U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Intelligence Fusion Process for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement

NCJ Number
229014
Journal
Criminal Justce and Behavior Volume: 36 Issue: 12 Dated: December 2009 Pages: 1323-1339
Author(s)
David L. Carter; Jeremy G. Carter
Date Published
December 2009
Length
17 pages
Annotation
This article discusses support for and criticisms of fusion centers, which provide a means for State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to share information about threats to their communities.
Abstract
The fusion center process relies on the involvement of State, local, tribal, and Federal law enforcement agencies as well as private-sector organizations in providing the input of raw information for intelligence analysis. The fusion process aims to identify threats posed by terrorists or criminal enterprises prior to any crime being committed. Fusion centers locate intelligence analysts from various Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in one physical place. Each representative is intended to be a conduit of raw information from his/her agency, who infuses that agency-specific information into the collective body of information for analysis. Also, when the fusion center requires intelligence information, the representative is the conduit back to the agency in communicating, monitoring, and processing the new information needs. The representative also ensures that analytical products and threat information are channeled back to his/her agency for appropriate dissemination. For the most part, fusion centers are so new that there has been no empirical assessment of their effectiveness; however, there is some anecdotal evidence that suggests fusion centers have increased the amount of information shared among law enforcement agencies, have adhered to policy and legal standards for maintaining their intelligence records systems, and have resulted in the cost-effective prevention of complex multijurisdictional criminality and terrorism. A joint report prepared by the U.S. House of Representatives (Majority Staffs of the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2008), however, views the effectiveness of fusion centers critically, advising that the identification of stakeholders and the quantitative instruments for determining the extent to which their needs are being met has yet to occur. 10 notes and 41 references