the future of law enforcement fusion
DESCRIPTION
A short report on the future of the intelligence fusion process as it applies to law enforcement.TRANSCRIPT
Christopher Adamczyk NAU PAS-415
Funding the Future of Policing
How fusion centers provide efficient, fiscally responsible police service
Chris9/24/2011
Funding the Future
Abstract
With increased public scrutiny on government spending, and declining revenues across
the public sector, efficient execution of public duties must be dominant in future fiscal planning.
One area where efficient management of government funds seems to increasingly meet head-to-
head with operational costs is law enforcement. Old methods of police work are being
scrutinized for not only for fiscal savings, but overall effectiveness in crime fighting. As these
methods are examined, new ideas are emerging and old ideas are given a re-birth through new
collaborative techniques. One area where this is most evident is the use of information fusion
centers. Across the United States, local jurisdictions have formed fusion centers with the goal of
facilitating the exchange of criminal information. The affect has been a new attitude of
cooperation, an emphasis on intelligence led policing, and efficient police tactics. Fusion centers
have also met challenges with declining revenues. Agencies are less willing to allocate human
capital to the specialty assignments out of fear they will not be adequately staffed to handle local
crime concerns. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the benefit fusion centers provide to the
community in an age of fiscal austerity, and in light of that benefit, explore state level funding
for regional fusion centers.
2
Funding the Future
Introduction
Cities and counties in Arizona have not been spared from the nationwide financial crisis.
Tax revenues, largely based on property taxes, stayed buoyant throughout the 2002-2003
financial lag that affected state budgets (Greenblatt, 2010). The bursting of the housing market
bubble however sunk many cities and counties deep into the current wide spread recession.
Because property taxes in Arizona are based on land valuations, they decrease concurrently.
From 2007 to 2010 Arizona cities saw a 10% decline in property tax revenues (Greenblatt,
2010). The decline in revenues began opening shortfalls in local budgets beginning at 3%. The
National League of Cities estimated in 2010 that the municipal sector alone would see shortfalls
in the range of “$80 billion between 2010 and 2012” (Greenblatt, 2010 p.31). With budget
shortfalls come deep cuts in many city budgets.
City of Mesa Mayor Scott Smith reported in a February 2011 interview that the budget
situation in Mesa was grim. The city was facing a shortfall of $42 million in FY2012, even with
the cuts already made. City Manager Chris Brady reported $100 million in cuts, over a three year
period, but warned city department heads that cuts amounting to 5% more were needed
(Thompson, 2011). City of Tempe Police Chief Tom Ryff reported in a 2010 article that the city
of Tempe would see “a severe impact on police operations” including the outsourcing of jail
functions (Ryff, 2010). The Town of Gilbert also faced shortfalls and proposed a 5% pay
reduction and mandatory 10 furlough days (Leavitt, 2010). Mayors from Eloy, Flagstaff, and
Avondale all reported similar problems with their budgets. Some have discussed layoffs and cut
backs, but most are opposed to drastic cuts in public safety (Chihak, 2011). Even with the
opposition, some cities found it impossible to make cuts without directly impacting police
3
Funding the Future
services. Whether cuts were made or not, the public spotlight is on police agencies to deliver
efficient service, regardless of economic conditions
The current financial crisis has not gone unnoticed by the general public. A 2009
Rasmussen report showed 59% of the public was wary of increased government spending (“59%
Fear too much government,” 2009). A 2010 Pew Research publication revealed that 77% of the
population was aware of the increasing federal deficit (“Public knows basic facts,” 2010). And a
2011 CBS News poll showed the same percentage, 77%, of Americans favor cutting government
spending over raising taxes (Montopoli, 2011). What is even more striking in that same poll is
58% of the respondents were willing to cut local public expenditures. What this all means to
local governments is a need to remain focused on efficiency when spending public funds.
Against the backdrop of depressing financial news, and an increasing public awareness, is
the need to provide services like law enforcement. With each city mentioned above pondering
public safety cuts to aid in the budget battle, basic police services seem next in line for cuts.
The answer to the underlying question of how police agencies continue to provide
adequate, fiscally responsible public safety, while caught in the midst of such austerity, is the
establishment of information fusion centers. Arizona has two fusion centers, the Arizona Counter
Terrorism Information Center and the East Valley Gang and Criminal Information Fusion
Center, also known as the East Valley Fusion Center. Their missions are different as are their
funding sources, but both centers highlight the benefit of collaboration and intelligence led
policing tactics. Of the two centers, the one that shows the greatest benefit to the local
community is the East Valley Fusion Center by virtue of its connection to immediate law
enforcement needs (Harper, 2007).
4
Funding the Future
Regional fusion centers like the East Valley Fusion Centers are facing problems due to
the declining economy, and a misunderstanding of their role in public safety. As reported above,
local law enforcement agencies are tasked with making budget cuts that are deep and potentially
damaging to public safety. When you combine cut backs with a lack of education on fusion
center benefits (Marshall, 2011) (“Fusion leads to Confusion,” 2010), it is obvious that the first
choice of many police executives is to refuse to participate in, or pull people out of, regional
fusion centers. While education takes time, and many police executives do see the benefits of
local fusion centers (Marshall, 2011), the budgetary concerns are something that can be handled
at the state level. By allocating funds to cover the salaries of fusion center assigned employees,
the State of Arizona could ensure the mission of fusion centers remains focused on fighting
crime in the most efficient way possible.
Federal versus Regional Fusion Centers
According to a 2010 report from the American Civil Liberties Union there are 72
federally funded fusion centers across the United States (“What’s wrong with fusion centers,”
2010). A “federally funded” fusion center is one that was set up with the original goal of
combating terrorism in the United States (Masse, Siobhan, O’Neill & Rollins, 2007). The fusion
centers are staffed with analysts, agents, and officers from the Federal Bureau of Investigations,
the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Homeland Security, and many more. Federal
fusion centers rely heavily on allocated funds from Congress, and grant funding from the
Department of Homeland Security. As such, they are subject to the intelligence gathering needs
of DHS, and other members of the federal intelligence community (Masse et al, 2007). As the
events of 9/11 began to wane in the public’s eye, federal fusion centers began to incorporate an
“all hazards” mission which included the goals of mitigating damage from natural disasters, and
5
Funding the Future
coordinating response and recovery efforts. Some fusion centers began to take on a local
criminal intelligence role, which conflicted with the needs of the larger federal intelligence
community. The dilemma caused many to question the use of federal fusion centers when
combating local crime trends (Harper, 2007). In 2007 and 2008 a collaborative was formed
consisting of representatives from several federal intelligence agencies and a proposal was made
to the United Sates Congress to standardize federal fusion centers (Masse et al, 2007). The goal
was to ensure fusion centers remained focused on the needs of federal government and
maintained civil rights, especially in light of the fact that much of the funding for federal fusion
centers came from the United States Congress. This report and the resulting actions of several
fusion centers across the United States revealed a void in local law enforcement that was soon
filled by smaller, region specific fusion centers.
The East Valley Gang and Criminal Information Fusion Center opened its doors on
September 1st, 2007 in Mesa, Arizona (Gonzalez, 2009). The fusion center was the brain child of
Mesa Police Chief George Gascon, Mesa Police Detective Lance Heivilin, and Mesa Police
Sergeant Kevin Baggs, and was an answer to the communication void that existed between local
law enforcement agencies. Whereas federal agencies were reportedly “connecting the dots” on a
national level, local agencies were still struggling. When the center opened in 2007 it included
police detectives and analysts from Chandler, Mesa, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community, and Tempe. Associate members, meaning those who could join the fusion center
but not dictate its needs included the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the
Arizona Department of Corrections (Gonzalez, 2009). By 2011 the center had grown to include
Apache Junction, Scottsdale, the Department of Homeland Security, and Arizona National
Guard. The East Valley Fusion Center was set up and funded out of the budgets from the
6
Funding the Future
participating agencies. Similar to the same funding theory noted by Masse et al (2007), the
funding determined the direction. The autonomy given to the East Valley Fusion Center allowed
it to focus on local crime trends. According to a 2007 interview conducted with then Sergeant
Lance Heivilin, the fusion center cleared 200 cases in its first year. In 2008 it cleared over 800,
and by June 2009, they had already cleared over 1,000 cases (Gonzalez, 2009). The success of
the East Valley Fusion Center was noted by Tempe Police Chief Tom Ryff in his FY 2010
budget analysis when he touted Tempe’s membership as an example of cross jurisdictional
police tactics (Ryff, 2010).
The East Valley Fusion Center is not unique in its composition and goals. In September
2010, the City of San Francisco opened the Bay Area Regional Information and Crime Center
(“Chief Gascon Brings Crime Center to SF,” 2010), and immediately became an example of
effective crime fighting. The San Francisco Police Department made the crime center the “hub”
of patrol operations, meaning major deployments and operations would be formed and run by the
information supplied by the center. To many in San Francisco, the center represented the future
of police work.
Where both the East Valley Fusion Center and the Bay Area Center succeeded was in the
way they directly benefitted the local community. The centers took real time crime information,
and “fused” it with known crime data. The result in many cases was accurate crime predictions,
identification of cross jurisdictional crime trends and criminal intelligence products that were
used to direct street level officers to high crime areas. The goal of both centers was not simply to
suppress crime, but to eradicate it through intelligence led deployments. Police executives like
Tempe Police Chief Tom Ryff described the effect of the fusion center as a “One stop shop…
instead of having to get on the telephone to call various agencies trying to figure out what
7
Funding the Future
resources are available to them, this fusion center has brought all those resources together under
one roof” (Gonzalez, 2010). In the same interview Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said
the fusion center, “allows the unique opportunity to bring law enforcement intelligence together
in one place so they track repetitive crimes and career criminals” (Gonzalez, 2010).
The East Valley Fusion Center and the Bay Area Information Center are only two
examples of regional fusion centers. Other jurisdictions in Arizona have expressed the desire for
similar centers, especially in Tucson. The fusion concept has given a life to police philosophies
like “Intelligence Led Policing” and is doing away with old tactics like saturation patrol.
Intelligence Led Policing: Efficient public service
Efficiency in government cannot be stressed enough, especially in local government. In
times of austerity and general budget woes, police tactics must change and focus on efficiency
rather than visibility. The old tactic of “saturation patrol” for example has proven to fiscally
irresponsible and ineffective in crime eradication. In 1977 researchers from the Nashville
Metropolitan Police Department, the Luton Mental Health Center, and the Middle Tennessee
State University partnered together to research the merits of saturation patrol. For the purposes of
the research, saturation patrol was defined as increasing the number of patrol cars driving
through a specific area (Schnelle, Kirchner, Casey, Uselton, & Mc Nees, 1977).
The study revealed no significant decrease in crime rates during the daylight hours, and
only a nominal decrease in nighttime crime statistics. The researchers made sure to highlight the
point that they increased the patrol presence by four, which in real application would be very
costly (Schnelle et al, p.39). Since saturation patrol relies on visibility alone as a crime
prevention measure, there is no evidence that the criminals have permanently left the area. Once
8
Funding the Future
the saturation patrol ends the criminal, in theory, would re-emerge and offend. The researchers
also pointed out that as a practical crime suppression method, the saturation patrol would have to
be constant which was far too costly for the Nashville Police Department and would be
presumably so today. Little other research has been done on saturation patrol, but factors used in
the 1977 study are relevant today, as is the conclusion that it does not provide crime eradication
and is not cost efficient. An alternative to saturation patrol is intelligence led policing.
Intelligence led policing is defined as a policing strategy that combines crime analysis,
criminal intelligence, and directed police actions focused on active criminal threats and repeat
offenders. The tactic was formed in the United Kingdom and partially adopted in the Unites
States (Ratcliff, 2008). Where saturation patrol relies on luck and visibility to reduce crime,
intelligence led policing relies on information to eradicate crime. Fusion centers are thus a
physical manifestation of the intelligence led policing concept. Fusion centers provide a place for
detectives and analysts to come together, analyze the information, and conduct targeted crime
eradication operations. Fusion centers, as pointed out earlier by Chief Ryff, reduce the amount of
time needed to fight crime. Reducing time translates into reduced cost for each agency. For these
reasons fusion centers help serve the public in an intelligent and efficient manner.
State Assistance
Fusion centers offer an intelligence led, fiscally responsible method for fighting crime.
Because they are built and operated by local law enforcement agencies, the mission will always
be on combating local crime trends. As was pointed out earlier however, the dire financial
conditions present in many Arizona cities, have resulted in major cut backs. Some of those cut
backs may include removing personnel from specialty assignments like fusion centers.
9
Funding the Future
According to a July 2011 article on the Arizona Republic web site, the Maricopa County
Sherriff’s Office and the Arizona Department of Public Safety have already pulled dozens of
officers out of state and federal task forces due to budget problems (Hensley, 2011). To avoid the
pitfalls of reverting back to old, inefficient police methods like saturation patrol, the state should
intervene by providing a funding source for local agencies. The funding would be strictly
allocated to cover the salaries of officers assigned to regional fusion centers.
The use of state monies for fusion centers is not a new idea, as was shown in September
of 2010. At that time Attorney General Terry Goddard awarded the East Valley Fusion Center
with a grant for $248,000 for purchasing software and enhancing the training of the center
participants (Gonzalez, 2010). The money came from a 2004 settlement with the El Paso Gas
Corporation after the company was accused of price fixing. Obviously a court settlement is a
one-time revenue stream, and other methods of funding the fusion centers would need to be
explored. But the path has been blazed by the El Paso settlement.
Conclusion
In an age of fiscal turmoil, municipalities and counties are seeing a decline in revenue.
With declining revenues come cutbacks and other cost saving measures. In the current economic
crisis, law enforcement agencies are not safe from the knives of austerity. Old police tactics like
saturation patrols have been found to ineffective and not cost efficient. With a public that is
increasingly aware of how government spends money, it is imperative police agencies conduct
business in the most cost efficient manner while still providing quality police service. In this
present crisis the solution to these challenges are regional information fusion centers like the East
Valley Fusion Center in Mesa. Fusion centers combine elements of intelligence led policing,
10
Funding the Future
with targeted, cost effective police actions. Fusion centers also face economic backlash, but the
State of Arizona is in a position where funds can be allocated at the state level to assist local
jurisdictions with staffing the centers. Fusion centers represent the future of policing and deserve
a solid economic foundation to build upon. The State of Arizona can provide that foundation and
be an example of a responsibly steward of the public’s money.
11
Funding the Future
Citations
59% Fear too much government spending is coming. (2009, January). Rasmussen Reports.
Retrieved from
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/
january_2009/59_fear_too_much_government_spending_is_coming
Chief Gascon brings real-time crime center to San Francisco. (2010, August). The Crime Report.
Retrieved from http://www.thecrimereport.org/archive/chief-gascon-brings-real-time-
crime-center-to-san-francisco
Chihak, M. (2011, September 2). Amid cuts, Arizona mayors cautiously optimistic. Arizona
Public Media. Retrieved from http://www.azpm.org/business/story/2011/9/2/2030-amid-
cuts-arizona-mayors-cautiously-optimistic/
Editorial: “Fusion leads to confusion” [Editorial]. (2010). American Police Beat on-line.
Retrieved from http://www.apbweb.com/opinioneditorial-frompages-menu-31/1217-
fusion-leads-to-confusion.html
German, M., & Stanley J. (2007). What’s wrong with fusion centers? Washington DC: American
Civil Liberties Union
Gonzalez, N. (2009, August 28). East valley fusion center on cutting edge of law enforcement.
The Arizona Republic. Retrieved from
http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/2009/08/28/20090828mr-
fusion0828.html
12
Funding the Future
Gonzalez, N. (2010, September 24). East Valley crime fighting center gets grant. The Arizona
Republic. Retrieved from
http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/2010/09/24/20100924east-valley-
gangs-mesa-police-fusion0924.html
Greenblatt, A. (2010). Local Squeeze. E-Journal of the National Conference of State Legislators.
Report number 20180. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=20180
Harper, J., (2007). Fusion Centers: Leave ‘em to the states. CATO Institute’s Techknowledgy
Journal, 100. Retrieved from https://www.cato.org/tech/tk-index.html
Hensley, J. J. (2011, July 16). Strapped Arizona police agencies adapting. The Arizona Republic.
Retrieved from http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/07/16/20110716arizona-
police-agencies-budget-adapting.html
Leavitt, P. (2010, April 21). Town employee’s pay exceeds other Gilbert residents. The Arizona
Republic. Retrieved from
http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2010/04/21/20100421gilbert-town-
salaries-0421.html
Marshall, M. A. (2011, April). Underscoring the importance of fusion centers. The police chief,
78(6). Retrieved from http://www.theiacp.org/About/WhatsNew/tabid/459/Default.aspx?
id=1424&v=1
Montopoli, B. (2011, January 14). Poll: Americas split on what to cut from government. CBS
News on-line. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028612-
503544.html
13
Funding the Future
Pew Research Center. (2010, November). Public knows basic facts about politics, economics,
but struggles with specifics. [Pew5-Pew19]. Retrieved from
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1804/political-news-quiz-iq-deficit-defense-spending-tarp-
inflation-boehner
Ryff, T. (2010, September 24). Tempe Police Department Budget Reduction Proposal 2010/2011
[Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.tomryff.com/blog/
Ratcliff, J. H. (2008). Intelligence-led policing. Retrieved from
http://jratcliffe.net/research/ilp.htm
Schnell, J. F., Kirchner, R. E., Casey, J. D., Uselton, P. H., & McNees, M. P. (1977). Patrol
Evaluation Research: A multiple-baseline analysis of saturation police patrolling during
day and night hours. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 33-40. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311147/
Thompson, A. (2011, February 16). Mesa’s declining sales-tax revenue has city scrambling. The
Arizona Republic. Retrieved from
http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/2011/02/16/20110216mesa-city-
budget-economic-recovery0216.html
U.S. Congressional Research Service. (2007). Fusion Centers: Issues and Options for Congress
(CRL Publication No. RL34070). Washington, DC: Todd Masse, Siobhan O’Neill, and
John Rollins.
14