Almost all states and several local governments have established or are in the process of establishing a fusion center. Specifically, officials in 43 of the 58 fusion centers we contacted described their centers as operational, and officials in 15 centers considered their centers to be in the planning or early stages of development as of September 2007. 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 for establishing a fusion center. Several officials cited the need to enhance information sharing within their own jurisdictions across disciplines as the reason why they established a center. While 9 centers opened in the couple of years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, 34 of the 43 operational centers have opened since January 2004 as shown in figure 1. Consistent with the 9/11 Commission Act’s definition of a fusion center and the purpose of a fusion center, as defined in the Fusion Center Guidelines, officials in 41 of the 43 operational centers we contacted said that their scopes of operations focused on more than just counterterrorism. For instance, officials in 22 of these centers described their centers’ scope as all crimes or all crimes and counterterrorism, and officials in 19 operational centers said that their scopes of operations included all-hazards information (such as related to public health and safety or emergency response). Further, 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. Eleven other fusion centers had missions that involved enhancing, supporting, or coordinating information and intelligence dissemination to both law enforcement and homeland security agencies. Officials told us that adopting a broader focus helped provide information about all threats because of the link of many crimes to terrorist activity and also increased the centers’ sustainability, for instance, by including additional stakeholders. Indeed, the National Strategy highlights the importance of the centers fostering a culture that recognizes the importance of fusing “all crimes with national security implications” and “all hazards” information, which often involves identifying criminal activity and other information that might be a precursor to a terrorist plot. Law enforcement entities, such as state police or state bureaus of investigation, were the lead or managing agencies in the majority of the operational centers we contacted. The centers varied in their staff sizes and partnerships with other agencies, ranging from fewer than 5 employees to over 80. In addition to a variety of state and local law enforcement agencies, some centers included personnel detailed from emergency management, fire, corrections, or transportation partners. As of September 2007, at least 34 of the 43 operational fusion centers we contacted reported that they had personnel from at least one federal agency assigned to their centers. For example, DHS had deployed full-time intelligence officers to 17 of the 43 operational fusion centers we contacted and was in the process of staffing 8 additional centers. About three quarters of the operational centers we contacted reported that the FBI had 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, such as a Joint Terrorism Task Force or a Field Intelligence Group. Further, 19 of the operational centers reported that they had other DHS or DOJ components represented in their centers, such as personnel from Customs and Border Protection; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Transportation Security Administration; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; or Drug Enforcement Administration. 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-related information. For example, as of September 2007, 40 of the 43 operational centers reported they had access to HSIN, and 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 the FBI’s classified systems containing, among other things, secret-level investigative case files. Thus far, products disseminated and services provided also varied. Fusion centers reported that they issued a variety of products, such as daily and weekly bulletins on general criminal or intelligence information and assessments that, in general, provided in-depth reporting on an emerging threat, group, or crime. Fusion center officials identified challenges in establishing and operating their centers in several areas, such as accessing and managing multiple information systems, obtaining and using security clearances, finding sufficient guidance and training, obtaining and retaining personnel, and obtaining funding. DHS and DOJ, recognizing the importance of fusion centers in information sharing, have efforts under way that begin to address many of these challenges. Fusion center officials reported challenges accessing and managing multiple information systems. In October 2007, we reported that DHS and the FBI had provided many operational fusion centers access to their primary unclassified information systems (HSIN and LEO) and had outlined plans to provide access to their primary classified networks to state and local centers that had federal personnel at the center. However, officials at 31 of the 58 centers we contacted reported challenges obtaining access to federal information systems or networks. For instance, officials in some centers cited challenges with DHS and the FBI not providing fusion center personnel with direct access to their classified systems. Fusion center personnel in these centers had to rely on federal personnel who were 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 fusion centers reported challenges meeting system security requirements or establishing the technical capabilities necessary to access information systems, and DHS and the FBI had taken some steps to address these challenges. For example, we reported that DHS reviews the fusion centers’ security status and assesses its adequacy in light of its intention to deploy personnel and information systems to the center. In March 2008, the DHS Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis stated that DHS planned to deploy its secret-level homeland security data network to 41 fusion centers by the end of fiscal year 2008. While officials in many fusion centers cited challenges obtaining access to systems, primarily classified ones, officials in 30 of the 58 fusion centers we contacted reported that the heavy volume of information or the existence of multiple systems with often redundant information was 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 described how 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. In addition, officials in 18 fusion centers found 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. In October 2007, we reported that officials from the PM-ISE’s office were collaborating with other agencies, including DHS and DOJ, to identify potential opportunities to streamline system access and improve the quality and flow of information. For example, PM-ISE officials reported that these entities had completed a review of the most commonly used systems, such as HSIN, LEO, and the Regional Information Sharing Systems, that included an examination of users’ needs to identify potential areas to streamline system access. In October 2007, we also reported that such a review was in accordance with recommendations that fusion centers made during the first annual national fusion center conference in March 2007 and with what several officials we contacted told us. Specifically, officials in 23 of the 58 fusion centers told us that DHS and DOJ, to facilitate implementation of a national network of fusion centers, should reduce the number of existing systems or develop a unified platform or mechanism for information sharing with fusion centers. In addition, the PM-ISE, along with DHS, DOJ, and other federal agencies, are taking steps to improve the quality and flow of information through the establishment of an Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group (ITACG), which was made a statutorily mandated body by the 9/11 Commission Act. This group, which is to include state, local, and tribal representatives detailed to work with the National Counterterrorism Center, is to provide advice, counsel, and subject-matter expertise to the intelligence community about the types of terrorism- related information needed by state, local, and tribal governments and how these entities use that terrorism-related information to fulfill their counterterrorism responsibilities. In doing so, the PM-ISE reported that the ITACG is to enable the timely production by the National Counterterrorism Center of clear, relevant, and federally coordinated terrorism-related information products intended for dissemination to state, local, and tribal officials. In October 2007, we reported that PM-ISE officials indicated that the ITACG had achieved an initial operational capability. As of March 2008, four state and local law enforcement representatives had been detailed to the ITACG to provide a nonfederal perspective to the intelligence community in its situational and threat reporting and intelligence products, by, for example, requesting changes to report language to better address state and local needs. According to one of the representatives, these changes have involved requesting that specific tactical information be included in reports or that, where possible, the security classification of a report be lowered so that it could be disseminated more broadly to state and local officials. While these efforts to improve the quality and flow of information to state and local users are promising, it is too soon to determine the extent to which they will address the challenges in accessing and managing information reported to us by fusion center officials.