Law Enforcement’s Information Sharing Infrastructure

• Author: Steven Chermak,Edmund F. McGarrell,Jack Drew,David Carter,Jeremy Carter
• Date: 01 June 2013
• DOI: 10.1177/1098611113477645
• Published date: 01 June 2013
• Subject Matter: Articles

Policy Quarterly

16(2) 211 –244

© 2013 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1098611113477645

pqx.sagepub.com

Article

Law Enforcement’s

Information Sharing

Infrastructure: A

National Assessment

Steven Chermak1, Jeremy Carter2, David Carter1,

Edmund F. McGarrell1, and Jack Drew1

Abstract

The September 11 attacks impacted society generally, and law enforcement specifically,

in dramatic ways. One of the major trends has been changing expectations regarding

criminal intelligence practices among state, local, and tribal (SLT) law enforcement

agencies and the need to coordinate intelligence efforts and share information at all

levels of government. In fact, enhancing intelligence efforts has emerged as a critical

issue for the prevention of all threats and crimes. To date, an increasing number

of SLT law enforcement agencies have expanded their intelligence capacity, and

there have been fundamental changes in the national, state, and local information

sharing infrastructure. Moreover, critical to these expanding information sharing

expectations is the institutionalization of fusion centers (FCs). Despite these dramatic

changes, an expanding role, and the acknowledgement that local law enforcement

intelligence is critical to the prevention and deterrence of threats and crimes, very

little research exists that highlights issues related to the intelligence practices of SLT

law enforcement agencies and FCs.1 This research describes what agencies are doing

to build an intelligence capacity and assesses the state of information sharing among

agencies. Specifically, a national survey was developed to examine the experiences of

SLT agencies and FCs for building an intelligence capacity as well as to understand

critical gaps in the sharing of information regarding intelligence.

1Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

2School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis, IN, USA

Corresponding author:

Steven Chermak, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 512 Baker Hall, East Lansing,

MI 48824, USA.

Email: chermak@msu.edu

477645PQX16210.1177/1098611113477645Policy QuarterlyChermak et al.

research-article2013

Policy Quarterly

212 Policy Quarterly 16(2)

Keywords

intelligence-led policing, law enforcement intelligence, information sharing,

infrastructure

Introduction

This research describes what U.S. law enforcement agencies are doing to build an

intelligence capacity and assesses the state of information sharing among agencies.

Specifically, a national survey was developed to examine the experiences of state,

local, and tribal (SLT) law enforcement agencies and fusion centers (FCs) for building

an intelligence capacity as well as to understand critical gaps in the sharing of informa-

tion regarding intelligence. Although the federal government has provided support to

build an intelligence infrastructure to more effectively respond to terrorism, there has

been virtually no empirical work that describes the major issues and obstacles faced by

SLT law enforcement agencies and FCs on intelligence-related issues. More specifi-

cally, this study seeks to explore the working relationships among law enforcement

and other organizations, law enforcement’s awareness of threats and key mandates to

prevent or mitigate those threats, and their operational knowledge of the emerging

intelligence-led policing (ILP) philosophy. This study is a critical first step in docu-

menting the status of the progress made accomplishing key intelligence goals, and we

believe this study contributes to the knowledge of and literature pertaining to law

enforcement intelligence practices in the United States.

Relevant Literature

This research draws upon two primary fields of theory to guide the present study. First,

as commonplace within discussions of police innovation, a brief discussion of organi-

zational change will be presented to provide context. Law enforcement intelligence is

the current innovation among American police agencies, and the philosophy by which

police implement these practices is through ILP. Second, as the primary focus of this

research is to present a national snapshot of law enforcement intelligence practices in

the United States as they demonstrate a movement toward the adoption of this innova-

tion, an in-depth discussion of contemporary intelligence mandates and research is

provided.

Organizational Innovation Framework

ILP shares a similar conceptual foundation to community policing in that the relation-

ship between the two philosophies is based on the use of community policing as a

mechanism that enhances ILP via two-way information flow between police and the

community (Carter & Carter, 2009). Such a foundation is helpful when exploring the

adoption of law enforcement intelligence practices in the United States as policing

scholars have established a solid literature on the impact of innovations on police

Chermak et al. 213

organizations and the manner in which they are adopted (King, 1998, 2000; Morabito,

2010; Weisburd & Braga, 2006). This collective knowledge helps to inform the pres-

ent study by providing a theoretical understanding of what is to be discussed. It should

be noted that despite common similarities, community and ILP are different philoso-

phies designed to achieve different results.

Community policing is largely focused within the specific jurisdiction of the law

enforcement agency and emphasizes community partnerships, organizational decen-

tralization, and a problem-solving orientation. Whereas ILP may also emphasize

“within-jurisdiction” crime problems, the focus of ILP tends to shift to regional,

national, and even transnational risks and threats. Whereas community policing

emphasizes community input into determining localized priorities, ILP seeks commu-

nity input in terms of tips and leads and seeks to integrate or fuse such intelligence

with other sources of information about emerging threats. Advocates of both commu-

nity policing and ILP have called for organizational transformation to institutionalize

these innovations, though the history of community policing has suggested such orga-

nizational change has been difficult to achieve (Greene, 2004).

Consistent with institutional systems theory and organizational learning is the

ambiguity of what adoption actually constitutes. Institutional theory posits police

agencies will label themselves as being innovative and consistent with emerging prac-

tices largely independent of actual organizational change. This phenomenon is consis-

tently examined in the community policing literature (Crank, 1994; Wilson, 2006;

Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Many agencies indicate they have adopted community

policing and are actively engaged in the appropriate practices. However, when their

practices and programs are examined more closely it becomes apparent that commu-

nity policing in the agency is often “window dressing” and an attempt to regain legiti-

macy in the eyes of their peers and those they serve (Crank, 2003; Greene, 2004). ILP

is predicted to follow similar patterns. Indeed, Burruss, Giblin, and Schafer’s (2010,

p. 95) study of homeland security practices in Illinois found that “Institutional pres-

sures, such as professional and government publications, training, professional asso-

ciations, and the actions of peer agencies, significantly influenced municipal and

county agencies.” Indeed, these forces were much more predictive than levels of fund-

ing to support these practices. Similarly, Giblin’s (2006) study of the adoption of crime

analysis found that though contingency factors such as population played a role, insti-

tutional factors such as accreditation were more predictive of the adoption than were

demand factors such as crime rates. Thus, ILP is expected to follow a similar path with

respect to ambiguous adoptions, varying implementation, and “window dressing”

applications (Chappell, 2009). Similarly, organizational learning theorists posit that

organizations often mistake talking about change for change actually occurring

(Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). To begin, it must be established that ILP constitutes an inno-

vation among American police agencies. In an effort to demonstrate the extent to

which agencies are engaged in ILP, the present study assesses the extent to which law

enforcement is engaged in law enforcement intelligences practices and their perception

of these practices.