Uncle Sam must provide ongoing support to state and local fusion centers, says GAO

When it studied the recent nationwide trend to establish state and municipal "fusion centers" to share counterterrorism and law enforcement information between federal, state and local intelligence officials, the Government Accountability Office found good and bad news.

The good news was these new centers are popping up everywhere, they provide a useful means to share worthwhile intelligence up and down the food chain, and the federal government -- particularly DHS and the FBI -- have been playing constructive roles in supporting many of these centers.

For example, DHS has deployed full-time intelligence officers to 17 of the 43 operational fusion centers the GAO contacted during its recent study of the centers, and DHS has plans to deploy personnel to an additional eight centers.

The good and bad news affects several different aspects of these centers’ operations, the GAO noted in testimony delivered April 17 by Eileen Larence, director of homeland security and justice issues, before an ad hoc subcommittee of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

• The good news is that DHS and the FBI are providing many of these fusion centers with access to their federal information systems, such as the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN) and Law Enforcement Online (LEO). But the bad news is that 30 of the 58 centers the GAO contacted reported difficulties managing the volume of information and wrestling with multiple information systems.
• The good news is that that the federal agencies are willing to grant Secret and Top Secret clearances to appropriate officials at the state and local fusion centers. But the bad news is that 32 of the centers told the GAO they were experiencing long delays in actually receiving those security clearances.
•The good news is that DHS and the FBI have offered to provide technical guidance and training to fusion center officials, but the bad news is that much of that guidance and training has not yet arrived. "Officials at 19 fusion centers said that they lacked guidance on specific information-sharing policies and procedures, such as privacy and civil liberties issues," noted the GAO. Twelve centers said they needed federal standards for training fusion center analysts.
• The federal government has a congressional mandate to support the fusion centers with personnel, guidance and cold hard cash. The good news is that grant programs have been established to funnel federal funds to these centers. But the bad news is that the money is not arriving as swiftly and reliably as state and local officials would like. "Specifically, 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," observed the GAO, "and officials from 28 of the 58 centers reported having difficulty obtaining state or local funding."

Uncle Sam has been intimately involved in the creation of this network of state and local fusion centers, and Washington benefits from the free-flow of intelligence upwards from lower levels of law enforcement. However, the GAO concluded that the federal government must make clearer its long range plans for such centers.

"Given the federal interest in fusion centers and the centers’ interest in supporting such a national network," concluded the GAO, "it is important that the federal government continue to provide fusion centers with added value as an incentive to facilitate such a network."