The Role of Fusion Centers in Affecting the Work of Police Term Paper

Although the first fusion centers to increase information exchange among governmental and non-governmental institutions were opened in the US in 2003, the promotion of active collaboration between police and these centers has become a new goal for authorities recently. A decade ago, fusion centers collaborated primarily with federal and state agencies responsible for homeland security to fight against terrorism. Today, the situation is rather different, and a new strategy or change promoted in law enforcement institutions is the collaboration between fusion centers and police or local agencies (Esparza & Bruneau, 2019). According to Lewandowski and Carter (2017), the reason is that the idea of intelligence sharing was not appropriately realized for fusion centers and police because of barriers associated with data exchange in these law enforcement agencies. Consequently, there is a need for police to implement the innovative strategy of cooperating with fusion centers, referring to the analysis of past mistakes. The implementation of this change means that the police will focus on removing barriers to the data exchange they receive from or send to fusion centers to guarantee a secured flow of intelligence.

Background Research

Multi-agency information centers effectively operated in the United States before 11 September 2001, but after the terrorist attack, the activities of these centers were reconsidered to develop into fusion centers. A fusion center can be defined as an agency, the purpose of which is to collect, analyze, and share information at local, state, and federal levels (Carter, 2015; Lewandowski, Rojek, & Manjarrez, 2017). Lewandowski and Carter (2017) state that the most significant feature of fusion centers is their ability to share intelligence vertically and horizontally. The reason is that “within intergovernmental relations there exist both ‘vertical’ (federal–state–local and state–local) and ‘horizontal’ (federal agency–federal agency, state–state, and local–local) federal relationships” (Regan & Monahan, 2014, p. 479). Fusion centers receive information from local police agencies and federal law enforcement agencies to further spread and share it in a way that will contribute to preventing terrorist attacks. Within a short period of time, fusion centers became discussed as an advanced response to terrorism in all regions of the United States.

The reason is that the authorities understood that the key to addressing the threats of terrorism were in collaborative efforts of different institutions, guaranteeing the collection, selection, analysis, and interpretation of various types of intelligence. According to Esparza and Bruneau (2019), “fusion centers were considered a panacea that would overcome the challenge of linking the nation’s 15,000 separate local police departments and 27,000 fire departments” (p. 331). The necessity of finding new approaches to sharing intelligence among all the law enforcement agencies, governmental and private organizations in the United States made the authorities propose fusion centers as a solution to the problem.

Currently, there are nearly 80 fusion centers in the United States that cooperate with different types of law enforcement agencies, including the police. However, as it is stated in the literature on fusion centers, during the period of the 2000s-2010s, the opportunity to collaborate with fusion centers was not used appropriately by local police agencies (Carter, Carter, Chermak, & McGarrell, 2017; Lewandowski et al., 2017). According to Carter et al. (2017), the reason is that the law enforcement system in the United States is primarily decentralized. Consequently, agents in different organizations lack required knowledge and training to effectively share intelligence with various agencies. The necessity of referring to collaboration was discussed again by Lewandowski, Carter, and Campbell (2018), who accentuated the benefits of intelligence-led policing, and Esparza and Bruneau (2019), who compared the approach to policing in different countries. In many local police agencies, the strategy of cooperating with fusion centers has not been integrated yet. Therefore, the focus of modern experts and researchers is on promoting the change in police agencies and improving the collaboration with fusion centers to facilitate law enforcement procedures.

Implementation of the Change

The implementation of a change based on promoting the cooperation between police and fusion centers is a complex task that requires focusing on different aspects of police activities and strategies. It is necessary to concentrate on the discussion of the implementation process in a police agency with reference to such critical areas as organizational theory, interagency collaboration, organizational socialization, leadership, and organizational deviance. The detailed analysis of these areas is important to support the discussion of the steps required to implement the practice of cooperating with fusion centers in police agencies.

Organizational Theory

The following theories should guide and support the implementation of the innovative strategy of police agencies’ cooperation with fusion centers: the contingency theory as the organizational theory and the theory of information sharing. The contingency theory explains that there are multiple contingencies or variables that influence an organization’s development and operations. In this context, there are certain attributes or variables which are associated with an organization’s effectiveness. To remain successful, it is necessary for an organization to achieve the balance between internal contingencies and external ones (Carter et al., 2017). While applying the contingency theory to the implementation of a cooperative strategy in police agencies, it is necessary to concentrate on the fact that the external situation on which police agencies depend includes the risk of terrorist attacks and associated violent activities. Internal factors include the attempt to establish collaborative relationships with fusion centers and most police agencies in the 2000s and barriers identified in relation to the organizational structure and culture.

There are certain policies in police agencies that regulate their information sharing with fusion centers that were designed and implemented years ago. If today these policies do not work appropriately, it is necessary to revise and improve them with a focus on applying an innovative approach to cooperating with fusion centers (De Castro Garcia, Matei, & Bruneau, 2017; Esparza & Bruneau, 2019). Modern police agencies seem to have almost all the required resources to actively cooperate with the personnel in fusion centers because of available technologies. Nevertheless, there are still certain barriers that prevent collaboration, and this situation can be discussed in the context of the contingency theory.

However, referring to the concept of contingencies, it is important to note that the external situation in which police agencies and fusion centers operate lack centralization in the United States. Therefore, the implementation of a strategy that is oriented toward supporting the collaboration between fusion centers and police should be based on developing principles that will eliminate negative impacts of a kind of decentralization in the work of law enforcement agencies in the United States (Esparza & Bruneau, 2019). The development of an effective guide for police officers and training programs to stimulate intelligence sharing are important steps to find the balance between contingencies and achieve success for local police agencies.

According to the theory of information sharing, certain factors that can stimulate or prevent information sharing should be emphasized to understand how people view this process and how they can exchange information. Factors that can affect the process of information sharing include organizational culture, values, policies, norms, leadership, people’s perceptions, and assumptions (Esparza & Bruneau, 2019; Lewandowski & Carter, 2017). There can be certain barriers to information sharing associated with people’s attitudes to intelligence and the overall procedure of exchanging data. The implementation of the collaboration strategy between fusion centers and police agencies is important today because of increased risks of terrorist attacks and the necessity of uniting efforts and exchanging all available intelligence.

However, the process of information sharing is complex when it is influenced by human-related and organizational obstacles, which include security issues, prejudice, fears, improper corporate culture, and the lack of cooperation. Still, Lewandowski and Carter (2017) note that “law enforcement must have effective mechanisms for sharing information as well as a willingness to engage in proactive information sharing” (p. 468). To implement this change in police agencies, it is necessary to inform police officers and authorities in agencies about the advantages of cooperating with fusion centers and educate them on collecting and exchanging information to use in terms of access, authorization, and security issues. Biases, the lack of information on the procedure, and the lack of knowledge, support, and training make police agencies avoid focusing on the information sharing concept and its benefits.

Interagency Collaboration

The idea of the change to be realized in police agencies is directly associated with the area of interagency collaboration. Thus, the focus is on promoting the collaboration between police agencies and fusion centers as state-owned entities (Esparza & Bruneau, 2019). The change to be implemented in police agencies in this case is associated with adopting a strategy, according to which the cooperation between fusion centers and police is well-organized and supported to contribute to homeland security and crime prevention (Lewandowski et al., 2018). The collaboration between fusion centers and police is discussed by researchers as significant to guarantee proactive policing and prevent terrorist attacks at all levels.

In its nature, a fusion center is an entity based on the idea of collaboration where several law enforcement agencies cooperate to share important information on cases, threats of terrorist attacks, suspected individuals, and other details. According to Lewandowski et al. (2017), “While fusion centers have the potential to be of great benefit to local police agencies, the relationship is meant to be mutually beneficial for all parties involved. State and federal agencies do not have the manpower or placement to monitor daily activities on the ground” (p. 168). Despite the acknowledged benefits, the collaboration of fusion centers and law enforcement agencies is connected with many challenges based on organizational, political, and social issues (Esparza & Bruneau, 2019). Therefore, the goal of the currently discussed change is to overcome these challenges and ensure that intelligence sharing and dissemination are realized effectively.

In some cases, police offices have fusion centers in their agencies, and in other cases, police offices can interact with the representatives of local fusion centers. In both cases, the focus is on the effective interaction based on the idea of cooperation. Researchers accentuate that collaborative intelligence efforts between fusion centers and police agencies are not operational enough to achieve high results in fighting with terrorism and other security issues (Lewandowski & Carter, 2017). Therefore, while re-implementing the principles of collaborating with fusion centers in police offices, it is necessary to follow certain rules (De Castro Garcia et al., 2017). The first rule is the determination of a clear framework, according to which the communication and sharing of information between the representatives of fusion centers and law enforcement agencies should be realized.

The second rule is the determination of types and formats of data to exchange and what systems to use. Collaboration is typical for governmental organizations, private sector organizations, and law enforcement agencies, but it is effective only when appropriate technologies and tools are used for communicating (Lewandowski & Carter, 2017). Although interagency collaboration is critical for the law enforcement area, “the 79 fusion centers, based primarily on state geographic districts, seldom collaborate, in contrast to the coordination that was anticipated and intended” (Esparza & Bruneau, 2019, p. 334). According to Regan and Monahan (2014), the problem of organizing interaction between agencies can be in the fact that most researchers and experts are focused on examining collaboration and coordination in the context of fusion centers’ work, but more attention should be paid to accountability of these centers to guarantee effective exchange of data. Consequently, when implementing the strategy of promoting collaboration between agencies based on the use of fusion centers, it is necessary to guarantee that employees are informed about all the channels and tools to be used for successful sharing of data.

Organizational Socialization

An adjustment process associated with the adaptation to changes is observed in organizations when certain advancements are implemented. The success of accepting a change and familiarizing with it highly depends on organizational socialization. If there are certain changes in an organization, individuals require some time and support to effectively adapt to new roles and duties assigned to them. The problem is often observed in cases when the change is associated with alterations in the corporate culture (Carter et al., 2017; Lewandowski & Carter, 2017). When speaking about the implementation of the strategy supporting collaboration between fusion centers and police agencies, it is also necessary to pay attention to the aspects of organizational socialization.

In police agencies, officers and other employees are expected to learn what intelligence can be provided to them by specialists of fusion centers. The focus is on the role of analysists and the ability to receive access to volumes of data collected from different local organizations. Furthermore, they are expected to establish a strong relationship with the specialists of fusion centers according to the principles of collaboration that is included in the organizational culture (Lewandowski & Carter, 2017). Although these principles do not contradict the rules of operations in police agencies, in most cases, employees in these law enforcement agencies do not know how to deal effectively with security and other related issues when sharing and using data.

It is necessary to provide training for workers in police agencies to guarantee their organizational socialization and adaptation to new rules are realized successfully. Police agencies often avoid using the assistance of fusion centers because they do not know how to send effective requests, what data can be collected and within what period of time, what security issues need to be addressed, what formats and technologies can be used for intelligence sharing (Esparza & Bruneau, 2019). The problem is that “Without relevant training police forces can have no practical role in intelligence work. In the U.S., police officers, whether members of large forces or small town units, are minimally trained in intelligence gathering” (Esparza & Bruneau, 2019, p. 332). Moreover, if police agencies lack computer technologies to work with additional software and databases, the barrier to collaboration can worsen (Carter, 2015; Lewandowski & Carter, 2017). Therefore, training is needed to ensure the proposed change in police agencies can work despite the fact that some years ago the collaboration of police agencies and fusion centers was promoted.

Training should include information on and the development of practical skills regarding the use of computer technologies, the use of effective requests for data, the regulations regarding sharing secured data, principles of interpreting analysists’ reports, and principles of decoding data. In many cases, local police agencies resist collaboration with fusion centers because they lack technological and skilled human resources to effectively interact with fusion center specialists (Lewandowski & Carter, 2017). The lack of training in police officers emphasizes the situation when these employees are deprived of efficient data to prevent terrorist attacks because of skill barriers.

Leadership

The implementation of the change can be sufficient only when leaders succeed in motivating employees to accept upcoming changes and adapt to new processes and roles. The re-implementation of the strategy oriented toward the collaboration of fusion centers and police agencies can become a challenge for police authorities because these leaders are expected to prepare the background for the change. Fusion centers work according to the principles of independent authority, but they are still state-owned entities that need to work according to the state legal framework of constitutional bounds (Lewandowski & Carter, 2017; Lewandowski et al., 2017). Effective leadership in the case of stimulating collaboration between fusion center specialists and police officers can be observed when leaders help their employees adapt to new processes and provide required guidance.

In different police departments, the second level of leaders to pay attention to include supervisors for groups of police officers. Thus, supervisors should be assigned to perform as leaders who can provide police officers with all the necessary support and assistance during the process of adapting to changes in processes. These leaders need to demonstrate what models of collaborating with fusion centers to use to address critical tasks (Esparza & Bruneau, 2019). At this stage, it is also important for supervisors and leaders to convince police officers and other professionals that intelligence provided by fusion centers is helpful and easily arranged to be used by a variety of employees. The benefits of collaborating with fusion centers should be accentuated and explained (Lewandowski & Carter, 2017). The reason is that many police agencies in different areas of the United States have negative experiences of cooperating with fusion centers referring to the period when fusion centers could be organized on the basis of local police offices.

These problems, prejudice, and barriers should be overcome by leaders in police agencies. The focus is on fighting with employees’ fears, concerns, uncertainty, and unwillingness to accept the change through demonstrating the advantages of this innovation (De Castro Garcia et al., 2017). Furthermore, supervisors are also responsible for organizing training for their followers to make sure all specialists in a law enforcement agency know how to work with new databases, channels of communication, and technologies to reduce stress and failures. In addition, employees need to be informed regarding the specifics of accountability related to fusion centers because responsibilities and regulations can differ significantly in these agencies, causing misunderstanding during their collaboration (Regan & Monahan, 2014). Still, referring to the question of leadership, it is also important to remember that “fusion center networks are dominated by law enforcement” in most cases because they are headed by leaders with a specific law enforcement background (Regan & Monahan, 2014, p. 483). It will be possible to ensure that leadership helps fusion centers and police agencies to cooperate if their leaders unite their strategies.

Organizational Deviance

Organizational deviance can be observed when members of the organization violate certain norms, rules, and standards. In the context of implementing the change oriented toward stabilizing the cooperation between police agencies and fusion centers, organizational deviance was observed in the past when the first attempts to organize fusion centers in police agencies were made (Carter et al., 2017; Esparza & Bruneau, 2019). The current task is to avoid such problems now, when implementing the improved strategy of cooperation. Fusion centers are not effectively used today for collecting and sharing critical information on terrorism to prevent attacks, and the problem is that some obstacles and issues were not addressed during the implementation process a decade ago (Carter et al., 2017). Certain steps need to be done to prevent police agencies from organizational breakdown because of the discussed change.

The first step is that fusion centers and police agencies need to have the same technological base or compatible technologies to easily exchange different formats of data. The second step is associated with providing employees as analysts of fusion centers, police officers, and other agents with training to guarantee they work efficiently with software and programs (Carter et al., 2017; De Castro Garcia et al., 2017). Another step is the provision of guidance regarding authorization, ethics, security, and legal issues because information sharing is a complex issue (Carter, 2015). The problem is that fusion centers are “multijurisdictional and multipurpose settings” which do not have “federal statutory basis” (Regan & Monahan, 2014, pp. 475-476). As a result, there are issues associated with accountability and regulatory standards to control data flows in these centers and between other agencies. Common technical standards and instructions are important for employees to work with data effectively and use all the advantages of fusion centers (Lewandowski et al., 2018). When specialists receive detailed guidelines on cooperation, they have access to advanced technologies, know how to collect and share intelligence, they can avoid organizational deviance.

Conclusion

The implementation of the change in police agencies can be interrupted by a range of challenges and barriers. Currently, it is necessary to implement the strategy supporting the collaboration between fusion centers and police because these relations can positively affect the work of law enforcement agencies in their fight with terrorism among other tasks. Five areas that need to be taken into account during the implementation process include organizational theory, organizational socialization, interagency collaboration, organizational deviance, and leadership. The implementation of the change will be realized in the most efficient way if the authorities focus on organizational socialization, training, and support for employees through leadership. Typical problems observed during organizational changes in law enforcement agencies also include the lack of technologies and resources to adopt advancements. Therefore, another important step in the implementation process is the guarantee that police offices have an effective technological base for exchanging intelligence with fusion centers. In this case, it is possible to achieve effective results for the police and cope with the barriers typical of implementation processes.

References

Carter, J. G. (2015). Inter-organizational relationships and law enforcement information sharing post 11 September 2001. Journal of Crime and Justice, 38(4), 522-542.

Carter, J. G., Carter, D. L., Chermak, S., & McGarrell, E. (2017). Law enforcement fusion centers: Cultivating an information sharing environment while safeguarding privacy. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 32(1), 11-27.

De Castro Garcia, A., Matei, F. C., & Bruneau, T. C. (2017). Combatting terrorism through fusion centers: Useful lessons from other experiences? International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 30(4), 723-742.

Esparza, D., & Bruneau, T. C. (2019). Closing the gap between law enforcement and national security intelligence: Comparative approaches. International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 32(2), 322-353.

Lewandowski, C., & Carter, J. G. (2017). End-user perceptions of intelligence dissemination from a state fusion center. Security Journal, 30(2), 467-486.

Lewandowski, C., Carter, J. G., & Campbell, W. L. (2018). The utility of fusion centres to enhance intelligence-led policing: An exploration of end-users. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 12(2), 177-193.

Lewandowski, C., Rojek, J., & Manjarrez, V. M. (2017). Using a fusion center model to manage and improve border security. Journal of Applied Security Research, 12(1), 160-178.

Regan, P. M., & Monahan, T. (2014). Fusion center accountability and intergovernmental information sharing. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 44(3), 475-498.