**Fusion Center Intelligence Standards Focus Group Meeting**

**Atlanta, Georgia**

**August 24−25, 2004**

***Meeting Summary***

Mr. Ken Bouche, cochair of the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating
Council (CICC) and chairman of the Global Justice Information Sharing
Initiative (Global) Intelligence Working Group (GIWG), opened the
meeting by welcoming the participants and asking members to introduce
themselves. The following individuals were in attendance:

> Lieutenant Colonel Norm Beasley
>
> *Arizona Counterterrorism Information\
> Center*
>
> Chief Roger Bragdon
>
> *Spokane, Washington, Police\
> Department*
>
> Mr. Hyuk Byun
>
> *National Institute of Justice*
>
> Dr. David Carter
>
> *Michigan State University*
>
> Mr. Stephen Clark
>
> *Georgia Emergency Management\
> Agency*
>
> Dr. David Clopton
>
> *National Institute of Justice*
>
> Captain Daniel Cooney
>
> *New York State Police*
>
> Mr. C. Patrick Duecy
>
> *Homeland Solutions LLC*
>
> Mr. John T. Elliff
>
> *Federal Bureau of Investigation*
>
> Lieutenant Dennis Ellis
>
> *Indiana State Police*
>
> Mr. William Fennell
>
> *U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration*
>
> Mr. Max Fratoddi
>
> *Federal Bureau of Investigation*
>
> Mr. Bob Hardin
>
> *Georgia Bureau of Investigation*
>
> Mr. Chris Holmes
>
> *U.S. Department of Homeland\
> Security*

Deputy Chief Clark Kimerer

*Seattle, Washington, Police Department*

Chief Mark Marshall

*Smithfield, Virginia, Police Department*

Mr. Jerry Marynik

*California Department of Justice*

Mr. J. Patrick McCreary

*U.S. Department of Justice*

Ms. Mary Meyer

*Minnesota Department of Public Safety*

Mr. Russ Porter

*Iowa Department of Public Safety*

Mr. Philip G. Ramer

*Florida Department of Law Enforcement*

Mr. Richard A. Russell

*U.S. Department of Homeland Security*

Mr. Clark Smith

*U.S. Department of Justice*

Lieutenant Colonel Mike Synders

*Illinois State Police*

Major Nicholas Theodos

*New Jersey State Police*

Mr. Mark Zadra

*Florida Department of Law Enforcement*

IIR staff in attendance:

Mr. Bob Cummings

Ms. Michelle Nickens

Ms. Diane Ragans

Mr. Bouche introduced Mr. Peter Modafferi, the chairman of the Fusion
Center Intelligence Standards Focus Group. Mr. Modafferi also welcomed
the participants and stressed that their expertise and experience will
be critical during the meeting as standards are vetted and developed.
Mr. Modafferi asked Mr. Richard Russell, from the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), to make a few opening remarks. Mr. Russell
spoke about the importance of intelligence and the benefits of a
cohesive unit, where individuals work together, build trust, and learn
from each other. He explained that some organizations are using DHS
funds to support a fusion center. Mr. Russell informed the participants
that his goal was to learn about the direction of this initiative, relay
information to DHS, and ensure that the right people have the right
information. Mr. Russell summarized his comments by saying that the
essential component of a fusion center is the human interaction and
process of reviewing and assimilating data. He said that when the roles
of analysts and sworn personnel are put together, knowledge is gained.

Mr. Bouche provided the participants an overview of the Global
Initiative and its efforts. He explained that after September 11, Global
was tasked with developing the *National Criminal Intelligence Sharing
Plan* (NCISP or "Plan"). One of the NCISP recommendations regards the
creation of a criminal intelligence coordinating council, now known as
the CICC. Mr. Bouche informed the participants that the CICC has
conducted two meetings and is dedicated to supporting the mission of the
NCISP. He also mentioned that although the *9/11 Commission Report* was
well done, it does not mention local and state agencies. He stressed
that the federal government should not develop intelligence centers
without considering the local and state agencies.

Mr. Bob Cummings, Institute for Intergovernmental Research (IIR) staff,
reviewed the agenda and objectives for the meeting. He encouraged
participants to discuss best practices within their centers or
initiatives. He explained that some of the information resulting from
this meeting may be distributed at the International Association of
Chiefs of Police's annual conference in November. Ultimately, the
materials will include suggestions and steps for agencies to establish
fusion centers, model policies, and other examples and materials to help
implement a fusion center concept.

Mr. Cummings informed the participants that subsequent meetings may be
needed to fully resolve the issues associated with fusion centers. He
explained that the comments and recommendations made during the meeting
will be consolidated into a document that will be sent to the
participants for further review and consideration.

Mr. Modafferi presented a PowerPoint presentation (*Attachment A*)
regarding the importance of intelligence, intelligence-led policing, and
information sharing. During his presentation, he mentioned the need to
create a generation of officers that understand how information becomes
intelligence and the importance of information sharing. A portion of the
presentation summarized the efforts of the Rockland County Intelligence
Center, as well as the structure and organization of National Children's
Alliance. He stressed that focus group members have an opportunity to
make a positive impact on the law enforcement community by participating
in this initiative.

After Mr. Modafferi's presentation, discussion ensued regarding the
definition of a fusion center. Based on the questions and comments
offered during this discussion, many of the participants had different
interpretations of the definition of a fusion center. One of the major
discussion points was whether the fusion center consists only of an
intelligence center or if the fusion center also integrates public
safety agencies and other responsibilities. Other issues addressed
included the roles and responsibilities of intelligence centers,
handling classified information, and developing clear outcomes and
expectations. Some of the participants believed that fusion centers
should focus on a particular need or issue, be proactive, and include
prevention. Others indicated that fusion centers should consist of a
collaborative group of multifaceted personnel. Still others thought that
individual centers should be responsible for defining their own fusion
center. Issues also surfaced regarding the differences between local,
state, tribal, and federal agencies. After much discussion, Mr. Bouche
summarized by stating that the focus group has a number of roles. First,
the group must identify the parameters of a fusion center for purposes
of this initiative. Second, the group needs to create standards for
justice purposes and then invite other players to integrate additional
roles and responsibilities, such as public safety agencies and the
private sector. In other words, he said the group should identify the
best practices of establishing an intelligence center, offer steps to
regionalize the center, and integrate it into the new world.

Mr. Modafferi referred the participants to a summary document contained
in their materials that outlined some of the issues and components for
the group to discuss\
(*Attachment B*). These issues are the foundation for building
standards. The remaining portion of this document summarizes the
discussions and recommendations regarding these components.

**[Governance]{.underline}**

Mr. Modafferi asked the group to discuss governance. Participants
provided examples of how their initiatives are governed and suggested
options. Mr. Philip Ramer, Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE),
indicated that if agencies participating in the fusion center are asked
to provide resources, they should have input. Some initiatives are
governed by state police, an appointed board, representatives from
participating agencies, or a single agency.

Mr. Bouche said that governance needs to be representative of those
agencies that are willing to participate, whether it is with funds,
resources, personnel, equipment, facilities, etc. They should have a
voice on a board or be a collective voice through an association.\
Mr. Modafferi agreed but stressed that a governance structure should not
be directly representative, resulting in a large and overwhelming
governing board or structure. Mr. Bouche said that broad guidelines
should be established to help local and state agencies, not hinder or
bind them. Deputy Chief Clark Kimerer, Seattle, Washington, Police
Department, indicated that along with a governing board, bylaws and a
process are needed. Mr. Cummings summarized some of the common themes
discussed. The following issues were mentioned:

-   Handle all crime types in the centers.

-   Determine mechanism/capability for push-out strategic intelligence.

-   Establish linkage with private sector.

-   Ensure that participating entities are adequately represented. *(If
    agencies participate in a regional model outside their jurisdiction,
    a shared governance structure should be in place.)*

-   Develop bylaws for the governance structure.

**[Mission Statement]{.underline}**

Mr. Mark Zadra, FDLE, stated that a mission statement should include
enough information to help leaders make decisions and deploy resources
based on the needs of the customers. Mr. Modafferi indicated the
importance of knowing the center's priorities and incorporating them
into the mission. Mr. Ramer suggested that the group make a general
recommendation for a model. The group recommended that fusion centers
have a mission statement and asked that elements of a mission statement,
as well as models, be provided in the final report.

**[Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)]{.underline}**

Mr. Zadra suggested providing guidelines or a checklist for agencies to
use when drafting and/or negotiating MOUs. Chief Kimerer recommended
developing a list of common elements. The group agreed that agencies
participating should consult their legal departments when drafting and
signing MOUs. A discussion ensued regarding the importance of trusted,
personal relationships among participating agencies. Chief Kimerer
stressed that trust and fostering of relationships should be an
overarching theme, addressed at each step of the process.

Mr. John Elliff, Federal Bureau of Investigation, began discussing a
number of critical elements that ultimately will impact the
establishment and operation of fusion centers, such as financial
records, privacy, public records, or intelligence services. Mr.
Modafferi recommended identifying the "hot" points and including them in
the group's discussions and recommendations.

Mr. Cummings indicated that IIR would look at various MOUs and develop a
standardized set of elements that should be included in fusion center
MOUs. In addition, example MOUs and other pertinent information will be
obtained and included in the final report.

Before ending the meeting for the day, Mr. Modafferi informed the
participants that the next day's meeting would be structured
differently. The group would be divided into three subgroups and given
specific topics to discuss. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

**[August 24, 2004---Breakout Session]{.underline}**

The meeting was reconvened at 8:30 a.m. Focus group participants were
assigned to their subgroups. The issues below summarize the discussion
and recommendations for each group.

***Group A: Policies, Procedures, and Privacy***

Participants agreed that fusion centers should develop a
policies-and-procedures manual that outlines the roles and
responsibilities of the center. Some of the other issues the group
discussed included:

-   Ensure information is used for criminal investigations only.

-   Ensure validity and reliability of information.

-   Ensure policies exist regarding auditing requirements, retention,
    and purge.

-   Maintain a policy on access.

-   Maintain a privacy policy.

The group offered sample language for standards regarding privacy:

> *All centers will adopt and publish a policy that establishes a
> reasonable suspicion level or above to gain access to center
> materials.*
>
> *All centers will adopt and publish a policy regarding privacy
> considerations that is consistent with federal and state laws and
> policies, including 28 CR Part 23, Fair Information Practices, etc.,
> as related to all criminal- and terrorist-related queries and
> investigations.*

***Group B: Databases, Tools, Connectivity, Security, and Intelligence
Services***

Group B agreed that centers should leverage systems that exist and are
currently under development and allow for future connectivity to other
states and federal systems. The group recommended that centers use the
Global Justice Extensible Markup Language (XML) Data Dictionary. They
also encouraged obtaining access to available databases and systems,
such as Driver's License, Motor Vehicle Registration, public sources,
and the Regional Information Sharing Systems/Law Enforcement Online
interconnection.

The group was also tasked with discussing security needs. The group
agreed that appropriate security measures should be in place for a
variety of issues such as the facility, data, and personnel. The group
recommended that fusion centers determine access levels and maintain a
policy on the level of information released. They also recommended using
secure mechanisms such as encryption to safeguard data, conduct
background checks for personnel, and maintain secret clearances. Another
suggestion was to create and provide a training component on security
protocols. Finally, the group recommended the following services for
centers to offer or conduct:

-   Tactical response

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proactive strategic analysis

-   Intelligence support for investigations

-   Investigative response

-   Visual investigative analysis

-   Alert and notification

-   Deconfliction

-   Target identification

-   Critical infrastructure analysis

-   Criminal backgrounds/profiles compilation

-   Case correlation

-   Crime-pattern analysis

-   Association analysis

-   Telephone toll analysis

-   Flowcharting

-   Financial analysis

-   Strategic analysis

-   Intelligence reports

-   Intelligence briefings

-   Threat assessments

-   Investigative support

***Group C: Facility and location, communications, funding, training,
and personnel***

Group C discussed the pros and cons of collocating participating
agencies. Collocating improves communications; however, multiple sites
allow for mobile capacity. The group considered providing a step-by-step
guide for two tracks---collocating and not collocating. The group
considered the following logistical issues when addressing facility and
location:

-   Connectivity (i.e., to Emergency Operations Center or other
    partners)

-   Scalability---future and emergency expansion

-   Security

-   Redundancy---infrastructure, resources, personnel, systems, etc.

-   Power

-   Continuity of functions and operations

-   Political issues

-   MOU to designate responsibilities of joint operations

The group also agreed that it was important to identify a skeleton model
for emergency operations, conduct a threat/vulnerability assessment, and
ensure that the physical facility follows the appropriate Concept of
Operations (ConOPS). The group did not have adequate time to address the
communications issue; however, they did offer the following
observations:

-   Ensure secure and redundant communications.

-   Consider frequency and bandwidth limitations.

-   Consider a stand-alone security system (mobile).

-   Develop a policy for external and internal communications.

-   Consider implementing a communications plan.

Group C discussed the need for funding and offered suggestions on how to
identify funding opportunities. It was recommended that funding be based
on vulnerability/threat-based priorities. In addition, the group
discussed using federal funds as seed money, while creating a parallel
budget for the city or state.

Group C agreed that personnel should consist of a diverse and versatile
group, including sworn and nonsworn positions. The group offered an
example staffing model and suggested that additional models be included
in the final report. The group also discussed the potential need of a
permanent, full-time, civilian position to provide continuity and
consistency in the long term (Facility Manager); the need to maintain a
small core staff dedicated to specific functions, such as
administration, information technology, communications, etc.; and the
importance of ensuring equal or proportional representation of personnel
from participating entities. Finally, the group addressed training. The
group agreed with the following:

-   Follow the guidelines and objectives outlined in the NCISP.

-   Ensure personnel meet the core minimum training standards contained
    in the Criminal Intelligence Training Coordination Strategy (CITCS)
    report.

-   Provide center personnel an overview of center operations policies
    and procedures and any unique protocols or communication needs.

-   Identify training needs and provide specialized training as
    appropriate.

-   Consider training needs associated with tactical and strategic
    intelligence.

-   Seek accredited or standards-compliant training programs.

-   Emphasize analysis and its link to intelligence-led policing.

-   Use model simulations, games, functional exercises, tabletops, and
    field exercises.

At approximately 11:30 a.m., the groups presented their findings and
recommendations to the full focus group. After the presentations were
concluded, IIR offered to consolidate discussion points, common themes,
and recommendations. In addition, IIR will develop a set of standardized
guiding principles. Once a draft report is compiled, it will be shared
with the focus group members for review and consideration. Additional
meetings may be scheduled as needed. Hearing no further business, the
meeting was adjourned.

585443.doc