Running Head: FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

The Effects of Information Fusion in Modern Policing A Research Proposal Northern Arizona University Christopher Adamczyk

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

Table of Contents Chapter One2-9 Chapter One Introduction .....2

Research Question....5 Definition of Terms.......5 Abbreviations...7 Potential Limitations....8 Significance of Study.......9 Chapter Two.......10-15 Review of Related Literature....11 Chapter Three.16-24 Research Design Procedures.16 Data Analysis.19 Pilot Testing/Population Sample21 Sources..25 Appendix...26

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

Chapter One Introduction The United States has seen two major financial crises in the last decade (Greenblatt, 2010). The first was in 2002-2003 and left municipal economies relatively buoyant, while it decimated state budgets (Greenblatt, 2010). The financial crisis caused by the 2007 burst in the housing market bubble did not spare the smaller budgets; especially in Arizona. Between 2007 and 2010, due to the housing market crash Arizona cities saw a 10% decline in property tax revenues. Because city revenues are primarily based on property tax valuations, when values fall, revenues fall concurrently. The declining revenues caused many cities to see immediate budgets shortfalls of 3% of their overall budgets. The National League of Cities in 2010 estimated the extent of municipal budget shortfalls would exceed $80 billion between 2010 and 2012 (Greenblatt, 2010 p.31). Budget shortfalls had to be addressed, and many cities elected to institute deep cuts in basic services. Arizona cities like Mesa, Tempe, and Gilbert implemented austerity measures that included $100 million in cuts (Thompson, 2011), outsourcing police functions (Ryff, 2010), and mandatory furlough days (Leavitt, 2010). While smaller cities like Eloy, Flagstaff, and Avondale reported smaller budget shortfalls, they still discussed lay-offs and other drastic cuts in city services (Chihak, 2011). City executives from each of the cities publicly declared they would do their best to refrain from cutting police service, but in many cases it was inevitable (Ryff, 2010). The financial crisis did not go unnoticed by the general public. A report by the polling company Rasmussen in 2009 showed 59% of the public was concerned about increased government spending (59% Fear Too Much Government, 2009). In 2010, the Pew Research
3

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

center showed 77% of the population was aware of an increasing federal deficit (Public Knows Basic Facts, 2010). And in 2011, a CBS News poll showed 77% of Americans favored cutting government spending over raising taxes (Montpoli, 2011). In that same poll, 58% stated they were willing to cut local government expenditures. The point was made very clear; government had to learn to spend money more efficiently. Against this backdrop was the need each city had to provide basic government services like policing, while showing the public they were being responsible stewards of the publics money. An answer to this dilemma was developed locally, in 2007, when the East Valley Gang and Criminal Information Fusion Center opened its doors in Mesa, Arizona (Gonzalez, 2009). The East Valley Fusion Center, and its later companion in San Francisco, the Bay Area Regional Information and Crime Center, represented a change in police efficiency (Chief Gascon Brings Crime Center to SF, 2010). What would be days worth of wasted police salaries on dead-end investigations, could now be solved with one phone call (Ryff, 2010). But the question still remains: what, if any, affect are fusion centers having on local crime statistics? Aside from the political benefits of fusion centers, are they really having a positive impact on local communities? Have they really introduced a level of efficiency that did not exist before (Ryff, 2010)? There has been no research on the actual affects of fusion centers on local criminal trends or statistics. To ensure the publics money continues to be spent in the most efficient ways possible it is imperative research is done to show the actual effects fusion centers are having on crime fighting.

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

Research Question: What are the effects fusion centers are having on local crime statistics?

Definition of Terms

Counter Terrorism- Specific actions taken to mitigate the threat of terrorism. Criminal Information- Law enforcement specific data extracted from police reports, calls for service reports, field interview cards, citizen tips, interviews, jail documents, Silent Witness tips, and other law enforcement specific sources directly linked to a criminal act or the criminal justice process. Criminal Intelligence- The rendering of criminal information into a workable, timely, product used to direct investigations, allocate resources, predict criminal activity, or guide crime suppression measures. Crime Analyst- A person who compiles raw criminal information to form predictive products like charts, maps, and bulletins. Critical Infrastructure/ Key Resource- A business, entity, structure, or entire industry publicly owned or privately that directly contribute the quality of life in a community, and/or is an essential element in a communities financial construct. The loss of a CI/KR site would severely disrupt a communitys ability to provide basic services for its citizens, or ensure a positive financial future.

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

Fusion Center- A facility designed to facilitate information fusion. Fusion Centers are either federal, meaning the primary stakeholders are federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, or regional meaning the primary stakeholders are local law enforcement agencies. Information Fusion- The concept and practice of gathering disparate pieces of data, and combining them to produce an overview of a problem or situation The federal or regional designation also indicates where the majority of the funding for the center originated. Intelligence Led Policing- A business model and managerial philosophy where data analysis and criminal intelligence are pivotal to an objective, decision-making framework that facilitates crime and problem reduction, disruption and prevention through both strategic management and effective enforcement strategies (Ratcliff, 2008) Police detectives- A law enforcement officer whose primary duty it is to conduct investigations of crimes beyond the response phase. Patrol Officer- A law enforcement officer whose primary duty it is to respond to calls for service and conduct preliminary investigations. Saturation Patrol- A law enforcement strategy wherein a cadre of uniformed officers are sent to an area in response to rising crime trend. The strategy is known to be reactive to trends, rather than proactive in deterring crime.

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

Abbreviations ACTIC- Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center located in Phoenix, Arizona CI/KR- Critical Infrastructure / Key Resource DHS- United States Department of Homeland Security EVGCI- East Valley Gang and Criminal Information Fusion Center located in Mesa, Arizona UCR- Uniformed Crime Reporting

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

Potential Limitations 1. Crime trend statistics rise and fall regardless of the presence of a fusion center. This is a limitation because crime trends climb and fall for several different reasons, including the presence of alternate policing techniques. This will make it very difficult to measure the actual impact fusion centers have on local crime statistics. To correct for this limitation the author will examine crime data beginning 2 years before the introduction of a fusion center, and continue till two years after the fusion center opened. The statistics will then be compared to regional UCR crime data and corrections will be made to take into account the regional data. 2. Qualitative data will rely on the willingness of test subjects. This is a potential limitation because information sharing, which is essential to the concept of the fusion center, can only be measured through qualitative data. Test subjects must be willing to explain to the researcher how fusion centers have helped them. Much of this data will be opinion based, with perhaps a few anecdotal items of evidentiary value. To elicit the information, the research team will inform the participants that they will not be identified by their answers. They will not be required to provide personal identifiers, which may alleviate some apprehension. Also, the research team will be forthcoming with the sample population by reassuring them that opinions are welcome. 3. The departments may want to choose their own participants. This is a potential dilemma because if the police executives select the participants, the research team may not get an honest cross section of the departments population. Rather, they would end up with a select group, picked through political or social methods. To counter this, the research

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

team will inform the police executives that the only way to ensure the research results are sterile and honest is to allow the research team to select the participants. Significance of Study Regional criminal information fusion centers are a new concept. As such, there are many questions surrounding their effectiveness, use, efficiency, and overall impact on society. Challenges have been leveled at fusion centers from civil rights groups, law enforcement personnel, and the general citizenry. Most of the challenges are met by law enforcement executives who have an obvious desire to keep the programs running, however they rarely justify the existence of fusion centers through data. While not all challenges can be answered through quantitative research, at least the effects on local criminal statistics can. The future of the fusion process relies on more than quantitative research and data, however looking at success through measureable statistics will either lay a solid foundation for the future support and expansion of fusion centers, or show they are not succeeding at lowering crime rates. Once this is determined, the questions of public funding, civil rights, and cultural effectiveness can and should be answered through continued research.

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

Chapter Two Review of Related Literature Introduction Intelligence, as a tool of national defense, is a difficult concept to understand. It is even more difficult to understand as a tool of crime prevention. Add to the confusion the distinct difference between information and intelligence, and the entire concept begins to resemble a buzz word rather than actual skill set (Agrell, 2002). Internationally, intelligence as a tool of defense has suffered very public scrutiny since the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 (Waters, 2006). The intelligence community has recovered in the last decade, and is beginning to apply the concept of intelligence fusion in war zones (Flynn, Pottinger & Batchelor, 2010). Domestically, the practice of information fusion took hold in the aftermath of 9/11. Initially information fusion and domestic intelligence were reserved for counter terrorism fusion centers (Masse, ONeill & Rollins, 2007). As local jurisdictions began seeing the success of federally funded fusion centers in the counter terrorism mission, they began to form smaller regionally funded and local specific criminal information fusion centers (Lanier, 2007). Regional fusion centers enjoyed a generally positive atmosphere during the budget surpluses, but as the country suffered through two financial crises leading to a large scale recession (Greenblatt, 2010), nontraditional police techniques began to be scaled back (Ryff, 2010). As the budgets of American families began to decline, the overall public awareness of government spending and waste increased (Montoli, 2011; 59% Fear Too Much Government, 2009; Public Knows Basic Facts, 2010). The intense scrutiny of government budgets, combined with the lack of research

10

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

on the effectiveness of fusion centers have led to general question of their overall benefit to law enforcement and the community as a whole. This review of literature will trace the evolution of information and intelligence from a trade craft to a use in the counterterrorism discipline, and finally as practice used to suppress crime and track violent offenders. The review will highlight the role fusion centers play in the overall criminal intelligence process. The literature review will also feature budgetary concerns raised by citizens and how those concerns tie in with the overall of question of effectiveness of fusion centers. Intelligence and Information Post 9/11 In the book, Class 11, Inside the CIAs first post-9/11 spy class by T. J. Waters (2006), the author illustrates the point that the publics overall sentiment towards the CIA and intelligence after the 9/11 attacks was very negative. In short, many thought that the information obtained by the FBI and CIA regarding the attacks on 9/11 was either wrong, or ignored. Both indictments have hugely negative implications that would require volumes to detail. The damage, however, had been done and Americans lost confidence in the intelligence process (Waters, 2006). The publics negative attitude towards intelligence and the intelligence community as a whole was not entirely the fault of the CIA. Decades of Hollywood espionage stories combined with an emphasis on morphing a very unique skill set to the private sector, led to the development of a new kind of intelligence field that was hardly recognizable to older practitioners (Agrell, 2002). The advent of business intelligence and raw information passing as intelligence further eroded an already growing negative feeling. As a side effect, members of
11

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

the intelligence and law enforcement communities began to lose the actual definition and practice of intelligence gathering and analysis (Agrell, 2002). Internationally, government agencies like the CIA had to adapt and change their approaches and education to conform with the new War on Terror (Waters, 2006). To answer the gaps in domestic intelligence present before 9/11, the U.S. Government began a robust program of establishing counterterrorism fusion centers across the United States. The primary mission of the fusion centers was to gather, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence related to the counterterrorism mission (Masse et al, 2007). Suddenly, what was once considered a skill set reserved for CIA officers and covert government agents, was now being practiced everyday by law enforcement personnel across the United States. The use of fusion centers in the intelligence process was viewed as an evolution in the intelligence community, and received a considerable amount of attention from government agencies and Congress (Rollins, 2007; Masse et all, 2008; Monahan, Palmer, 2009; Fusion Guidelines and Sharing, 2006). Not all of the attention was positive however. Some accused the fusion centers of illegally spying on US citizens (Spying in Your Neighborhood, 2009; German & Stanley 2007), while others claimed they disseminated misleading information to law enforcement officers (Fusion Leads to Confusion, 2010). The positive results of fusion centers began to take hold in war zones however, as field commanders saw the benefits of centralizing the intelligence process to fight the growing insurgency in places like Afghanistan (Flynn et al, 2010).

12

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

The Regional Model As the success of federally funded counterterrorism fusion centers became obvious, some law enforcement executives began to experiment with the fusion concept on a local level (Lanier, 2007; Titch, 2010). Law enforcement agencies who subscribed to the Intelligence Led Policing (ILP) model saw fusion centers as the natural evolution of the ILP concept (Marshall, 2007) or as a compliment to ILP strategies (Schafer, 2007). Direct links between methods used by counterterrorism fusion centers in the prevention of terrorist attacks and regional fusion criminal information fusion centers in crime prevention were made, showing how the two could work in tandem (Nenneman, 2008). The next step was to open a regional criminal information fusion center. On September 1st, 2007, the first regional criminal information fusion center in Arizona opened its doors (Gonzalez, 2009). The East Valley Gang and Criminal Information Fusion Center was conceived and implemented by Mesa Police Department Police Chief George Gascon, and two police sergeants who had a long history in criminal intelligence. The purpose of the EVGCI Fusion Center was to track cross jurisdictional crime trends, identify violent offenders, and produce criminal intelligence products that could be used to efficiently direct police resources (Gonzalez, 2009). The fusion center was lauded as the next generation of police strategies, saving precious time during critical investigations (Ryff, 2010). Three years after the EVGCI Fusion Center opened in Arizona, the City of San Francisco opened their own regional criminal information fusion center called the Bay Area Regional Information and Crime Center (Chief Brings Crime Center to SF, 2010). In both cases, patrol officers and detectives used the fusion centers as the hub of their police operations (Gone too Soon, 2011). Regional criminal information fusion centers began to add a new, more efficient element to
13

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

police work, one which had never been done before (Gonzalez, 2009; Ryff, 2010). The result was a new culture of information sharing that led many to believe crimes and criminal activity were being suppressed in a more efficient manner (Lanier, 2007). Regional fusion centers, like their federal counterparts, were not universally accepted however. Some feared the regional concept would be co-opted by the federal government and turned into small agencies devoted to spying on Americans (Harper, 2007; German, Stanley 2007). Other issues like funding became a concern in 2010 and 2011 due to the economic crisis in the United States (Ryff, 2010). Even with the criticism and doubts, the EVGCI Fusion Center continued to excel, and in 2010 they were recognized by the Attorney General of Arizona with a grant for over $240,000 (Gonzalez, 2010). Stewards of the Publics Money Against the backdrop of the changing intelligence community is the current financial crisis facing the nation. Many cities in Arizona for example have faced tough economic choices, often implementing austerity measures that cut deep into public resources (Greenblatt, 2010; Ryff, 2010; Thompson, 2011; Hensley, 2011). Included in these measures are cuts to nontraditional police tactics like task forces and other specialty assignments (Hensley, 2011). Added to the financial crises was the growing public sentiment that government was not being a responsible steward of the publics money (Kurtzleben, 2011; Feds Credit Mess, 2011). As a result, many Americans began calling for reduced government budgets and overall cuts to government spending (59% Fear too Much Government Spending, 2009; Montpoli, 2011; Public Knows Basic Facts, 2010; Addington, 2011).

14

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

Summary With such heavy scrutiny on public expenditures, and a focus on austerity, the question of effective tactics becomes very critical in planning future law enforcement operations. Fusion centers then become one of those areas of focus. Internationally, the concept is growing as was pointed out earlier in this review. Domestically counterterrorism fusion centers have proven themselves to be effective and are still gaining attention of Congress (Masse et al, 2007). The above review shows a growing market for the fusion concept and its application in the prevention and eradication of the crime. It also reveals a possible solution to the question of how to foster efficient police tactics in a time of fiscal austerity. The question that remains is the effectiveness of the fusion centers in the crime fighting efforts. Chapter three will outline data collection and analysis procedures used for this proposal.

15

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

Chapter Three Research Methodology Introduction This chapter will provide a detailed illustration of the multi-tiered process to be used in this research project. The chapter will begin with a detailed description of the data collection and analysis methods, including a description of the instruments used. A detailed, step-by-step plan for gathering the information will follow, as will a detailed explanation of how the data will be analyzed and turned into useable information. A short section will be devoted to plans for increasing the response rate. Following the sections on data, the chapter will explain the method used in selecting the sample population, and detail the expected demographics. Finally the chapter will explain the interaction between the research team and the sample population, including the methods for securing a safe location, use of the informed consent forms, and assurances of the sample populations anonymity. Research Design Procedures Data Collection This descriptive, three part study will collect two types of quantitative data from separate sources, as well as qualitative data from one source (See Figure One, p. 20). The first phase of qualitative data collection will be done primarily on-line by the research team, accessing the Federal Bureau of Investigations Uniformed Crime Reporting (UCR) data, made available every year. To ensure the team captures the most relevant data, they will collect crime data in Mesa, Chandler, Tempe, Gilbert, and Scottsdale Arizona for six consecutive years beginning three

16

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

years prior to the opening of the East Valley Gang and Criminal Information Fusion Center, and three years after its opening. UCR data will include crime statistics related to Murder, Rape, Aggravated Assaults, Robberies, Burglaries, Thefts, Motor vehicle thefts, and Arsons. Extracting the data using this method will show a baseline of reported criminal activity prior to the opening of the center. The combined and averaged data will set the benchmark from which the research team will measure the increase or decrease in reported criminal activity. If the fusion center is having an effect on local criminal activity, it will manifest itself in the years after the center opened via numbers that are lower than the benchmark. To account for nationwide decreases in reported criminal activity, not attributed to fusion centers, the research team will analyze the crime data from the same extraction period from the following three cities; Sacramento, California, Cleveland, Ohio, and Kansas City, Missouri. These cities were chosen because of their populations which are within 100,000 people of the Arizona cities used in this project. The data extraction plan for the San Francisco Fusion center will vary slightly, as it has not been operational for as long as the EVGCI fusion center in Arizona. For the San Francisco area, the extraction period will consist of three years prior to its opening, and 2 years after the opening. This is due to the fact that the San Francisco fusion center will have only been operational for two year at the commencement of this research project. To account for nationwide decreases in reported criminal activity not attributed to fusion centers, the research team will analyze the crime data from the same extraction period from the following cities; Indianapolis, Indiana, Boston, Massachusetts, and Charlotte, North Carolina. These cities were chosen because they have populations with 100,000 people of San Francisco.

17

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

If fusion centers are having an effect on local reported criminal activity it should be seen in the UCR data. If the UCR data reveals no change in criminal data, the assumption will not be made that the fusion center was responsible for the stagnation, unless the other qualitative data collected, which will be explained below, indicates as such. If the UCR data shows a decrease in reported criminal activity, the research team will also not immediately attribute the decrease to the fusion center, until the other portion of the research has been completed. If there is an increase in the UCR data, the assumption cannot be immediately made that the fusion centers are not working. As with the other two possible results, this too will need to be compared to the other research. The second set of qualitative research will be collected via the Semantic Scale survey titled Fusion Center Usefulness (Appendix A) conducted in-person with the sample population. The survey will consist of 14 multiple choice questions with the following answer options: Dont know, Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree. The purpose of the Semantic Scale survey is to measure the general attitudes of the sample population about the information sharing process and fusion centers. The questions have been placed on the survey in a manner that will lead the participants from a general topic; information sharing, to a very specific topic; the local fusion center. The answers the participants provide will help to paint a picture of their opinions and attitudes towards the information sharing process, and the role of the fusion center in that process. Analysis of the Semantic Scale will be done by a statistician

18

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

who will be given guidance by the research team.

Quantitative Semantic Survey Quantitative UCR Stats

Figure One

QualitativeInteview Questions

Research Project

Data Analysis Collecting data from the surveys will be done at the conclusion of all in-person contacts. The research team will come together with the selected statician, and using a pre-designed matrix, will combine the answers for each of the questions. Each answer will be examined as a percentage compared to the total number of participants. For example, each survey question contains five possible responses as were detailed above. For the sake of brevity the responses will be listed in this section as A, B, C, D, and E. The research team will examine each question and note the answer, combining the totals for each answer. A possible outcome will appear as follows; Question one was answered with A 12 times, B two times, C seven times, and D nine times. Because there will be 30 questionnaires per city, each question will be asked 30
19

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

times in each city. The answers will be shown as statistical percentages when compared to the total number of surveys in one area. For example, question one was answered A 40% of the time, B 6% of the time, C 23% of the time, and D 30% of the time in city X. The statistics will then be matched with a meaning. For example, the answer that always coincides with A is Dont Know, therefore, it can be said that the respondents answered Dont Know 40% of the time. This can be extrapolated to the conclusion that 40% of the affected population would answer the same way. All of the numbers will be added up from all of the cities and the same process will be employed. In total each question will be asked 180 times (30 in each of the five Arizona cities, and 30 in San Francisco). This analysis of the Semantic Scale survey will reveal a great deal of information on fusion centers and the concept of information sharing. Using the example above, if a large portion of the sample population answers Dont Know to a question about the fusion centers direct impact on local crime, this could be a sign the fusion center is failing in communicating with officers. If this type of phenomena is recorded, and it coincides with an increase in reported crime data it would be a safe assumption that the lack of knowledge about the usefulness of the fusion center is preventing local officers from using it, which may explain the increase in reported crimes. This is just an example, and not meant to taint the results of the research project. After participants have completed the survey they will be asked to answer five open ended questions in an interview setting. The interview questions will be considered qualitative data only for this research project. The questions are designed to get narrative responses about the sample populations feelings on the topics of fusion centers, their effectiveness, and their opinions of criminal information sharing.

20

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

Pilot Testing The Semantic scale survey and the interview questions will be pilot tested by 10 local police officers, all of whom are students enrolled in the NAU PAS program and attending the extended campus located in Mesa, Arizona. The pilot testers will be asked for their opinions on the survey and interview questions, but will not be expected to provide coherent or relevant answers. In order to maintain the integrity of the survey and the research project the pilot testers will not be told in which city the survey will be disseminated, nor which police agencies in Arizona. Population and Sample Previously in this report we have identified the five Arizona cities, and one California city that will be used in this research project. Because this project will attempt to find the usefulness of a strictly law enforcement entity, fusion centers, the population sample should be drawn from law enforcement personnel. To facilitate this, the research team will send formal request letters to the police chiefs in each of the identified cities (Appendix B). The letters will explain the research project, identify a point of contact, and request permission to meet with an executive level representative from the each of the departments to discuss how the research team would like to conduct the research. Follow up will be done within 14 days of the original letters mailing via phone calls to the police department. Once the meeting has been granted the primary researcher will meet with representatives and explain the research project once more. The primary researcher will request permission to use the departments facilities and contact 30 employees for the project. The lead researcher will explain that the preference is for the research team to randomly select the 30 participants, but
21

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

arrangements can be made to allow the department to assist in selecting the employees. The research team will ask the representative to send an email out to the entire police department informing them of the research and asking them to participate if selected. The entire request will be given to the departments representative in the form of a letter (Appendix C). Once permission has been granted, the research team will begin the process of randomly selecting the sample population. Once 30 people have been chosen, the research team will divide the population sample at each department into 10 equal parts. The sample population will then be notified via a form letter sent through the employees chain of command (Appendix D). If there has been no response over a period of seven days, the team will send another letter. The verbiage on the form letter will appear as follows: You have been selected to participate in a Northern Arizona University Research project, sponsored by the NAU Department of Criminality and Criminal Justice. The study will examine the effects of the regional fusion center that services your jurisdiction. We will ask you to answer a fill-in-the-blank survey, answer 5 open ended interview questions, and give your opinion on regional information sharing and the effectiveness of the fusion center. There will not be right or wrong answers, we are looking for your opinion. Even if you have not had experience with the local fusion center, we would still enjoy speaking with you. This research will help the research team determine if fusion centers are helping you in your daily law enforcement mission. There are no risks to you, and by receiving this letter, you have already been deemed to qualify to participate. Please call or email the project team member below within 2 days of receiving this letter. Your project team leader will confirm the date and time of our meeting. Thank you for your help in advance.

22

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

At the bottom of the form letter will be a date, time, and location the research team would like to meet with each person. The research letter will also contain the name of the research team member assigned to their group. If the participants do not contact their specified team leader, the team leader will send a second letter. If after an additional two days there is no response, the alternate participant will be sent a notification letter. Once all of the sample population has been chosen, and responded by agreeing to meet, the research team will meet with them. As mentioned before, the team will use the departments facilities because it will be familiar for the officers and they may feel safer within their own buildings. When participants meet a member of the research team, they will receive information on the consent process. The team member will explain that all participants must be willing to participate. In order to show willingness, the team will need the participant to sign a letter containing the following verbiage: I have received an in-person explanation of this research project, and of the informed consent process. I wish to participate in this research project by taking the survey and answering the interview questions. I understand there will be no risk to me and I will not be compensated for my participation. Before the letter has been signed, the team member will explain the questionnaire and the five interview questions, and then let the participant review both. Once the review is complete, the team member will ask the participant to sign the consent form. Once signed, the participant may begin the survey. The team members will inform the participant that the survey is fill-in-the-blank, there is no time limit, no right or wrong answers, and their names will stay confidential. Once the survey is complete, the team leader will collect it, and ask the interview questions. The participant will be asked to keep the questions and answers confidential as a means of

23

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

maintaining the integrity of the project, but they will not be required to sign a confidentiality form.

Summary/ Conclusion This research project will require a combination of qualitative and quantitative research. The quantitative research will reveal statistical evidence of increases or decreases in reported crime rates. The data may show a correlation between the presence of a fusion center and any noted decreases in crime rates. This data will enable the research team to tentatively link the decreases in crime with the presence of the fusion centers. The qualitative data will reveal if law enforcement is effectively practicing information sharing, and if they find the fusion centers a benefit in the sharing process. As shown above, the research team has assembled a three-pronged plan for the collection, analysis, and application of the information gleaned from this project. It is the research teams desire to collect the proper type and amount of information to craft an acceptable outcome.

24

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

Sources 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-timecrime-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-amidcuts-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-31/1217fusion-leads-to-confusion.html German, M., & Stanley J. (2007). Whats 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/2009/08/28/20090828mrfusion0828.html

25

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

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-valleygangs-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 Institutes 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/2011/07/16/20110716arizonapolice-agencies-budget-adapting.html Leavitt, P. (2010, April 21). Town employees pay exceeds other Gilbert residents. The Arizona Republic. Retrieved from http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2010/04/21/20100421gilbert-townsalaries-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_162-20028612503544.html

26

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

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-tarpinflation-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). Mesas declining sales-tax revenue has city scrambling. The Arizona Republic. Retrieved from http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/2011/02/16/20110216mesa-citybudget-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 ONeill, and John Rollins. Waters, T. J. (2006). Class 11,inside the CIAs first post-9/11 spy class. London, England: Penguin Books Ltd.

27

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING Appendix A Survey The following survey is meant to measure the affects of fusion centers on crime statistics in your jurisdiction and explore your experience with criminal information sharing. Rate the statement below using your opinion, there are no right or wrong answers. Rate the statements by filling in the bubble that accurately reflects your opinion on the topic. Please rate all of statements. If you do not have experience with one of the topics, fill in the bubble furthest to the left.

1. Sharing criminal information between police agencies is useful in law enforcement. Dont Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

2. There is value in sharing criminal information with other agencies. Dont Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

3. Sharing criminal information has helped me with at least one investigation. Dont Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

4. Sharing criminal information is a priority in my agency. Dont Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

28

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

5. There is a general willingness to share criminal information by officers at my level. Dont Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

6. Criminal information is provided to officers at my level. Dont Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

7. The fusion center that serves my jurisdiction shares information important to my investigations. Dont Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

8. Fusion centers are effective in crime fighting. Dont Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

9. Getting criminal information from the fusion center is easy. Dont Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

29

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

10. Giving criminal information to the fusion center is easy. Dont Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

11. The criminal information coming from the fusion center is applicable to my duties. Dont Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

12. I have benefited from information that has come from the fusion centers. Dont Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

13. The fusion center has led to a reduction in criminal activity. Dont Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

14. The fusion center has enhanced information sharing. Dont Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

30

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING Appendix A Part II Open Ended Survey Questions

1. What are your thoughts on information sharing between agencies? 2. Describe an example of case that was solved by information sharing between your jurisdiction and another. 3. What are the benefits to you of having a fusion center? 4. Describe an example of a case that was either solved by information from the fusion center, or was assisted by the fusion center. 5. If you could suggest ways of improving the fusion center, what would they be?/.

31

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING Appendix B Letter to Police Executive To: Chief of the Police of (CITY) Police Department From: Christopher Adamczyk Date: XX/XX/2011 Subject: Fusion Center Research Request Chief, I am Christopher Adamczyk, a student at the Northern Arizona University, and I am conducting a research project on the effectiveness of regional information fusion centers. Your jurisdiction has been identified as having access to a regional fusion center. As such, the research team and I are interested in the opinions and experiences of officers in your department regarding the fusion center. The research team and I would like to meet with you to discuss the project and ask for your help in its successful completion. We anticipate the meeting will not last longer than an hour. During the meeting we will ask for your permission to identify and meet with 30 officers from your department at facilities belonging to the department. The officers will be asked by the research team to complete a 14 question, anonymous survey, and answer five interview questions. The survey and interviews will be administered by the research team leaders. All efforts will be made to ensure the officers anonymity in the final project. The answers gathered from the officers will be compared to UCR data in the hopes of finding a correlation between decreased criminal activity and the presence of fusion centers. Please respond to this letter within 14 days by contacting me at 480-294-1024. Sincerely,

32

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING Appendix C Second Letter to Police Executive To: Chief of the Police of (CITY) Police Department From: Christopher Adamczyk Date: XX/XX/2011 Subject: Fusion Center Research Request Chief, Thank you for allowing the research team to speak with your officers and use your facilities. We have chosen the 30 participants and are prepared to proceed. I am requesting your assistance once again. In order to ensure quick responses and an efficient completion I appreciate if you could send a message to your entire department informing them of our presence and intent to meet with 30 employees. This will give the employees familiarity with the project and avoid us trying repeatedly to contact officers who are reluctant to speak with us. Thank you once again, The Research Team

33

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING Appendix D Participant Letter To: Selected Person From: Christopher Adamczyk, Researcher NAU Subject: Fusion Center Research Project Sir/Maam, You have been selected to participate in a Northern Arizona University Research project, sponsored by the NAU Department of Criminality and Criminal Justice. The study will examine the effects of the regional fusion center that services your jurisdiction. We will ask you to answer a fill-inthe-blank survey, answer 5 open ended interview questions, and give your opinion on regional information sharing and the effectiveness of the fusion center. There will not be right or wrong answers, we are looking for your opinion. Even if you have not had experience with the local fusion center, we would still enjoy speaking with you. This research will help the research team determine if fusion centers are helping you in your daily law enforcement mission. There are no risks to you, and by receiving this letter, you have already been deemed to qualify to participate. Please call or email the project team member below within 2 days of receiving this letter. Your project team leader will confirm the date and time of our meeting. Thank you for your help in advance. Your Team Leader is: Laura Yeager (480-XXX-XXXX) Proposed Meeting time: 10/27/11 at 1300

34

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING Appendix E Informed Consent Informed Consent Northern Arizona University

Dear Participant, You are being asked to participate in a project conducted through Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the Northern Arizona University by Christopher Adamczyk. The researchers are required to receive your informed consent before you participate in this project. Christopher Adamczyk will explain to you in detail: (1) the purpose of the project; (2) what you will be asked to do and how long your participation will last; (3) how your participation will remain anonymous, (4) that you will not be entitled to compensation; (5) the lack of risk, and (6) potential benefits of participation. Your participation in this research is voluntary. If you refuse to participate, there are no penalties or loss of benefits or services that you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw or refuse to answer questions if you wish. This will not reflect negatively on you, or your department, and your refusal will not be reported to your department. A basic explanation of the project is written below. Please read this explanation and discuss it with Christopher Adamczyk. Feel free to ask questions to help you understand the project. After any questions you may have are answered and you decide to participate in the research, please sign on the last page of this form in the presence of the person who explained the project to you. A copy of this form will be given to you to keep.

1. PROJECT PURPOSE:
The purpose of this research project is to determine the effects regional information fusion centers are having on local crime statistics. As such, the research team wants to know you opinions and experiences with the fusion center in your area.

2. EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURES:

35

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING This three part study will take UCR crime data, and compare it to the answers you provide. The result will tell the research team if fusion centers are having a positive effect in crime fighting missions, a negative effect, or no effect. To accomplish this task need each participant to take the 14 question survey and answer five interview questions.

3. CONFIDENTIALITY: The surveys will not be confidential unless requested by participant, however none of your personally identifying information will appear on the surveys. 4. COMPENSATION: There is no compensation associated with participation in this research project. 5. BENEFITS: There are no benefits associated with this project. 6. RISKS: There are no discernable risks to participants. 7. CONSENT: I have read the above information about the research study titled: What are the effects of pre-run nutrition on long distance runners. I agree to participate in this project, and I have been given a copy of this consent document. ____________________________________________ Signature of Participant ____________________________________________ Printed Name of Participant ____________________________________________ Signature of Research Representative ____________________________________________ Printed Name of Research Representative The dated approval stamp in the header of this consent form indicates that this project has been reviewed and approved by the Northern Arizona University Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research. Contact the Human Research Protections Office at 928-523-4236 if you have any questions about: (1) the conduct of the project, or (2) your rights as a research participant, or (3) a research-related injury. Any other questions about the research project should be directed to: Christopher Adamczyk
36

Date _________________

Date _________________

FUSION IN MODERN POLICING

CJA98@nau.edu Northern Arizona University/ Extended Campuses 145 N. Centennial Way, Mesa, AZ 85201 602-776-4675

37