The purpose of this study is to examine how intelligence is collected in the Southern States Region, identify perceived gaps in the current policies used with this communication, and offer potential solutions to intelligence communication failures. An interview-based research of Southern State Region officers and agents and the support of peer-reviewed academic articles shaped the research in this paper. The results of this research indicated that (a) personal connections between law enforcement agents and federal agents are the backbone of the current process used in information sharing, (b) there are gaps when personnel leave their positions in office as a result of the personal connections used while in office, and (c) the fusion center in the Southern States region is highly underutilized due to its lack of publicity and resources.
Introduction to the Study
Communication: “the process of transferring information and shared understanding from one person to another” (Lunenburg, 2010, p. 1). The lack of communication between the federal government and lower levels of law enforcement was widespread. These shifts in the FBI are happening across the United States to implement the newfound need to communicate between different levels of law enforcement.
The sharing of information between the three levels of law enforcement is necessary to ensure the safety of the American public at all levels. Proactivity, transgression, and declassification hinder the idea of intelligence sharing between levels of law enforcement in the United States (Carter, 2009). Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, many changes have been implemented regarding the sharing of information and intelligence across the three levels of law enforcement.
Interpersonal connections are a focal point in the dissemination of intelligence throughout the levels of law enforcement in the United States. Purposive sampling is "the selection of the sample based on the researcher's skill, judgment, and needs" (Hagan, 2018, p. 103). For example, if a participant uses a specific area in which they were employed, the officer's response will appear on the transcript as, "The federal government is a tremendous help to the [name of police department]." An additional attempt to validate the transcripts was made by listening to the digital recording a second time, while the completed transcript was read.
How do you currently share intelligence?” The answers to these questions showed that the current processes carried out between these departments have changed over the past decade. Another participant, Charles, explained, “The feds are very good at relaying information to help solve our cases. Technology issues that we often encounter is the fact that many. databases are not the same between departments.
Then there is the matter of transferring large files that are difficult to download or encrypt in order to email another individual. Fusion centers embody the process of communicating intelligence between the three levels of law enforcement. First, the current need for intelligence communication between the three levels of law enforcement remains critical.
Member checking is when “the researcher solicits the views of the participants about the credibility of the results and interpretations” (Creswell, 2013, p. 252). Local level use of fusion centers can help increase communication between levels of law enforcement.
Review of Related Literature
Research Design and Methodology
This study drew on the perceptions of local, state, and federal law enforcement officers who have shared intelligence among agencies since September 11, 2001. The current study used transcripts of interview questions that provided a wide range of information about sharing. intelligence process between local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Non-probability sampling is "any sampling procedure that violates the equal probability method of selection," meaning that any law enforcement agency.
Participants for this study were selected based on their familiarity with the intelligence dissemination process between the three levels of law enforcement. Instead of taking any law enforcement agent at random, the participants chosen were individuals who had first-hand experience with the transaction of intelligence at different levels of law enforcement and experienced the miscommunication and new implications placed on the distribution of intelligence. The Thesis described the purpose of the research, the need for verbal consent to participate, the need to record and take notes throughout the interview, and how long the interview was likely to last.
Data collection was conducted through unstructured, face-to-face interviews from an interview schedule that consisted of open-ended questions regarding local law enforcement agencies (see Appendix B) and questions regarding state and federal agencies (see Appendix C). The interview guide is designed based on academic research and the researcher's prior knowledge of the subject. Each interview was transcribed using a semi-strict verbatim style (Typing Services, 2015), where every word from the participants, including all the fillers (ums, you know), was included on the transcript.
Unlike strict verbatim transcriptions, background noise (doors opening/closing, intercom messages) and nonverbal communication (sighing, laughing, coughing) were not included in the transcriptions. Proper nouns were omitted and a general description of the identification was placed in square brackets. The next step in the phenomenological analysis consisted of connecting the different themes to arrive at a general description of the experience.
Conversely, structural descriptions explain the real meaning of the experience or the “deeper meanings for the individuals who make up the group” (Patton, 1990, p. 486).
Analysis of Data
One of the questions posed to the participants at the local level was, "What current process is used to share intelligence between police departments and federal agencies in the [Southern States Region]?", which was consistent with the state and federal issue of,. According to all participants, personal communication is often the easiest process to obtain information due to the quick turnaround required with many law enforcement agencies. The second smaller theme presented was the willingness of the federal government to assist in local and state criminal cases when called upon.
Many participants said that the federal government was more than willing to help when prompted by a request from a local or state-level law enforcement department. As the federal levels are willing to help, two main areas are used to assist local and state law enforcement officers in the form of: (a) fusion centers and (b) tasking. The communication between levels of law enforcement occurs not only through state affiliation, but includes the federal level.
Research Question 2: What barriers, if any, to intelligence sharing are perceived by local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Themes that emerged in this regard include (a) many law enforcement departments are overwhelmed with information and unaware of the resources available through the Fusion Center; (b) different systems used in law enforcement. Due to information overload, many departments are unaware of the help of fusion centers in their area.
The knowledge of the fusion centers in the Southern States Region is not widely publicized. The participants noted the burden of declassification and the policy of. need to know” below law enforcement levels. is disseminated from the federal level to the state level, there is a requirement for declassification of documents with "secret" or "top secret" classifications. These minor themes were (a) the idea of using personal communication between levels of law enforcement to disseminate information and (b) the willingness of the federal government to assist in local and state criminal cases whenever called upon.
Responses to the second survey question revealed that there are communication issues related to intelligence dissemination among the three levels of law enforcement.
Findings, Conclusions and Implications
According to Carter's (2009) article, in the fifteen years since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the government has fostered cooperative relationships between levels of law enforcement. A third theme points to the vast amount of information that local law enforcement agencies receive and are unable to retain. This was evident in all the interviews at all levels of law enforcement: (a) Heather at the federal level stated that local colleagues were unable to effectively disseminate information with the vast amount of information they had, and (b) Jenny at the state level, which stated that the local lack of knowledge about their fusion center capabilities.
This lack of communication was also evident in the fourth theme's implication of technology issues among law enforcement databases. Local law enforcement databases in the South State Region vary between counties, and communications between departments are often delayed. Findings from this study indicate that intelligence sharing among the three levels of law enforcement remains critical, but improvements are still needed.
The law enforcement community's encouragement of communication between all levels of law enforcement continues to be a focal point in any organization. Future research into the intelligence sharing process among the three levels of law enforcement could employ a national focus group participant to review their initial analysis of intelligence sharing across levels of law enforcement and provide suggestions for what missing or future recommendations. A larger sample increased the potential to reach officers from other levels of law enforcement, thereby broadening the information.
An interagency database will bring together law enforcement departments from the three levels of law enforcement and help change the intelligence sharing process (Carter, 2009). At this open house, local and state law enforcement would be invited into the federal agency to begin communication and networking. Through interviews, local, state, and federal law enforcement officers provided information on current communication techniques such as personal connections through phone calls or e-mails and explained the benefits of fusion centers in improving connections.
The Impact of Terrorism on State Law Enforcement: Adapting to New Roles and Changing Circumstances. My goal is to learn how the September 11, 2001 attacks changed communication techniques at these three levels of law enforcement and whether the changes have been successful in aiding intelligence dissemination. Is there a shared database that local law enforcement can view or add information to.
