	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. 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. At least  34 of the 43 operational fusion centers we contacted reported that they  had federal personnel assigned to their centers. Products disseminated and services provided also  vary. 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. 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. However, obtaining and  using security clearances represented a challenge for 44 of the 58 fusion  centers we contacted. 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. To support  fusion centers, DHS and FBI have assigned personnel to centers. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

In general, a fusion center is a collaborative effort to detect, prevent, investigate, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity. Recognizing that fusion centers are a mechanism for information sharing, the federal government--including the Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment (PM-ISE), who has primary responsibility for governmentwide information sharing, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of Justice (DOJ)--is taking steps to partner with fusion centers. This testimony is based on GAO's draft report on state and local fusion centers. It addresses (1) the status and characteristics of the centers and (2) to what extent federal efforts help alleviate challenges fusion centers identified. In conducting this work GAO reviewed center-related documents and conducted interviews with officials from DHS, DOJ, and the PM-ISE, and semistructured interviews with 58 state and local fusion centers.

What GAO Found

Most states and many local governments have established fusion centers to address gaps in information sharing. Fusion centers across the country vary in their stages of development--from operational to early in the planning stages. Officials in 43 of the centers GAO contacted described their centers as operational, and 34 of these centers had opened since January 2004. 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 GAO contacted. However, the centers varied in their staff sizes and partnerships with other agencies. At least 34 of the 43 operational fusion centers we contacted reported that they had federal personnel assigned to their centers. Products disseminated and services provided vary. DHS and DOJ have several efforts under way that begin to address some of the challenges fusion center officials identified. DHS and DOJ have provided many fusion centers access to their information systems, but fusion center officials cited challenges accessing and managing multiple information systems. Both DHS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have provided security clearances for state and local personnel and set timeliness goals. However, officials cited challenges obtaining and using security clearances. Officials in 43 of the 58 fusion centers contacted reported facing challenges related to obtaining personnel, and officials in 54 fusion centers reported challenges with funding, some of which affected these centers' sustainability. They said that these issues made it difficult to plan for the future, and created concerns about the fusion centers' ability to sustain their capability for the long term. To support fusion centers, both DHS and FBI have assigned personnel to the centers. To help address funding issues, DHS has made several changes to address restrictions on the use of federal grant funds. These individual agency efforts help address some of the challenges with personnel and funding. However, the federal government has not clearly articulated the long-term role it expects to play in sustaining fusion centers. It is critical for center management to know whether to expect continued federal resources, such as personnel and grant funding, since the federal government, through an information sharing environment, expects to rely on a nationwide network of centers to facilitate information sharing with state and local governments. Finally, DHS, DOJ, and the PM-ISE have taken steps to develop guidance and provide technical assistance to fusion centers, for instance by issuing guidelines for establishing and operating centers. However, officials at 31 of the 58 centers said they had challenges training their personnel, and officials at 11 centers expressed a need for the federal government to establish standards for fusion center analyst training to help ensure that analysts have similar skills. DHS and DOJ have initiated a technical assistance program for fusion centers. They have also developed a set of baseline capabilities, but the document is in draft as of September.