GATHERING, SHARING, ANALYSIS,

AND USE AFTER 9-11

September 2008

MEASURING SUCCESS AND SETTING

GOALS FOR THE FUTURE

COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

SINCE 1893

NI TERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POL CI E ®
This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement #2007CKWXK001 and Grant 

#2007CKWX0211, awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. 

Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 

Justice. References to specific companies, products, or services should not be considered 

an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the 

references are illustrations to supplement discussions of the issues.
International Association of 

Chiefs of Police 

515 North Washington Street 

Alexandria, VA 22314–2357 

Phone: 703-836–6767; 1–800-THE 

IACP 

Fax: 703-836–4543 

Web: www.theiacp.org 

President 

Ronald C. Ruecker 

Director of Public Safety 

City of Sherwood 

Sherwood, OR 

Immediate Past President 

Joseph C. Carter 

The Adjutant General 

Massachusetts National Guard 

Milford, MA 

First Vice President 

Russell B. Laine 

Chief of Police 

Algonquin Police Department 

Algonquin, IL 

Second Vice President 

Michael J. Carroll 

Chief of Police 

West Goshen Township Police 

West Chester, PA 

Third Vice President 

Mark A. Marshall 

Chief of Police 

Smithfield Police Department 

Smithfield, VA 

Fourth Vice President 

Walter A. McNeil 

Secretary, Florida Department of 

Juvenile Justice 

Tallahassee, FL 

Vice President at Large 

Susan Riseling 

Chief of Police 

University of Wisconsin-Madison 

Police Department 

Madison, WI 

Vice President at Large 

Edmund H. Mosca 

Chief of Police 

Old Saybrook Police Department 

Old Saybrook, CT

International Vice President 

Mohamed Abdulaziz Al-Nassr 

Security Attache 

Embassy of the State of Qatar 

Washington, DC 

Vice President-Treasurer 

Carl R. Wolf 

Chief of Police 

Hazelwood Police Department 

Hazelwood, MO 

General Chair Division of State 

Associations of 

Chiefs of Police 

Yousry A. Zakhary 

Director 

Woodway Public Safety Department 

Woodway, TX 

General Chair Division of State and 

Provincial Police 

Joseph R. Fuentes 

Superintendent 

New Jersey State Police 

West Trenton, NJ

Parliamentarian 

Lonnie J. Westphal (Col. Ret.) 

Colorado State Patrol 

Larkspur, CO 

Executive Director 

Daniel N. Rosenblatt 

Alexandria, VA 

Deputy Executive Director 

Chief of Staff 

James W. McMahon 

Alexandria, VA 

Dear Colleague:

I am very pleased to provide you with the final report of our National Summit on Intelligence 

Sharing: Gathering, Sharing, Analysis and Use After 9-11: Measuring Success and Setting Goals 

for the Future. This summit was a follow up to our original 2002 intelligence summit, and it focused 

on both progress made since the terrorist attacks of 2001, and the work remaining to be 

accomplished. 

You’ll note from the letter on the next page that we were fortunate to have the strong support of 

several Federal partners—the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Program Manager, Information Sharing 

Environment (PM-ISE) in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. We are grateful for 

their desire to address the future of national intelligence with us collaboratively. 

As you read this report, I hope you’ll find that it fairly and accurately represents the accomplishments 

achieved since 2002, as well as the obstacles that remain. Most importantly, I hope that you will see 

the value in the eight strategic recommendations that emerged from the summit. We believe that 

these recommendations, once implemented, will move us forward in rapid fashion to improve law 

enforcement’s capacity to gather, analyze, share and use intelligence to prevent crimes of all types 

and to protect our citizens.

Finally, I want to make it clear that the findings from the summit come from the diligent and 

thoughtful work of the 150 law enforcement and other experts who joined us last November at the 

summit. This is their product, and as President of the IACP, I’m proud to present it to the nation. 

Sincerely,

Ronald C. Ruecker 

Director of Public Safety 

Sherwood, Oregon 

IACP President
Dear Colleague: 

In the seven years since our nation withstood devastating terrorist attacks here at home, the role of law 

enforcement has become recognized as vital to the Nation’s safety and security. Once again, the law enforcement 

community has risen to this challenge. Information exchange between local, state, tribal, and federal law 

enforcement and homeland security partners has improved tremendously, thanks to advances in technology, 

improved partnership between federal, state and local authorities and greater trust among ourselves and the 

communities we serve. 

In 2002, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), in partnership with the International 

Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), hosted a Criminal Intelligence Sharing Summit that resulted in the 

National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan, the establishment of the Global Intelligence Working Group, and the 

Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council, the latter of which advises the U.S. Attorney General on justice 

information sharing and integration initiatives. 

Five years later, in November of 2007, the COPS Office and IACP held the Criminal Intelligence Sharing Summit: 

Measuring Success and Setting Goals for the Future. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Office of 

the Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment joined the partnership and co-sponsored this event. 

Both these agencies were created since the first summit was held, demonstrating the breadth of change that has 

occurred in the ensuing years. 

This last Summit convened more than 150 state, local, tribal, and federal law enforcement and public safety 

leaders, intelligence analysts, and academics to discuss what next steps were needed to improve information 

sharing. Discussion at this summit centered on raising awareness about the Information Sharing Environment, 

fusion centers, and intelligence-led policing. The key to the success of these efforts falls under the community 

policing umbrella – problem solving, partnerships, and organizational transformation. This report includes eight 

significant recommendations on how the law enforcement community can continue to work together to ensure that 

hometown security is homeland security. We look forward to working together with you to implement these 

recommendations. 

Sincerely,

 Carl R. Peed, Director Thomas E. McNamara, Program Manager Robert C. Riegle, Director 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Information Sharing Environment State and Local Program Office 

Department of Justice Office of the Director of National Intelligence Department of Homeland Security
CONTENTS 

Acknowledgments 1 

Executive Summary 2 

Introduction: Criminal Intelligence Sharing and Community Oriented Policing 5 

Summit Background 8 

Accomplishments Since 2002 9

Challenges Not Yet Overcome 15

Recommendations 17 

Epilogue 24 

IACP Summit Staff and Consultants 29

Summit Participants 31 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) is grateful to a number of 

individuals who lent their time and talent to summit planning and execution. Their efforts 

were instrumental in creating a successful summit and this report, containing the results 

and recommendations of that summit. We thank especially IACP President Ron Ruecker 

for his vision and leadership, and in particular his guidance as the IACP and its partners 

took on this critical public safety issue.

We are grateful to our many funding and programmatic partners including: 

Director Carl Peed, Amy Schapiro, and Debra Cohen, Ph.D. of the U.S. 

Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, for their 

strong support and their continuing and insightful guidance throughout the entire 

summit effort. 

Ambassador Ted McNamara, Sue Reingold, John Cohen, and Elizabeth Farrell of 

the Office of the Program Manager for Information Sharing Environment, for 

their continuous involvement and leadership in the project. 

Kevin Saupp and Robert Riegle of the Department of Homeland Security, for 

their valuable partnership and support. 

Doug Bodrero, Bob Cummings, Diane Ragans and Kim Geer of the Institute for 

Intergovernmental Research, for their logistics support and invaluable substantive 

contribution to the summit. 

We are also grateful to several key advisors for their leadership, passionate concern for 

the ongoing terrorism and intelligence issues facing America and the world. Each of our 

summit advisors worked tirelessly to help us design and accomplish a powerful policy 

summit by attending many meetings and events and by voicing their invaluable counsel 

as we moved forward with this important initiative: 

Colonel Joseph R. Fuentes, Superintendent New Jersey State Police; Bart Johnson, Office 

of the Director of National Intelligence (formerly with, New York State Police); Peter A. 

Modafferi, Chief of Detectives New York City District Attorney’s Office, Chief Joseph 

Polisar, Garden Grove Police Department, and Chief Yousry A. Zakhary, Woodway 

Department of Public Safety. 

Most importantly, we thank each of the more than 150 summit participants listed in the 

back of the report, for coming to the summit ready to serve, and for bringing with them 

the many excellent ideas that are now reflected in the recommendations in this report. 

1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Criminal intelligence sharing in the United States has come a long way since March 

2002, the date of the first summit on criminal intelligence sharing, co-sponsored by the 

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. That summit resulted in the National

Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan and a council of law enforcement executives—the 

Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council—to oversee its implementation. There were 

other achievements, too. The Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative produced 

dozens of products to help law enforcement agencies share information and intelligence. 

Fusion centers and Joint Terrorism Task Forces fostered new levels of communication 

and collaboration across jurisdictions. The Federal Government created the Department 

of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Office 

of the Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment. 

The participants in the follow-up 2007 IACP Criminal Intelligence Sharing Summit 

nevertheless made it clear that many of the nation's law enforcement agencies do not 

participate in the criminal intelligence sharing plan. Too many state, local, and tribal 

agencies, it would seem, underestimate their importance to the criminal intelligence 

sharing process, overestimate the burdens of full participation, and/or remain unaware of 

how to contribute to the vital work of the plan. 

The participants in the most recent summit reaffirmed their commitment to overcoming 

these challenges and helping law enforcement agencies of all sizes to participate more 

fully in the criminal intelligence sharing process. Together, they crafted a set of 

recommendations to help law enforcement agencies share information and intelligence 

seamlessly, while protecting privacy and civil rights.

What Is Criminal Intelligence Sharing? 

Criminal intelligence sharing is the exchange of an analytical product designed to help 

police prevent, respond to, investigate, and solve crimes. The analytical product is the 

result of the intelligence process which includes the following steps: planning/direction, 

information collection, analysis, production, and finally feedback. Often times it is 

produced by an analyst who reviews the data and looks for crime trends, statements from 

informants and witnesses, observations by police officers, and other patterns. The analyst 

would then reach conclusions about likely criminal activity, summarize those conclusions 

in a forecast, and submit the forecast to law enforcement managers who can then consider 

the forecast before making decisions about strategies and tactics. 

2
Criminal intelligence, it should be noted, is distinct from National Intelligence. 1

 The goal 

of the National Intelligence effort is to provide the President, and the National Security 

Council, and the Homeland Security Council the necessary information on which to base 

decisions concerning the conduct and development of foreign, defense and economic 

policy, and the protection of United States national interests from foreign security 

threats.2

 The National Intelligence effort is led by the Director of National Intelligence, 

and conducted by the 16 federal agencies comprising the Intelligence Community, 

including the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the 

National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. 

Recent cases like that of the Lackawanna Six in New York, are examples of how local 

law enforcement, through the effective use of criminal intelligence, plays a vital role in 

detecting terrorist threats and protecting national security. The vigilance of officers who 

observe suspicious activity and notify the appropriate federal authorities is the key to 

terrorism prevention and homeland security. According to the National Strategy for 

Information Sharing issued by the White House in October 2007, "State, local, and tribal 

governments carry out their counterterrorism responsibilities within the broader context 

of their core mission to protect the public’s health, safety, and to provide emergency and 

non-emergency services."3

Recommendations of the 2007 Criminal Intelligence Sharing Summit 

To help law enforcement move closer to the vision of criminal intelligence sharing 

described in the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan, the participants in the 2007 

Criminal Intelligence Sharing Summit: Measuring Success and Setting Goals for the 

Future offer the following recommendations: 

1. Every state, local, and tribal law enforcement agency in the United States should 

strive to develop and maintain a criminal intelligence capability consisting of at least the 

following requirements: formal criminal intelligence awareness training for at least one 

sworn officer; training all levels of law enforcement personnel to recognize behavior 

1

 National Intelligence is defined by the Section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, as A) 

“information relating to the capabilities intentions or activities of foreign governments or elements thereof, 

foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities” (known as foreign 

intelligence); and B) “information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other 

intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or 

elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities (known as 

“counterintelligence”), regardless of the source from which derived and including information gathered 

within or outside the United States, that (A) pertains to more than one United States Government agency; 

and (B) involves (i) threats to the United States, its people, property, or interests’; (ii) the development, 

proliferation, or use of weapons of mass destruction; or (iii) any other matter bearing on the Untied States 

national or homeland security.” (50 U.S.C. § 401a) 

2

 Executive Order 12333, as amended 

3

 The White House, National Strategy for Information Sharing: Successes and Challenges in Improving 

Terrorism-Related Information Sharing (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 

2007), 17, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/infosharing/index.html. 

3
indicative of criminal activity associated with terrorism; and defined procedures and 

mechanisms for communication with the nearest fusion center and/or a regional 

information sharing network. 

2. A nationwide marketing and training initiative should be designed to convince 

every law enforcement agency to participate in criminal intelligence sharing, make every 

law enforcement agency aware of the criminal intelligence resources available to it, and 

give every law enforcement agency the know-how to participate in criminal intelligence 

sharing.

3. All law enforcement organizations and agencies should explore potential 

partnerships in order to enhance analytical capacity within their agencies.

4. Chief executives of state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies should 

encourage the directors of all criminal intelligence sharing initiatives and resources (such 

as fusion centers) to adopt and maintain an all-crimes approach. 

5. Fusion center directors and their law enforcement partners should take a series of 

steps to improve the effectiveness of the centers, including forming an association of 

fusion centers that might help promote the sharing of best practices among fusion centers 

and help promote the work of the centers to law enforcement agencies and policymakers 

at all levels. 

6. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence, and the U.S. Department of Justice should work together to 

simplify and streamline security classifications and clearances. 

7. Policymakers at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels should continue to take 

steps to enhance the protection of privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights and ensure that 

communities are aware of, and engaged in, the process. 

8. Law enforcement executives should develop ways to measure the success of 

criminal intelligence sharing and recognize those individuals involved in that success.

4
INTRODUCTION

Criminal Intelligence Sharing and Community Oriented Policing

On the morning of December 14, 2007 two men pleaded guilty to federal terrorism 

charges in a U.S. District Court in California; a third man pleaded guilty three days later. 

Prosecutors described the three men as U.S. citizens who formed a radical Islamic 

terrorist cell while in prison and then prepared the attacks after their release. They 

admitted to conspiring to attack U.S. military installations, Israeli government offices, 

and synagogues in Los Angeles. 

Who uncovered the plot? It was not covert operatives in Afghanistan or federal agents 

conducting an investigation on suspected Al Qaeda members. It was local police officers 

investigating a gas station robbery in Torrance, a Los Angeles suburb. They found papers 

containing details of the terrorist plot while searching the apartment where two robbery 

suspects lived. The Torrance Police Department shared the information with other 

agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The ensuing investigation 

involved 300 local, state, and federal police officers.

Officials say police arrested the men for robbery about two months before they intended 

to launch the attacks. Cell members had already purchased weapons for the attacks with 

the money they had stolen during a string of gas station holdups. 

The Torrance case reminds us that good police work can help prevent acts of terrorism. 

As Ambassador Thomas "Ted" McNamara, Program Manager for the Information 

Sharing Environment (PM-ISE), said at the 2007 Criminal Intelligence Sharing Summit, 

"State and local authorities carry out efforts to combat terrorism as part of their core 

mission of protecting local communities from crime, violence, and disorder." The 

Torrance case also reminds us that it is not only big-city police officers who should be on 

the lookout for signs of terrorist activity; terrorists live in communities of all kinds, 

including quiet suburbs like Torrance, while they plan their attacks and even commit the 

crimes that are forerunners of those attacks. 

U.S. law enforcement agencies have made progress as sharers of information and 

intelligence since September 11, 2001. Officers are more aware that they could find 

evidence of terrorist plans and encounter would-be terrorists while carrying out their 

normal police duties. Police agencies, especially in metropolitan areas, are better 

prepared to develop, manage, and share intelligence and to work together to disrupt 

terrorist plots. The Federal Government, for its part, has enacted laws, adopted 

regulations, and created systems and procedures designed to facilitate information and 

intelligence sharing by police departments and other public safety and homeland security 

agencies at all levels.

5
6

Levels of Intelligence

Intelligence-Led Policing: The 

New Intelligence Architecture, 

produced by the U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, classifies U.S law 

enforcement agencies according 

to the level of their intelligence 

capability:

Intelligence Level 1

• Employs an intelligence manager, intelligence officers, and 

professional intelligence analysts

• Produces intelligence products 

for its own use and routinely 

shares intelligence products with 

other agencies

• Is typically a national or large 

state agency with hundreds or 

thousands of sworn officers (such 

as the National Drug Intelligence 

Center, the Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network, and the 

California Department of Justice)

Intelligence Level 2

• Employs an intelligence manager, intelligence officers, and 

professional intelligence analysts

• Produces tactical or strategic 

intelligence for its own use but 

does not have resources devoted 

to sharing intelligence

• Uses intelligence analysis to 

advance investigations into complex crimes such as insurance 

fraud

• Is typically a state police department or a large municipal or 

county law enforcement agency 

with hundreds or thousands of 

sworn officers 

 continued

In spite of the progress made in recent years, the

intelligence process itself remains a mystery to many 

police officers, and some law enforcement executives 

consider their agencies too small or too remote to 

participate in criminal intelligence sharing. According 

to 2007 summit participants, however, every law 

enforcement agency has a job to do in criminal

intelligence sharing.

Criminal intelligence is "the product of an analytic 

process that provides an integrated perspective to 

disparate information about crime, crime trends, crime 

and security threats, and conditions associated with 

criminality."4

 The criminal intelligence process, 

according to the National Criminal Intelligence

Sharing Plan, consists of six steps: 

1. Planning the gathering of information

2. Gathering the information

3. Processing the information

4. Analyzing the information to produce an 

 intelligence product

5. Disseminating the intelligence product to 

 someone who needs it, can use it, and has a 

 right to it

6. Evaluating the usefulness of the intelligence 

 product

Information, as it is understood here, can be any kind 

of data—a license plate number, a criminal record, an 

officer's observation of a particular person's presence 

at a particular place at a particular time, or an item 

gleaned from a newspaper article. Processing the 

information includes verifying that it satisfies legal 

requirements of relevance to a criminal investigation. 

Analysis involves synthesizing, evaluating, and 

contextualizing the information, drawing conclusions 

from the information, and expressing those conclusions in an intelligence product, such as a report, an 

estimate, or a forecast.

4

 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Law Enforcement 

Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies, by David L. Carter 

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 2004), 9. 
7

Intelligence Level 3

• Employs intelligence officers 

who typically have received some 

training in intelligence capability 

but does not employ professional 

analysts

• May develop intelligence products for internal use but typically 

relies on level 1 intelligence agencies for intelligence products

• Typically a local, state, or tribal 

law enforcement agency with 

dozens or hundreds of sworn 

officers

Intelligence Level 4

• Employs no intelligence

officers or analysts but may 

assign part-time intelligence 

capability duties to an officer

• Has obtained intelligence training for one or more officers

• Participates in regional information sharing networks

• Has a few dozen sworn officers 

at most but, like the majority of 

U.S. law enforcement agencies, 

probably has fewer

Source: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, Intelligence-Led 

Policing: A New Architecture, in 

the series New Realities: Law 

Enforcement in the Post–9/11 

Era, by IACP with the National 

Sheriffs Association, Major Cities 

Chiefs Association, Police Foundation, and NOBLE (Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing 

Office, 2005), 12–13.

Naturally, not every police department has the need or 

the resources to carry out all six steps of the

criminal intelligence process. But every law enforcement agency can and should develop criminal

intelligence capability at a level that is appropriate for 

its size and mission.5

 All agencies, even the smallest, 

should strive to achieve at least minimal criminal

intelligence capabilities: formal criminal intelligence 

awareness training for at least one sworn officer; 

training all levels of law enforcement personnel to 

recognize behavior indicative of criminal activity 

associated with terrorism; and defined procedures and 

mechanisms for communication with the nearest 

fusion center and/or a regional information sharing 

network.

Lastly, law enforcement officials must bear in mind 

the importance of cultivating community partnerships 

as part of their efforts to develop and share criminal 

intelligence. In his remarks at the 2007 summit, Carl 

Peed, Director of the U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

(COPS), emphasized the close connection between 

intelligence-led policing (ILP) and community

policing: "ILP can take advantage of the partnerships 

built through community policing by leveraging the 

trust between citizens and law enforcement; ILP can 

be informed by the problem-solving process [at the 

core of community policing]; and it can also benefit 

from the organizational transformation inherent in 

community policing. Put simply, ILP is not just

consistent with community policing, but it fits well 

under the community policing umbrella."

5

 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Intelligence-Led 

Policing: A New Architecture, in the series New Realities: Law Enforcement in the Post–9/11 Era, by IACP 

with the National Sheriffs Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Police Foundation, and NOBLE

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005), 13. 
SUMMIT BACKGROUND 

Since 1994, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has convened more 

than a dozen national policy summits on matters of concern to law enforcement 

executives and their peers in related disciplines. Topics have included DNA evidence, 

hate crime, safety in Indian country, family violence, youth violence, child protection, 

and many others. 

In March 2002, law enforcement leaders and intelligence experts gathered in Alexandria, 

Virginia, at the IACP Criminal Intelligence Sharing Summit. Participants sought ways to 

help police share information and intelligence with a single goal in mind: preventing 

another terrorist attack like the one that had occurred just six months earlier. They drafted 

the following expression of purpose to guide their work:

The United States law enforcement community is universally committed to the 

timely and seamless exchange of terrorist and criminal information and 

intelligence. In light of the tragedy of September 11, it is absolutely critical that 

all law enforcement personnel work together to protect the nation, and we are 

committed to doing so.

Their work produced an influential set of recommendations: 

• Create a national intelligence plan 

• Create a criminal intelligence coordinating council 

• Adopt intelligence-led policing 

• Protect civil rights 

• Increase opportunities for building trust among police agencies 

• Fix deficits in analytic capacity and information sharing capacity 

• Improve criminal intelligence training 

• Improve criminal intelligence technology 

Five years later, the IACP and its partners including the COPS Office, PM-ISE, and the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), convened another summit to determine the 

state of criminal intelligence sharing. Police leaders from agencies of various kinds 

(including federal, state, local, tribal, and campus) and sizes joined federal policy makers, 

intelligence experts, and others in Washington, D.C., to consider how successfully the 

nation's 18,000 law enforcement agencies have carried out the recommendations from the 

2002 summit. What have they accomplished in the last five years? What new problems 

and solutions have they discovered? What should they do next? 

The summit provided an opportunity to identify obstacles and concerns, find solutions, 

and create an action plan to engage all state, county, local, and tribal police agencies in 

intelligence gathering, analysis, and sharing. Participants focused on the following areas 

in small breakout groups: fusion centers; intelligence-led policing; privacy and civil 

liberties; training and technical assistance; building an analytical capacity; and sharing 

classified and unclassified information. 

8
At the 2007 summit, Ron Ruecker, president of the IACP and director of public safety in 

Sherwood, Oregon, challenged participants to make the second summit "bigger, bolder, 

and much broader in scope" than the 2002 event. He asked them to be candid with one 

another as they identified obstacles to criminal intelligence sharing and to help develop 

ways to overcome those obstacles. 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS SINCE 2002 

A number of key recommendations from the 2002 IACP summit on criminal intelligence 

have produced meaningful results. What follows is a summary of selected achievements 

of criminal intelligence stakeholders in the years since the summit. 

Create a national intelligence plan 

The 2002 summit called for the creation of a national intelligence plan that recognized 

the need for sharing both criminal intelligence and national intelligence between and 

among police agencies at all levels. The summit participants understood that even while 

on heightened alert for terrorist activity, local, state, and tribal police departments would 

need to carry out their mission of detecting, preventing, and investigating crimes. They 

were also aware that police officers had found evidence of terrorist activities and 

apprehended terrorists during the course of their normal duties. Enhancing criminal 

intelligence sharing could only improve the chances that a police officer might uncover a 

threat to homeland security while conducting a criminal investigation, enforcing traffic 

laws, or carrying out community policing responsibilities. 

As a direct result of the summit recommendation, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 

issued the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) in October 2003. In it,

the plan's developers, the Global Intelligence Working Group (GIWG), made 28 

recommendations designed to bring about "a nationwide communications capability that 

will link together all levels of law enforcement personnel, including officers on the streets, 

intelligence analysts, unit commanders, and police executives for the purpose of sharing

critical data."

The plan proved to be the first in a series of refinements of a national strategy for 

intelligence sharing. The following year, President George W. Bush signed into law the 

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Among other provisions, the 

law established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Office 

of the Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment (PM-ISE), which 

released the Information Sharing Environment Implementation Plan in November 2006. 

9
In 2005, DHS, DOJ, and the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global) 

released Fusion Center Guidelines: Developing and Sharing Information and Intelligence 

in a New Era. 

Most recently, in October 2007 the White House issued the National Strategy for 

Information Sharing: Successes and Challenges in Improving Terrorism-Related 

Information Sharing, which calls for a national information sharing capability through the 

establishment of a national integrated network of fusion centers. Since 2001, the federal 

government has provided significant grant funding, training, and technical assistance to 

support the establishment of fusion centers operated by states and major urban areas. The 

Strategy builds on these efforts and provides a federal government-wide approach to 

interfacing and collaborating with these fusion centers. Additionally, Appendix I of the 

Strategy outlines the federal, state, local, and tribal governments’ roles and 

responsibilities for the establishment and continued operations of state and major urban 

area fusion centers. 

Create a criminal intelligence coordinating council 

The Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council (CICC) formed in 2004 to provide 

recommendations in connection with the implementation and refinement of the NCISP.

Global, of which the CICC is a part, advises the U.S. Attorney General on justice 

information sharing and integration initiatives and supports the exchange of pertinent 

justice and public safety information. It promotes standards-based electronic information 

exchange to provide the justice community with timely, accurate, complete, and 

accessible information in a secure and trusted environment. The CICC and its research 

partner the GIWG serve as advocates for local law enforcement in their efforts to develop 

and share criminal intelligence for the promotion of public safety and the security of our 

nation.

The council comprises 20 law enforcement executives, intelligence analysts, and federal 

policymakers. Among other achievements, the CICC has helped create minimum training 

standards for intelligence analysts, police officers, and others. Those training standards 

were updated in 2007.6

Adopt intelligence-led policing 

The phrase intelligence-led policing enjoys wide currency among criminal justice 

researchers and national policymakers. There is vigorous debate among them about what 

exactly intelligence-led policing is, but most agree that it integrates easily with other 

popular policing models, including community policing, problem-oriented policing, and 

6

 U.S. Department of Justice, Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, Counterterrorism Training 

Coordination Working Group, Minimum Criminal Intelligence Training Standards for Law Enforcement 

and Other Criminal Justice Agencies in the United States: Findings and Recommendations (October 2007),

http://it.ojp.gov/documents/min_crim_intel_stand.pdf. 

10
CompStat. Law Enforcement Intelligence, a 2004 COPS Office publication, describes 

intelligence-led policing as "the integration of community policing and law enforcement 

intelligence."7

 The report Intelligence-Led Policing: The New Intelligence Architecture,

issued by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and their partners in 2005, calls it "a 

collaborative enterprise based on improved intelligence operations and community 

oriented policing and problem solving."8

Stakeholders have taken measures to encourage law enforcement agencies to embrace 

intelligence-led policing or at least make criminal intelligence sharing a point of 

emphasis. Global, for instance, produced a one-page resource document designed to 

inspire police executives to take 10 simple steps to become participants in developing and 

sharing criminal intelligence.

7

 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Law Enforcement 

Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies, by David L. Carter 

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 2004), 39. 

8

 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Intelligence-Led 

Policing: A New Architecture, in the series New Realities: Law Enforcement in the Post–9/11 Era, by IACP 

with the National Sheriffs Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Police Foundation, and NOBLE

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005), 13. 

11

10 Simple Steps to Help Your 

Agency Become a Part of the 

National Criminal Intelligence 

Sharing Plan

1. Recognize your responsibilities 

and lead by example. Recognize 

the value of sharing intelligence 

information within your own 

agency, and encourage the practice of sharing information with 

other law enforcement and public 

safety agencies. Use the guidelines and action steps outlined in 

the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (“Plan”) to 

implement or enhance your 

organization’s intelligence function.

2. Establish a mission statement 

and a policy to address developing and sharing information and 

intelligence data within your 

agency. 

 continued

Protect privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights

Police leaders at all levels have acknowledged the 

importance of protecting privacy, civil liberties, and 

civil rights in any intelligence-sharing initiative. A 

body of literature on the subject has emerged to guide 

practitioners. Global, for instance, published both The 

Privacy Policy Development Guide9 in 2006 and 

Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties: Policy

Templates for Justice Information in 2008.10 Additionally In September 2006, the IACP published

Protecting Civil Rights: A Leadership Guide for 

State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement.

In addition, the joint DHS/DOJ Fusion Process

Technical Assistance Program has developed and is 

delivering the Fusion Center Privacy Policy 

Development Service. The service enables the

development of an effective privacy policy to ensure 

that constitutional rights, civil liberties, and civil 

rights are protected while allowing the fusion center

9

 U.S. Department of Justice, Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, Privacy Policy Development 

Guide (October 2006), http://www.search.org/files/pdf/Privacy_Guide_Final.pdf. 10 U.S. Department of Justice, Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil 

Liberties: Policy Templates for Justice Information (February 2008), 

http://it.ojp.gov/documents/Privacy_Civil_Rights_and_Civil_Liberties_Policy_Templates.pdf. 
12

The Plan provides model policies 

and guidelines for implementing 

or reviewing an agency’s intelligence function. Examples include 

Criminal Intelligence Systems 

Operating Policies federal regulation 28 CFR Part 23, the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police’s Criminal Intelligence 

Model Policy, and the Law 

Enforcement Intelligence Unit’s 

(LEIU) Criminal Intelligence File 

Guidelines.

3. Connect to your state criminal 

justice network and regional intelligence databases, and participate 

in information sharing initiatives.

Many states provide access to 

other government databases, 

including motor vehicles, corrections, and others. Regional intelligence databases and sharing 

initiatives promote communication and collaboration by providing access to other agencies’ and 

organizations’ investigative and 

intelligence data. 

4. Ensure privacy issues are 

protected in policy and practice. 

The protection of individuals’ 

privacy and constitutional rights is 

an obligation of government 

officials and is crucial to the 

long-term success of criminal 

intelligence sharing. The Plan 

provides guidelines that support 

policies which will protect privacy 

and constitutional rights while not 

hindering the intelligence process. 

Implementing and supporting 

privacy policies and practices 

within your agency will also 

reduce your organization’s liability concerns.

 continued

to achieve its mission objectives. The President's 

National Strategy for Information Sharing identifies 

the administration's core privacy principles. 

Increase opportunities for building trust among 

police agencies

The 2002 summit participants tasked the CICC with 

improving institutional trust among police agencies to 

encourage the sharing of information and intelligence, 

and they suggested two avenues for doing so: improving the security of shared information and emphasizing 

the importance of smaller, regional networks for information sharing. Global has attempted to address the 

security of information sharing systems by developing, 

publishing, and disseminating a guide called Applying 

Security Practices to Justice Information Sharing in 

2004. Trust building through regional networks is 

evolving through traditional RISS networks and 

contemporary fusion centers. Long-standing RISS 

networks continue to be conduits for the exchange of 

criminal intelligence among participating agencies. 

Participants in the 2007 summit suggested that other 

smaller, regional information networks are forming 

around the country without a great deal of intervention 

from national agencies. 

Another significant development in the area of trust 

building is the establishment of fusion centers. Fusion 

Center Guidelines issued by Global recognize that 

“fostering a collaborative environment builds trust 

among participating entities [and] strengthens partnerships . . . .”11 State and local governments have established over 60 fusion centers, and the Federal Government is committed to supporting the establishment of 

an integrated network of fusion centers to enhance our 

nation’s information sharing capability. The National 

Strategy for Information Sharing designates fusion 

centers as the focus within the state and local environment for the receipt and sharing of terrorism information, homeland security information, and law enforcement information related to terrorism.

11 U.S. Department of Justice, Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, Fusion Center Guidelines: 

Developing and Sharing Information and Intelligence in a New Era, Guideline 4, Page 29 (August 2005).
13

5. Access law enforcement Web 

sites, subscribe to law enforcement listservs, and use the Internet as an information resource. 

Many Web sites on the Internet 

and others on closed networks 

provide valuable intelligence 

assessments and news. Listservs 

provide instant and widespread 

communication for investigators. 

Listservs allow both the receipt 

and distribution of intelligence 

information. The Internet provides 

a wealth of open-source information, including government information and access to private 

agencies that share with law 

enforcement. 

6. Provide your agency members 

with appropriate training on the 

criminal intelligence process. 

Some training models or modules 

are already found in Internetbased and interactive CDs, such 

as the International Association of 

Law Enforcement Intelligence 

Analysts (IALEIA), National 

White Collar Crime Center, and 

LEIU “Turn Key Intelligence.” A 

listing of available intelligence 

training sources and specifically 

scheduled classes is found on the 

IALEIA Web site: www.ialeia.org. 

This listing allows individuals to 

directly contact training source 

agencies and organizations for 

more information on classes and 

schedules. 

 continued

The last six years saw a proliferation of interagency 

partnerships of other kinds, and these partnerships 

appear to represent opportunities for building trust 

among police agencies. The FBI and its law enforcement partners, for instance, have created more than 

100 Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs).12 

Remedy deficits in analysis capability

The 2002 summit charged the CICC with establishing 

analytical standards. Since then, Global and IALEIA 

published Law Enforcement Analytic Standards in 

2004. Global issued Law Enforcement Analyst Certification Standards in 2006.13 Global and its partners 

issued Minimum Criminal Intelligence Training Standards for Law Enforcement and Other Criminal 

Justice Agencies in the United States in 2004 and 

updated the standards to reflect the current Information Sharing Environment in 2007. IALEIA also has 

built a basic level certification around the NCISP 

objectives for analysts with the Foundations of Intelligence Analysis Training.

Improve training

The 2002 summit recommendations emphasized the 

need to train both current and incoming officers on 

criminal intelligence sharing. In that spirit, the Global 

publication referenced earlier again serves as a useful 

guide Minimum Criminal Intelligence Training Standards for Law Enforcement and Other Criminal 

Justice Agencies in the United States and updated 

them in 2007. The Intelligence Training Coordination 

Working Group and the Counterterrorism Training 

Coordination Working Group launched the Criminal 

Intelligence Training Master Calendar14 in 2007.

Developing and Sharing Information and Intelligence in a New Era, Guideline 4, Page 29 (August 2005). 12 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Protecting America against Terrorist 

Attack: A Closer Look at the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces," FBI Web site, December 1, 2004, 

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/dec04/jttf120114.htm. 

13 U.S. Department of Justice, Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, Law Enforcement Analyst 

Certification Standards (August 2006), 

http://www.iir.com/global/products/law_enforcement_analyst_certification_standards.pdf. 

14 http://mastercalendar.ncirc.gov/
14

7. Become a member of your inregion Regional Information 

Sharing Systems (RISS) center. 

RISS operates the only secure 

Web-based nationwide network 

for communication and exchange 

of criminal intelligence information by local, state, federal, and 

tribal participating law enforcement member agencies. RISS 

partners with other law enforcement systems to electronically 

connect them to RISSNET, 

including High Intensity Drug 

Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Investigative Support centers and other 

federal and state agency systems.

8. Become a member of the FBI’s 

Law Enforcement Online (LEO) 

system. The FBI’s LEO system is 

a sensitive but unclassified, realtime information sharing communications system for all levels of 

the law enforcement community 

and is available at no cost to its 

users. LEO provides secure e-mail 

capability, a national alert mechanism, and access to over 125 

special-interest groups for sharing 

information by providing access 

to other networks, systems, 

databases, and other services. 

9. Partner with public and private 

infrastructure sectors.

Regular communication with the 

entities that control America’s 

critical infrastructures such as 

energy, agriculture, transportation, and shipping is critically 

important to ensuring the safety 

and security of the citizens in your 

community.

10. Participate in local, state, and 

national intelligence organizations. In most areas of the country, 

there are locally based intelligence organizations that welcome 

participation from all agencies 

and are often affiliated with state 

and national organizations.

Improve technology

Participants in the 2002 summit cautioned that technological improvements could enhance criminal intelligence sharing capabilities only where good policies, 

careful training, and trust already existed. They also 

acknowledged that technology in 2002 was inadequate 

to the task at hand. Since then, Global has developed a 

markup language and dictionary designed to standardize data records and allow police agencies to share 

information seamlessly. The trend toward mobile computing has increased the number of police officers who 

can submit and retrieve information and intelligence 

files using computers in police vehicles. Technology 

has also enabled the enhanced protection of information privacy and civil liberties through automated 

procedures for redress, data quality, data security, 

notice mechanisms, and accountability, enforcement, 

and audit mechanisms. DOJ and DHS jointly developed the National Information Exchange Model, one 

of many efforts to improve the way agencies share 

information electronically. For more information on 

these efforts, readers may want to refer to the Epilogue 

in this report.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, 

"10 Simple Steps," revised August 2005, 

http://www.iir.com/global/products/Ten_steps.pdf
CHALLENGES NOT YET OVERCOME 

For all the advances since 2002, some barriers are preventing or slowing progress on the 

recommendations from the first summit. The following is a list of selected obstacles 

identified by participants in the 2007 summit, categorized by topic. These obstacles 

subsequently serve as key points to guide participant recommendations. 

Intelligence-led policing 

Intelligence-led policing is at the core of the recommendations from the 2002 summit, yet 

the report from the 2002 summit does not attempt to define the term. Five years later, 

participants in the 2007 summit could not agree on a definition of intelligence-led 

policing. They made it clear that they believed that the nation's police departments as a 

group have not rushed to embrace intelligence-led policing, even as some progressive 

agencies have adopted it. The 2007 summit participants said the confusion about the 

nature of intelligence-led policing was just one of several reasons for the tepid response. 

They also cited a lack of awareness, indifference, and skepticism about another attempt to 

remake policing, and a concern that the name—intelligence-led policing—raises fears of 

government intrusions into the private lives of innocent persons and jeopardizes police 

relationships with constituents, especially members of minority groups. 

Privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights 

According to the 2007 summit participants, there is seldom a single set of privacy rules 

that control the way any given law enforcement agency can gather, store, and share 

information and intelligence. Instead, agencies must remain aware of sometimes 

overlapping privacy laws and regulations created by federal, state, and local authorities. 

As they negotiate these laws and regulations, law enforcement leaders are aware that they 

are part of a larger national debate about the gathering and use of information of all 

kinds. Nevertheless, they know that the complexity of today's threats to public safety and 

civil order demands new access to information. 

Trust among police agencies 

Participants in the 2002 summit expressed a concern that much criminal intelligence 

sharing is dependent on personal rather than institutional trust—that is, it occurs between 

agencies whose leaders have established collegial relationships but it seldom outlives the 

tenures of those leaders. Participants in the second summit in November 2007 said that 

has not changed much. Local, state, and tribal police leaders remain suspicious that 

federal agencies, in particular, withhold information and intelligence. Security 

classifications and clearances remain a point of contention among local, state, and tribal 

police leaders, some of whom complain that they cannot obtain clearances they should 

have and that too much information and intelligence is needlessly classified as Secret. 

15
Law enforcement agencies remain somewhat reluctant to share information and 

intelligence with private sector security and other partners outside public law 

enforcement. 

Information gathering and analysis 

There persists among police leaders and their officers a lack of awareness of what 

information to gather and share, and among smaller agencies a sense that terrorism is a 

remote threat. Summit participants reported that analytical capacity has not expanded 

significantly across state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies and that the need for 

analysis (as opposed to mere information retrieval and dissemination) is most acute in 

local and tribal police departments. Most U.S. police agencies are too small to employ 

any analysts and are unlikely to know where to find help with the analysis of information. 

Among larger agencies, few have a career path for the analysts they do hire, making it 

more difficult for them to recruit and retain analysts. Perhaps the most significant 

obstacle to improving analytical capacity is that many police managers do not have a 

consistent understanding of the role and value of analysts and their work. 

Training

As evidenced by the work of Global, IALEIA, and their partners, training in criminal 

intelligence sharing exists for police employees at all levels—executives, managers, 

investigators, line officers, and analysts. Unfortunately, too few police officials know 

about it. Lack of awareness is just one barrier. Training, after all, takes time and money, 

two resources police departments have in short supply. Police executives at all levels 

acknowledge the difficulty of getting employees all the training they need and want, and 

criminal intelligence sharing is just one of many kinds of training police departments 

might desire but cannot always obtain. 

Technology

Many agencies continue to rely on handwritten reports and paper-based records 

management systems, making information gathering, storage, retrieval, and sharing more 

difficult. Agencies might not be able to afford system upgrades that would allow 

participation in the NCISP and might not know how to go about it even if they could 

afford it. For other agencies, technology, such as computer database software, can 

sometimes seem to be an end in itself rather than the means, and agencies can sometimes 

mistake electronic information gathering and storage for analysis. Furthermore, some 

participants expressed continued frustration in accessing national level systems for 

intelligence sharing. 

16
RECOMMENDATIONS

The participants in the 2007 Criminal Intelligence Sharing Summit developed the 

following recommendations to help U.S. law enforcement fully realize the NCISP and 

fulfill the promise of the 2002 summit recommendations. The 2007 recommendations 

include specific refinements of various elements of the plan, such as fusion centers, 

security clearances, and technology, but they emphasize the urgent need to engage every 

law enforcement agency, regardless of size and type, in criminal intelligence sharing. The 

two words spoken most frequently during the summit toward the engagement issue were 

marketing and training. 

1. Every state, local, and tribal law enforcement agency in the United States 

should strive to develop and maintain a criminal intelligence capability consisting of 

at least the following requirements: formal criminal intelligence awareness training 

for at least one sworn officer; training all levels of law enforcement personnel to 

recognize behavior indicative of criminal activity associated with terrorism; and 

defined procedures and mechanisms for communication with the nearest fusion 

center and/or a regional information sharing network. 

No law enforcement agency is too small or too isolated to participate in criminal 

intelligence sharing. Experience has taught us that criminal and terrorist threats can 

develop in rural and suburban jurisdictions as readily as they can develop near urban 

targets. Indeed, terrorists have been known to live, work, and commit crimes in rural 

communities while they plan their attacks. 

Participation is not costly and does not require a significant change in an agency's 

operations, nor does it require a law enforcement intelligence unit and a staff of analysts. 

Instead, participation for most of the nation's 18,000 law enforcement agencies concerns 

information, not intelligence, and requires the following elements: 

• The chief executive's commitment to information sharing 

• Basic criminal intelligence training for at least one sworn officer 

• Training for all law enforcement personnel to recognize and report behavior and 

incidents indicative of criminal activity associated with international and domestic 

terrorism 

• Participation in a regional information sharing network 

• Periodic contact with the nearest fusion center to keep the lines of communication 

open

• Access to a legal advisor (such as corporate counsel) who can advise officers on 

the laws and regulations that restrict the gathering, use, and exchange of some 

kinds of information 

• Engagement of community members with the agency in as many ways as possible 

(citizen advisory groups, citizen academies, emergency response teams, and so 

on)

17
Law enforcement officers in every agency are already trained to do the essential thing: 

spot suspicious activity. Participants suggested that officers need not become analysts of 

the information they gather about suspicious activity; they are busy enough with their 

primary responsibility of protecting public safety in their communities. But with the 

support of the chief executive and the guidance of an officer who understands the 

basics—what information to gather and how to gather it lawfully; what information to 

share and how to share it; and how to safeguard privacy and civil rights—every law 

enforcement officer can do his or her part to advance the cause of criminal intelligence 

sharing.

Fortunately, resources are available to help every agency participate in criminal 

intelligence sharing at a basic level, including training and support from law enforcement 

partners. The second recommendation of the 2007 summit participants is designed to help 

make every law enforcement agency aware of those resources. 

2. A nationwide marketing and training initiative should be designed to 

convince every law enforcement agency to participate in criminal intelligence 

sharing, make every law enforcement agency aware of the criminal intelligence 

resources available to it, and give every law enforcement agency the know-how to 

participate in criminal intelligence sharing. 

Participants in the 2007 summit agreed that many police executives, if not most, remain 

unaware of both their role in criminal intelligence sharing and the resources available to 

help them do their part. Much of what the nation's police agencies need—policy 

guidance, intelligence training, privacy and security standards, access to fusion centers, 

and so on—is already available or soon will be. 

The IACP and other leadership organizations need to market criminal intelligence sharing 

to law enforcement executives and their officers, convince them of the need to participate 

in the process, and get the right resources into their hands. One outreach message could 

stress the need to attain at least a minimal criminal intelligence capability appropriate for 

a given agency's size and type. Most agencies, for instance, should strive to achieve at 

least a level 4 criminal intelligence capability—that is, assign criminal intelligence 

sharing responsibilities to at least one sworn officer and participate in a regional 

information sharing network.15

Summit participants were particularly focused on reaching the agencies that were likeliest 

to need the most support to participate in the plan: smaller police departments, tribal 

police departments, campus police departments, and other types of law enforcement 

agencies. The IACP and its partners, including Global, the COPS Office, PM-ISE, and 

IALEIA, are perhaps best situated to do that. 

15 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Intelligence-Led 

Policing: A New Architecture, in the series New Realities: Law Enforcement in the Post–9/11 Era, by IACP 

with the National Sheriffs Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Police Foundation, and NOBLE

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005), 13. 

18
High-quality training on criminal intelligence sharing has been available from various 

sources for several years, but according to the participants in the 2007 summit, too few 

police executives know about the training and obtain it for their employees. The IACP, 

with unequaled access to the leaders of the nation's 18,000 law enforcement agencies, is 

in a position to change that. Together with its partners—the COPS Office, the DHS, 

Global, IALEIA, the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement 

Standards and Training, and numerous others—the IACP could both promote 

participation in the criminal intelligence sharing plan and deliver training to law 

enforcement agencies everywhere. 

Minimum training standards for criminal intelligence analysts, law enforcement 

executives, and other law enforcement officials involved in the intelligence process 

already exist. Global’s Minimum Criminal Intelligence Training Standards for Law 

Enforcement and Other Criminal Justice Agencies in the United States recommends 

minimum standards for core competence for intelligence workers in each of six different 

classifications: intelligence analyst, intelligence manager, law enforcement executive, 

general law enforcement officer (basic and refresher training), criminal intelligence 

officer, and trainer. 

As the authors of Minimum Criminal Intelligence Training Standards make clear, 

standards are not curricula. But they have helpfully included a suggested curriculum for 

each standard and refer the reader to additional sources of information. They also remind 

readers that the training content devised for each recipient should reflect both the latest 

national standards for criminal intelligence and the laws and regulations controlling 

criminal intelligence sharing in the jurisdiction in question. 

Participants in the summit also recommend that some entity, such as the IACP and its 

partners, resolve the confusion surrounding the concept of intelligence-led policing. They 

were unable to agree on a definition of the term or settle on its core principles. As long as 

disagreement persists, it will be a distraction and an impediment to full participation in 

the NCISP.

3. All law enforcement organizations and agencies should explore potential 

partnerships in order to enhance analytical capacity within their agencies. 

Acknowledging that most of the nation's law enforcement agencies will focus on 

gathering and sharing information about suspicious criminal activity and will not be 

called on to produce finished criminal intelligence products, the 2007 summit participants 

also recognized that the growing number of agencies that do produce criminal 

intelligence for internal or external use need more analytical capacity. To achieve that, 

the summit participants recommended that the IACP and its partners take the specific 

steps listed below: 

19
• Integrate the many analysis resources (including training) available from Global, 

IALEIA, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), the 

Intelligence Training Master Calendar, and other sources. 

• Promote the analytical standards established by Global, IALEIA, and others. 

• Abide by minimum training standards for law enforcement criminal intelligence 

analysts and their clients in accordance with the Minimum Criminal Intelligence 

Training Standards for Law Enforcement and Other Criminal Justice Agencies in 

the United States.

• Promote analyst professionalism through certification using the Law Enforcement 

Analyst Certification Standards developed by Global, such as the IALEIA Basic 

Analyst certification. 

• Establish performance measures for qualitative and quantitative results. 

4. Chief executives of state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies should 

encourage the directors of all criminal intelligence sharing initiatives and resources 

(such as fusion centers) to adopt and maintain an all-crimes approach. 

Law enforcement agencies remain primarily concerned with preventing, detecting, and 

investigating crimes, enforcing traffic laws, promoting public safety, and working with 

community members to improve the quality of life in their jurisdictions. Terrorism is one 

of the many threats they deal with, and to some may seem like the most remote. These 

agencies are more likely to participate fully in criminal intelligence sharing, and therefore 

make fuller contributions to homeland security, if doing so helps them fulfill their 

primary mission. Some summit participants expressed concerns about fusion centers that 

restricted their work to terrorism exclusively. In their view, such a narrow focus is likely 

to discourage police participation. Fusion centers are run by state and local governments, 

and while the Federal Government is encouraging fusion centers to embrace an all-crimes 

and all-hazards approach, it does not have the authority to dictate a fusion center’s 

mission or scope. Each fusion center sets its policies to best meet the needs of the 

agencies it supports. Fusion center directors and their law enforcement partners are 

responsible for determining what works best. The consensus among the summit 

participants was that an all-crimes approach works best, serving both local and national 

security interests. 

5. Fusion center directors and their law enforcement partners should take a 

series of steps to improve the effectiveness of the centers, including forming an 

association of fusion centers that might help promote the sharing of best practices 

among fusion centers and help promote the work of the centers to law enforcement 

agencies and policymakers at all levels. 

20
Beyond adopting an all-crimes approach to information sharing, fusion center directors 

and law enforcement executives ought to reaffirm their commitment to working together 

to improve the utility of fusion centers. These steps reflect the belief that fusion centers 

must actively reach out to law enforcement agencies, some of whom may be unaware of 

their existence, do not know how to become involved, or may be operating under the 

misconception that they do not need to get involved with their local fusion center. 

Participants also called for law enforcement executives to not merely wait to hear from 

the nearest fusion center but to be proactive in their participation. To that end, the summit 

participants recommend the following action steps: 

• Local, state, and tribal law enforcement leaders should define a process to ensure 

that suspicious activity reports (SARs) are made available to fusion centers in a 

timely manner. 

• Fusion center directors should ensure that their centers are adhering to best 

practices for sustainability, privacy, performance measures, and analytic products. 

• Fusion center directors should ensure that fusion centers adopt standards for 

records management. 

• Fusion center directors should create advisory groups of practitioners to help 

guide the work of fusion centers in collaboration with the federal agencies that 

support the national network of fusion centers. 

• Market fusion centers to local, state, and tribal police leaders, some of whom may 

be unaware of fusion centers and their roles and responsibilities. 

• Equip fusion centers to receive and store classified information. 

• Ensure that each fusion center creates a privacy officer position or assigns parttime privacy-officer responsibilities to a current staff member. 

6. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the National Guard 

should take steps to reduce barriers created by security classifications and 

clearances. 

Participants in the 2007 summit noted that federal security clearances, security 

classifications, and secret/classified information networks posed barriers to non-federal 

agencies in criminal intelligence sharing and proposed the following action steps: 

• Ensure the reciprocity of security clearances granted by DOJ, DHS, and the 

Department of Defense. 

21
• Identify and create a ready reserve of state, local, and tribal investigators 

nationwide, give them appropriate clearances, and have local JTTFs brief the 

ready reserve on the status of ongoing investigations. 

• Share unclassified versions of relevant classified products with local, state, and 

tribal police. 

• Encourage all agencies to achieve at least a minimum level of computer 

technology and Internet access. 

• Expedite the adoption of the federated ID and single sign-on. 

Criminal intelligence officers and others rely on the availability of sensitive-butunclassified (SBU) information stored in various networks, systems, and databases. 

Because most of these sources operate independently of the others, users typically must 

subscribe to each source separately and must therefore manage a different set of 

identification and sign-on credentials (such as usernames, passwords, and certificates) for 

each one. Separate credentialing is tedious for users and costly and inefficient for the 

operators of the SBU sources. A federated ID and single sign-on, such as the one 

developed and tested by the Global Federated Identity and Privilege Management 

(GFIPM) Security Interoperability Demonstration Project, could improve criminal 

intelligence sharing by allowing the user to enter just one set of credentials to gain access 

to all the participating SBU sources they wish to use. That simple step could make it 

easier for authorized users to obtain the information and intelligence they require16 and 

make it more likely that they will leverage existing resources. 

7. Policy makers at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels should continue to 

take steps to enhance the protection of privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights and 

ensure that communities are aware of, and engaged in, the process. 

Participants in the 2007 summit offered the following action steps with regard to 

protection of privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights: 

• Engage community members in the work of each law enforcement agency in as 

many ways as possible (e.g., citizen advisory groups, citizen academies, 

emergency response teams). 

• Ensure that every jurisdiction has a legal advisor (such as corporate counsel) who 

understands the laws and regulations controlling the gathering, use, and sharing of 

16 The Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) Information Technology & Telecommunications 

Laboratory, Project Report: Global Federation Identity and Privilege Management (GFIPM) Security 

Interoperability Demonstration, submitted to the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, August 30, 

2007, http://it.ojp.gov/documents/GFIPM_Security_Interoperability_Demonstration_Project_Report_2007-

08-30.pdf. 

22
information; the various safeguards in place to protect privacy and civil rights; 

and can advise law enforcement officers on these matters. 

• Use the DHS/DOJ Fusion Process Technical Assistance Program's templates and 

checklists when developing privacy policies.17

• Ensure that every fusion center creates a privacy officer position or assigns parttime privacy officer responsibilities to a staff member. 

8. Law enforcement executives should develop ways to measure the success of 

criminal intelligence sharing and recognize those individuals involved in that 

success.

If agencies reward officers primarily for arrests, duties like intelligence sharing that 

reduce officers' opportunities to make arrests also diminish their opportunities for 

recognition and advancement. Because each agency has its own way of recognizing 

achievement and its own intelligence capabilities and limitations, there can be no onesize-fits-all metric for criminal intelligence success. But there can nevertheless be an 

industry-wide commitment to measuring and recognizing the work of officers assigned to 

criminal intelligence capability. 

17 U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of Justice, Global Justice Information 

Sharing Initiative, DHS/DOJ Fusion Process: Technical Assistance Program and Services (October 2007), 

http://www.ise.gov/docs/misc/FusionProcessTechAssistance.pdf. 

23
EPILOGUE

Since the November 2007 summit, a number of information sharing initiatives have 

emerged and expanded. We summarize some of these changes below: 

Suspicious Activity Reporting (SARS)

To demonstrate how the concept of intelligence-led policing, as discussed in this report, 

can be deployed in an operational environment, DOJ, PM-ISE, and the FBI, in 

partnership with the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA), IACP, and Global, 

embarked on an effort in the spring of 2008, to establish a national capacity for gathering, 

documenting, processing, analyzing, and sharing terrorism related suspicious activities 

reports—or Suspicious Activities Reports (SARs), as called for in the National Strategy 

for Information Sharing.

Supporting this effort is the Information Sharing Environment (ISE)-SAR Functional 

Standard, issued in January 2008, which defines both the data standards and business 

processes that will enable the sharing of terrorism-related SARs across the ISE—

particularly between state and major urban area fusion centers and federal entities at the 

headquarters level. 

In the spring of 2008, local best practices were identified regarding training front line 

personnel to recognize terrorism-related suspicious activities that may represent preincident indicators of a terrorism threat, and documenting those activities once observed. 

The results of this effort are documented in the draft June 2008 report, Findings and 

Recommendations of the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) Support and Implementation 

Project.

18

Building on the report’s findings and recommendations, 12 state and local jurisdictions 

were selected to institute a standardized approach to gathering, documenting, processing, 

analyzing, and sharing terrorism related suspicious activities reports. Front line law 

enforcement personnel in these 12 locations will be trained to recognize behaviors and 

incidents indicative of criminal activity associated with domestic and international 

terrorism. Once reported or observed, behaviors and incidents indicative of criminal 

activity will be documented and evaluated by trained personnel to determine if they have 

a terrorism nexus. If a potential nexus with terrorism is established, the SAR will be 

made available to the local JTTF, regional and/or statewide fusion centers, and DHS. 

Technical resources will be provided to enable the “posting” of terrorism-related SARs to 

a “shared space” in a manner consistent with technical standards contained within the 

ISE-SAR Functional Standard and its associated SAR Information Exchange Package 

Document. This will allow SARs to be accessed by other fusion centers, 

18 The report was approved by the Major Cities Chiefs Association on June 10, 2008, and is presented 

under review by the other partners involved in the project, to include the Criminal Intelligence 

Coordinating Council. Upon the partners’ approval the report will be released publicly. 

24
DHS Headquarters, other JTTFs to support regional and/or national analysis. Access to 

the "shared spaces" will be via LEO, RISSNET, and the Homeland Security Information 

Network (HSIN). 

Protecting the information privacy and legal rights of Americans is a top priority. At the 

local level, SARs will be incorporated into existing processes and systems used to 

manage other crime-related information and criminal intelligence so as to leverage 

existing policies and protocols utilized to protect the information privacy, civil liberties, 

and other legal rights of the general public. Additionally, SARs will receive multiple 

levels of review and vetting to ensure information is legally gathered and managed. 

Reports containing personally identifiable information that are determined to be 

unfounded, or that cannot be reasonably associated with criminal activity, will not be 

shared.

The PM-ISE and the ISE Privacy Guidelines Committee’s (PGC) Legal Issues Working 

Group are in the process of completing an initial privacy and civil liberties review of the 

ISE-SAR Functional Standard and its implementation. The PGC will monitor this effort, 

provide advice and guidance to the project teams, and issue a final privacy and civil 

liberties analysis of the implementation of the ISE-SAR Functional Standard at the 

conclusion of the evaluation environment project. 

The results of this initial phase will be documented to support the development and 

publication of an implementation guide and template for use by other state and local 

jurisdictions. Funding for this project is being provided by the PM-ISE and will be 

administered by BJA. The IACP, MCCA, Major County Sheriffs, and the CICC have 

been involved in planning and will be involved in implementation.

Baseline Capabilities for Fusion Centers

The National Strategy for Information Sharing identifies the development of baseline 

capabilities for fusion centers as a key step to reaching one of the Strategy’s goals: 

“Establishing a National Integrated Network of State and Major Urban Area Fusion 

Centers.” Over the past year, state and local fusion center personnel, with the support of 

their federal partners used the Fusion Center Guidelines, as well as identified best 

practices, to identify the capabilities and standards necessary for a fusion center to be 

considered capable of performing basic functions. The resulting document, Baseline 

Capabilities for State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers: An Addendum to the 

Fusion Center Guidelines, is undergoing final review and is expected to be issued by 

Global this fall. 

Defining these operational standards allows federal, state, and local officials to identify 

and plan for the resources needed - including financial and technical assistance, and 

human support - to achieve the Strategy’s goal. By achieving this baseline level of 

capability, a fusion center will have the necessary structures, processes, and tools in place 

to support the gathering, processing, analysis, and dissemination of terrorism, homeland 

security, and law enforcement information. It will also support specific operational 

25
capabilities, such as Suspicious Activity Reporting; Alert, Warning, and Notification; 

Risk Assessments; and Situational Awareness Reporting. 

In support of the Strategy’s goal, the Federal Government agreed that a “sustained federal 

partnership with state and major urban area fusion centers is critical to the safety of our 

nation, and therefore a national priority.” While not all fusion centers receive federal 

grant funding, most fusion centers receive other types of support from the Federal 

Government including technical assistance, training, co-location of federal personnel, and 

access to federal information and networks. This document will help the Federal 

Government better identify how to support fusion centers and ensure they are providing 

the right types of resources in a consistent and appropriate manner. The capabilities also 

assist in ensuring that fusion centers have the basic foundational elements for integrating 

into the national ISE. 

Law Enforcement Information Sharing Program (LEISP)

The Law Enforcement Information Sharing Program (LEISP) is DOJ’s commitment to 

transform the way it shares law enforcement information with state, local, tribal and other 

federal law enforcement and homeland security partners. The Department’s objective is 

to share information routinely across jurisdictional boundaries to prevent terrorism, and 

to systematically improve the investigation and prosecution of criminal activity. To 

achieve this objective, DOJ will put the right information into the hands of criminal 

investigators and analysts, whether they are on the street, in a command post, or working 

a task force. The following presents the status on key LEISP investments, as of June 

2008.

National Data Exchange (N-DEx)

The FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division has successfully launched the 

first increment of the National Data Exchange (N-DEx) in March 2008. Systems 

providing law enforcement data to N-DEx include but are not limited to the Delaware 

Criminal Justice Information System, the Automated Regional Justice Information 

System in Southern California, the Automated Regional Information Exchange System in 

Northern California, and the Oneida Nation. The N-DEx Program Management Office 

(PMO) continues to expand participation in N-DEx through outreach and training to 

federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement organizations across the United States. 

Additionally, the N-DEx PMO continues to expand the capabilities and functions of the 

N-DEx system itself. The next major release of the system is scheduled for the middle of 

2009.

OneDOJ (Formerly Regional Data Exchange or R-DEx)

OneDOJ is a DOJ repository for law enforcement information shared with other federal, 

state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies through connections with regional 

26
information sharing systems. OneDOJ serves as DOJ’s system to share criminal law 

enforcement information internally across investigative components and provide regional 

criminal law enforcement connectivity for authorized users to conduct federated searches 

of OneDOJ information. 

All DOJ law enforcement components – ATF, BOP, DEA, FBI, and USMS - are sharing 

information under consistent policy and technical standards. Information shared includes 

open and closed case documents, investigative reports, witness interviews, criminal event 

data, criminal history and incarceration information, and identifying information about 

individual offenders. Recently, the OneDOJ system has expanded the quantity and 

quality of DOJ law enforcement data and expanded regional law enforcement 

information sharing partnerships around the country. The Department through the 

OneDOJ system is sharing information with the following organizations.

OneDOJ Partners 

Naval Criminal Investigative Service 

The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) is the investigative arm of the 

Department of Navy. As part of the Law Enforcement Information Exchange (LInX) 

initiative, NCIS has created strategically placed information hubs that provide 

participating agencies with secure access to regional crime and incident data. 

Connectivity between LInX locations and OneDOJ are in place for the following six 

regional locations: Northwest, Gulf Coast, National Capitol Region, Southeast, 

Hampton Roads, and Hawaii. 

Department of Homeland Security

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the largest investigative arm of 

DHS. ICE is responsible for eliminating vulnerabilities in the nation's border, and 

with economic, transportation and infrastructure security. As part of the DHS Law 

Enforcement Information Sharing Strategy, ICE created the Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement Pattern Analysis and Information Collection System (ICEPIC). 

ICEPIC is used to identify relationship patterns that are indicative of violations of 

U.S. customs and immigration laws and possible terrorist activities, potentially 

resulting in the opening of new investigative cases. DHS and DOJ fostered a 

partnership to share law enforcement information and where practical to share 

connectivity resources to various state, local, and tribal regional information sharing 

consortia.

State, Local, and Tribal Partners 

OneDOJ has established formal partnerships with regional law enforcement 

information sharing consortia around the country. The aforementioned locations 

initiated by NCIS lists several where OneDOJ has created formal partnership through 

27
a Memorandum of Understanding. The following are other regional law enforcement 

information sharing partnerships. 

• Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department 

• St. Louis, MO (Crime Matrix) 

• San Diego Regional Law Enforcement Consortium (Automated Regional Justice 

Information System) 

National Information Exchange Model (NIEM)

The National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) is a national model that eases crossdomain exchanges. It is a standard vocabulary that is used to define Information 

Exchange Package Documentation (IEPD). As such, one IEPD that is based on NIEM is 

the Law Enforcement Exchange Specification (LEXS). LEXS (pronounced "lex") 

codifies the objectives of LEISP and enables DOJ and other federal, state, local, and 

tribal law enforcement organizations to utilize the specification to establish law 

enforcement information exchanges. LEXS is the basis for the aforementioned OneDOJ 

regional law enforcement information sharing partnerships. Other results from NIEM 

and LEXS include the following: 

• A specification was developed based on LEXS for suspicious activity reports. This 

will allow federal, state, local, and tribal officials to share information on suspicious 

activities in a consistent and repeatable manner. 

• The LEISP Program Management Office continues to collaborate with industry, 

federal, state, local, and tribal partners on the LEXS implementations. 

28
IACP Summit Staff and Consultants 

Executive Staff

Daniel N. Rosenblatt Executive Director 

James M. McMahon Deputy Executive Director 

John Firman Director of Research 

Breakout Session Facilitators

Bart Johnson, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (formerly with, New York 

State Police) 

Deputy Chief Mike Downing, Los Angeles Police Department, California 

Chief of Detectives Peter Modafferi, Rockland County District Attorney’s Office, New 

York

Assistant Director Russell Porter, Intelligence Bureau Chief, Iowa Department of 

Public Safety 

Alexander Joel, Esquire, Civil Liberties Protection Officer, Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence 

Kenneth Mortensen, Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer, U.S. Department 

of Justice 

J. Patrick McCreary, Associate Deputy Director, Policy Office, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice 

Chief Yousry Zakhary, Woodway Department of Public Safety, Texas 

Lisa Palmieri, President, International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence 

Analysts (IALEIA)

Colonel Joseph Fuentes, Superintendent, New Jersey State Police 

Commissioner Kerry Sleeper, Homeland Security Advisor, Vermont Department of 

Public Safety 

Chief Joseph Polisar, Garden Grove Police Department, California 

Breakout Session Support Staff

Heather Ruzbasan Cotter, Coordinator 

Chuck Everhart, System Software Manager

Suzy Jordan, Project Manager

Clarence Bell, Manager

Laura Bell, Training Coordinator

Phil Lynn, Manager

Tamika Scott, Technical Assistance Coordinator

Elaine Deck, Sr. Program Manager

Kristen Beam, Project Manager

Aviva Kurash, Project manager

Vince Talucci, Director State and Provincial Police

Cynthia Schauman, Project Assistant

John Markovic, Program Manager

29
Mike Fergus, Project Manager 

Jack Grant, Sr. Program Manager 

Suzy Jordan, Project Manager

Dianne Beer-Maxwell, Project Manager

Amanda L. Cardone, Training Coordinator

Ian Hamilton, Project Coordinator

Summit Coordination

Katerina Karakehagia, Research Center Coordinator

Logistical Support

Eleni Trahilis, Research Intern 

Dorothy Yeung, Research Intern 

Report Writer

Gregg Walker 

Editorial Staff

Gene Voegtlin 

Wendy Balazik 

Tracy Phillips 

30
31

SUMMIT PARTICIPANTS 

Ms. Judy Abney 

Policy and Planning Division 

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Chief Richard T. Ahlstrom 

Administration 

Cedar Falls Police Department 

Mr. Charles Allen 

Chief Intelligence Officer 

Office of Intelligence and Analysis 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Deputy Chief Robert Allen 

Patrol Bureau 

Minneapolis Police Department 

Mr. John Awtrey 

Director

Law Enforcement Policy and Support 

U.S. Department of Defense 

Sheriff Leroy D. Baca

Los Angeles County Sheriff's 

Department

Ms. Kristen Beam 

Former Project Manager 

Gun Violence Reduction Initiative 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Mr. Christian Beckner

Democratic Professional Staff Member 

Senate Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs Committee 

Ms. Dianne Beer-Maxwell 

Project Manager 

New Police Chief Mentoring Project 

Research Center Directorate 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Mr. Clarence W. Bell 

Grant Technical/Management S&P 

Manager

State and Provincial Police Division 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Ms. Laura P. Bell

Training Coordinator 

Technology Technical Assistance 

Program 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Chief William B. Berger 

Executive Division 

Palm Bay Police Department 

Major George L. Bivens

Director, Intelligence Division 

Bureau of Criminal Investigation 

Pennsylvania State Police 

Mr. Doug Bodrero 

Institute for Intergovernmental Research 

Mr. Robert P. Boehmer 

Chair, Global Advisory Committee 

Institute for Public Safety Partnerships 

University of Illinois at Chicago 
32

Major Robert W. Booker

Commander 

Office of Investigative Services 

Ohio State Highway Patrol 

Mr. Leonard C. Boyle 

Director

Terrorist Screening Center 

Ms. Kelly Brickley 

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Mr. Ronald E. Brooks 

Director

Office of National Drug Control Policy 

Northern California High Intensity Drug 

Trafficking Area 

Mr. James H. Burch 

Deputy Director 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Ms. Valerie Calogero 

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Ms. Pamela Cammarata 

Associate Deputy Director 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Office of Justice Programs 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Captain Leslie M. Campbell 

Mass Transportation Liaison 

Support Services Bureau 

Metro Transit Police Department 

Mr. Glenn M. Cannon 

Assistant Administrator 

Disaster Operations Directorate 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

Ms. Amanda L. Cardone 

Training Coordinator 

Research Center Directorate 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

David L. Carter, Ph.D. 

Director/Professor

Intelligence Program 

School of Criminal Justice 

Michigan State University 

Chief Salvatore Cassano 

New York City Fire Department 

Mr. Frank Cilluffo 

Associate Vice President and Director 

Homeland Security Policy Institute 

The George Washington University 

Mr. Ken Clark

Technology Division 

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Mr. John Cohen 

Senior Advisor 

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence
33

Mr. R. Scott Crabtree 

Director

Business Processes Division 

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Mr. Bob Cummings 

Institute for Intergovernmental Research 

Ms. Heather J. Davies, Ph.D.

Policy and Planning Division 

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Ms. Elaine F. Deck

Senior Program Manager 

Research Center Directorate 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

515 North Washington Street 

Commander David Denlinger 

Intelligence Bureau 

Arizona Department of Public Safety 

Mr. Charles Dinse 

Law Enforcement Advisor to the 

Administrator 

Office of the Administrator 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

Mr. Dave Divalerio

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Mr. Brian Dodwell

Terrorism Prevention Exercise Program 

Manager

National Preparedness Directorate 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

Chief Harry P. Dolan 

Raleigh Police Department 

Mr. Joseph E. Donovan 

Acting Assistant Director 

Intelligence Division 

National Drug Intelligence Center 

Deputy Chief Michael Downing 

Counter-Terrorism and Criminal 

Intelligence Bureau 

Los Angeles Police Department 

Mr. Theodore Duncan 

Deputy Assistant Director 

Intelligence Programs Division 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Mr. Charles S. Eaneff 

Distinguished Fellow 

Office of the Administrator 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

Mr. Chuck Everhart 

System Software Manager 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Commissioner Julian Fantino 

Ontario Provincial Police 
34

Ms. Elizabeth Farrell

Communications and Outreach 

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Mr. Michael Fergus

Project Manager 

Video Evidence Projects 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Director Tom Finan 

Subcommittee on Intelligence, 

Information Sharing, and Terrorism 

Risk Assessment 

Committee on Homeland Security 

Mr. John Firman 

Director of Research 

Research Center 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Captain Kenneth D. Fitzgerald

Investigations Division 

Danville Police Department 

Ms. Christine Fletcher

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Police Commissioner Edward A. Flynn 

Springfield Police Department 

Colonel Joseph R. Fuentes 

Superintendent 

New Jersey State Police 

Mr. Chuck Gardner

Business Process 

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Ms. Kimberly Geer 

Institute for Intergovernmental Research 

Assistant Chief Ralph L. Godbee, Jr. 

Administrative Portfolio 

Detroit Police Department 

Deputy Chief David Lacy Graham 

Investigations Service Group 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police 

Department

Mr. Jack C. Grant

Senior Program Manager 

Research Center Directorate 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Commander Michael Grossman 

Office of Homeland Security 

Los Angeles County Sheriff's 

Department

Mr. Raymond Guidetti 

Detective Sergeant First Class 

New Jersey Regional Operations 

Intelligence Center 

New Jersey State Police 

Director David Hagy

National Institute of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

U.S. Department of Justice 
35

Mr. Ian Todd Hamilton 

Project Coordinator 

Research Center Directorate 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Mr. Stephen Henderson 

Office of Intelligence 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Captain W. Todd Henry 

Specialized Investigations Division 

Metro Nashville Police Department 

Captain Richard W. Holland

Criminal Intelligence 

Houston Police Department 

Mr. Dave Hong

Technology Division 

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Mr. Kevin Jackson

Deputy Assistant Director 

Business Management and Budget 

Division

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Chief Kenneth B. James 

Flandreau Police Department 

Chief Wayne M. Jerman 

Assistant Chief of Police 

Investigative Services Bureau 

Montgomery County Department of 

Police

Alexander Joel, Esquire

Civil Liberties and Privacy Office 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Mr. Bart R. Johnson 

Director of Homeland Security and Law 

Enforcement 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Mr. Nate Jones

Counsel to Senator Kohl 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Ms. Suzanne E. Jordan

Project Manager 

Research Center Directorate 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Ms. Katerina Karakehagia 

Research Center Coordinator 

Research Center Directorate 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Assistant Chief Dave J. Karnitz 

Investigative Services Bureau 

Washington State Patrol 

Mr. David Kaufman

Director

Preparedness Policy, Planning, and 

Analysis 

National Preparedness Directorate 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

Commander Jon Kehrberg 

Investigations Division 

Chaska Police Department 
36

Mr. Phil Keith

Project Director 

Intelligence-Led Policing 

Major Cities Chiefs Association 

Mr. Scott H. Kelberg 

Grants Development and Administration 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

Mr. Aaron D. Kennard

Executive Director 

National Sheriffs' Association 

Mr. Donald F. Kennedy 

Executive Director 

New England State Police Information 

Network

Regional Information Sharing Systems 

Chief Gil Kerlikowske

Seattle Police Department 

Sheriff James F. Kralik 

Sheriff Administration 

Rockland County Sheriff's Department 

Ms. Aviva Kurash

Project Manager 

Research Center Division 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Chief Russell B. Laine 

Algonquin Police Department 

Mr. Andrew L. Lluberes

Director

Communications for Intelligence and 

Analysis 

Office of Public Affairs 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Mr. Chester F. Lunner 

Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Office of Intelligence and Analysis 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Mr. Philip L. Lynn 

Manager

National Law Enforcement Policy 

Center

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Colonel Thomas F. MacLeish 

Superintendent 

Department of Safety and Homeland 

Security 

Delaware State Police 

Acting Chief Paul S. MacMillan

Massachusetts Bay Transportation 

Authority 

Transit Police Department 

Chief David L. Maggard, Jr. 

Administration 

Irvine Police Department 

Mr. Tom Malarkey 

Business Process 

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Mr. John D. Markovic 

Program Manager 

Programs and Research 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Mr. Richard H. L. Marshall 

Senior Information Assurance 

Representative 

Office of Legislative Affairs 

National Security Agency 
37

Captain J. Thomas Martin 

Commander 

Criminal Intelligence Division 

Bureau of Criminal Investigation 

Virginia State Police 

Ms. Tarrazzia Martin

Director, Policy and Programming 

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Commander Jefferson L. Massie 

Intelligence Division 

Orange County Sheriff's Office 

Chief Kent W. Mawyer 

Criminal Law Enforcement Division 

Texas Department of Public Safety 

Mr. Edward P. McCarroll

Supervisory Intelligence Operations 

Specialist

Office of Intelligence and Analysis 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Mr. J. Patrick McCreary 

Associate Deputy Director 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Office of Justice Programs 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Assistant Commissioner Mike 

McDonell

National Security Criminal 

Investigations

Royal Canadian Mounted Police 

Mr. James McMahon 

Deputy Executive Director 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Ambassador Ted E. McNamara 

Program Manager, Information Sharing 

Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Ms. Katherine McQuay 

Supervisory Special Analyst 

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services

U.S. Department of Justice

Mr. Chuck Miller

Office of Policy and Interagency Affairs 

National Drug Intelligence Center 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Ms. Michelle Miller

Institute for Intergovernmental Research 

Mr. Sid Mitchell 

First Vice President

Executive Board 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

National Academy Associates 

Chief of Detectives Peter A. Modafferi 

Investigations Bureau 

District Attorney's Office 

County Courthouse 

Mr. William A. Morange 

Director of Security 

Security Department 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

Mr. Barry Morgan 

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence
38

Mr. Kenneth Mortensen

Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties 

Officer

Office of the Deputy Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Mr. Vic Mukai

Information Sharing Environment, 

Program Management Office 

Scitor Corporation 

Mr. Wayne Murphy 

Assistant Director 

Directorate of Intelligence 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Mr. Michael Muth

Assistant Director 

State and Local Liaison Division 

INTERPOL-Washington

U.S. Department of Justice 

Mr. Jerry Needle 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Chief Daniel Oates 

Police Administration 

Aurora Police Department 

Chief Thomas P. O'Connor 

Maryland Heights Police Department 

Mr. Thomas O'Reilly 

Senior Policy Advisor 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

U.S Department of Justice 

Director Dwayne Orrick

Public Safety Director 

Administration 

Cordele Police Department 

Chief Neil Ouellette

Administration 

Danvers Police Department 

Ms. Lisa M. Palmieri 

President,

International Association of Law 

Enforcement Intelligence Analysts 

(IALEIA)

Director Carl Peed 

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services

U.S. Department of Justice 

Mr. Earl O. Perkins

Deputy Superintendent 

Boston Regional Intelligence Center 

Boston Police Department 

Chief Doug H. Pettit 

Oregon Police Department 

Sergeant Julio R. Pinera

Supervisor

Special Investigations Section 

City of Miami Police Department 

Mr. John Pistole 

Deputy Director 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Chief Joseph Polisar

Garden Grove Police Department 

Mr. Russell M. Porter

Director

Iowa Fusion Center 

Iowa Department of Public Safety 

Chief Joseph R. Price

Leesburg Police Department 
39

Mr. David J. Pyle 

Senior Intelligence Advisor 

Policy, Plans, and Requirements 

Directorate

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Mr. Tim Quinn 

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services

U.S. Department of Justice 

Ms. Diane Ragans 

Institute for Intergovernmental Research 

Dr. Jerry Ratcliffe 

Professor

Department of Criminal Justice 

Temple University 

Director Edward Reina 

Department of Public Safety 

Tohono O'odham Nation 

Ms. Sue Reingold

Deputy Program Manager 

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Mr. Robert C. Riegle

Director

State and Local Program 

Office of Intelligence and Analysis 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Mr. Warren J. Riley 

Superintendent of Police 

New Orleans Police Department 

Chief Susan Riseling

Vice President at Large, International 

Association of Chiefs of Police 

University of Wisconsin-Madison Police 

Department

Chief Raymond J. Rose 

Mundelein Police Department 

Village of Mundelein 

Mr. Dan Rosenblatt

Executive Director 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Director Ronald C. Ruecker

President, International Association of 

Chiefs of Police 

Public Safety Division 

City of Sherwood 

Ms. Heather Ruzbasan Cotter 

State and Provincial Police Division 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Mr. Kevin M. Saupp 

Section Chief, Prevention and Protection 

National Preparedness Directorate 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Ms. Amy Schapiro 

Senior Social Science Analyst 

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services

U.S. Department of Justice 

Ms. Cynthia Schauman 

Research Division 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police
40

Dr. Matthew C. Scheider 

Assistant Director 

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services

U.S. Department of Justice 

Mr. Kurt F. Schmid 

Senior Law Enforcement Advisor 

Counterdrug Technology Assessment 

Center

White House Office of National Drug 

Control Policy 

Chief Paul D. Schultz

Police Administration 

Lafayette Police Department 

Chief James Schwartz 

Arlington County Fire Department 

The Honorable Marie O'Neill Sciarrone 

Special Assistant to the President and 

Senior Director for Cybersecurity and 

Information Sharing Policy 

Homeland Security Council 

The White House 

Ms. Tamika Scott 

Technical Assistance Coordinator 

Research Division 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Colonel Terrence B. Sheridan

Superintendent 

Maryland State Police 

Commissioner Kerry L. Sleeper 

Department of Public Safety 

Vermont State Police 

Dr. Clark Smith 

Director, Technology Division 

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Sheriff Richard W. Stanek 

Administration 

Hennepin County Sheriff's Office 

Mr. Dana V. Starks

Interim Superintendent 

Chicago Police Department 

Mr. Chips Stewart

The CNA Corporation 

Commissioner Frank G. Straub 

Department of Public Safety 

City of White Plains 

Mr. Vincent Talucci

Director

State and Provincial Police Division 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

The Honorable Frances Fragos 

Townsend

Assistant to the President 

Homeland Security and 

Counterterrorism 

The White House 

Ms. Eleni Trahilis

Research Center 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Director Larry G. Trent 

Illinois State Police 
41

Assistant Commissioner Ken S. Tucker 

Office of Executive Director 

Florida Department of Law 

Enforcement 

Chief Gary L. Vest 

Administration 

Powell Police Department 

Mr. Gene Voegtlin

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Mr. Gregg A. Walker

G. W. & Associates, LLC 

Chairman Robert Wasserman 

Strategic Policy Partnership 

Commander David A. Webb 

Criminal Investigation Division 

Metro Transit Police Department 

Ms. Sandra Webb

Deputy Director 

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services

U.S. Department of Justice

Sheriff Craig Webre

President, National Sheriffs' Association 

Lafourche Parish Sheriff's Office 

Dr. Josh Weerasinghe

Senior Advisor 

Office of the Program Manager, 

Information Sharing Environment 

Office of the Director of National 

Intelligence

Chief John Welter 

Anaheim Police Department 

Chief Wesley Wilson 

Information Sharing Program Office 

National Counterterrorism Center 

Mr. Jim Woosley 

Acting Assistant Director of Operations 

Office of Intelligence 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Ms. Dorothy Yeung 

Research Center Directorate 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police

Chief Yousry A. Zakhary

State Associations of Chiefs of Police 

Woodway Department of Public Safety