Law Enforcement Fusion Centers: Cultivating an Information Sharing Environment while Safeguarding Privacy

Abstract

The national network of fusion centers, of which there are currently 78 nationwide, was created in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and continue to play an integral role in contemporary law enforcement. Their mission, put simply, is to facilitate information sharing across disparate agencies and organizations. Despite a significant presence within the law enforcement landscape, fusion centers have received relatively minimal scholarly attention. This limited literature alludes to operational challenges and public concerns that inhibit fusion center effectiveness. More specifically, little information is known about how fusion centers develop relationships with external partners as well as institute mechanisms to safeguard against violations of individual privacy. The present research employs a combination of national survey data and three in-depth case studies of fusion centers in Florida, Nevada, and Michigan to provide initial answers to these questions. Implications for improved policy and practice are discussed.

Cognitive and Affective Processing of Risk Information: A Survey Experiment on Risk-Based Decision-Making Related to Crime and Public Safety

“…Third, this research provides the first-of-its-kind data showing that risk information processing, and its effect, on decision-making is not “one size fits all” ( Carter et al, 2017 ). Previous literature has postulated that processing of risk information on crime and public safety may differ depending on the type or format of risk information, such as maps, graphs, or tables, the level of risk being weighed, or the potential consequences of related decisions ( Harries, 1995 ; Lundgren and McMakin, 2018 ).…”

“…Yet, the impact of risk recognition and information processing on decision-making may not be “one size fits all” for consumers of crime and public safety data, including both law enforcement and the general public ( Carter et al, 2017 ). Indeed, risk information processing of public safety and crime data likely differ depending on the type or format of risk information, such as maps, graphs, or tables, the level of risk being weighed, or the potential consequences of risk-based decisions ( Harries, 1995 ; Lundgren and McMakin, 2018 ).…”

Private Police and Security Governance: Mapping Emerging Trends and Future Directions

“…Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the role played by private security was no longer limited to being junior collaborators with police. The creation of fusion centers to harness collaboration between public-and private-sector actors in crime governance and the increased acknowledgment of the positive outcomes with cooperative efforts drew the interest of policing scholars (Carter et al, 2017).…”

“…Extending on Shearing’s pluralist model, Hummer and Nalla (2003, p. 89) suggested a more complex relationships between the two sectors calling it “cryptic” and cold fusion to describe the intricacy of cooperative relationships that “blur the boundaries” as it is unclear in some of these cooperative efforts when the police “sheds its formal role as agents of the state and assumes the role of civilians, and vise versa private security.” Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the role played by private security was no longer limited to being junior collaborators with police. The creation of fusion centers to harness collaboration between public- and private-sector actors in crime governance and the increased acknowledgment of the positive outcomes with cooperative efforts drew the interest of policing scholars (Carter et al, 2017).…”

Working with the Police: a Positive Outlook from a National Sample of Probation and Parole Officers

“…Information sharing partnerships are the most common, though predominantly informal, of all police-probation/parole collaborations (Kim et al, 2010;. Such agreements may involve little-to-no officer-to-officer interactions and involve solely the systematic sharing of data (e.g., fusion centers, FBI's N-DEx [National Data Exchange]; for more see Carter et al, 2017;Johnson, 2007;Mueller, 2005;Wertheim, 2019). Generally, this data will consist of probationer/parolee information within the jurisdiction.…”