding the adoption of such systems nationally. In many cases,
state-wide intelligence systems cannot work in conjunction with other systems within the state or
regionally. Despite federal efforts to promote the use of Extensible Markup Language (XML) as
the standard format across levels of government for justice and public safety information 81
management systems, fusion centers and states continue to purchase systems that operate using
proprietary language and that cannot “speak” to other systems without additional equipment and
costs. This may be due to the lack of mandatory guidance on this issue and other technology-
related concerns. Currently, all guidance on this is voluntary.
In addition to funding concerns, the most consistent and constant issue raised by fusion center
officials relates to the plethora of competing federal information sharing systems. The fusion
centers interviewed for this report cited numerous sites operated by federal agencies that they
needed to check in order to receive information from the federal law enforcement and intelligence
communities, including, but not limited to, the HSIN and its sister systems HSIN-Secret and
HSDN, Law Enforcement Online (LEO), Federal Protective Service (FPS) portal, Regional
Information Sharing Systems (RISS), among others.
Respondent fusion center officials remarked that their staff could spend all day, every day
reviewing all the information posted on these systems, and still not be confident they had seen all
79 Interview with state fusion center official, April 24, 2007.
80 Interview with state fusion center official, May 7, 2007.
81 DOJ, Global JXDM User Guide: Building Exchange Content Using the Global JXDM: A User Guide for
Practitioners and Developers, available from http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=201, accessed on June 1, 2007.
relevant and/or unique data. Often information is duplicated on several sites, but because of the
occasional situation when it is not, fusion center officials believe they need to check them all.
One official found the message from Washington regarding efforts to streamline dissemination
channels contradictory with the continued promotion of individual agency’s “pet projects” at the
state and local level. In addition, fusion center officials found the systems’ usability and security
lacking. This problem affects not only how fusion centers receive information, but how they pass
it to federal agencies. In several cases, it appeared as if information flow to a particular federal
agency was severely impeded because the fusion center resisted using the system/portal run by
the agency and did not have personal contacts to send information directly.
Several fusion center officials mentioned problems related to the different requirements federal
agencies have for creating secure spaces to house their classified information systems. The lack
of reciprocity for such spaces and the lack of coordination between federal agencies likely results
in increased costs for fusion centers. The construction of secure spaces needed to house classified
intelligence systems can reportedly cost “two to 10 times the cost of conventional office space, 82
depending on features required.” Construction companies estimate that the cost of building a
SCIF in an existing state/local facility can cost $200-$500 per square foot, and sometimes more 83
depending on the requirements of the federal sponsoring agency. Several fusion centers
interviewed for this report mentioned estimated costs between $75,000-$100,000 to build each
secure space at their respective centers. In a few cases, fusion centers mentioned they had been
advised they would need more than one such space because individual federal agencies had
different security requirements for their own systems. One such center that is moving to a new
space was told they needed to create three different secure spaces to house different federal 84
information systems—a cost that would be largely, if not entirely, borne by the center.
Systematic over-classification was identified by the 9/11 Commission Report as preventing 85
critical intelligence from reaching law enforcement, state officials and infrastructure operators.
It could be argued that the federal government has been slow to address the over-classification of
intelligence, and the culture of “ownership” over intelligence products generated by particular
federal intelligence or law enforcement agencies continues to be an obstacle to information 86
sharing. In addition, there is a serious lack of standardization regarding classification
designations and dissemination guidelines.
82 Barnaby Wickham, “BRAC Realignment Brings No Surprises to Baltimore Real Estate Executives,” The Daily
Record (Baltimore, MD), September 7, 2005, available from http://www.lexis.com, accessed on June 5, 2007.
83 Phone Interview with construction company engaged in SCIF construction, June 12, 2007.
84 Interview with regional fusion center, May 3, 2007.
85 See National Commission of Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of
the National Commission of Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, pp. 417-418.
86 See Matthew M. Johnson, “Local Counterterrorism Efforts Handicapped by Intelligence-Sharing Woes,” CQ
Homeland Security - Intelligence, June 29, 2007.
Moreover, it has been argued that the federal government uses a large number of distinct security
designations and a variety of handling instructions that make using classified information
unnecessarily confusing and onerous. A 2006 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study
found federal agencies involved with terrorism-related intelligence currently use “a total of 56
different designations for information they determined to be sensitive but unclassified, and
agencies that account for a large percentage of the homeland security budget reported using most 87
of these designations.” More than half of the agencies involved in the study reported 88
encountering difficulties sharing sensitive but unclassified information. This is certainly echoed
by state and local law enforcement agencies, which found the “multiplicity of designations and 89
definitions not only causes confusion but leads to an alternating feast or famine of information.”
In addition, “lack of clarity on dissemination rules and lack of common standards for controlling
sensitive but unclassified information, often overwhelm end users with the same or similar 90
information from multiple sources.” GAO concluded that, without standardization for security
designations, guidance and monitoring, there is a probability that “the designation will be
misapplied, potentially restricting material unnecessarily or resulting in the dissemination of 91
information that should be restricted.”
One PM-ISE effort that may ameliorate this issue is the Controlled Unclassified Initiative (CUI)
which is seeking to reduce the number of SBU designations from over 100 to three, with clear 92
instructions for security, handling, and dissemination. This initiative appears to still be in the
Congress and the Administration have acted to address over-classification through the IRTPA
which required the President within 270 days of the enactment of IRTPA to
issue guidelines for acquiring, accessing, sharing, and using information, including
guidelines to ensure that information is provided in its most shareable form, such as by using 93
tearlines to separate out data from the sources and methods by which the data are obtained.
To date, it appears that no such guideline has been issued94 and due to continued over-
classification, it may be that fusion centers, as well as other pertinent SLT officials, may not
87 US Government Accountability Office (GAO), Information Sharing: The Federal Government Needs to Establish
Policies and Processes for Sharing Terrorism-related and Sensitive but Unclassified Information, (Washington DC:
GAO, 2006), 21.
88 Ibid., p. 21.
89 Ibid., p. 25
91 Ibid., p. 21.
92 See Federal Information at the Fusion Center: Rules of the Road, an ISE presentation delivered at the National
Fusion Center Conference, March 6, 2007. See also Ambassador Ted McNamara, Statement for the Record submitted
to the House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism
Risk Assessment, April 26, 2007, available from http://www.ise.gov/docs/HHSC-20070426-
%20McNamara%20Testimony.pdf, accessed on June 19, 2007, 5-6.
93 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, P.L. 108-458 (SEC. 1016.(d)1).
94 The PM-ISE Implementation Plan (November 2006, Table, ES-1, p. xvii) provides for two requirements and five
receive all the relevant threat information they need. Before IRTPA, the 9/11 Commission also
addressed the issue of over-classification in its final report. The report proposes that
when a[n] [intelligence] report is first created, its data be separated from the sources and
methods by which they are obtained. The report should begin with the information in its
most shareable, but still meaningful, form. Therefore the maximum number of recipients can
access some form of that information. If knowledge of further details becomes important,
any user can query further, with access granted or denied according to the rules set for the
network—and with queries leaving an audit trail in order to determine who accessed the 95
The argument that security designations are often necessary due to sensitive sources and methods,
which prevents intelligence from reaching many SLT officials, may be overstated. In many cases,
the intelligence may have even been culled from open source information. In addition, the
majority of fusion center officials interviewed for this report were near emphatic that they were
not concerned with sources and methods. Rather, fusion center officials wanted to know if the
originating agency had deemed the threat credible and if the threat had been corroborated.
While not mandated by federal law or executive order, many federal government agencies
recognize the utility of state created fusion centers. As such, over the past two years the federal
government has provided financial support to the fusion centers with the states continuing to pay 96
for approximately 80% of fusion center budgets. While state leadership has expressed
appreciation for this funding others have questioned the effectiveness of federal government 97
support to state fusion centers. Other state leaders are concerned that the desire for additional
federal funding and direction may be problematic as they are concerned that the greater support
provided by the federal government will lead to prescriptive requirements levied on the fusion 98
According to FY2007 homeland security grant guidance, the State Homeland Security Program,
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant program, and Law Enforcement Terrorism
Prevention (LETTP) Program, and the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) grant
program (the four of which comprise the overwhelming majority of all Homeland Security Grant
Program (HSGP) funding streams, and the majority of all homeland security-related grants 99100
administered by DHS), require that at least 80% of all funds be passed to local jurisdictions.
guidelines, none of which directly address over-classification.
95 National Commission of Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the
National Commission of Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Authorized Edition (New York: WW Norton &
Company, 2004), 417-418.
96 Numerical assessment derived from discussion with fusion center leaders detailing the approximate funds received to
date from the federal government.
97 Comments by fusion center leadership during the survey interviews noted that while the funding from the federal
government was appreciated and needed to assist in establishing the center, the lack of strategy and direction
accompanying the support left many centers confused regarding its role in homeland security as well as the federal
strategy for information sharing.
98 Comment by fusion center leader during CRS hosted fusion center discussion, May 31, 2007.
99 The only HSGP program that does not is Citizen Corps. Grant allocations used to determine this assessment were
This policy was cited continually by fusion center officials as a major hurdle in channeling the
homeland security funds toward state-wide fusion center efforts. Several also cited the required
spending split as leading to the creation of regional fusion centers within states that already had a
state-wide center operating. These requirements have been used in several previous grant 101
Much like the diverse missions of fusion centers, state and federal funding and programmatic
support to the nation’s fusion centers also varies greatly. As noted earlier in the report, to date the
nation’s fusion centers have largely been paid for with state funds. Some of the surveyed fusion
centers did not receive state or federal start-up funds and were established by simply combining
and renaming existing state and/or local public safety-related agencies into a state fusion center.
Annual budgets for the fusion centers studied for this report appear to range from the tens of
thousands to several million (with one outlier at over $15 million). Similarly, the sources of
funding differed significantly from center to center—as stated, some were entirely dependent on
diverting funds from existing state and/or local funding streams, while others were largely funded
by federal grants. Federal funding ranged from 0%-100% of fusion center budgets, with the
average and median percentage of federal funding at approximately 31% and 21%, respectively.
Thus, it appears that on the whole, fusion centers are predominately state and locally funded.
In general, the fusion centers studied for this report remain largely law enforcement oriented
entities. That said, centers appear to be increasingly bolstering their non-sworn officer ranks and
reaching out to non-law enforcement homeland security partners.
Staffing levels at fusion centers that are fully operational range from 3 to nearly 250 full-time
personnel, with the average number of full time staff at approximately 27 persons. Part time
personnel ranged from 0 to over 100, with the average number of part time staff at fusion centers
running far lower. Federal representation at the fusion centers in question is small percentage-
wise, but can have a big impact on the center itself. Such participation can provide access to
additional information streams and help facilitate the security clearance process, as well as impact
the overall relationship between the federal sponsor agency and the fusion center.
In general, law enforcement personnel are the dominant participants in the fusion centers studied
in this report. Furthermore, the majority of sworn officers detailed to fusion efforts are from state
provided by the Department of Homeland Security in phone calls on June 21 & 26, 2007.
100 [U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY2007 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidance and
Application Kit, January 2007, available from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/fy07_hsgp_guidance.pdf, accessed
on June 19, 2007, 39-40.
101 For example, FY2003 and FY2004 grant guidance documentation, http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/
press_release_0274.shtm and http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/First_Responder_Press.doc, accessed June 19, 2007.
police agencies and state bureaus of investigation, rather than local departments. Some may argue
this is natural given the majority of fusion centers are state-wide entities that grew out of state
police/bureau of investigation intelligence/analysis units. Of the local law enforcement agencies
represented, the overwhelming majority are from the largest local police departments in the
country, which have more resources, and in some cases, intelligence units (which are somewhat
rare in local police departments as will be discussed below).
While in general, law enforcement and public safety officials have more prior experience with
intelligence then the other non-law enforcement public sector entities that are increasingly
involved in fusion centers, it is important not to overstate law enforcement experience and/or
resources with regard to intelligence. In general, many local law enforcement agencies may not
have an intelligence or analytic unit, reiterating what RAND found in 2004 when it reported that
64 percent of state law enforcement agencies reported having a separate criminal intelligence 102
unit, as compared to only 10 percent of local law enforcement agencies.
While many local police departments do not have an intelligence unit, they may have an
analyst(s). However, even when local departments have an analyst(s) and were interested in
detailing someone to the fusion center, they may not have enough man power to do so on a full
time basis, and for many on a part time basis. There are many other cases where local law
enforcement agencies appear unconvinced of the value of fusion centers—and by their
cost/benefit analysis, it does not currently benefit the department to detail personnel to the center.
Although the majority of fusion center personnel come from law enforcement agencies, not all of
them are sworn officers. It appears that most fusion centers have made a concerted effort to hire
crime and/or intelligence analysts. In one case, a fusion center had tactically oriented, case
support analysts, and more strategic analysts that managed specific threat portfolios, as well as 103
non-sworn analyst supervisors. Over the last two funding cycles, fusion centers have
increasingly hired contract analysts using homeland security funds, although the length of the
contracts has proved problematic for many fusion centers, which will be discussed further below.
All-hazards centers are more likely than their counterterrorism or all-crimes colleagues to have 104
non-criminal justice personnel, to include Department of Health, Fire, Emergency Management
Services (EMS), and other non-traditional homeland security partners in the public sector.
Surprisingly, there were a number of fusion centers that had been described as all-hazards that did
not have non-law enforcement personnel working in the center. In many cases, non-law
enforcement public sector detailees to the fusion centers worked part-time and/or had a desk and
were pre-cleared so they could work out of the center as needed and/or during an event.
102 Lois M. Davis et al, When Terrorism Hits Home: How Prepared Are State and Local Law Enforcement?, available
from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG104.pdf accessed on May 22, 2007, 44.
103 Interview with Fusion Center Official, April 25, 2007.
104 “Criminal justice personnel” is used to refer to personnel from both state, local, and tribal traditional police
departments as well as corrections, parole, natural resource enforcement, alcohol enforcement bureaus, park police, etc.
As will be addressed in greater detail below, almost all of the fusion centers studied for this report
have some federal presence. The agencies represented, roles they play, and size of detailee staff
differed significantly from center to center. To varying degrees, federal participation in state and
regional fusion centers appears to influence the relationship between levels of government, state,
and local access to information and resources, the flow of information/intelligence, and
maturation with regards to intelligence cycle functions. Approximately 30% of fusion centers are
collocated with a federal agency(s), and as a result, that federal agency(s) may have a significant
influence on their development, operation, and even budget demands.
There appears to be a direct correlation between contact between a federal agency and a fusion
center, and the center’s positive outlook on the relationship between the two. In general, fusion
centers collocated with a federal agency reported favorable relationships with that agency. This
was often in stark contrast to the views of other fusion centers not collocated with a federal
agency(s). For instance, one fusion center collocated with Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) had nothing but praise for the agency, but another fusion center not collocated expressed 105
frustration at not getting cooperation from ICE. It should be noted that collocation and praise
for inter-agency coordination does not necessarily translate to enhanced organizational
effectiveness. Many fusion center leaders stated that collocation and the appearance of seamless
coordination did not obviate the need to frequently inquire about information or an incident that
was known to federal employees but not shared with state fusion center representatives.
Furthermore, fusion centers that were not collocated with a federal agency, but had a
representative from a federal agency located full time in the center, were more likely to have a
favorable impression of the relationship between the two than centers that lacked such a
representative. Thus it is not surprising that many of the fusion center directors surveyed spoke of
a close relationship with the local FBI entities: JTTF, Field Office, and FIG, given the large
number of detailees from those entities.
One of the central, if implicit, themes that runs throughout this report is federalism. That is, while
fusion centers were largely established by states, if the federal intent is to create a network of
fusion centers that can be leveraged for both state, local, and federal public safety and homeland
security purposes, there are several challenges that must be overcome. Research indicates one of
the central challenges of designing a constructive and productive federal role in supporting these
state and local fusion centers is working to ensure that the centers retain their state and local-level
identity and support from those communities. According to many homeland security observers,
one manifestation of this tension lies in the need to strike a balance between the national needs
for a consistent provider of state and local threat information with the state’s autonomy to pursue 106
issues deemed of importance to local jurisdictions. This tension is often notable when
reviewing the diverse, and at times incompatible, types of threat and warning products required
105 Interviews with state fusion center officials, April 12, April 17, and May 2, 2007.
106 With passage of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, P.L. 110-53, DHS was
given significant authorities for supporting state and local fusion center activities while undertaking efforts to improve
information flow into the federal government for purposes of performing terrorism threat assessments.
by state leaders and contrasted to those requested by federal homeland security and law
Part of the challenge from the federal perspective has been how to guide, but not dictate to, the
“owners and operators” of these largely state-established entities prior to the provision of any
federal financial support. And, once federal financial and human resources support was provided,
how to coordinate and target these resources for maximum overall return on investment.
Another example of how federalism flows throughout the fusion center issue is the legal
treatment of terrorism. Terrorism is a federal crime. If it is prosecuted at all, it is usually done at th
the federal level. However, since the September 11 attacks, terrorism has been codified as a 107
crime in many states. Another example of how federalism permeates fusion centers is privacy. 108109
There is one Federal Privacy Act, and numerous state privacy laws. If fusion centers are
serving both state, local, and federal ends, one of the central questions becomes what is the role of
the federal government in supporting these centers, and what products and services can the
federal government reasonably expect the centers to produce, given federal funding levels.
As elements of the states and regions they serve, fusion centers began to develop critical mass or
staying power in the years immediately following the terrorist attacks of 2001. As these centers
continued to proliferate across the country and garnered state support, federal entities began to
take notice. While some 30 percent of the fusion centers interviewed were established prior to
when, according to DHS, it provided $29 million of Homeland Security Grant Program 110
funding. Federal guidance to the fusion centers followed shortly thereafter in July 2005.
Finally, in 2006, human capital support in the form of DHS and FBI detailees to the centers began
While DHS has provided direct financial support to the fusion centers through the HSGP, the FBI
has not provided direct financial support. The FBI’s contributions have come more in the form of 111
support for security clearances, personnel support, and other “in-kind” contributions, such as
rent payments when centers are collocated with FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces or Field 112
The federal government has played several roles in assisting states and regions to develop their
fusion centers, including the provision of:
• Recognition, post-9/11, of the need to have state and local governments and the
private sector, non-traditional actors in national security matters, play an
increasingly important role in homeland security.
107 National Conference of State Legislatures, Summaries of Crime-Related Terrorism State Enactments, available from
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cj/02terrorsum.htm, January 2003, accessed on June 19, 2007.
108 See the Privacy Act of 1974, codified at 5 U.S.C, Section 552a.
109 See National Conference of State Legislatures, available at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/pubs/privacy-
overview.htm [accessed May 30, 2007].
110 See DHS, Office of Grants and Training, Fusion Centers: DHS Funded Activities—Fiscal Years 2004-2006, April
111 According to the FBI, it has obtained security clearances for 520 State and local law enforcement officers assigned
to fusion centers. See FBI, “Fusion Centers,” material provided to CRS from the FBI, dated May 25, 2007.
112 See FBI, “Fusion Centers,” material provided to CRS from the FBI, dated May 25, 2007.
• Guidance, to be adopted voluntarily by fusion centers, on the central elements of
a fusion center and suggested methods for how to establish and operate sound
fusion center policies and practices.
• Technical assistance and training related to issues encountered as fusion centers
• Financial resources to support fusion center “start up” costs, including system
• Human resources to assist in interaction with federal agencies and analytical
• Assistance to support enhanced information sharing between the federal
government and state and local entities through the fusion centers.
• Congressional hearings on fusion centers.
• Promulgation of federal regulations.
As alluded to above, the rise of state and regional fusion centers is part of a greater movement to
decentralize homeland security to include non-traditional stakeholders (public health, emergency
responders, and the private sector) at all levels of government (to include state, local, and tribal). th
The federal government appears to have recognized that the September 11 attacks signaled a
need for greater state and local participation in homeland security. The 2002 National Strategy for
Homeland Security acknowledges the expansion of responsibility for homeland defense and
The nature of American society and the structure of American governance make it
impossible to achieve the goal of a secure homeland through federal executive branch action
alone. The Administration’s approach to homeland security is based on the principles of
shared responsibility and partnership with the Congress, state and local governments, the 113
private sector, and the American people.
Even prior to the attacks of 9/11/2001, before the term “homeland security” was part of our
national lexicon, the Department of Justice was working to ensure public safety and criminal
information was shared across levels of governments. In 1998, the Department of Justice created
the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global), a “group of groups” representing more
than 30 independent organizations spanning the spectrum of law enforcement, judicial, 114
correctional, and related bodies. In October 2003, Global released The National Criminal
Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP), which sought to:
link federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies so that they can share intelligence 115
information to prevent terrorism and crime.
113 U.S. Office of Homeland Security, The National Strategy for Homeland Security, July 2002, available from
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/nat_strat_hls.pdf, accessed on May 22, 2007, p. 2.
114 See U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Program, Information Technology Initiatives, “Global Justice
Information Sharing Initiative (Global),” available at http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=8 (accessed June 1, 2007).
115 U.S. Department of Justice, “Attorney General Ashcroft Announces Implementation of the National Criminal
However, the NCISP does not explicitly address fusion centers and their role in information
sharing fusion is not mentioned. It was not until July 2005 that federal fusion center guidelines
Under the aegis of the DOJ’s Global,116 Federal Fusion Center Guidelines have been developed,
as recommended by the Homeland Security Advisory Council’s Intelligence and Information 117
Sharing Working Group in December 2004. Global has issued two sets of Guidelines, and
continues to work on additional guidance with, among other entities, the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence’s Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment. The first set
of Guidelines, entitled Fusion Center Guidelines: Developing and Sharing Information and
Intelligence in a New Era—Guidelines for Establishing and Operating Fusion Centers at the
Local, State, and Federal Levels—the Law Enforcement Intelligence Component was published in
The second set of Guidelines, entitled Fusion Center Guidelines Developing and Sharing
Information and Intelligence in a New Era—Guidelines for Establishing and Operating Fusion
Centers at the Local, State, and Federal Levels—Law Enforcement Intelligence, Public Safety
and the Private Sector was published in August 2006. The federal Fusion Center Guidelines
(FCG) received support from several law enforcement organizations, including the Law 118119
Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU) and Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA), which
added further credibility to the fusion center movement.
On balance, fusion center respondents had generally positive impressions of these voluntary
guidelines. Fusion centers that were more advanced in their development when the FCG were
released generally found that they validated their existing, policies, structures and activities. One
center, however, found that the FCG were not helpful as the issues discussed were not tied to an
over-arching national fusion center strategy and did not address technical aspects of operating a 120
Intelligence Sharing Plan,” Press Release, May 14, 2004, available from http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/May/
04_ag_328.htm, accessed on June 4, 2007.
116 The Criminal Intelligence Coordination Council (CICC), an element of Global, recommended the establishment of a
Fusion Center Focus Group which, in turn, was responsible for recommending guidelines for fusion center
development. Fusion center representatives are included in Global, including the Vice Chair of the Global Advisory
Committee, currently a colonel from the New York State Police. See http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=8 (accessed
June 1, 2007).
117 See “Justice Department Releases Fusion Center Guidelines,” in Government Computer News, August 31, 2005.
118 Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU), “Resolution in Support of Fusion Center Guidelines - Law
Enforcement, Public Safety, and the Private Sector,” Adopted on June 16, 2006, available from http://it.ojp.gov/
fusioncenterguidelines/leiuresolution.pdf, accessed on May 31, 2007.
119 Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA), “Resolution: Fusion Center Guidelines,” June 6, 2006, available from
http://it.ojp.gov/fusioncenterguidelines/chiefsresolution.pdf, accessed on May 31, 2007.
120 Interview with regional fusion center official, May 3, 2007.
Consistent with many of the 18 Guidelines outlined in the aforementioned Fusion Center
Guidelines, the DHS and DOJ-sponsored fusion process technical assistance program offers
seven fusion center services in order to assist fusion center development. Instructors for these
courses include fusion center and DHS representatives. The seven technical assistance services
include (1) Fusion Process Orientation, (2) Fusion Center Governance Structure and Authority,
(3) Fusion Center Concept of Operations (CONOPS) Development, (4) Fusion Center Privacy 121
Policy Development, (5) 28 CFR, part 23 (criminal intelligence systems), (6) Fusion Center
Administration and Management, and (7) Fusion Center Liaison Officer Program 122
Research indicates that those fusion center representatives that have either participated in these
services as trainers or students have found the sessions to have some utility. Others believe that,
while the services were a useful first step, a more sustained form of fusion center mentorship,
based on a national fusion center strategy, would add additional value to these brief courses.
Federal financial support for fusion centers has largely come in the form of Homeland Security
Grant Program (HSGP) funding. While the amount of funds recently provided by Congress to
DHS to support state fusion center activities are unknown, past Departmental funding activities
could be interpreted as somewhat confusing. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008
provides DHS Office of Security and Office of Intelligence and Analysis funds to support state 123
and local fusion centers. In December 2006, DHS reported that it has “...provided over $380 124
million in support of these centers.” According to a DHS Office of Grants and Training (G&T) 125
representative, this information includes the period from 2001 to the end of 2006.
Subsequently, in April 2007, DHS reported that in fiscal years 2004-2006, it provided a total of 126
$131 million to “...establish or enhance a fusion center or fusion cell.” If the $250 million
“delta” between these two figures is attributable to time alone, that would mean that from March, 127
2003, when DHS was established, the Department allocated approximately $250 million to
121 According to the Deputy Program Manager for the ISE, a “Federal government-wide ISE Privacy Guidelines
Committee has been established to ensure that incorporating the centers into the ISE will be done in a manner that
protects the privacy, civil liberties, and other legal rights of individuals and corporations, as provided under U.S. law.”
See remarks of Susan B. Reingold, Deputy Program Manager, ISE, at the National Guard Bureau—J-2 Intelligence
Knowledge Management Conference, June 12, 2007.
122 See DHS Office of Grants and Training; Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Fusion Process
Technical Assistance Service, January 2007.
123 Funding numbers provided to DHS to support fusion center activities are not available as the figures are contained
in the classified National Intelligence Program budget.
124 See DHS Fact Sheet: Selected Homeland Security Accomplishments for 2006, December 29, 2006.
125 Discussion with DHS, Office of Grants and Technology Official, June 6, 2007.
126 See DHS, Office of Grants and Training, Fusion Centers: DHS Funded Activities—Fiscal Years 2004-2006, April
2007. The methodology section of this report stipulates that projects covered in the report included those that were
“...reported directly to the (DHS, Office of Grants and Training) by State and local users of the Grants Reporting Tool
(GRT), through the submission of their Bi-Annual Strategy Implementation Report.” See cited report, p. 3.
127 Allocation of funds differs from “draw down” of funds with the former referring to a DHS decision to support
disbursement of HSGP funds related to fusion center to the State Administrative Agent (SAA) based on HSGP grant
guidelines. “Draw down” is generally interpreted as the provision of the HSGP funds from the SAA to the fusion center
fusion centers. While this is plausible, it may be unlikely, given the lack of DHS focus on fusion 128
centers at that time and the small number and relative immaturity of fusion centers in existence
during the 2001-2003 time period. According to a DHS representative, the difference between the 129
two figures lies in two factors: time and “requested” versus “actual” funding data. Because data
on actual funding lags data on requested funding, in order to provide the most up to date
information, DHS G&T has used both figures. While this may be reasonable, even given DHS’s
methodological explanations, such wide variance in funding ($380 million versus $131 million)
can be misleading.
Empirical research suggests that the figures cited by DHS as having been allocated to fusion 130
centers do not necessarily reach the centers themselves. This may represent a problem at the
state level, as State Administrative Agents (SAAs) that administer HSGP funds may not always
allocate funds in a manner that is entirely consistent with how the funds were requested.
Alternatively, it could represent a problem with how DHS has defined fusion centers, and
calculates the HSGP funding provided to the centers. One example offered by a fusion center
leader noted that the center hired several analysts using HSGP funds but within a few months 131
these personnel were reassigned to another non-fusion center homeland security effort.
According to DHS, its methodology for calculating DHS-funded activities at fusion centers
involves relying upon state and localities to report to the Department through use of the State Bi-132
Annual Strategy Implementation Reports (BSIR), an element of the Grants Reporting Tool 133
(GRT). DHS searches through the GRT databases using, among other methods, keyword search
terms such as terrorism intelligence, emergency preparedness, response teams, fusion, analysis,
and others. DHS recognizes this method has its limitations in terms of accuracy, as it has stated:
“Because fusion center and/or fusion cell related projects may exist in the GRT that do not
specifically use the term “fusion” in one of the search fields, this list of projects should not be 134
considered to be all inclusive of DHS-funded fusion center activities nation-wide.” Moreover,
the information on DHS-supported fusion center activities is based on grant recipients’ entry of
information into the GRT. While this method of calculation may serve DHS’s purpose of
articulating the specific projects funded related to fusion centers, there are a number of limitations
associated with this methodology:
or fusion center contractors for products and services provided.
128 Interview with former senior DHS official, May, 2007.
130 Fusion center personnel are generally not the SAA for Federal grant funds and, as a result, may not necessarily
know the explicit origins of HSGP Federal funds. However, respondent fusion center leaders or operational directors
generally are aware of which information technology projects or human capital positions are funded with Federal
131 Interview with fusion center official, May 7, 2007.
132 According to DHS officials, the BSIR reports require states to demonstrate “how the actual expenditure of grant
funds is linked to [the state’s] strategy goals and objectives.” J. Richard Berman, Statement before the Subcommittee
on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology of the House Committee on Homeland Security, April 12, 2005, st
available from: http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/testimony/OIG_1_Responder_Testimony_Berman_Apr05.pdf,
accessed on June 27, 2007.
133 According to DHS officials, the Grants Reporting Tool was not available until 2004 and enhanced the Department’s
ability to track grants.
134 See DHS, Office of Grants and Training, Fusion Centers: DHS Funded Activities—Fiscal Years 2004-2006, April
2007, p. 129.
• Requested versus actual data could be stated more clearly. If both figures
continue to be provided, historical percentages of requested amounts that are
approved for actual funding might prove helpful.
• It speaks more to how HSGP funds may have been spent versus how they have
been allocated. Notwithstanding the fact that Fusion Center Guidelines may not
have been developed until 2005, if DHS and DOJ have been supporting fusion
center “related” activities since 2001 when there were few fusion centers, the
agencies should be able to ascertain the funding amount allocated to these
• Grants allocated to fusion centers are done in a manner consistent with annual
HSGP Guidelines which, while increasingly including direct language relating to
fusion center activities, such as analysis of intelligence and information, are not
specifically targeted to fusion centers. There is no “fusion center grant program.”
If it is a Departmental priority to develop a national network of fusion centers, it
could be argued that a direct funding stream and/or HSGP Fusion Center
Program might facilitate more targeted and tailored development of fusion
centers. Alternatively, it could be argued that targeting fusion center funding
more directly could undermine broader homeland security goals which transcend
fusion center activities.
In recent federal homeland security grant cycles, funds were permitted to be used to finance
several fusion center-related activities and infrastructure investments. In a review of fusion
centers nationwide, it appears that federal funding was likely to be used for start up costs and
technology and infrastructure investment. In the last two years of homeland security funding,
federal grants could be used to fund one- to two-year contractor slots for analysts at fusion
centers. Additionally, federal grants were used to fund training for fusion center personnel. The
salaries of federal employees detailed to fusion centers and the cost (rent, etc.) associated with
collocation if a federal agency housed the fusion center, neither of which are funded through
federal homeland security grants, are also represented in the overall federal contributions tallied
in this report.
Another central question with respect to federal funding for fusion centers, not unlike other
federal funding streams, is the extent to which it is reasonable to attach certain conditions to the
funding. As mentioned above, one challenge is to retain the grass-roots, state and local priority
basis of these centers. Yet, from a business perspective, it is not unreasonable for the federal
government to expect some return for its investment in fusion centers. Other than generally
enhanced information sharing, it is not certain what that return on investment is from the federal
perspective. Part of this question may be resolved when decisions are made about the extent to
which, if at all, the federal government determines sustainment funding will or will not be
provided to the centers.
One of the central questions and challenges to fusion centers continues to be the provision of
sustainment funding, or funding which is provided annually, on a sustainable basis, to fusion
centers to support personnel costs and information connectivity, among other functions. At the
first annual national conference on fusion centers, Secretary Chertoff stated that one of the
manners in which DHS has supported fusion centers is by providing grant funding—over $300
million—for the creation of fusion centers. However, he continued, the funding
... helps fledgling centers get off the ground and start to build fundamental baseline
capabilities. This is not meant, by the way, to be sustainment funding. We are not signing up
to fund fusion centers in perpetuity. But we do want to use these grants to target resources to
help fusion centers make the capital investment and training investment to come to maturity.
And then, of course, we expect every community to continue to invest in sustaining these 135
very important law enforcement tools.
At the same conference where Secretary Chertoff delivered his direct message that sustainment
funding was unlikely, a representative of the Homeland Security Council (HSC) delivered a
seemingly more sanguine message on this topic. According to the HSC representative, the
Administration realizes that fusion centers are not a “fly by night operation,” and, as a result, “... 136
if we are asking you to invest resources...we need to remain committed.” The HSC
representative stated that while there were no definitive percentage splits on burden-sharing, the 137
Administration was having such conversations.
Representative Jane Harman, having recently visited numerous fusion centers, raised concerns
about fusion center sustainment funding, stating, “all the DHS staff assistants (detailees) in the
world won’t get the job done if fusion centers do not have adequate and sustained funding.
Without money, they’re going to disappear, and DHS State and local fusion center programs 138
won’t succeed. DHS Chief Intelligence Officer, echoed Representative Harman’s funding 139
concerns, testifying that
I share many of the concerns expressed by this subcommittee ... about creating a sustainable
fusion center capability at the non-Federal level. DHS, in partnership with DOJ, is a major
supporter of fusion centers through our grants and accompanying technical assistance 140
program, and in providing classified infrastructure....
Alternatively, it could also be argued that if fusion centers can prove their tangible value to their
state, local, and regional constituents support base, funding will continue to be provided through
state and local revenue sources. Empirically, numerous respondent fusion centers shared that if
federal funding is eliminated, it was likely that the center would continue to exist, but its activities
would become far more parochial—by focusing largely on criminal intelligence relevant to the
state and locality alone—and not issues pertaining to federal homeland security concerns.
What remains to be defined, and will be addressed below is, from a federal perspective, how is
fusion center “maturity” defined, and how is it being assessed by the federal government, and
according to what performance metrics? Given Secretary Chertoff’s remarks, at what level of
135 Derived from CRS transcription of Secretary Chertoff’s Keynote Address to the first annual National Fusion Center
Conference, March 6, 2007.
136 Derived from CRS notes taken at the First Annual National Fusion Center Conference, March 8, 2007.
137 Some conference participants noted that the seemingly contradictory messages were a demonstration of the lack of
uniform federal policy with respect to State, local and regional fusion centers.
138 See Transcript, House Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and
Terrorism Risk Assessment, Hearing on Security and Information Sharing and Civil Liberties, March 14, 2007.
139 As part of the Intelligence Community, the budget of the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (OIA) is
classified. OIA’s budget is combined with DHS’ National Operations Center (NOC) budget and is classified under a
general Departmental operations budget line.
140 See Statement of Assistant Secretary Charles E. Allen Before the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information
Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment of the House Homeland Security Committee, March 14, 2007.
maturity do resources cease to be provided? Some argue that a federal fusion center strategy may
be beneficial in addressing some of the historical fusion center concerns.
Research indicates that there are two levels of federal human capital support provided to fusion
centers—individuals who have some level of contact with the centers as either local clients of the
center and/or providers of information to the center, and part-time or full-time federal detailees to
centers. The first category includes a relatively broad range of federal law enforcement and public
safety professionals including representatives from the National Guard , Centers for Disease
Control, High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, as well as various DHS elements. The second
category of part-time and full-time detailees to the fusion centers is composed largely, although
not exclusively, of FBI and DHS representatives. While the FBI and DHS share certain missions,
such as counterterrorism, they are unique agencies with distinctive missions and resource levels
to meet their mission. Questions concerning the deployment of federal human capital resources to
the centers might include
• To what extent have the FBI and DHS formally coordinated their deployments to 141
• How did the FBI and DHS determine to which fusion centers they would deploy
• What criteria were used to support the decision?
• What types of professionals were deployed to the center?
• How have the FBI and DHS personnel currently deployed been utilized? What
roles have they played and what value have they added to fusion center
operations and analysis?
Table 1 below provides some data related to each of the aforementioned questions. What is
notable is that it does not appear that the FBI and DHS drafted a joint, formal strategy outlining
their approach to interaction with the centers. While each agency has its own unique mission,
counterterrorism and countering crime are two large areas of mission overlap between these two
federal agencies and the state and local fusion centers. Moreover, it also does not appear that the
Homeland Security Council, a coordinating body akin to the National Security Council (NSC)
primarily focused on homeland security issues, has issued a national strategy for fusion centers.
141 According to the Deputy Program Manager for the ISE, the FBI and DHS are still developing an “integrated
deployment plan.” See remarks of Susan B. Reingold, Deputy Program Manager, ISE, at the National Guard Bureau—
J-2 Intelligence Knowledge Management Conference, June 12, 2007. Given that the FBI has already deployed 250
personnel and DHS is in 15 centers, the effect such a plan may have at this point may be marginal. However, such a
plan may prove useful if it clarified the roles and responsibilities of DHS and FBI detailees in the centers, and outlined
a joint oversight process to monitor agency progress in effectively implementing those responsibilities.
Table 1. FBI and DHS Interaction with Fusion Centers
Issue FBI DHS Coordination
Policy “engagement Sept. 2005: FBI Dir. June 2006: Sec. Chertoff It does not appear that there
date” meaning date the Mueller instructs all designates Office of was or is a national or
agency began official field leaders to Intelligence and Analysis as FBI/DHS strategy for how the
interaction with fusion “ensure coordination” executive agent to accomplish agencies planned to engage
centers between FBI and state-the DHS state and local fusion centers to serve mission
wide and multi-agency fusion center mission. specific and/or overlapping
centers. counterterrorism goals.
Number of centers 35 of which, 16 fusion 15
deployed to centers are collocated
with an FBI entity
Number employees 250 15, with a goal of 35 by the
assigned to centers end of FY2008
Types of employees 64 Special Agents; 121 15 Intelligence
assigned/deployed to Intelligence Analysts; Analysts/Intelligence Liaison
centers 65 Other (linguists, Officers.
Criteria for deployment Center “maturity” Risk, maturity, field “needs While both assessed maturity,
(facility; connectivity; assessments” it would appear DHS’s
multi-agency full-time assessment was largely risk-
participation; “Global” based.
Roles assigned/ Field Intel Group IA - Information exchanges, Extent to which roles are
deployed personnel analytical, information “reach back” and liaison with coordinated and clear differ
play exchanges DHS Headquarters for all across fusion centers.
Special Agent - DHS components.
investigative links to
Joint Terrorism Task
Sources: FBI material provided to CRS, May 25, 2007. DHS Implementation Plan for State and Local Fusion Centers:
Executive Summary, June 2006.
While there are numerous issues that are raised by the lack of a comprehensive national strategy
for what the federal government wishes to achieve through its interaction with fusion centers, one 142
of the central issues becomes the allocation of human resource to the centers. While risk, 143
maturity, and individual center needs are entirely valid means by which to determine how to
142 DHS calculated risk according to a quantitative and weighted model of the following 12 factors: population (10%),
border risk (10%), terror risk (10%), immigration risk (10%), iconic value (5%), hazardous materials risk (10%),
population density (5%), critical infrastructure (10%), port risk (10%), economic risk (10%), 2005 UASI funding (5%),
2005 State grant distribution (5%). See DHS, “The Department of Homeland Security Support Implementation Plan for
State and Local Fusion Centers,” March 7, 2006. According to DHS, “The key to harvesting the value from these
relationships is in tailoring DHS’ support offering to meet the specific needs of individual Fusion Centers.” See DHS,
State & Local Fusion Center: DHS Support Plan, February 2007.
143 DHS has conducted over 17 site assessments, or visits to established centers to determine how it might best target
human resources potentially provided to the centers. These visits include, but are not limited to, Columbus, Ohio;
Phoenix, Arizona; North Central Texas; Albany, NW; Tallahassee Florida; and Maynard, Massachusetts. See DHS
State and Local Fusion Centers: DHS Support Plan, February 2007. For a list of where DHS currently has personnel
deployed see Appendix B.
provide resources to centers, these funding criteria could result in numerous centers with
significantly increased human resources, while others with arguably similar levels of risk remain
in a stage of relative immaturity due to lack of human resource support. The question of what the
federal government collectively defines as a “mature” center, or what the minimum level of
capability for a fusion center is from a federal perspective, it could be argued, hampers the
development of a long-term and sustained partnership between the federal government and the
state and regional fusion centers.
Fusion center leadership often described FBI detailees as having well-defined roles and
responsibilities compared to that of the DHS representatives whose roles in the organization were 144
often less well-defined. DHS officials claim to place Department representatives based on the
needs and wants of the center. Thus, there appears to be a wider spectrum of roles for DHS
personnel detailed to the various state fusion centers as their tasks vary from an intelligence
analyst, to Departmental coordinators, to an advisor on federal grant applications. Yet all 15 DHS
detailees come from the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. Some critics suggest that work
undertaken outside of the core information sharing role between DHS and the fusion centers
hampers the primary reason for being detailed to the center and negates any opportunity to
“facilitate the flow of timely, actionable, all-hazard information between state and local 145
governments and the national intelligence and law enforcement communities.”
Overall, relationships with DHS were described by fusion centers having a DHS detailee as
relatively positive. However, by comparison, fusion centers reported a more favorable
relationship with the FBI than DHS. There are numerous plausible explanations for such attitudes
ranging from the different missions of FBI and DHS, to the sheer difference in numbers of FBI
and DHS personnel assigned to these centers. Furthermore, it is likely that fusion centers, despite
the traditional friction between state and local law enforcement and the FBI, are more
comfortable with the FBI, because they share a common lexicon and world view that comes with
being a member of the greater law enforcement community.
Corporate DHS is, however, a relatively new entity and in many ways state fusion center
personnel—who are often sworn law enforcement officers—are still trying to determine how they
interact with the Department. An example of this is the concern many state and local law
enforcement and fusion center staff have expressed regarding sharing law enforcement sensitive
information with the Department, which often has contractor analysts and other non-law
enforcement personnel review data. On a few occasions, fusion centers mentioned steps they had
taken to ensure DHS analysts would not be able to access various portals utilized by the center or
participate in information sharing calls with other law enforcement agencies.
A common refrain from state fusion center leadership was that there was no coordination between
the FBI and DHS with respect to substantive mission support and resource allocations were often
144 Conversations with Fusion Center Director, May 2007. Based on input from state fusion center leaders, DHS
personnel detailed to a center performed functions ranging from analysis, DHS liaison and coordination point of
contact, operations, providing grant writing expertise, logistics, and administrative.
145 Statement of Charles Allen, Assistant Secretary of Intelligence and Analysis, Department of Homeland Security,
before the Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk
Assessment, September 13, 2006.
duplicative or nonexistent. At present, the majority of terrorism-related issues that are brought to 146
the attention of state fusion center entities are provided directly to the local JTTF, with the FBI 147
deciding to investigate the issue or returning the lead to the reporting agency. However, DHS
has also requested that all state fusion centers report any suspicious incident that may be
perceived to be terrorist activity to the Department. Confusion exists whether this information
should be transmitted to DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the DHS National Operation
Center, or provided simultaneously to the DHS and the FBI JTTF. If the latter, homeland security
observers are concerned that due to a lack of definitive federal roles and responsibilities crucial
information may not be acted upon as DHS and the FBI will presume the other agency is
undertaking the proper due diligence of ascertaining the viability of a potential threat.
The reporting chain problem—from state and local fusion centers to the Federal government—
has been recognized. Under ISE Guideline 2, one recommendation is that DOJ and DHS, in
consultation with the Program Manager’s Office, develop standards to: (1) specify the means
through which State, local and tribal data related to terrorist risks and threats and associated
requirements and tasks is communicated to federal authorities and private sector entities and (2)
develop, maintain and disseminate assessments of terrorist risks and threats gathered at the state,
local or tribal levels, and (3) develop processes and protocols to ensure Suspicious Incident
Reports and Suspicious Activity Reports are reported to appropriate law enforcement 148
authorities. Implementation of this recommendation within fusion centers remains nascent and,
therefore, inefficient dissemination procedures continue.
A related problem, that further highlights the lack of coordination between the federal agencies, is
the vehicles for reporting and receiving information. As previously stated, fusion center officials
expressed continued frustration about the multiple, seemingly competing, information systems
promoted by various federal agencies. Entering the same data into multiple databases is time-
consuming and inefficient. One fusion center official criticized DHS and FBI for failing to 149
consider fusion center needs while promoting their own “favorite pet projects.”
In order to ensure that terrorism information150 is shared “... among all appropriate federal, state,
local and tribal entities, and the private sector through the use of policy guidelines and
146 Presidential Decision Directive - 62, Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Americans
Overseas, dated May 22, 1998, at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/pdd62.htm.
147 According to state fusion center leaders, it is quite common for a tip to be turned over to the JTTF without the center
receiving additional information on its status.
148 See ISE Guideline 2, Develop a Common Framework for the Sharing of Information Between and Among Executive
Departments and Agencies and State, Local, and Tribal Governments, Law Enforcement Agencies, and the Private
Sector, p. 21.
149 Interview with a state fusion center official, May 3, 2007.
150 Terrorism information is defined as “...all information, whether collected, produced, or distributed by intelligence,
law enforcement, military, homeland security, or other activities relating to (A) the existence, organization, capabilities,
plans, intentions, vulnerabilities, means of finance or material support, or activities of foreign or international terrorist
groups or individuals, or of domestic groups or individuals involved in transnational terrorism; (B) threat posed by such
groups or individuals to the United States, United States persons, or United States interests, or to those of other nations;
(C) communications of or by such groups or individuals; or (D) groups or individuals reasonably believed to be
assisting or associated with such groups or individuals.” P.L. 108-458 §1016, codified at 6 U.S.C. 485.
technologies...,”151 Congress and the Administration created the Information Sharing
Environment. Enhanced horizontal information sharing between federal agencies and vertical
information sharing between all stakeholders across all levels of governments is the ISE goal.
Located within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Program Manger for ISE
has been working to integrate fusion centers into a broad initiative to enhance information and
intelligence between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement and public
safety entities, as well as the private sector. The Homeland Security Advisory Committee believes
the concept of intelligence/information fusion has emerged as a fundamental process (or
processes) to facilitate the sharing of homeland security-related information and intelligence 152
at the national level, and, therefore has become a guiding principal in defining the ISE.
According to its Information Sharing Environment Implementation Plan (November 2006), the
ISE has or will take the following actions with respect to fusion centers:
• Establish a Federal Fusion Center Coordination Group “... to identify resources to
support the development of a network of State-sponsored fusion centers charged
to share information at all levels of the ISE, and will recommend funding 153
• Encourage DHS and DOJ to “... work with Governors and other senior State and
local leaders to designate a single fusion center to serve as the statewide or 154
regional hub to interface with the Federal government ...”
• Encourage statewide and major area fusion centers to “ensure locally generated
terrorism information is communicated to the Federal government through
appropriate systems identified by Federal officials as part of ISE 155
If, as mentioned above, one of the federal government’s goals is to create a national network of
fusion centers to share homeland security information in a timely and effective manner, these
initiatives, once implemented will assist in integrating federal, state, and local public safety and
law enforcement officials together. However, these initiatives do not necessarily, in and of
themselves, constitute a national strategy for fusion centers, as they do not clearly articulate,
among other factors, federal expectations of fusion centers, and the extent to which sustainment
funding will be provided by the federal government for fusion centers.
With passage of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L.
11-53), the Interagency Threat Assessment Coordination Group (ITACG) was statutorily
151 See the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, §1016, P.L. 108-458.
152 See U.S. Department of Homeland Security—Homeland Security Advisory Council, Intelligence and Information
Sharing Initiative: Homeland Security Intelligence and Information Fusion, April 28, 2005, p. 2.
153 See Office of the Director of National Intelligence, PM-ISE, Information Sharing Environment Implementation
Plan, November 2006, p. 119. According to a recent speech delivered by the Deputy Program Manager for the ISE, this
center is established. The center, co-chaired by DHS and the FBI, “...is responsible for ensuring that the federal
government’s efforts to work with state and local fusion centers are coordinated and carried out in a manner consistent
with the President’s direction.” See remarks of Susan B. Reingold, Deputy Program Manager, ISE, at the National
Guard Bureau—J-2 Intelligence Knowledge Management Conference, June 12, 2007.
155 Ibid., p. 125.
recognized as the federal agency responsible for facilitating the flow of finished intelligence 156
products to state and local homeland security entities. The participation of state and local
personnel in the ITACG, located at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), allows state
and local officials to develop an understanding of the volume and breadth of federal intelligence.
Another objective of the ITACG is to allow federal Intelligence Community personnel to learn
more about the types of information and intelligence that is valuable to state and local
governments. Fusion center participation in the ITACG may be valuable, as the fusion centers
represent a central point through which federal intelligence can flow across the country through
appropriate dissemination channels and security procedures. At this stage of development, it is
unclear what relationship the ITACG will have with state and regional fusion centers. A director
for the HSAC stated that “DHS used to have its own way of sending out information, and the FBI
did too...now [thanks to the ITACG] we have a coordinated way to send out threat assessment 157
information.” However, there are some indications that the FBI and DHS will retain
dissemination rights, thus calling into question whether the ITACG will streamline intelligence
flow to state and local authorities, or exacerbate the current information sharing channel 158
problems. Some might suggest the ITACG would be the natural arbiter for fusion center
information and intelligence coordination efforts.
While fusion centers are not federal entities and, therefore, have no federal statutory basis, federal
agencies with homeland security responsibilities appear to be relying heavily on the information
gathered at the local level to support the development of a national threat assessment. Congress
plays a role in supporting these centers and federal government homeland security efforts in at
least two areas. First, as mentioned above, it authorizes and appropriates both HSGP funding,
some of which is allocated to support fusion center related activities, and the National Foreign
Intelligence Program (NFIP) budget which supports DHS and FBI personnel detailed to the
centers. Second, Congress has held numerous hearings to learn more about fusion centers. th
Notably, during the 109 Congress there were over five hearings held related to intelligence
sharing, DHS Intelligence, and fusion centers. Federal witnesses included representatives from
the FBI, DHS, and Office of the DNI. There were also numerous witnesses from state and local
agencies, including, but not limited to, the Illinois State Police, the Virginia Fusion Center, the
New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, and the Commonwealth of th
Massachusetts. Thus far in the 110 Congress, there have been at least five hearings related to
state and local fusion centers, with one hearing taking place in Washington State. Witnesses have
included representatives from the private sector, including The Boeing Company and Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, and individuals from state and local fusion centers in Florida,
Tennessee, and Delaware.
156 According to a conversation with a senior ODNI official in January, 2008, the ITACG has accomplished the
following: (1) a DHS official is currently the Director of the ITACG with an FBI serving as the Deputy Director, (2)
the NCTC has allocated space for the agency, and (3) two state and local officials have been detailed to the ITACG
with two other detailess to join the office in the coming months.
157 Quoting Thomas Bossert, Jason Miller, “White House Council Puts Cybersecurity in Focus,” FCW.com, July 2,
158 According to a conversation with a senior ODNI official in January, 2008, the ITACG is incurring significant
challenges while attempting to meet the statutory mandates of the agency. Reportedly, the ITACG has had difficulty in
having senior officials of the NCTC, DHS, and FBI agree on the role and responsibilities of the organization. It was
also noted that the NCTC has developed an organization that is coordinating with, and providing intelligence products
to, state and local homeland security entities.
DHS-OIA funding levels are classified as a result of OIA being a member of the U.S. Intelligence 159
Community. As a result, the level of DHS-OIA budgets allocated to detailing intelligence
professionals to fusion centers is unknown. In another indicator of congressional interest in
increasing funding to the centers, P.L. 110-28, the “U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans Care, Katrina
Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007,” provided an additional $8 million
to the DHS Analysis and Operations account “... to be used for support of the State and Local 160
Fusion Center Program....”
As mentioned above, all fusion centers are guided by federal regulation 28 CFR, Part 23 with
respect to how they manage their multi-jurisdictional intelligence systems operating under Title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-351). 28 CFR, Part 23,
requires all multi-jurisdictional law enforcement information management systems funded in part 161
by federal grants to follow guidelines for the collection, storage, and purge of information. 28
CFR, Part 23 states that information stored in such a system must be “reviewed and validated for
continuing compliance with system submission criteria before the expiration of its retention 162
period, which in no event shall be longer than five (5) years.” It is based on a “need to know”
and “right to know,” which are not explicitly defined terms. Rather, 28 CFR, Part 23, calls upon 163
each project to establish their own written definitions.
In many ways, 28 CFR, Part 23, may be outdated and in need of evaluation against the backdrop
of the current threat environment. 28 CFR, Part 23, is focused on traditional crime, not terrorism.
As such, it has relatively short information retention periods which may not necessarily be
consistent with known terrorist planning cycles and/or the need for historical data for terrorism 164
threat assessment. Furthermore, this federal regulation was written before many of the data
storage and data-mining technologies were available. It is unclear whether some of the
technological devices available today, like those that allow users to query disparate databases
which are not directly connected, would fall under the jurisdiction of 28 CFR, Part 23. The
regulations also promote a “need and right to know” standard, which has been judged as one of
the factors contributing to the (real or perceived) “wall” between intelligence and law
enforcement at the federal level that prevents effective information flow. Finally, it could be
argued that 28 CFR, Part 23, is too vague in parts because it allows agencies to define their own
159 See P.L. 107-296, Section 201(h), codified at 50 U.S.C. 401a.
160 See P.L. 110-28, Title I, Chapter 5. The language requires quarterly reporting to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees on numerous factors relating to fusion centers.
161 Not all federal grant streams potentially used for funding such systems are included in 28 CFR, Part 23 - currently
any systems funded in part by “all Crime Control Act funded discretionary assistance awards and Bureau of Justice
Assistance (BJA) formula grant program sub-grants,”DOJ, 28 CFR Part 23: Criminal Intelligence Systems Operation
Procedures, available from http://www.it.ojp.gov/documents/28CFR_Part_23.PDF, accessed on June 1, 2007, known
hereon as DOJ, 28 CFR Part 23, - This includes “any Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and Bureau of Justice
Assistance (BJA) programs, such as the Byrne Formula or Discretionary Grants Programs, the Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant (LLEBG) Program, and Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants”, while others like HIDTA
programs and apparently Homeland Security grant funds have adopted it as policy, although it is not in statute.
162 DOJ, 28 CFR, Part 23, 4.
163 Ibid., p. 3.
164 Angel Rabasa et al., Beyond Al Qaeda: Part 1—The Global Jihadist Movement, (RAND, Santa Monica, CA, 2006),
available from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG429.pdf, accessed on June 13, 2007, 63-71.
terms, like “need to know,” which could contribute to vastly different standards across
jurisdictions and, ultimately, ineffective information sharing.
The relationship and role of the private sector is a function that most state fusion centers have yet
to fully define and/or embrace. A number of the fusion centers surveyed have undertaken
informational and security-related discussions with some of the major critical infrastructure
owners and operators and data-providers within their respective jurisdictions. However, while
acknowledging that a comprehensive understanding of the risks to the state/region is impossible
to attain without a viable relationship and consistent information flow between the center and the
private sector entities within the center’s jurisdiction, the vast majority of centers have yet to put
the processes in place to support such an endeavor. Very few of the state and regional fusion
centers have an infrastructure sector representative detailed to their organization and rely, in part,
on open-source information, data provided by the federal government, or contract data vendors
for information about threats to a critical infrastructure facility. Common reasons for the lack of a
relationship between the fusion center and private sector entities are
• prioritizing the infrastructure sectors to be represented in the center based on risk;
• a lack of appreciation as to the role and information a sector representative might
• the lack of a federal government strategy or recommendations regarding how the
fusion center should incorporate private sector data into the analytic fusion
Although representative ISAC organizations have different mandates and provide different types
of information and services, generally the entities provide its members data related to threats,
vulnerabilities, pending legislation, and issues of concern to a specific infrastructure sector. ISAC
organizations, originally envisioned as a mechanism for the sharing of critical infrastructure 165
information between partnering corporations and with the federal government currently are not
being fully utilized by state and regional fusion centers as a resource for information. One option
for fusion centers is to enhance their relationship with private sector organizations through the
establishment of education and information-exchange efforts with ISAC representative
organizations. Some homeland security observers suggest that the building of a productive
relationship with private sector entities may allow the fusion center to enhance information
sharing efforts with operators of the state’s critical infrastructure and assist in the preparation and
prevention phase of homeland security.
165 The goal of Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) - 63 was to assure the security of the United States’ vulnerable
and interconnected critical infrastructures. With the signing of Presidential Decision Directive - 63 in May, 1998, the
private sector was encouraged to establish numerous ISACs for the purpose of having a representative entity from
which the sharing of critical infrastructure information threat and vulnerability data would occur between the federal
government and the owners and operators of the nation’s life-sustaining utilities. In December, 2003, PDD-63 was
superseded by Homeland Security Presidential Direct - 7 (HSPD-7), Critical Infrastructure Identification,
Prioritization, and Protection, however the federal government’s requirement to “continue the encouragement and
development of information sharing and analysis mechanisms” still exists.
The Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) Program166 may also be a venue that
would allow a fusion center to be in the best possible position to effectively assess risks within its
jurisdiction and/or respond to a potential situation at a critical infrastructure facility. If DHS is
authorized by the private sectors engaged in this effort to disseminate this information to state and
regional fusion centers, it may allow state and local officials to approach potential situations of
concern with knowledge of hazardous critical infrastructure vulnerabilities that may place the
state/region at greater risk. Should PCII data be authorized for sharing with state fusion centers,
the information may enhance state and local authorities plans for incident response coordination
As stated throughout this report some homeland security observers note that increasing the
universe of available information does not necessarily translate into a better understanding of the
risks to a geographic location or infrastructure sector. Since 9/11, many programs have been
established or enhanced for the purposes of searching for signs of terrorist activity in a central 167
repository to assist with information collection, trend analysis, and spotting of anomalies. Of
note, the DHS Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement
(ADVISE) program, which is being developed to “analyze large amounts of data, such as the 168
relationships among people, organizations, and events” when fully functioning may have the
ability to receive and provide information to the nation’s fusion centers to assist with analytic
strategic indications and warnings. Should ADVISE or other data collection and analysis
programs become fully functional and accessible by fusion centers, some might see this as a
devolution of national intelligence capabilities from the federal government to state governments
resulting in the encroachment on individual civil liberties. Some are concerned that as fusion
centers and the IC agencies codify relationships, there is increased potential for misuse of private
sector data. It could be argued that such a relationship will allow state entities to act as agents of
the federal government in performing federal intelligence community activities that violate
federal privacy laws.
166 The DHS’s Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) Program is designed to encourage private industry to
share its sensitive security-related business information with the federal government. DHS and other federal, state, and
local analysts use PCII in pursuit of a more secure homeland, focusing primarily on: analyzing and securing critical
infrastructure and protected systems, identifying vulnerabilities and developing risk assessments, and enhancing
recovery preparedness measures. See http://www.dhs.gov/xinfoshare/programs/editorial_0404.shtm.
167 See CRS Report RL31798, Data Mining and Homeland Security: An Overview, by Jeffrey W. Seifert.
168 Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Continuing Attention to Privacy Concerns is Needed as
Programs are Developed, March, 2007, p. 11.
Given that fusion centers are entities established by states, localities and regions to serve their
own criminal, emergency response, and terrorism prevention needs, and the sensitivities
associated with federalism, there may not necessarily be a federal remedy to every fusion center-
related issue identified in this report. Moreover, there is a direct correlation between federal
remedies to issues affecting fusion center development, and the extent to which Congress wishes
to condition the funds it authorizes and appropriates for such centers. As a result, there are at least
two categories of challenges and potential options: (I) those challenges for which there are unique
federal remedies and (II) those challenges for which there are no unique federal remedies, and
may be more oriented toward possible state or level governmental intervention. Congressional
remedies could potentially involve a broad range of possible actions including, but not limited to,
oversight of federal agencies and entities engaged in interaction with fusion centers, requesting
Executive Branch action on any number of fusion center-related issues, establishing a statutory
basis for fusion centers, convening additional hearings which include state and local fusion center
leaders as expert witnesses, adjusting future funding levels for fusion centers, and/or considering
the extent to which, if at all, any future federal funding may be conditioned on certain
performance benchmarks being met.
Given the stated need to develop a national network of fusion centers, and that a certain amount
of financial and human resources have been devoted to assisting the states and regions develop
their fusion centers, the following represent challenges and options that the federal government
and, specifically, Congress may wish to consider.
Notwithstanding the fact that individual federal agencies and offices may have their own
strategies concerning their interaction with state and regional fusion centers, there remains no
definitive national strategy on fusion centers. One option for Congress is to recommend the
executive branch draft a cross-agency national strategy with input from the FBI, DHS, ODNI -
PM-ISE, DOD and other Intelligence Community, and state and regional fusion center
representatives. Should such a strategy be determined desirable, it might address the following
• Ownership and benefits. Who “owns” fusion centers and who benefits from
• Federal versus SLT roles and responsibilities, to include funding. What is an
equitable division of labor and costs?
• Permanence—statutory basis and sustainment funding. If fusion centers play
an important homeland security role, should they be provided a statutory basis at
the federal level? If continued federal funding is being contemplated, how might
it be structured to yield the most productive outcome for federal, state and local
fusion center clients?
• Ultimate goals and performance measures. What gaps do fusion centers fill
and how does the federal government measure performance?
• Coordinated federal interaction with fusion centers. How does the federal
government ensure the various agencies engaged in homeland security have a
coordinated plan for fusion and efficient interaction with fusion centers?
• Relationship between fusion centers and the Federal Intelligence Center.
How closely, if at all, should fusion centers be integrated into the federal
intelligence community? Are fusion centers members of the intelligence
community, adjuncts or partners with the intelligence community, a proxy
information source, or an unrelated and parallel information effort?
Pros and Cons. There are many arguments in favor of the creation of a national strategy for
fusion centers. Such a strategy would likely create coherence to what could be argued is currently
a somewhat ad hoc and informal approach to fusion centers. Some might argue that without such
a overarching national strategy, fusion centers will only provide limited benefits to limited
consumers. Arguments against this option might include disruption to ongoing activities, or that
such a strategy, while not formal, already exists in the form of the collective activities of DHS,
the FBI, Global Justice, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s Program
Manager for the ISE. Furthermore, to be successful in creating a cohesive structure for forty+
fusion centers across the country, a national strategy may need to deal with several politically
sensitive issues, such as the need for a joint deployment strategy for the federal agencies that
detail personnel to state and regional fusion centers. However, if this issue and other sensitive
topics are not comprehensively addressed and resolved, fusion centers may have limited national
impact. The strategy’s potential for success is likely to hinge on the perception of input by all-
levels of government and sectors, and the means used to implement the goals and objectives
outlined in the strategy.
While respondent fusion center leaders had many high priority items concerning their interaction
with the federal government, the question of sustainment funding was foremost in their minds.
Should federal funding to fusion efforts be continued? To what end? And how conditional does
Congress want federal aid to fusion centers to be? The current regime of HSGP funding includes
some limited conditions for funding fusion centers. However, the Fusion Center Guidelines
remain entirely voluntary even for recipients of federal HSGP funds. As a result, for example, the
federal government has no formal and systematic means of auditing whether each center is
appropriately protecting civil liberties, or using federally funded intelligence analysts in a manner
that is consistent with national goals and objectives for fusion centers, should they be explicitly
defined. As outlined above, should Congress determine it wishes to take action on this option, a
range of possible legislative tools are available, as discussed below.
The most obvious option is to continue the current manner of funding—that is, using the HSGP
grants as the federal mechanism to make funding available for states and localities for potential
allocation to state and regional fusion centers. This process is reliant on state grant applications,
and the flow of federal funds to state/regional fusion centers is largely determined by the sub-
federal designees that make homeland security grant allocation decisions within each state and/or
municipality. Furthermore, fusion centers compete with a wide range of homeland security
initiatives for funding. While certain elements of HSGP funding are geared toward supporting
fusion center development, there is no targeted funding stream directly allocated to fusion centers
If the approach to funding fusion centers remains the status quo, then Secretary Chertoff’s
statement that DHS has not “... signed on to fund fusion centers in perpetuity....” will remain true.
Without a dedicated funding stream, and/or another large-scale terrorist attack within the United
States, it is unclear whether fusion centers will continue to receive federal funding, as well as sub-
federal resources, to continue their current functions as outlined in this report.
Pros and Cons. Arguments in favor of maintaining the status quo include those who suggest such
an option would result in a natural progression of the current funding model. It would allow for a
certain amount of continuity in funding streams and methods of allocating funds. Such an option
would likely result in minimal HSGP program disruption. Arguments against this option might
include that the status quo would continue to leave the fundamental sustainability question—one
that is foremost in the collective mind of fusion centers—unanswered. Maintaining the status quo
may have a drawback as it might perpetuate uncertainty about sustainable federal aid. This
uncertainty might continue to hamper how fusion centers plan their information technology and
human resource needs for the future.
Under this potential option, the current grant program could be slightly altered to address some of
the oft cited hurdles that state and local officials believe impede the flow of federal grant funds to
fusion center projects. Two such alterations to be considered include
• Increasing the duration of grant cycles in order to allow for enhanced continuity
and human resource planning, particularly for contract-supported intelligence
• Building some level of autonomy into the HSGP “80/20” localities/state split of
HSGP funding to allow state political leadership some autonomy to re-allocate a
portion of overall HSGP funds to a single, designated state-wide fusion center.
Such flexibility could be conditioned on formal HSGP audits to ensure
accountability and that funds re-allocated within state HSGP awards are
consistent with the state’s fusion center mission and Federal Fusion Center
Guidelines. These audits would include input from fusion center leaders, State
Administrative Agents, and the state’s Homeland Security Advisor.
A more significant adjustment to the existing HSGP that could potentially alleviate some of the
difficulty associated with facilitating the flow of federal homeland security funds to fusion
centers is the creation of a narrowly targeted “Fusion Center” grant category, similar to the Port
Security Grant Program (PSGP) and the other four sub-categories included under the 169
Infrastructure Protection Program (IPP). If such a program were established and funded,
169 Homeland Security Grant Programs - FY2007 Information available from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/
grants_programs.htm#fy2007ipp, accessed on June 14, 2007.
arguably, it could provide the federal government with increasing leverage to condition the
funding on a number of factors, not the least of which may be compliance with Fusion Center
Guidelines, or other, more specific fusion center performance metrics.
Pros and Cons. Arguments against this option might include the position that such a program
might set a precedent for other more narrowly tailored homeland security oriented programs to
advocate for a similar approach. It could also be argued that such a program might undermine the
current federal approach to fund the functions which underlie homeland security—such as
information sharing and analysis. Alternatively, it could also be argued that there are several
existing programs that are narrowly tailored to ensure that risks and capabilities determined by
the federal government to be nationally critical are already funded in this manner (such as the
Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP), and other Infrastructure Protection Program (IPP)
grants). If the federal government determined that state and regional fusion centers provide a
critical homeland security function, both protecting critical national infrastructure and
transportation security, might it not be prudent to have a fusion center grant program?
If it is determined that establishing a national network of fusion centers serves long-term, national
homeland security interests, it may be reasonable to design a system which provides resources to
state and local fusion centers commensurate with the national benefit derived. This presupposes
the development of (1) a cogent set of concrete national interests served by fusion centers, (2) a
set of metrics that can quantitatively capture how well fusion centers are meeting these interests
and goals, (3) standards for “minimum levels of capability” and fusion center “maturity,”and (4)
thresholds linking levels of maturity to levels of federal funding. These standards and metrics
could be developed as part of a cooperative endeavor between federal, state, and local
representatives, possibly under the “Global” program. As with other options above, the extent to
which Congress could condition such an approach is an open question.
Pros and Cons. One of the primary arguments that could be made against this option is that it is
too complex and, as a result, would be difficult to implement and may encourage states to “game
the system” so as to remain immature enough to retain federal funding. Alternatively, arguments
in favor could be that Congress is responding to fusion center requests for a long-term and
explicit federal approach to sustainable funding. While the states may not like the performance
metrics developed and/or the thresholds for funding phase-outs, these metrics and standards
would at least create an environment of certainty in which states could better plan and target state
and local funding streams to meet their ongoing funding needs that the federal government has
clearly informed them it will not meet. If this option is pursued, metrics development and center
evaluation would likely be most effective if designed and undertaken with fusion centers and SLT
agency sponsors to ensure they are not resisted or rejected.
Alternatively, Congress alone, or with input from DHS, the FBI, and the ODNI’s PM- ISE, could
determine that there are certain fusion center functions that provide direct value and benefits to
the federal government, and as such, warrant sustainable federal financial support. For example, it
might be determined the development of state-wide intelligence systems, and information and
intelligence analysis, are two core fusion center functions that are clearly linked to the federal
benefit derived from fusion centers. As such, the federal government could determine that it
would support these functions directly and possibly in a sustainable manner. If such a decision
were made, a pilot program might be established and implemented at certain fusion centers over a
specified time period to ascertain empirical federal benefits derived from direct support of such
Pros and Cons. Arguments against this option might include that such an approach goes beyond
what some in the federal government have stated the government will support, and could increase
federal outlays beyond levels currently being supported, and might create a sense of entitlement
among fusion centers. Arguments in favor of this option are that such an approach would provide
fusion centers with a sense of certainty about federal funding. If, for example, fusion centers
knew Congress would support funding for intelligence analysts, they would no longer need to
budget for such personnel. It could also be argued that such an approach would be relatively
simple—after a period in which seed funding is provided and centers reach maturity (as judged
by the federal government), centers would get some level of sustainment funding for a relatively
specific function or set of functions subject to a pilot program’s assessment of output that benefits
national interests. Some lessons could be learned from the federal government’s other grant 170
program experiences, including the Community Oriented Policing Program model. It could be
argued that federal support and cultivation of the relevant skills and capabilities within fusion
centers that provide direct benefit to the federal government may result in state and regional
fusion centers acting as a “force multiplier” for federal efforts.
Given that effective information/intelligence fusion and proactive approaches to all-hazard
prevention and preparedness depends on a common understanding of intelligence and information
and the potential uses thereof, an argument can be made for enhanced and uniform fusion center
training. Research indicates that the diversity of types of professionals serving in fusion centers
can lead to differing perspectives, or possibly, competing visions for the fusion center. Retired
military intelligence officers may approach intelligence differently from, for example, state first
responder personnel. While neither approach may be “best” and the center might benefit from
diversity of opinions, a common understanding of and lexicon for intelligence and its benefits and
limits amongst all level of fusion center personnel can go a long way toward ensuring
cohesiveness, clarity of vision, and productivity of a fusion center.
In addition to intelligence training, some homeland security observers note that fusion centers
may benefit from additional and standardized civil liberties training. Most fusion centers
surveyed claim to have institution-wide civil liberty training and awareness activities that ensure
all employees are aware of how personal and corporate information can be collected, received,
stored, and combined with traditional intelligence community information toward producing a
risk assessment for a given issue of concern. However, this training is often agency-specific and
there may be differences between state activities and federal expectations. As such, the federal
government may wish to require a part of all funding allocated toward a state fusion center be
used for nationally consistent civil liberties training with special attention to concerns
surrounding the use of private sector data. Another option would make such training a
170 Analogies to other Federal programs do, however, have limitations, as any pilot program would have to assess the
potentially unique national interests served by fusion centers. For example, while hiring local police to prevent crime
may serve the national interest, does the prevention of terrorist attacks (another crime) serve the national interest more
or less than general violent crime prevention at the State and local levels?
precondition for receiving federal grants. Should Congress wish to pursue this option, a range of
possible legislative tools are available, including designating a federal government entity (See
Option 4f) to provide oversight of these efforts, amongst others, as discussed below.
Congress may consider requiring the Intelligence Community to work with law enforcement
(State, Local, and Tribal (SLT) and federal) to develop a common lexicon and definitions for
intelligence, information, situational awareness, and other key concepts to ensure all entities, at
all levels of government, that are engaged in homeland security are working from the same play
book. These basic definitions and standards may be applicable whether the
information/intelligence is national security-related or criminal in nature. The PM - ISE, which is
currently working to reconcile different sensitive but unclassified security designations and
handling instructions, might be a natural coordinator for such an effort. The creation of enhanced
and standardized, national fusion center training could help promote this common “dictionary of
Pros and Cons. Arguments in favor of this option might include that the lack of clarity between a
“pure” intelligence and criminal intelligence role leads to over-aggressive or under-aggressive
intelligence postures in fusion centers. In short, clarity would lead to greatly enhanced
information sharing. Arguments against this option could include a fundamental disagreement
with the belief that there is a difference between “pure” intelligence and criminal intelligence—
both seek to prevent man-made threats, including crime and terrorism. Therefore, no additional
training is needed—fusion centers understand the legal regimes under which they operate.
Another argument against creating these standards and common definitions is that it is likely to
be a difficult undertaking given the sheer number of agencies involved and remnants of
ownership culture that still persist within the federal Intelligence Community.
Given the potential for privacy and civil liberties violations to substantially undermine the public
support for fusion centers, enhanced and periodic re-fresher training in civil liberties may be a
valuable tool for fusion center personnel. While all respondent fusion centers were cognizant of
the need to protect civil liberties and provided initial training on privacy and civil liberties
protection, in general, this was one time, static training. Enhanced training might include in-state
or national instances in which violations of privacy and/or civil liberties occurred and possible
lessons learned from those instances. Moreover, annual re-fresher training that emphasizes how
First Amendment protected activities differ from speech which incites violence or sedition, may
be useful. In addition, the adoption of national standards and/or guidelines in this area would
support this effort. There have been some efforts in this area - PM-ISE issued privacy guidelines
for the information sharing environment in December 2006, which are available to the public and 171
could be utilized by fusion centers. It could be argued, however, that these guidelines aren’t
171 PM-ISE, Guidelines to Ensure that the Information Privacy and Other Legal Rights of Americans are Protected in
the Development and Use of Information Sharing Environment, December 2006, available from http://www.ise.gov/
docs/ise%20privacy%20guidelines%2012-4-06.pdf, accessed on June 27, 2006.
likely to have a significant impact on state and regional fusion centers in their current form, as
they are too vague, only focused on federal agencies, and entirely voluntary.
Pros and Cons. Arguments against this option may be resource-based—that is, training resources
may not allow for such training. Arguments in favor of this option may include an understanding
of history. The lessons of COINTELPRO, the period of domestic intelligence abuses in the late
1960s and early 1970s, necessitate such training. It may also be worth examining the training
related to 28 CFR, Part 23, which was adopted in response to COINTELPRO abuses.
With regard to training on 28 CFR, Part 23, the federal regulation governing multi-jurisdictional
intelligence systems, many law enforcement agencies involved in fusion centers (often because
the latter were an outgrowth of the former) reported that they had received some training from
DOJ and/or other contractors on the regulation when they first began operating an intelligence
management system. In many cases, that training took place many years ago and the agencies in
question have had little to no follow up training. Many didn’t know who at DOJ to contact in the
event that the fusion center had a 28 CFR Part 23-related question or what office fielded
additional training requests. Almost all fusion centers interviewed for this report facilitated 28
CFR Part 23 training for their staff either through the center directly or via the state police or
bureau of investigation. As this is taking place at the state and local level, it is unclear if there is a
consistent application of 28 CFR. Currently, fusion centers are in the difficult position of being
urged to be proactive to help prevent future attacks, while simultaneously being warned about
being too aggressive.
Additional and periodic training to fusion centers might be considered, even if their parent state
police/bureau of investigation agency and other law enforcement participants have already
received such training at some point in their development. Consideration may also be given to
providing legal resources for fusion centers that want an external legal opinion on their collection,
storage, and dissemination activities.
Pros and Cons. Some might argue that the advantage to this type of additional and periodic
training is that it might help eliminate questionable intelligence practices, clarify legitimate
activity, and ensure the protection of civil liberties. The availability of additional legal resources
to fusion centers and SLT law enforcement agencies may result in better and consistent legal
advice and assist resource-strapped entities that are currently suffering a fiscal crisis. Arguments
against such training might be resource-based. Furthermore, if 28 CFR is going to be revised
(Option 6a, page 69), training on what could be viewed by some as the “old regime” may not
As mentioned above, when fusion centers have had an opportunity to avail themselves of the
DHS/DOJ Technical Assistance Program attest, the program seems quite beneficial. However, the
support is provided over the course of a few days and many fusion center respondents desire
longer-term and sustainable assistance, the type characteristic of traditional mentoring programs.
While some fusion centers have created informal mentoring programs of their own, a more
formal program could be designed that would flexibly pair centers of varying levels of maturity
with one another to share best practices and means of surmounting what may be common
obstacles to fusion center development.
Pros and Cons. Arguments against this option may be that it is essentially superfluous as
informal mentor relationships are already being established by the proactive outreach of fusion
center leaders either informally within their region, or at fusion center conferences. Moreover, 172
fusion center conferences and the DHS “Lesson Learned” website provide an opportunity for
centers to conduct liaison and share best practices formally and informally. Arguments in favor of
this option include the position that such a program would constitute a relatively minor addition
to the Technical Assistance Program in terms of resources. The program could facilitate the
pairing up fusion centers they believe could learn from one another. While official guidelines for
the mentor relationships may not be necessary, the federal government might require any new
lessons learned be added to the DHS Lessons Learned Information Sharing database.
Some homeland security observers view the relationship between state fusion centers and the
private sector as one of both unlimited potential and great concern. Currently, most fusion centers
describe an interest in expanding their relationship with the private sector in their jurisdiction, but
consistently, most fusion centers were admittedly behind in developing those relationships.
Information sharing with the private sector was often ad hoc and inconsistent. Furthermore, it is
important to note that fusion centers did not appear to be systematically importing and
incorporating private sector data into their information/intelligence fusion efforts, although some
expressed an interest in better utilizing private sector data in some form.
It is important, however, to identify the opportunity to introduce new types of data, including
those from private sector sources, into the intelligence fusion process to allow for a
comprehensive risk assessment to a given geographic environment or infrastructure facility. It
may be that the data pointing to a pending attack cannot be understood in context unless all
knowable information is available for assessing. On the other hand, absent strenuous civil liberty
protections and safeguards the possibility for misuse of personal or corporate data looms over
many fusion center activities the state may undertake in partnership with or support of private
sector organizations. Furthermore, it could be argued that massive private data collection and
analysis efforts are wasteful and a better use of resources would be to follow known criminal
leads rather than sifting through an enormous amount of data looking for possible signs of
Pros and Cons. Arguments in favor of increasing interaction between fusion centers and the
private sector focus mostly on increasing the availability of possible terrorism-related
information. Should the federal government and private sector routinely share information some
believe this will lead to a better understanding of the threat environment which in turn may deter
or defeat future terrorists attacks. Others argue that the sharing of significant amounts of private
sector data with the nation’s fusion centers will do little to increase security as crucial pieces of
terrorism-related information will not be discernible due to being included in databases
containing large quantities of irrelevant information. These homeland security observers suggest
that the possibility of civil liberty abuses of private sector data residing in a state’s fusion center
172 For more information on the Lessons Learned Information Sharing (LLIS) website visit http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
odp/docs/LLIS_FactSheet.pdf and http://www.llis.gov, both accessed on June 14, 2007.
far outweighs the possible benefits that may occur when combining private sector data with other
suspected terrorism-related information.
Some respondent fusion centers had a relatively pro-active public outreach strategy that included
a website, brochures and billboards, and/or a 1-800 “tip” line that encouraged the public to call
into the center directly. More often, fusion centers had minimal level of interaction with the 173
public by design and due largely to resource constraints. While not violating the precept that
“one size does not fit all fusion centers,” it could be argued that, if resources allow, centers should
be encouraged to have a public message and image consistent with their public mission. Public
support and understanding of what these centers can and cannot do may be essential to their long-
term viability. Moreover, the law enforcement elements of fusion centers are responsible for
knowing their communities and being able to spot anomalies. Public outreach can facilitate calls
into fusion center tip lines when they witness behavior that “just does not seem right.”
Pros and Cons. Arguments against this option are likely to be largely resource-based. Centers
with fewer personnel do not have the necessary staff to operate these programs, for example, a
phone bank necessary for a tip line. If the federal government is considering requiring such
outreach as a condition of accepting funds, it may need to provide additional funds, and/or re-
programming of existing funds. Arguments in favor of this option include a fundamental belief
that these centers serve a public mission and should be not perceived as secret or clandestine
entities that are spying on law-abiding citizens. If the centers do not define themselves to the
public, they may be defined by other groups who may not necessarily have primary source
knowledge about the center and its activities.
Some may argue that clearing SLT personnel, which remains an obstacle to effective information
sharing, (Option 6e) without providing them training on how to handle classified intelligence and
how to use it without disclosing sensitive information to their staffs may be unfair and ill-advised.
Congress may wish to consider funding additional intelligence training for the SLT personnel
assigned to fusion centers. It may also be possible for the federal agency detailees at fusion
centers to assist with this process. Congress may wish to consider urging DHS, the FBI, and other
agencies with detailees at fusion centers to train their staff to assist fusion center leadership with
using classified intelligence and tasking personnel based on threat information, without divulging
Pros and Cons. Arguments in favor of such a training program include that it may help facilitate
necessary information sharing, while ensuring classified information remains secure. However,
federal agencies may reject the idea of having field personnel assisting in such an effort and may
wish to retain such authority at headquarters.
173 This was sometimes due to a general law enforcement approach when dealing with sensitive issues - in a few cases,
it was due to some of the resources or partners with which the center was collocated (e.g., an FBI field office).
DNI Michael McConnell’s “Focus Area 5: Accelerate Information Sharing,” in the 100 Day Plan
for Integration and Collaboration, stipulated, “The Plan includes objectives related to enhancing
information sharing within the IC as well as the formalization of fusion centers that are in the 174
process of being developed.” Formalization and linkages between the fusion centers and the
federal intelligence community could have many interpretations and concrete manifestations. As
outlined above, should Congress determine it wishes to take action on this option, a range of
possible legislative tools are available, as discussed below.
The concept of the Interagency Threat Assessment Coordination Group (ITACG) was first raised
in November 2006 in the PM-ISE Implementation Plan, and then subsequently in January 2007 in
S. 4., the “Improving America’s Security By Implementing Unfinished Recommendations of the
9/11Commission Act” of 2007. Under the terms of the Act, the ITACG, which has been
alternatively called the Federal Coordination Group, is intended to “... facilitate the production of 175
federally coordinated products derived from the information within the scope of the (ISE).”
Since the establishment of the Intelligence Community there has been little reason or mandate for
federal Intelligence Community agencies to have direct or sustained interaction with state and 176
local law enforcement and public safety personnel. What little interaction there was, generally
took place between the FBI, a statutory member of the Intelligence Community, and state and
local law enforcement entities. It could be argued that the nature of the threat today requires a
broader range of interaction. In 2007, the executive branch established the ITACG and the
organization was placed a the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC). To date few state
employees are assigned to the center and most fusion center leaders were unaware of the
organization or its mission to provide timely and relevant information to state and local homeland
Pros and Cons. The arguments against the ITACG, as currently envisioned in S. 4, might include
(1) the name itself is misleading, as the group will be unlikely to engage in formal “threat
assessment” analysis while at the NCTC, (2) security concerns—back channel and un-authorized
communications between state and local representatives to the ITACG could undermine existing
intelligence dissemination channels and further complicate the cohesiveness of federal threat
assessments to state and local consumers, and (3) the detailing of a handful of state and local
personnel to the burgeoning NCTC, while useful, may not be enough personnel to have a
174 See Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 100 Day Plan for INTEGRATION and COLLABORATION, p. 9.
175 See S. 4.RS, Section 131 (b).
176 Pursuant to EO 12333, United States Intelligence Activities (1981), the Central Intelligence Agency is prohibited
from performing any “internal security” functions [1.8(c)]. However, agencies within the Intelligence Community are
authorized to “Unless otherwise precluded by law or this Order, participate in law enforcement activities to investigate
or prevent clandestine intelligence activities by foreign powers, or international terrorist or narcotics activities....”
[2.6(c)]. Executive Order 12333 is currently being re-written. See Katherine Shrader, “Intel Chief Changing 1981
Security Order,” in MiamiHerald.com, June 12, 2007, (accessed June 14, 2007).
Alternatively, one of the primary arguments in favor of such a center include a recognition of the
importance of cross-training and mutual learning. It is sometimes the case that federal intelligence
officials and state intelligence officials speak past one another because they each have a limited
understanding of respective consumer demands, use different terms and standards, and the don’t
always recognize the inherent limitations of intelligence. By participating in the production of
federally coordinated products at the national level, it could be argued, state and local fusion
center personnel will learn about the volumes, specificity, and inherent limitations of the 177
numerous “INTS” collected by the Intelligence Community. Moreover, through interaction
with state and local fusion center personnel, federal Intelligence Community officials will learn
what is most valuable to state and local personnel, and as such, will be better prepared to create
products tailored to their needs.
While the proposed ITACG would work on developing federally coordinated intelligence
products for dissemination to state and local fusion centers for further dissemination, ITACG
members are unlikely to be engaged in formal analytical threat assessments. It could be argued
that further analytical cross-training could be achieved through significantly increasing state
fusion center intelligence analysts who are not federal employees to the NCTC’s ITACG or
Directorate of Intelligence, and offering NCTC analysts an opportunity to work at a fusion center.
Congress may wish to consider enhancing support for the ITACG’s efforts to enhance information
exchange with state and regional fusion centers and facilitate analytical cross-training with state
and local representatives detailed to the organization.
Pros and Cons. One central argument against such an exchange is that there may be limited
utility. If analysis is a discipline that has at its core a fundamental set of skills, including, but
limited to, critical thinking, hypothesis generation and testing, written and oral communication
skills, and an ability to ascertain salient trends from voluminous data sets, why does it matter if
these skills are exercised at the state or federal level? Furthermore, there are very few fusion
centers and/or public safety agencies at the state and local level with the resources and existing
capacity for this type of strategic analytical assessment. Another argument against such an option
is that fusion center analysts and NCTC terrorism threat analysts, arguably, serve different
consumers and, as result, do not necessarily need to understand one another’s positions.
Arguments in favor of such an option might include that the NCTC is a client of the fusion
centers, and the fusion centers are a client for the NCTC’s Directorate of Intelligence. As a result,
“walking a mile” in your client’s shoes can help you understand what is valuable to them.
Another argument in favor of such integration could be that threat analysis at the federal level
may be more well-developed than at some fusion centers, and cross-training may be very
instructive for fusion center intelligence analysts who could also take advantage of other Federal
Intelligence Community analytical training session while detailed to Washington, DC.
177 “INTS” refers to intelligence collection disciplines, for more information see FBI, “INTS the Intelligence Collection
Disciplines,” available from http://www.fbi.gov/intelligence/di_ints.htm, accessed on June 27, 2007.
It is an underlying assumption, supported by some terrorist cases within the United States, that
some terrorists have engaged in criminal activity or terrorism precursor crimes, to support their 178
activities. One way to prevent terrorism is, therefore, to use all existing law enforcement tools
aggressively. Fusion centers can assist law enforcement agencies in directing their resources to
areas of greatest threat. However, as mentioned above, one can reasonably question if
sophisticated terrorists, those who have received formal terrorism training from established
international groups and may be planning catastrophic attacks, engage in criminal activity prior
to, and in support of, a terrorist attack. Will following all criminal leads and terrorism tips lead to
the disruption of sophisticated terrorist plots?
Should such an NIE not exist, it may be useful to draft one focused on the nexus between
terrorism and crime. The DNI’s National Intelligence Council could draft it and potential clients
might include the Homeland Security Advisory Council, National Security Council, all members
of the Intelligence Community, and state and regional fusion center leaders. Importantly, research
and analysis for the report might incorporate input from the fusion centers to determine the extent
to which criminal cases in the United States demonstrate meaningful linkage between precursor
criminal activity and terrorist activity. Such data sets could be compared and contrasted to the
activities of terrorist groups overseas to determine any commonalities. Any such findings or
trends overseas could be applied to the domestic arena, through fusion centers, to align protective
Pros and Cons. Arguments against such an option might include the hypothesis that existing
cases in the United States have already demonstrated a link between terrorism, at least with
respect to “aspirational” terrorist groups, and crime. Therefore, there is no need for a specific NIE
on the subject, as it would require extensive resources needed elsewhere. Arguments in favor of
such an option might include the reasoning that if such a study has not been done, it represents an
example of how international trends may inform our national counterterrorism efforts, which
include, in part, the contributions of a national network of fusion centers. Furthermore, such an
NIE would provide fusion centers with specific trends and potential threats that they could be
used to create their own collection requirements as well as enhance their strategic understanding
of potential terrorism precursor crimes.
Currently, fusion centers are limited to going through a relatively slow “request for information”
process in order to acquire information tailored to their needs from the federal Intelligence
Community. If there is a movement, as DNI McConnell stated, to formalize information sharing
with fusion centers, which implies a bi-directional flow of information, there will be a need to
develop a robust feedback loop where information shared is assessed and requests for information
are handled expeditiously. While not all respondent fusion centers had developed intelligence
collection requirements, some not only developed requirements but had collection plans designed
to fill those requirements. For example, some fusion centers might ask, how might a simultaneous
178 See CRS Report RL34014, Terrorist Precursor Crimes: Issues and Options for Congress, by Siobhan O’Neil.
al Qaeda attack manifest itself in fusion center areas of responsibility, or why might fusion
centers be more concerned with thefts of chlorine gas than diesel fuel? Some of this general
information reaches fusion centers now, although many argue that federal agencies are still not as
proactive and sufficiently wide in scope in what they choose to share with SLT agencies, but it is
the follow-up requests that are not met in a timely fashion.
Respondent fusion centers often indicated that information they provided to the federal
Intelligence Community, largely through the FBI or DHS went into a “black box,” with little
feedback as to the value of the information or how it may have been used. Frequently, fusion
centers are told that they can’t receive follow up information because it is part of an open
investigation. Fusion centers are often in a position of not knowing if the information they passed
was noteworthy or worthless. They don’t know if they should be actively looking for similar
information to pass onto the federal community. Moreover, the lack of feedback creates
resentment towards federal agencies. State and regional officials reported being further
disheartened to learn that locally gathered information they provided to DHS for risk assessment 179
and subsequent grant allocations, was not used in any systematic and meaningful manner. It is
important to note that the lack of feedback and forthcoming information from the federal
government is frequently cited as one of the predominate reasons many fusion centers were
established initially. Critics might ask, if fusion centers do not have access to feedback, can they
ever expect to fully participate in the intelligence cycle and achieve true fusion?
Two bills pending before Congress, S. 4 and H.R. 1, include language, under the sub-title
“Homeland Security Information Sharing—Establishment of Business Practices,” that would
require the Secretary of DHS to “...develop mechanisms to provide (analytical and operational)
feedback regarding the analysis and utility of information provided by any entity of state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector that gathers such information and provides such
information to the Department.”
Pros and Cons. An argument against enhancing the feedback loop would include what some
might view as a reasonable amount of time for the federal government to respond to fusion center
requests. Some fusion centers, as a result of collocation with the FBI or having federal detailess
integrated into their centers, might get fairly rapid responses to certain requests for information.
However, even some fusion centers with established relationships with FBI JTTFs and FIGs
found the FBI still held tightly to certain sets of ongoing case data. An argument in support of
such an option, would be if the nation is truly going to use fusion centers as a national network to
prevent and respond to man-made and natural disasters, without a timely and effective
information sharing and feedback mechanism practiced daily, in times of crisis, the network may
The National Intelligence Priorities Framework (NIPF) outlines the process and results for
determining where intelligence assets are directed against prioritized threats. As one would
expect, intelligence priorities are linked to assessments of threats to national and homeland
security. Yet, today there are few direct mechanisms which allow fusion centers, individually or
collectively, to provide their assessments of threats facing their communities into the NIPF.
179 See CRS Report RL33858, The Department of Homeland Security’s Risk Assessment Methodology: Evolution,
Issues, and Options for Congress, by Todd Masse, John Rollins, and Siobhan O’Neil.
Pros and Cons. Arguments against this might include the perspective that unless it is a national
trend which presupposes a collective sense of existing fusion centers, a threat does not belong in
the national (emphasis added) Intelligence Priorities framework. One argument in favor of such
input could be that the trends being seen at the state and local fusion center level may represent
national trends, and/or may include trends not yet identified by federal agencies, even if there is
no “national fusion center” currently in existence that integrates all the trends being seen by
While fusion centers were created by state and local governments, with participation and support
from federal entities, at what point, if at all, does the federal government become responsible for
privacy and civil liberties issues associated with fusion center activities within the states? Where
does the federal responsibility to protect civil liberties and privacy stop and where does state
responsibility to protect these social goods begin?
It could be argued the more federal financial and human resources provided to the centers, the
more the centers are perceived as hybrid federal-state entities. Therefore, the federal government
could be perceived as being partly responsible for any potential violations of privacy or civil
liberties. When Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(P.L. 108-458), it established the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to, among other
functions, “...review the implementation of laws, regulations and executive branch policies
related to efforts to protect the nation from terrorism including the implementation of information 180
sharing guidelines....” If fusion centers are to become true partnerships, it could be argued, that
there is shared responsibility to protect civil liberties. In terms of the modalities of the Oversight
Board’s role, it might work with state agency general counsels to ensure that the fusion centers
have requisite policies and practices in place consistent with the Fusion Center Guidelines.
Moreover, the Oversight Board might assist in designing an oversight or inspection regime for
privacy and civil liberties protection at fusion centers.
Pros and Cons. Arguments against this option might include a belief that as fusion centers are
creations of state and regional communities, the federal government has minimal responsibility to
exercise oversight with respect to them. Some might argue that legally, the federal government
has no right to direct fusion centers on protection of privacy and civil liberties. With respect to
privacy rights, it might also be argued that the differing standards for privacy across states would
complicate any effort to implement a consistent approach in this area. Arguments in favor of this
option might include the claim that even if the federal role in exercising oversight of fusion
centers is limited, federal financial and human resources support, as well as support for
formalization of the fusion center, requires some level of civil liberties oversight. Some might
argue, the current voluntary implementation of civil liberties and privacy protection may be
insufficient. Has the federal government conducted audits of fusion centers to determine if they
are in compliance with even the voluntary standards as set out in the Fusion Center Guidelines?
Moreover, it might be argued that without federal oversight, litigation is likely to serve as the only
significant oversight mechanism. Litigation, however, may not necessarily be the most effective
oversight tool, due to the length of time it takes for the judicial system to adjudicate such cases.
180 See IRTPA, Sec. 1061, codified at 5 U.S.C. 601 Note.
Moreover, by the time an issue has made its way into the courts, there is likely to be considerable
skepticism amongst the public regarding fusion center activities.
In at least two reported instances, federal threat information reportedly provided to state and local
fusion centers and/or state/local officials manifested competing assessments of source reliability
and validity and, by extension, the nature of the threat. In the two incidents, which took place in
Boston in January 2005 and in New York City in October 2005, the FBI and DHS provided local 181
officials with competing assessments of source reliability and/or the urgency of the threat.
Federal officials have since testified that coordination mechanisms have been put in place to 182
prevent such future occurrences. However, in order to assist state and local fusion centers to
determine how imminent and/or valid a potential threat may be, Congress may wish to consider
the creation of a universal confidence ranking for federally produced intelligence products that
would rank an agency’s confidence in the reliability of the sources—reflecting the source’s
reporting history and corroboration with other intelligence sources, etc.
To some extent, the failures associated with certain elements of pre-war intelligence on Iraq have
served as a catalyst for an intelligence confidence and transparency initiative underway at the
national level and with respect to National Intelligence Estimates. Thomas Fingar, Deputy DNI
for Analysis, stated a recognition of the need to “show(ing) our homework—greater transparency 183
about sources, which allow analysts to better assess the quality of intelligence reporting.”
Former Deputy Director of the CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence stated in a speech to all CIA
analysts “... that when you are ‘calling it as you see it’, you must give the policymaker full 184
transparency into your confidence in the judgments you are making.” An important question
concerning these recognitions, however, is the extent to which this confidence system is formal,
and is being extended into products and judgements regularly provided to fusion centers.
Congress may wish to consider oversight hearings to determine the progress of this initiative as it
pertains to fusion centers.
Pros and Cons. A credibility ranking system might reduce the need to include sources and
methods information in intelligence products, thus making the creation of declassified and “less
classified” versions of intelligence products easier. Such a ranking would provide state and
regional fusion centers better information to use in making informed decisions about the threat to
their communities and related responses. An argument against this option suggests it may be
difficult to get multiple federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies to agree on common
“credibility” criteria. Getting consensus on assigning a particular ranking to a intelligence product
could potentially be a lengthy process that could potentially delay intelligence dissemination. On
the occasion that one or more agencies disagree with the majority consensus, a system for “line-
item” analytic comments may be necessary (as is currently utilized for National Intelligence
181 Lara Jakes Jordan, “Bogus Boston Terror Tip Highlighted Information-Sharing Woes, Ridge Says,” in Associated
Press, January 28, 2005.
182 See transcript of John Pistole, Deputy FBI Director, and Charles Allen, DHS Chief Intelligence Officer, Before the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, January 25, 2007.
183 See Maura Reynolds, “Intel Office Gives Dissenters Their Due,” in Los Angeles Times, April 14, 2006.
184 See DDI’s State of Analysis Speech, All Hands Meeting, CIA Auditorium, Feb 11, 2004. Available at
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/021104miscik.pdf (accessed June 20, 2007).
Estimates). It should also be noted, that the credibility ranking system described above is unlikely
to have a positive impact on state and regional fusion center analysis and assessment unless it is
preceded by training on intelligence, related terminology, the intelligence cycle, etc. to give
context to the system.
As mentioned throughout this report, there is no “cookie cutter” approach to fusion centers.
Although the centers may all have some core functions, the financial and personnel resources
they have to dedicate to those functions differ widely. Structurally, the continued development of
the fusion center concept could progress along any of the following, albeit non-exhaustive, paths.
Should Congress determine it wishes to take action on this option, a range of possible legislative
tools are available that might influence that path of development, as discussed below.
Under the current path of development, states and localities continue to make decisions about the
number of fusion centers. There is little to no federal input into these independent decisions, as
the centers are created and largely funded by the states and localities. This has reportedly resulted
in several seemingly unusual homeland security purchases and funding decisions according to
fusion center officials who noted the creation of competing fusion centers in some states.
Pros and Cons. An argument in favor of this option is the position that it would respect states
rights and the ability of states and localities to make independent determinations about the
structure of fusion centers that best fits their needs. An argument against this option suggests the
increasingly complexity, from a federal perspective, of funding numerous fusion centers within
one state. A proliferating amount of fusion centers in a single state can lead to competition for
resources that may lead to an allocation of existing funds that does not necessarily best advance
the fusion function.
Under this option, the state’s Homeland Security Advisor, acting on behalf of the governor, might 185
dedicate one fusion center as being the lead center for the state. Federal financial resources
could be provided to that center, which would have the ability, acting through the state
Administrative Agency, to re-allocate a portion of those funds to “satellite” fusion centers across
the state. As mentioned earlier in the report, DHS and DOJ have requested that each state
governor designate one state fusion center as the main interface for exchanging terrorism and
homeland security information.
Pros and Cons. Arguments in favor of this option might include the belief held by some fusion
center respondents that the competition for limited federal resources does not serve fusion centers
well. That is, particularly if there are relatively few highly qualified intelligence analysts, having
them at one central location where they have easiest access to the flow of information coming
185 The PM-ISE Implementation Plan (November 2006, p. 119) included as part of its “PM Recommendations and
Summary of Actions,” that “DOJ and DHS will work with Governors ...to designate a single fusion center to serve as
the statewide or regional hub to interface with the Federal government.”
into the center may best serve the interests of fusion centers. Arguments against this option may
include that fusion centers are essentially state and local entities, and as such, they should be
designed in whatever configuration, to include multiple centers if desired, if that is determined to
serve the state or locality’s interests. For example, some large states have several large cities and
having one central fusion center serve as the recipient of federal grants might undermine
“satellite” fusion center operations.
Although provocative and radical, fusion center critics might argue that fusion centers are
superfluous insofar as the primary federal benefit they seek to provide is prevention of manmade
(terrorist) attacks (a traditional federal agency role) and/or destabilizing crime (gangs, narcotics,
etc.—both a federal and SLT responsibility). Those who subscribe to this school might argue that
state and regional fusion centers could be eliminated and federal agencies take over all the
functions those centers once performed, with intelligence and counterterrorism-related work
going to the FBI, and the all-hazards functions adopted by some fusion centers turned over to
FEMA or the state/local agencies that traditionally handle natural disasters. The counter to this
argument is that a changed threat environment requires non-traditional thinking—designed to
prevent and respond to terrorist attacks and respond efficiently and effectively to substantial
natural disasters. Nevertheless, the argument that fusion centers may represent an organizational
solution to a functional information sharing and analysis problem can still be made.
A less radical, albeit still drastic, version of this option would suggest that the FBI take over all
strategic analysis and assessment roles and that state and regional fusion centers focus solely on
tactical analysis of criminal intelligence. Under this option, the FBI’s Field Intelligence Groups
(FIGs), whose primary purpose is to manage the FBI’s intelligence process at each of the 56 FBI
field offices, would assume a broader set of responsibilities. One version of this option would
have the FIGs conducting this analysis, using FBI analysts, to be shared with SLT agencies.
Another approach would have SLT personnel previously assigned to fusion centers be re-detailed
to the FIGs to assist with the analytic process, although that process would be run and directed by
the FIG. Either way, the FBI might be able to conduct the types of analyses that could assist state
and local law enforcement, public safety, and private sector potentially to direct their protective
resources into the areas of greatest criminal and homeland security threats if the FBI had:
• Direct access to all the state and local criminal intelligence and information that
fusion centers have.
• Established relationships with even rural law enforcement personnel, private
sector personnel, and other related homeland security stakeholders.
• Information systems which could facilitate the sharing and analysis of
unclassified and classified information across all homeland security stakeholders
in the country in a timely and effective manner.
This option does not presuppose that existing state and local fusion centers would be supplanted.
However, federal financial resources could be re-directed toward the establishment of state-wide
intelligence systems that are interoperable and to which the FBI FIGs would have direct access as
an input into strategic analysis. Relieved of the strategic analysis burden, fusion centers could
focus on tactical analysis in support of constituent member or fusion center cases and/or
Pros and Cons. Arguments against expanding the role of the FIG relative to fusion centers might
find that it represents a thought process that is part of the problem—that is, that homeland
security is essentially a federal function, with a minimalist role for state and local law
enforcement and public safety personnel. Such an approach might marginalize the important role
that state and local homeland security stakeholders can play. It may also result in the failure to
fully utilize the resources and institutional knowledge of SLT agencies, the stakeholders who
know their own communities more intimately than any federal agency. Moreover, it could also be
argued that the FBI is being asked to do so much in the post-9/11 world—to be the foremost
counterterrorism and counter-criminal organization in the United States—that this somewhat
expanded role may be asking too much. Lastly, from an analytic perspective, tactical and strategic
analysis are mutually supportive and it may not be prudent to separate the two.
Arguments in favor of this option might find that such a role for the FBI does not involve
supplanting existing fusion centers. It would merely federalize the strategic analytic function, one
that many fusion centers have difficulty dedicating personnel to because their clients do not
necessarily demand these types of products. Lastly, it is not a great expansion of FBI
responsibilities, it only involves analysis of an enhanced set of raw data that is relatively under
developed due to the nascency of state-wide criminal intelligence systems. State-run emergency
management agencies or the fusion centers in cooperation with these agencies would continue to
respond to natural disasters as the FBI fulfills its traditional investigative mission.
Today, there are more than 40 plus fusion centers operating, largely independently, around the nd
country. It can be argued that the next fusion-related development should be “2 generation
fusion” or “fusion of the fusion centers.” Informally, this has started to happen to some degree.
Post-9/11 demands for increased domestic security served as a catalyst for some state fusion
centers to collaborate with each other to facilitate the flow of information and intelligence. The
means and the ends of that collaboration are important. First, the means - at times, these informal
center-to-center or more formalized regional group relationships have been used to share threat 186
information specific to investigating a past or ongoing incident of concern. To achieve the next
step in fusion center collaboration, from ad hoc relationships to a more formalized, structured
relationship between fusion centers that would create a representative voice to address mission
and resource related issues with the federal government, there are several organizational network
models that could emerge, as well as a hybrid of several models:
186 Interview with fusion center leader, May 22, 2007.
Figure 1. Organizational Network Models
Source: CRS-generated graphic.
It is important to note that the depictions in Figure 1 represent “pure” theoretical models.187
Elements of these aggregate models exist today, although the models could be formally adopted
in an effort to bring more structure to the existing fusion center network structure. For example,
all the fusion centers interviewed for this report have some direct linkages with other fusion
centers, although an individual center may not have established links with every other center in
the country, nor are those links of the same strength. It is also common for fusion centers to have
stronger links and more constant contact with nearby fusion centers or those centers at similar
levels of maturation. To the former point, there are examples where fusion centers in a particular 188
area have set up regional fusion center coalitions, like Southern Shield in the southeast, to
facilitate information sharing. Each option has its own advantages and disadvantages. Moreover,
like fusion centers themselves, it is not clear that one model would work for all stakeholders
involved in the network. In reality, any fusion center configuration is likely to be a hybrid of
some or all of the models represented above. However, some homeland security observers argue
that significant success in maturing a national fusion center constellation may be assisted by the
creation of nation fusion center representative entity that provides the federal government
prioritized mission and resource issues of interest.
Second, the ends—an often stated concern by state homeland security leaders is a lack of
understanding how the federal government prioritizes funding, personnel, and technical support
provided to the nation’s fusion centers. Conversely, many homeland security observers note that
federal government leadership has difficulty in responding to the needs of the fifty state fusion
centers in a prioritized and logical manner. To facilitate a more comprehensive approach to
putting forth the needs of state fusion centers in a given region, some state leaders have
established regional fusion center representative organizations.
187 A hub and spoke model consists of multiple nodes (fusion centers) that are all connected to same central node (a
national fusion center or other coordination group). A regional network includes regional groupings of nodes (fusion
centers) - with/or without a central node (a national fusion center, etc. ) connected with each grouping. An all channel
network has each individual node (fusion center) directly linked to every other individual node (fusion center) - with/or
without a central node (national fusion center, etc).
188 Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Investigative Division Annual Report 2005, available from http://www.ganet.org/
gbi/05annual/Investigative_FY05.pdf, accessed on June 15, 2007.
At present individual state fusion centers request services and support from DHS that are relevant
only to the organization’s operations. It is the perception of fusion center leaders that DHS
responds to the needs of a single center without the consideration of the priority of the request
with respect to the needs of others centers that may be in locations deemed higher at risk, or the
needs of all of the nation’s fusion centers. A coordinated national or regional representative fusion
center organization that can propose to the federal government prioritized common issues of
concern may assist DHS and FBI submit, manage, and allocate fusion centers budgets based on
strategy rather than the perceived need by a single center.
Pros and Cons. An argument in favor of the establishment of national fusion center
representative organization entails increasing the nation’s contextual understanding of threats and
vulnerabilities through increased collaboration by state fusion centers. Such an organization may
assist the federal government in ascertaining the risks to the nation and understanding the
resources needed to support the federal-state information sharing environment. An argument
against such a structure is the possibility of the inadvertent creation of a “group-think”
environment whereby centers, in an effort to support unity of effort and collaboration, may
compromise their independent analysis of risks to the region in favor of supporting the
A second option for addressing the need for 2nd generation fusion is the creation of regional
fusion centers to coordinate disparate fusion efforts at the state and regional level. This option is
likely to be supported by those homeland security observers who question the viability of each
state having its own homeland security fusion center (or several in some cases). There are some
indications that federal intelligence community agencies are already considering developing a 189
regional architecture to promote information sharing. Under this option, fusion centers could
move to a regional model based on any number of federal regional designations (HIDTA, FBI 190
FIG, FEMA, Drug Enforcement Agency Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces etc).
Increasing center-to-center and regional collaboration on issues of common concern may help
garner support for such a proposal. A regional approach—in the several forms it could take—may
help facilitate information sharing, effective resource dispersal, and help transform the current
localized, reactive, and tactical approaches to threat analysis to a more proactive and strategic
posture. One possible approach to regionalization could be the combining of numerous state
fusion centers into a regional homeland security center. Such a strategy may become more
popular if there are no large-scale terrorist attacks or disasters in the United States, which result in
less homeland security-related funding and a lack of political support to sustain fusion efforts.
Such an occurrence may be predicated by the following situations:
• Existing state fusion centers detailing personnel to bordering state organizations
thus developing a notional regional network within existing organizations.
189 Jason Miller, “White House Council Puts Cybersecurity in Focus.” FCW.com, July 2, 2007. http://www.fcw.com/
190 FEMA is currently composed of 10 regions, there are 28 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTAs) and there
are nine Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force regions. See http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/regions.shtm
for the ten FEMA regions, http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/hidta/index.html for the 28 HIDTA areas, and
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/programs/ocdetf.htm for nine OCDETF regions. All websites accessed June 12, 2007. The
FBI’s JTTFs, of which there are over 100, or field offices, of which there are 56, are other regional representations.
• Barring a future terrorist attack or catastrophic natural disaster, the elimination of
state fusion centers may lead to the establishment of large regional centers staffed
by surrounding state personnel.
• Modeled after numerous existing organizations located throughout the Nation
(HIDTAs FBI FIGs [see option 5c above], FEMA), a federal government-led
regional fusion center is established in partnership with state employees focused
on strategic analysis and/or response efforts in support of federal, state, and local
Pros and Cons. An argument against this option includes the reasoning that by adopting regional
fusion centers, the new fusion entities will no longer provide as many benefits to local
communities and as such, they will have difficulty maintaining buy-in and detailees from local
agencies. An argument for regionalization is the claim that by pooling resources, expanding their
scope, and establishing regional spokespersons, regionalization may assist with the resource
dilemma and facilitate both more strategic approaches to analysis and effective communication
with the federal government.
There are numerous measures which Congress might consider in this area to assist fusion centers.
Should Congress determine it wishes to take action on this option, a range of possible legislative
tools are available that might influence that path of development, as discussed below.
As highlighted above, 28 CFR Part 23, the federal regulation which governs state and local
criminal intelligence systems, was written, in part, as a response to the domestic intelligence
abuses of the late 1960s and early 1970s related to COINTELPRO. While the concerns raised
then about civil liberties violations remain demonstrably present today and must be vigilantly
guarded against, so too has the threat environment changed. Along with changes in the threat
have come substantial technological changes, including the ability to exploit voluminous amounts
of commercially available data. As a result, it could be argued that 28 CFR, Part 23 might be
revised to include updated information retention time frames and mechanisms to include available
Pros and Cons. Arguments in favor of such a revision include that a reexamination of 28 CFR
Part 23 would potentially result in a new balance being struck between protecting civil liberties
and effective and proactive security efforts. Such a revision might also contribute to the creation
of national standards for information collection and exchange. Furthermore, changes that address
technological advances and the realities of the current threat environment may clarify the limits of
how such technologies can be used by fusion centers. An argument against such a revision might
include civil liberties advocates being critical of any alterations to 28 CFR Part 23 that may be
seen as loosening requirements and/or expanding existing law enforcement powers. Any changes
made without SLT consultation and/or that narrow SLT-level leverage are likely to be met with
resistence from fusion centers and SLT law enforcement.
Peer-to-peer communication has been a priority for the Administration and Congress as
demonstrated in the IRTPA instructions to the ISE. Congress may wish to consider further steps to
enhance such communication between fusion centers—dubbed by some in the fusion business to nd
be “2 generation fusion.” Congress could consider several initiatives in this area, to include
requiring fusion centers and states that wish to use federal funds to purchase information
management systems to ensure their systems are able to “speak” to other systems. This would
enhance the potential to make connections between disparate data points and reduce information
silos at state and/or regional levels. This may limit the number of systems fusion centers can
purchases in the short term, but in the long term, such a move is likely to force the companies that
sell these systems to work in XML or create the appropriate loaders to translate between XML
and its proprietary language.
Pros and Cons. There are several arguments for implementing this option, including the need to
ensure federal funds don’t contribute to further “silo-ization” of information streams, as well as
the potential to encourage more effective information sharing and better data analysis. Arguments
against this option may highlight concerns about the immediate limiting impact on systems
choices and potential financial costs for state and regional fusion centers and related agencies.
Another option that may enhance peer-to-peer communication among fusion centers and between
fusion centers and the federal community is standardized reporting formats. Currently, while there
are common “top-down” standardized federal reports, including Intelligence Information Reports
(IIRs), Intelligence Bulletins, and Intelligence Assessments, no such standard set of products 191
exists for “bottom-up” reporting from fusion centers to the federal community. The creation of
common lexicon and standards is likely to contribute to this end. DHS has given its roughly 15
fusion center detailees reports officer training to facilitate this effort, but it is clear it needs to be
done on a grander scale and in coordination with the FBI and other federal recipients. If this is to
be successful, coordination with fusion center staff is likely to be essential to ensure that fusion
centers are not overburdened with a multiple reporting formats, required to fill out duplicate
copies, and upload through various information systems (Option 6d), thus thwarting effective
information sharing. A standardized format will also reinforce efforts to instill the use of a
common lexicon and definitions nationally. Such formats should likely include input from state
and local law enforcement and fusion centers to ensure consistency and buy-in, and find ways this
requirement can fit within existing standard operating procedures rather than creating additional
191 According to the ISE Guideline 2, “Fusion centers should continue to maintain and/or develop a capability to
support a number of critical counterterrorism, homeland security and homeland defense-related activities,
including...(1) state-wide, regional, site-specific, and topical risk assessments, (2) alerts, warnings, notifications,
advisories, and bulletins regarding time sensitive or strategic threats, (3) situational awareness reports, and (4)
analytical reports regarding incidents or specific threats.” See ISE Guideline 2, Develop a Common Framework for the
Sharing of Information Between and Among Executive Departments and Agencies and State, Local, and Tribal
Governments, Law Enforcement Agencies, and the Private Sector, pp. 19-20. As indicated throughout this report, a
central element missing amongst most fusion centers is a baseline threat assessment. Baseline assessments, arguably,
should be a relatively high priority for fusion centers. Standardized product sets, of the type mentioned above, may
enhance information sharing across all levels of governments and with the private sector, and could also contribute to
the research and drafting of baseline assessments.
Pros and Cons. A potential impediment associated with this option is the likely difficulty of
getting federal and SLT agencies to agree on a standardized report format. Furthermore, it will
likely be equally difficult to devise a way to create a common report form and process that does
not create additional work for fusion centers. It can be argued that to be effective and efficient,
such an option is inextricably tied to the consolidation of federally run information systems
(Option 6d, below) and without a serious effort to consolidate information flow between federal
and fusion center entities, a standardized reporting format may still be unwieldy. An argument for
this option is the assertion that without standardized reporting, the current range of standards and
formats being used is likely to impede effective information sharing and analysis, which has been
deemed crucial for our nation’s homeland security efforts.
Congress might consider compelling federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies to
consolidate existing federally owned and operated information sharing systems. Designating a
single system as the primary system through which all information from the federal government
would be sent to state, local, and tribal agencies may also be an option to consider. Congress may
wish to continue to exercise rigorous oversight of the progress the ISE has made toward creating
the necessary “policies, procedures, and technologies linking the resources (people, systems,
databases, and information) of federal, state, local, and tribal entities and the private sector to 192
facilitate terrorism information sharing, access, and collaboration.”
Pros and Cons. Prioritization and/or consolidation of federally run information systems would
likely reduce the stress on fusion centers and enhance the flow of intelligence between SLT and
federal agencies. However, it could also be argued that such changes are likely to be opposed by
the federal agencies whose respective systems are not promoted as the single information sharing
architecture. “Ownership” of intelligence and information systems appears to remain an obstacle
in sharing information with sub-federal entities.
Congress may wish to consider urging the FBI and DHS to increase the number of clearances
they provide for state and local personnel, especially those currently assigned to and/or slated to
work at state and regional fusion centers. Congress may also wish to examine the classified
intelligence reciprocity issue which prevents a holder of a DHS-cleared fusion center, for
example, from accessing DOD-origin classified systems and intelligence. While a perennial issue
within the federal community, the continued lack of reciprocity creates needless bureaucratic and
logistical hurdles that continue to thwart effective information sharing.
Pros and Cons. An argument in favor of this option would be that it allows additional personnel
at the centers to receive threat information and direct it to appropriate personnel for action. This
may reduce some of the obstacles that currently inhibit the flow of federal intelligence
assessments that fusion center analysts can “fuse” with locally focused, grassroots-collected
information. With better access to classified information, fusion centers may increase their
192 Program Manager Information Sharing Environment website, available at http://www.ise.gov/, accessed on June 5,
capacity for “true fusion” by marrying strategic and long-term threat assessments generated by
federal agencies with locally focused, grassroots-collected information.
An argument against this option could include the contention that, while seemingly positive, it
does nothing to address the over-classification of intelligence, and in fact, could further
promulgate a culture of classification. Clearing fusion center personnel, especially management,
and not the “boots on the ground” personnel puts the former in a difficult position. They are
usually incapable of deploying resources or directing collection based on the classified
intelligence they have received. As such, it may be more beneficial to enhance the declassification
process—and the capability to create SLT-relevant intelligence products (Option 4a, page 59)—at
the federal level then overemphasizing the importance of clearing additional SLT personnel.
Furthermore, an increased number of cleared personnel at the state and local level will not be
beneficial to fusion centers unless it is accompanied by equipment to receive and store such
information, training on how to use intelligence, and guidance on how to identify gaps or
generate collection requirements from that intelligence.
Congress may wish to examine classification issues and urge more progress on efforts to
declassify existing products, as well as produce less sensitive or tear-line versions of classified
intelligence reports. This could be done by urging the compliance with the requirements and
deadlines laid out in the IRTPA (P.L. 108-458), many of which have not been met. Congress may
also wish to consider this and other incentives for facilitating the creation of declassified or “less-
classified” versions of intelligence threat reports to ensure fusion centers can receive, store, and
utilize threat reporting.
Pros and Cons. A federal government-wide effort to declassify relevant intelligence products
could potentially assist SLT agencies and fusion centers to identify potential threats and trends
within their respective jurisdictions. Alone, some critics might argue, declassified products based
on federal intelligence will not meet the information needs of fusion centers and SLT agencies.
Rather, intelligence products need to be created based on SLT information requirements and
operational considerations to ensure they are relevant to the recipients. A potential negative
tradeoff of a concerted effort to declassify intelligence for fusion centers and SLT agencies might
be an increase in the amount of time it takes to get important information from federal agencies to
In recent years, much has been said about the partnership between SLT agencies, state and
regional fusion centers, and federal agencies to tackle homeland security challenges. While there
are many agencies, initiatives, and individual leaders who are working to advance the level of
cooperation between a wide spectrum of public sector agencies at all levels of government, there
are indications that the “partnership” between them is not as strong and dynamic as it is
frequently described. It could be argued that the federal government will be hard-pressed to view
SLT agencies and entities, like fusion centers, as true partners. Rather, the federal government
will likely approach the later as a “consumer” of their work, but not necessarily a common and
equal “partner.” It is also important to recognize that this tension goes beyond the level of
government divide—there is also a significant gap between traditional intelligence and law
enforcement agencies (see Appendix A), and between first responders and law enforcement.
The relationship between SLT and federal agencies can be tension-filled; they each operate from
different historic roles and responsibilities, resources, and jurisdictions. In some locations there
appears to be some residual resentment of the FBI and some other federal agencies amongst SLT
entities after years of being treated as inferior and an information source—not necessarily as a
consumer. On the federal side, there is often a distrust of SLT entities, a concern about the erosion
of federal jurisdiction, and, in some cases, a resistence to accepting an enhanced SLT role in some
homeland security areas.
Although relationships vary across the country, in some locations the two groups do not have the
necessary understanding and familiarity with each other, despite some continued contact (i.e. state
and local interaction with the FBI via JTTFs). Several fusion center officials cited their
perception about the failure of federal agencies to understand their needs. In January 2007,
Washington, DC, Police Chief Kathy Lanier testified to the cultural differences and lack of
understanding between SLT and federal communities:
the Department of Homeland Security is not a law enforcement agency like the FBI ... is a
law enforcement agency.... So it’s very difficult for them to understand what my need to
know is, if they don’t know what it is that I do. If they’re not familiar with what I do on a
daily basis, what resources I have, and how I can reduce vulnerabilities through the daily
activities of more than 4,500 employees here in Washington, D.C. ... So a lot of information
doesn’t get to me, because they don’t believe I have a need to know.... I think it’s just a lack
of understanding. And this is not in all DHS’s fault ... local law enforcement’s just as much
at fault. The Department of Homeland Security is not completely aware of what our
operational capabilities are and how the information, if passed on to us, could be used to
reduce the vulnerability.... So information that may be shared with us is not shared with us
because they don’t think it’s something that we can do anything with or that we can use to 193
help reduce that vulnerability.
As mentioned above, this lack of understanding can lead to unrealistic expectations. In talking
with state and local officials who are relatively new to the intelligence discipline, it is often
apparent that they believe that the federal government knows far more than it tells them, and that
the intelligence the “Feds” have is usually clear and specific regarding the “who, what, where and
when” of a threat. This is often not the case, but it leads to latent distrust instead of open
discussion. As previously stated, the two sides operate using different language and standards.
The lanes in the road are often unclear and in some cases there remains a degree of competition
between various agencies and levels of government. In short, while there is an enhanced level of
trust between the federal and state and local communities, according to some fusion center
respondents, they would not necessarily characterize the relationship as a true partnership.
Pros and Cons. Arguments against this option are likely to focus on the difficulty of creating a
plan and implementing a strategy for enhancing SLT-federal partnership, something that can be
difficult to define and measure in tangible terms. Those who wish to maintain the status quo are
unlikely to support such an option. On the other hand, supporters of this option may opine that
regardless of logistical challenges, the importance of enhancing the relationships between levels
193 Cathy Lanier, “Intelligence Reform: Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security,”
Testimony before a Hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, January 25, 2007, reported by Federal
News Service, available from http://www.lexis.com, accessed on June 12, 2007.
of government and various homeland security stakeholder communities is so essential to post-
As outlined above, should Congress determine it wishes to take action on this option, a range of
possible legislative tools are available. One concrete manner of working toward this true
partnership and mutual understanding is through personnel exchanges.
It could be argued that the more interaction and detailing of personnel between state and local
fusion centers and federal agencies, the better. While periodic conferences are helpful in building
relationships, living in your partners environment and understanding the demands and limitations
of that environment is essential to building mutual trust and understanding. Potential details of
personnel to a Interagency Threat Assessment Coordination Group (Option 4a, page 59) and to
the NCTC (Option 4b, page 60), options mentioned above, may be concrete measures which
could enhance partnerships and mutual understanding.
Pros and Cons. Additional clarity about each communities’ roles, responsibilities, and resources
is likely to reduce duplication, clarify the “lanes in the road,” influence intelligence sharing
selections, and potentially could lead to enhanced coordination. In some cases these issues have
been avoided because of sensitivities regarding jurisdictional issues, which could come to a head
during such an exercise.
There are some issues associated with fusion centers for which there are no unique federal
remedies. This is largely due to issues associated with federalism.
There were a number of legal issues discovered in the course of research. Because they involve
state law, there is likely no federal remedy, unless constitutional issues are involved, a situation
that would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
While acknowledging that the majority of state programs are not recognized by legislation or a
governor’s executive order, many homeland security observers are concerned that an uncertain
funding line coupled with unreasonable mission expectations may lead to the elimination of
fusion centers in the future. One near-term priority of fusion center leadership might be to
coordinate efforts with the state’s homeland security advisor, the governor’s office, and state
legislators to recognize the center, define its mission, and devote suitable long-term state funding
to its operations.
With future federal funding levels uncertain, a situation may be developing that could be
detrimental to the future needs of the state. Should a state not recognize or devote dedicated
funding to its fusion center, the ability to provide strategic forward-looking threat assessments or
tactical operational prevention and response activities may suffer. There are concerns that if the
federal government increases funding to fusion centers, mission and administrative conditions
may accompany these resources. Such a situation might detract from the state-focused mission
and possibly result in the center failing to meet the expectations of state leadership.
A number of fusion centers had state laws which had the unintended effect of impeding
information sharing. In one instance, a state law made it a Class A misdemeanor if any person
knowingly released criminal intelligence information (as defined in statute) to an agency or 194195
person other than a criminal justice agency. According to one fusion center leader, one of the
unintended consequences of this law was that any intelligence the fusion center received from the
federal community could not be shared directly with any non criminal justice entity or person that
may be a target of the threat and/or have resources essential to preventing or preparing for an
Research also indicated a number of potentially problematic issues related to state fusion center
personnel which, again, do not necessarily have any unique federal remedy. These issues include:
As the fusion centers continue to mature and the security role and functions of the organization
attempt to align with the realities of the threat environment, some homeland security observers
hypothesize that state leadership may wish to reconsider the attributes required of fusion center
leaders. In response to the evolving homeland security environment some centers have started
ensuring that the core leadership team of the organization have representative experience and
knowledge of the four phases of homeland security: preparation, prevention, response, and
recovery. For example, fusion centers that focus on all-hazards may look for leadership that have
both criminal and emergency responder experience. Some state homeland security observers are
concerned that one implication of a possible significant increase in federal funding to state fusion
centers might entail the federal government’s desire to be consulted regarding personnel selected
by state leadership for positions that are responsible for managing state fusion center funds.
One concern often voiced during the interviews with fusion center leadership was the ability to
select and manage the personnel assigned to the center. There is a general concern about the
quality of detailess. Given resource constraints within partner agencies, fusion center leadership
are concerned that those agencies may seek to detail personnel who fail to perform. Considering
the immaturity of many of the nation’s fusion centers and their need for personnel, centers often
unknowingly accept individuals with skills that do not support the mission.
194 Interview with fusion center leader, March 23, 2007.
There are also issues regarding clarity of roles and responsibilities. Despite memorandums of
understanding (MOU) signed by the fusion centers and the detailing organization, there is often a
lack of definitive understanding of the roles and functions the detailee is to undertake in support
of the fusion center. With regard to federal agency detailees, this lack of clarity could result in
unmet expectations, reduced federal-state coordination, and agency representatives departing the
center prior to the conclusion of the assignment. Unlike the lack of specifics of the functions to be
performed and the role of the individual in the organization, the MOUs often specify that salary,
training, and annual performance reviews will continue to be provided by the parent organization.
It is often argued this programmatic arrangement is necessary to quickly detail individuals to the
organization; however, such a process does not appear conducive to the effective management of
individuals detailed to the fusion center.
While it is true that fusion center leaders are on occasion asked about the performance of
detailees, many suspect the arrangement does not have a lasting impact on detailee work
productivity. Barring dismissal from the center, the organizational relationship limits the leverage
a center leader may have in increasing the performance of detailees that may have suspect
qualifications or lack of knowledge of the assigned mission. Such an organizational dynamic may
negatively affect the center’s mission effectiveness and compel center leadership to question the
parent organizations commitment to the fusion center.
Several fusion center officials mentioned concerns regarding the lack of tools to measure
personnel performance. During times of fiscal crisis, which is especially acute in some states,
fusion center officials are being pressured to justify their existence in light of other cuts to law
enforcement and public services. Without well established entity-wide and personnel specific
metrics, fusion centers reported difficulty demonstrating their importance to those officials
responsible to budgets and grant allocations. To address this situation, one fusion center was
creating their own metrics to evaluate individual performance, based largely on the military 196
performance evaluation system.
As previously mentioned, many states and municipalities are currently in fiscal crisis. There are
numerous agencies and projects competing for limited state budget dollars as well as federal grant
resources. Numerous fusion center officials cited the lack of strategic planning for resource
distribution within their state. In some states, non-intelligence focused agencies and personnel are
responsible for dividing federal grant funds among state/local initiatives. Some fusion center
leaders believe a lack of understanding of the role of fusion centers has put the centers at a
disadvantage for receiving federal grants from the decision making bodies. In at least one case, a
fusion center was told by those making grant distribution decisions that “fusion centers benefitted
the federal government, so the federal government should fund them directly”—an indication
they did not think the homeland security grant funds should be used to fund that state’s fusion 197
196 Interview with regional fusion center leadership, May 1, 2007.
197 Interview with regional fusion center leadership, May 3, 2007.
Another complaint focuses on the lack of strategic coordination. In some states, regional councils
or municipalities themselves can determine what to spend federal homeland security grants on,
without proving that such expenditures fit within a strategic state-wide effort to reduce risk. In
one state, regional councils that distribute funding choose to fund local fusion centers, even
though there was already one established for the state, potentially creating duplication of effort, 198
wasting resources, and stirring competition. One example of poor planning included the
authorization by one council for 500 megahertz radios, while another council approved and 199
funded ones that were 800 megahertz, thereby perpetuating a lack of interoperability.
Another potential hurdle to fusion center development is creating buy-in at the sub-state level. In
many states there are indications that small police departments and public sector agencies are not
thoroughly convinced of their fusion center’s worth, and if and how the center will benefit them.
Creating buy-in is a difficult process. Expanding from a solely counterterrorism focus to an all-
crimes approach appears to have helped some fusion centers create buy-in. As previously
mentioned, providing investigative resources to small agencies that need them has assisted
another in this regard. However, these services are not often “fusion”-related, and thus it begs the
question, how can fusion centers convince local law enforcement agencies that they should
expend resources and time to working to enhance the fusion process?
Moreover, non-law enforcement agencies are often skeptical about fusion centers. First, all-
crimes and counterterrorism-focused centers have a more difficult time than all-hazards centers
marketing themselves to public health, environmental protection, fire fighters, etc. These entities
tend to have had far less intelligence experience and enjoy a reduced level of comfort with the
intelligence cycle than law enforcement. In addition to apprehension with the subject, non-law
enforcement public sector agencies are unclear about what role they should play and how to play
it. Furthermore, some non-law enforcement fusion center officials complained about what they
perceive as conflicting messages from the federal government about the role of agencies like
theirs in the fusion process.
198 Interview with state fusion center leadership, April 25, 2007.
To better understand the potential philosophical, cultural, and logistical barriers to effective
integration of intelligence and information fusion centers with existing federal intelligence and
terrorism/crime prevention efforts, it is helpful to examine the different conceptions of
intelligence within the federal Intelligence Community and the law enforcement community.
Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement Community Approaches to Intelligence. The
absence of a common lexicon between the Federal Intelligence Community and law enforcement
intelligence is one area in need of further explanation, as it is manifested in approaches fusion
centers take to their work. The majority of fusion centers examined for this report deal with a
combination of intelligence, information, and situational awareness. Most centers that described
themselves as having a response role or support function for another response-oriented entity
were more concerned with situational awareness. However, in a few cases, it was not clear if the
fusion center leadership had a thorough understanding of the differences between intelligence and
information. This is somewhat understandable: People often use the term intelligence
interchangeably with information, but there is an important distinction.
Intelligence Community Conception of Intelligence. Mark Lowenthal, an expert on intelligence
issues, differentiates intelligence from information in the following way:
Information is anything that can be known, regardless of how it is discovered. Intelligence
refers to information that meets the stated or understood needs of policy makers and has been
collected, processed, and narrowed to meet those needs. Intelligence is a subset of the
broader category of information. Intelligence and the entire process by which it is identified,
obtained, and analyzed respond to the needs of policy makers. All intelligence is 200
information; not all information is intelligence.
Intelligence is the product of the intelligence cycle (see Figure A-1 below), a process that begins
with Step 1 - planning and direction, which leads to Step 2 - the setting of collection requirements
based on threats in the form of questions and identified gaps in existing knowledge, and which is
followed by Step 3 - the collection of intelligence based on known gaps. Step 4 includes synthesis
and analysis of collected intelligence and results in the creation of an intelligence product, which
in Step 5, is disseminated to policymakers and those responsible for taking action based on that
analysis. Step 6 is the feedback loop from the customer to evaluate the utility of the product and
facilitate another round of the cycle by assisting with Step 1 - planning and direction.
200 Mark M. Lowenthal, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy, Third Edition (Washington DC: CQ Press, 2003). pp.1-2.
Lowenthal draws on Sherman Kent’s (the “father of intelligence,”) conception as intelligence as process, product, and
organization. Intelligence as process is a means by which certain types of information are required and requested,
collected, analyzed, and disseminated, and as the way in which certain types of covert action are conceived and
conducted. Intelligence as product is a product of these processes, that is, as the analyses and intelligence operations
themselves. Finally, intelligence as organization can be thought of as the units that carry out the various functions. See
Loch K. Johnson and James J. Wirtz, ed., Strategic Intelligence: Windows into a Secret World, An Anthology (Los
Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Co., 2004), p. 2.
Figure A-1. The Intelligence Cycle
Source: CRS—derived from multiple sources.
It is important to explain that there are different definitions of “intelligence,” and those used by
the fusion centers often differ from the more “pure,” conception of “intelligence” outlined
Law Enforcement Conception of Intelligence. In law enforcement, the term intelligence has been
defined slightly differently than within the halls of federal intelligence agencies engaged in all-
source, strategic intelligence. David Carter, a criminal intelligence expert states:
In the purest sense, intelligence is the product of an analytic process that evaluates
information collected from diverse sources, integrates the relevant information into a
cohesive package, and produces a conclusion or estimate about a criminal phenomenon by
using the scientific approach to problem solving (i.e., analysis). Intelligence, therefore, is a
synergistic product intended to provide meaningful and trustworthy direction to law
enforcement decision makers about complex criminality, criminal enterprises, criminal 201
extremists, and terrorists.
Law enforcement intelligence (LEINT) is thus “the product of an analytic process that provides
an integrated perspective to disparate information about crime, crime trends, crime and security
201 David L. Carter, Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies,
(Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and Michigan State
University, 2004), p. 7.
threats, and conditions associated with criminality.”202 Carter’s definition appears akin to what the
Intelligence Community would consider “finished” intelligence—intelligence that has been
synthesized and analyzed. One might argue that criminal intelligence, as conceptualized above, is
reactive—information becomes intelligence after it is analyzed, as compared to more pure
concepts of intelligence, which are more proactive, in that pre-identified intelligence gaps based
on policymaker needs are the starting point for intelligence collection. This would be in line with
traditional approaches. It could be argued that the Intelligence Community tends to be proactive
in dealing with national security matters, while law enforcement in the United States has
traditionally been reactive, post-event, and prosecution focused. Some might argue that the use of
law enforcement tools such as the enterprise theory of investigation have indeed been proactive in
the collection of intelligence, although not necessarily through the formal implementation of the
intelligence cycle. Carter believes intelligence can be used for both prevention and
planning/resource allocation within law enforcement.
The primary differences, then, between pure or traditional conceptions of intelligence and law
enforcement intelligence lie in the following three areas: (1) the predicate for the intelligence
activity itself, (2) intelligence clients and consumers, and (3) the legal regimes under which
intelligence is collected. Whereas the pure intelligence community uses a known intelligence gap
as the starting point for collection, it is less likely that a law enforcement intelligence group will
have a developed set of intelligence collection requirements and, as a result, a criminal event or
case is the starting point for intelligence collection. With respect to consumers, while the
Intelligence Community serves action-oriented officials within the military and federal
intelligence communities, it largely serves the needs of national policymakers. In the law
enforcement community, the consumers are largely law enforcement officers investigating a
crime or criminal groups, prosecuting attorneys and law enforcement executives seeking to align
protective resources. From a legal regime perspective, national intelligence collection, arguably
operates under a less restrictive legal regime than law enforcement intelligence, an issues which
is largely driven by the subjects of intelligence collection—U.S. persons or non-U.S. persons.
The conceptual differences between these two closely related communities and disciplines has
implications for fusion centers. Under which model and legal regime are they operating? As
mentioned above, how proactive can the centers be in intelligence collection without violating
civil liberties? A lack of clarity on these issues can lead to fusion centers either taking a too
conservative or too aggressive approach, either of which undermines their full productivity, and
serves as an overall risk to the fusion center concept.
202 Ibid, 10. Alternatively, law enforcement information can be defined much more broadly. For purposes of the ISE,
law enforcement information means “any information obtained by or of interest to a law enforcement agency or official
that is both (A) related to terrorism or security of our homeland and (B) relevant to a law enforcement mission,
including, but not limited to information pertaining to an actual or potential criminal, civil, or administrative
investigations or a foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, or counterterrorism investigation; assessment of or
response to criminal threats and vulnerabilities; the existence, organization, capabilities, plans, intentions,
vulnerabilities, means, methods, or activities of individuals or groups involved or suspected of involvement in criminal
or unlawful conduct; the existence, identification, detection, prevention, interdiction, or disruption of, or response to,
criminal acts and violations of the law; identification, apprehension, prosecution, release, detention, adjudication,
supervision, or rehabilitation of accused persons or criminal offender; and victim/witness assistance.” See ISE
Guideline 2, Develop a Common Framework for the Sharing of Information Between and Among Executive
Departments and Agencies and State, Local, and Tribal Governments, Law Enforcement Agencies, and the Private
Sector, p. 13.
Figure B-1. Map of Current and Planned Fusion Centers
A Methodological Note
Research for this report included a review of literature related to state and regional fusion centers,
primary source interviews with the majority of state fusion center leaders and operational
directors, as well as with stakeholders within the federal government, including Intelligence
Community (IC) organizations, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) officials. In the interest of engaging in open dialogue with the
centers, the conversations were conducted on a “not for attribution basis.” The inherent
limitations of the survey method are acknowledged, but were adopted in the interest of efficiency
and effectiveness. Other stakeholders and interested observers of state fusion centers outside the
government, including individuals in academia, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and
state and local law enforcement were also consulted. Primary source interviews were conducted
by the authors and were based on a survey they developed.
Specialist in Terrorism and National Security