Homeland Security: Preliminary Information on Federal Actions to Address Challenges Faced by State and Local Information Fusion Centers
Released: 2007-09-27T00:00:00

Letter

State and Local Fusion Centers Vary in Their Stages of Development and Characteristics

Since September 2001, almost all states and several local governments have established or are in the process of establishing fusion centers. Officials in 43 of the 58 fusion centers we contacted described their centers as operational as of September 2007, ranging from having limited operations and functionality to being fully operational and functional. Specifically, officials in 35 states, the District of Columbia, and 7 local jurisdictions we contacted described their fusion centers as operational. Officials in 14 states and 1 local jurisdiction considered their centers to be in the planning or early stages of development, and 1 state did not plan to have a fusion center, as shown in figure 1.

Officials cited a variety of reasons why their state or local area established a fusion center. To improve information sharing—related to homeland security, terrorism, and law enforcement—among federal, state, and local entities and to prevent terrorism or threats after the attacks of September 11 were the most frequently cited reasons. Thirty-four of the operational centers are relatively new, having been opened since January 2004, while 9 centers opened in the couple of years after the attacks of September 11. The majority had missions and scopes of operations that included more than just counterterrorism-related activities. For example, 23 of the 36 operational fusion centers that provided us mission statements had missions that involved collecting, analyzing, and disseminating criminal as well as terrorism-related information. Further, 11 fusion centers had missions that involved enhancing, supporting, or coordinating information and intelligence dissemination to both law enforcement and homeland security agencies. Adopting a broader focus helped provide information about all threats, because of the link of many crimes to terrorist activity, and increased the centers’ sustainability, for instance, by including additional stakeholders.

Law enforcement entities, such as state police or state bureaus of investigation, are the lead or managing agencies in the majority of the operational centers we contacted. However, the centers varied in their staff sizes and partnerships with other agencies. A few centers we contacted had fewer than 5 employees, while others had over 80. At least 34 of the 43 operational fusion centers we contacted reported that they had federal personnel assigned to their centers. For example, DHS has assigned intelligence officers to 17 of the operational centers included in our review. About three quarters of the operational centers we contacted also reported that the FBI has assigned personnel, including intelligence analysts and special agents, to their centers. Additionally, 12 of the operational centers we contacted were colocated in an FBI field office or with an FBI task force. Finally, 19 of the 43 operational centers reported that they had other DHS and DOJ components represented in their centers, including personnel from Customs and Border Protection; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; United States Secret Service; United States Coast Guard; Transportation Security Administration; United States Attorneys Office; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; Drug Enforcement Administration; or the United States Marshals Service.

Many fusion centers reported having access to DHS’s and DOJ’s unclassified networks or systems, such as the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN) and Law Enforcement Online (LEO), containing, among other things, terrorism and related information. For example 40 of the 43 operational centers reported they had access to HSIN, while 39 reported having access to LEO. In addition, 16 of the 43 centers said they had or were in the process of obtaining access to DHS’s classified network of secret-level homeland security data, and 23 reported they had or were in the process of obtaining access to FBI’s classified systems containing, among other things, secret-level investigative case files. Products disseminated and services provided also vary. Fusion centers reported issuing a variety of products, such as daily and weekly bulletins on general criminal or intelligence information and intelligence assessments that, in general, provide in-depth reporting on an emerging threat, group, or crime. In addition some centers provide investigative support for law enforcement officers.

Federal Agencies’ Efforts to Support Fusion Centers Help to Address Some Reported Challenges

DHS and DOJ, recognizing the importance of fusion centers in information sharing, have undertaken efforts that begin to address challenges fusion center officials identified in establishing and operating their centers, such as accessing information, obtaining security clearances, obtaining and retaining personnel, obtaining funding, and finding sufficient guidance and training.

Fusion center officials cited challenges accessing and managing multiple information systems. DHS and FBI have provided information system access, such as to HSIN and LEO, to a number of state and local fusion centers and have outlined plans to provide greater access to their classified networks. However, officials at 31 of the 58 centers we contacted still reported challenges obtaining access to federal information systems or networks. For example, officials in some centers cited challenges with DHS and FBI not providing fusion center personnel with direct access to their classified systems. In these centers, fusion center personnel must rely on federal personnel who are assigned to the center or other state personnel assigned to FBI task forces to access these systems, obtain the relevant information, and share it with them. Further, officials in 12 of 58 fusion centers reported challenges meeting system security requirements or establishing the technical capabilities necessary to access information systems, and DHS and FBI have taken some steps to address these challenges.

In addition, officials at 30 of the fusion centers found the multiple systems or heavy volume of often redundant information a challenge to manage. Officials in 18 fusion centers said that they had difficulty with what they perceived to be the high volume of information their center receives, variously describing the flow of information as “overwhelming,” “information overload,” and “excessive.” For example, officials said that center personnel must sort through the large amount of information, much of which is not relevant to the center, to find information that is useful or important to them. Additionally, officials in 18 fusion centers find the lack of integration among these multiple, competing, or duplicative information systems challenging, or said they wanted a single mechanism or system through which to receive or send information. Officials from the PM-ISE’s office said they are collaborating with other agencies, including DHS and DOJ, on an effort to review existing federal information systems and users’ needs to determine opportunities to streamline system access. This review is in accordance with recommendations that fusion centers made during the National Fusion Center Conference in March 2007. Specifically, fusion centers recommended the federal government explore using a single sign- on or search capability, which would facilitate accessing multiple systems. However, it is too early to tell whether the efforts by the PM-ISE’s office will address the challenges reported by fusion centers.

Both DHS and FBI have provided security clearances for state and local personnel in order to access classified information and have set goals to reduce the length of time it takes to obtain a security clearance. For example, DHS set a goal of 90 days to complete a Secret clearance, and FBI set a goal of 45 to 60 days to complete a Secret clearance and 6 to 9 months to complete a Top Secret clearance. DHS and FBI have also provided centers with information about the security clearance process and time frames, stating that processing time for individual security clearances can vary, depending on complexity. However, obtaining and using security clearances represented a challenge for 44 of the 58 fusion centers we contacted. Further, while law and executive order provide that a security clearance granted by one government agency should generally be accepted by other agencies, officials in 19 of the centers encountered difficulties with federal agencies, particularly DHS and FBI, accepting each others’ clearances. DHS and DOJ officials said that they were not aware of fusion centers encountering recent challenges with reciprocity of security clearances. However, they said that there were complications in the clearance process because, for example, multiple federal agencies carry out their own processes without central coordination.

Officials in 43 of the 58 fusion centers we contacted reported facing challenges related to obtaining personnel, and officials in 54 fusion centers reported challenges with obtaining and maintaining funding when establishing and operating their centers, challenges that some of these officials also said affected their centers’ sustainability. For example, officials in 37 centers said they encountered challenges with federal, state, and local agencies not being able to detail personnel to their fusion center, particularly in the face of resource constraints. Fusion centers rely on such details as a means of staffing the centers and enhancing information sharing with other state and local agencies. Furthermore, officials in 20 of the centers we contacted said that they faced challenges finding, attracting, and retaining qualified personnel. For instance, an official from one fusion center said that finding personnel with the expertise to understand the concept behind the development of the center and to use the tools to build the center was challenging, while an official at another fusion center acknowledged that there was a very limited number of qualified candidates in the state from which to hire personnel. To support fusion centers, DHS and FBI have assigned personnel to centers. As of September 2007, DHS has assigned intelligence officers to 17 of the operational fusion centers we contacted. In addition, DHS was in the process of staffing 8 additional centers and has plans to place officers in a total of 35 fusion centers by the end of fiscal year 2008. The FBI has also assigned personnel to about three quarters of the fusion centers we contacted and continues to do so.

In terms of funding, officials in 35 of the 58 centers encountered challenges with the complexity of the federal grant process, uncertainty as to whether they would receive federal funds, or declining federal funding, and officials from 28 of the 58 centers reported having difficulty obtaining state or local funding. They said that these issues created confusion for their centers over the steps needed to secure federal funds, made it difficult to plan for the future, and created concerns about the fusion centers’ abilities to sustain their capabilities for the long term. Fusion center officials identified challenges with restrictions on the use of federal grant funds, unclear and changing grant guidance, and a lack of understanding of how federal funding decisions are made. DHS has made several changes to help address these challenges by taking steps to ease the grant process and by adjusting some of the restrictions on the timing and use of grant funds. For example, DHS expanded grant funding in fiscal year 2006 in the area of allowable costs for information sharing and collaborative efforts. Funds could be used by states to develop and enhance their fusion centers, particularly by hiring contract or government employees as intelligence analysts; purchasing information technology hardware, software, and communication equipment; hiring consultants to make recommendations on fusion center development; or leasing office space for use by a fusion center.

While these funds are helpful, fusion center officials were concerned about the extent of federal support they could expect over the long term. The federal government, through the ISE, has stated that it expects to rely on a nationwide network of fusion centers as the cornerstone of information sharing with state and local governments, but ISE plans or guidance to date do not articulate the long-term role the federal government expects to play in sustaining these centers, especially in relation to the role of their state or local jurisdictions. It is critical for center management to know whether to expect continued federal resources, such as grant funds, facility support, personnel, and information systems over the long term. While the federal government generally cannot commit future resources, articulating the extent to which it plans to help support these centers in the long term is important for fusion center management in their planning efforts and sustaining the network.

DHS, DOJ, and the PM-ISE have taken some steps to develop guidance and provide technical assistance to fusion centers to help address their challenges in the areas of guidance and training. For instance, in August 2006, DHS and DOJ issued jointly developed Fusion Center Guidelines that outline 18 recommended elements for establishing and operating fusion centers—for example, ensuring appropriate security measures are in place for facility, data, and personnel. Officials in 48 of the 58 fusion centers we contacted said that they found the guidelines generally good or useful, although others said they were not specific enough to address their challenges. Officials at 19 fusion centers said they lacked guidance on specific policies and procedures on information sharing or lacked national standards and guidelines on training or qualifications for analysts. Furthermore, officials at 31 of the fusion centers we contacted said they had challenges training their personnel, and officials at 11 centers we contacted, most of whom were operational centers that had been in existence for more than 2 years, expressed a need for the federal government to establish standards for training fusion center analysts. DHS and DOJ have initiated a technical assistance service program for fusion centers and, along with the PM-ISE, sponsored regional and national conferences and are developing a baseline capabilities document to provide more specific guidelines for fusion centers. However, as of September 2007 the baseline capabilities document is in draft.

In closing, Madam Chair, state and local governments created fusion centers to fill their information needs, and the centers have attracted the attention of the federal government as it works to improve information sharing with state, local, and tribal entities in accordance with the Homeland Security and Intelligence Reform Acts. Indeed, the PM-ISE’s implementation plan envisions that the federal government will work to promote fusion center initiatives to facilitate effective terrorism information sharing nationwide and designates fusion centers as the focus of sharing with state, local, and tribal governments. To date, DHS’s and DOJ’s efforts to assist fusion centers, such as providing access to information systems, security clearances, personnel, funding, and guidance, have begun to address a number of the challenges fusion center directors identified to us. However, it is also important for fusion center management to understand the federal government’s role with respect to these centers since this affects state and local governments’ support to centers. However, many fusion center officials were uncertain about the level of future resources and the sustainability of federal support. Although the federal government cannot make promises regarding future resources, articulating whether the federal government views its role in providing resources, such as grant funding, facilities, personnel, and information-sharing systems, to fusion centers as a short-term start-up effort or for the long-term sustainability of operations is important for fusion center management in their planning efforts and sustaining the network.

In our draft report, which is now at the agencies for review and comment, we are recommending that the federal government determine and articulate its long-term fusion center role and whether it expects to provide resources to centers to help ensure their sustainability. Particular emphasis should be placed on how best to sustain those fusion center functions that support a national information-sharing capability as critical nodes of the ISE. We provided the agencies a statement of facts for our draft report and discussed the recommendation with them to obtain their comments. The Deputy PM-ISE generally agreed with the recommendation, and the agencies provided us technical details, which we incorporated. All agencies will be sending official comments on the draft report later.

Madam Chair, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have at this time.

Contact Information

For further information on this testimony, please contact Eileen Larence at (202) 512-8777 or by e-mail at larencee@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include Susan Quinlan, Assistant Director; Michael Blinde; Jill Evancho; and Mary Catherine Hult.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.