State Fusion Centers

State Fusion Centers

A contentious debate rages regarding homeland security’s fusion centers. Fusion centers are state-run organizations that focus on information sharing and analysis. These organizations are spread all over America and are funded by the state governments. In other instances, fusion centers can receive federal and local supports. As a result, the civil libertarians are increasingly becoming concerned about the threat the fusion centers pose to civil rights. Admittedly, state fusion centers were characterized by shortcomings during their early years, but significant progress has been made since then, particularly during the aftermath of 2001 terror attacks.

State fusion centers emerged at the beginning of 21^st century when the state and federal government intended to improve information sharing to prevent potential acts of terrorism as America and the west became a constant target. Dramatically, the number of state fusion centers grew from less than 10 in 2004 to more than 80 by 2014. Densely populated states have more than one fusion centers while others have one. For example in Massachusetts, the state’s susceptibility to terrorist attacks and crime has led to the development of an urban and statewide fusion centers in Boston and Maynard respectively. Likewise, California has statewide and regional fusion centers in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santiago, Orange County, and Sacramento.

The fusion process is an overarching means to manage the flow of intelligence and information across different sectors and levels of federal government to integrate and analyze information. The fusion center guidelines define state fusion center as a collaborative effort of numerous agencies to provide expertise, information, or resources with an aim of maximizing the ability to prevent, apprehend, or detect terrorist and criminal activities. The process is reliant on the active involvement of tribal, local, federal, and state law enforcement and private sector agencies to provide raw information input for analysis (Johnson & Dorn, 2013). The increase of diverse information sources strengthens accuracy and robustness of analysis later disseminated as intelligence.

The fusion centers entail a process that proactively detect and effectively halt the perceived threats from taking place. It is based on an amalgamation of different individuals from law enforcement agencies to a specified physical location. Each individual employee is a conduit of information from his law enforcement branch. He is trained to infuse his agency’s information into an overall information body for analysis. In case the state fusion center requires intelligence, the representative becomes a conduit who process and monitor the new information demands. It is a responsibility of the agency representative as well to make sure that the threat information and analytic products are redirected back to home state for dissemination.

All 78 state fusion centers have similar purposes that include reception, analysis, and sharing of information on potential threats to state security. However, the focus varies depending on the location and the perceived threat types in different regions. In other states such as Missouri and Illinois, the main roles of fusion centers have evolved to include threats such as natural disasters and crime. Typically, state fusion centers issue analytical products like bulletins periodically to the local population. In addition, they act as hubs that send information to the community members, the federal government, and other fusion centers in different states countrywide (Forsyth, 2014).

Considering the importance of fusion centers to homeland security, the federal government provides a sizeable support to boost their efforts. Specifically, the Department of Justice collaborates with the Department of Homeland Security to develop guidelines for the centers that address governance, privacy, and their performance. The FEMA funding for the fusion centers is channeled towards the improvement of observable shortcomings to meet standards. Through the federal government, the personnel is trained and deployed to different centers to perform specialized roles. As of early 2016, there are more than 400 representatives of DEA, FBI, and TSA at different state fusion centers countrywide.

In my opinion, state fusion centers are barely beneficial in thwarting the next terrorist attacks. According to Homeland Security’s Permanent Subcommittee report released in 2012, there is clear evidence that state fusion centers provide low-quality intelligence. Therefore, it does not contribute in a meaningful way to the counterterrorism efforts (Graphia-Joyal, 2013). The committee’s claims are backed up by a wave of ISIL-inspired attacks that have rocked Boston, Orlando, and San Bernardino. Instead, there are concerns that the centers focus on monitoring lawful religious and political activities, hence poor utilization of allocated resources. Even worse, FEMA has a poor record in tracking its funding.

Furthermore, state fusion centers should address issues raised concerning the civil liberties. There is a lack of transparency and clarity in the centers’ conduct with regards to the correction of deficiencies they find, though they conduct a periodic evaluation to weigh their adherence to civil liberty protection laws, privacy, and civil rights. It should be noted that the a state fusion center cannot succeed counterterrorism unless it earns the public support. To do this, they ought to show their intention to protect not just its security but also the public’s rights.

References

Forsyth, W. A. (2014). State and Local Intelligence Fusion Centres: An Evaluative Approach in Modelling a State Fusion Centre. Naval Postgraduate School Monterey Ca.

Graphia-Joyal, R. (2013). Are Fusion Centres Achieving Their Intended Purposes? Findings from a Qualitative Study on the Internal Efficacy of State Fusion Centres. International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts Journal, 19(1), 54-76.

Johnson, B. R., & Dorn, S. (2013). Fusion Centres: New York State Intelligence Strategy Unifies Law Enforcement. Police Chief, 75(2), 34.