Fusion centers are integrative efforts of organizations that give support, information and expertise with the aim of increasing their potential to discern, stop, scrutinize and respond to illegal activity. Fusion centers act as key centerpieces in state and local areas for the investigation, collection and distribution of information on threats in national and local territories. Fusion centers are situated in most states and main urban centers in the nation and are distinctively located to equip law enforcement, fire service, public health, emergency response and private sector to collect and distribute information. Intelligence led policing is an integrative policing approach integrating issue sharing and answerability with improved intelligence functioning. The system mostly directs law enforcement activities although intelligence sharing is a common phenomenon in policing, fusion might be a new term, which often misinterpreted in and out of law enforcement (Lambert 2010 p. 2). The incorporation of intelligence led policing and fusion centers into police force operations have been an unhurried procedure. Quick integration of intelligence led policing to law enforcement will considerably improve their effectiveness.
Fusion centers authorize the interchange of data and information between police officers and other government organizations at the state and federal levels. The centers have jurisdiction in indication gang behavior, metal thefts, and weapon violations. The development of fusion centers shows that no police force or government institution has all the data required to tackle crime issues. Advanced fusion centers can obtain a huge range of electronic databases, which were previously unreachable to state, federal, and local policing agencies. Engagement of agencies in inter-jurisdictional fusion centers enhances sharing of data. With all the budget cuts across government agencies, merging resources such as information systems and analysts can utilize restricted resources. Partnerships across institutions harmonize subject-matter competence in domains such as violent crimes, drug control and homeland security. The collaborations establish ties across cooperating agencies, which enhances more partnerships. Fusion centers create a custom of information distribution and breakdown of conventional barriers. Integrating information from several agencies authorizes policy initiators and executers to view trends and sequence as more evident when using multiple information sources. Utilizing several sources aids presentation of a more trusted view of crimes and homeland security same as when staff review field interview information in collaboration with crime incidence records.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Law enforcement officers often misreport drug offences when compared to field reports collected by field officers with expertise on community patterns of drug use and gang behavior. The information collected most often depends of several indicators that strengthen data and outcomes in a more comprehensive and appropriate intelligence product. The article provides a case study example of Massachusetts Commonwealth Fusion Center that focuses on homeland security, terrorism and crime on state level. Commonwealth Fusion center involves Massachusetts State Police, state troopers, analysts and division of investigative services. Personnel from the National Guard, Homeland Security, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and Department of Corrections show the multijurisdictional nature of fusion centers. Other departments can collaborate with the fusion centers on a need-to know basis. Additionally, the Massachusetts fusion center collaborates with New England High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and other local and state agencies to center on drug and narcotics control (Lambert, 2010 p. 5). The Massachusetts fusion center has been crucial in developing crime patterns through its analytical resources. The Commonwealth Fusion Center is a perfect example of a fusion center allowing for exchange of data and intelligence across state and federal agencies.
The Department of Homeland Security collaborates with fusion centers in urban areas to prevent violent extremism. Fusion centers perform a key role in fighting extremism and safeguarding local communities from crimes through their daily performance including collecting, scrutinizing and distributing threat information. These fusion centers are considered as analytic hubs distinctively located to encourage frontline staff to comprehend local consequences of national intelligence by establishing national threat data in a local context. Additionally, they aid frontline staff to comprehend risks they could meet in the field while at the same time safeguarding the rights and civil liberties of people in the society. Fusion centers in collaboration with Department of Homeland Security inform the federal government of the threats in the community consequently helping the federal government support local efforts (Lambert 2010 p. 4). Homeland Security supports fusion centers to prevent crime and violent extremism by establishing local intelligence and analytic capacity in state and local institutions; these local partners discern the importance of national intelligence by recreating national threat data into local contexts. Homeland security shares information with local enforcers to help inform personnel in their community interaction efforts to raise awareness of potential threats.
Despite the tremendous achievements of fusion centers, the new centers have raised significant privacy issues. This comes at period when technological advancements, government and avidity in the war against terrorism jeopardizes citizens’ privacy at high levels. There are also concerns about whether the government funding on these centers is worth citizen taxes since its benefits have not been immense. Institutions that require use of public data need to be discussed in public forums and their consequences for privacy debated thoroughly. It is unfortunate that the more than 40 fusion centers established in the United States have not conformed to the requirements. Some of the potential problems associated with fusion centers include private sector participation, excessive secrecy, data fusion, ambiguous lines of authority and military participation (Ratcliffe, 2016). The participation of the private sector into the intelligence process makes innocent Americans susceptible to privacy breaches. The participation of several agencies in fusion centers permits the authorities to exploit differences in federal and state laws to amplify the potential for data collection while eluding answerability. The data fusion process encourages broad data collection that threatens privacy (Ratcliffe, 2016). Fusion centers are operated under excessive secrecy hence limiting oversight and decreases the ability to mine important information. Lack of appropriate legislation on fusion centers undermines important American values. Additionally, it threatens to turn the values into misdirected bureaucracies that will not succeed in stopping terrorism just like the federal agencies before 9/11.
Fusion centers involve collaborative efforts by institutions that give information and expertise with the aim of magnifying their potential to discover, stop, explore and respond to illegal activities. The main roles of these centers included establishing crime patterns, counter extremism and counter terrorism. The collaboration of fusion centers and intelligence-led policing into normal policing operations can make the agencies efficient. Fusion centers have access to an extensive array of databases that were previously unavailable for local agencies. Additionally the fusion centers demonstrate the importance of inter-agency collaboration in addressing and preventing crimes. Pooling resources such as information system and analysts maximizes limited resources. Although the new fusion centers present with numerous advantages, the new phenomenon also has some disadvantages. Fusion centers do not conform to the requirements such as oversight and openness to prevent abuse and privacy breaches. Some of the problems associated with fusion centers include ambivalent chains of authority, private sector engagement, data mining, and imprudent secrecy. The secrecy associated with fusion centers limits oversight and prevents the ability to acquire information. The private sector involvement in collecting data exposes Americans to privacy breaches. The lines between state and federal laws could easily be blurred while trying to maximize data mining.
References
Lambert, D. (2010). Intelligence-Led Policing in a Fusion Center FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 79(12), 1-6.
Ratcliffe, J. H. (2016). Intelligence-led policing : Routledge.
