Christopher Adamczyk NAU PAS-415

Funding the Future of Policing

How fusion centers provide efficient, fiscally responsible police service

Chris9/24/2011

Funding the Future

Abstract

With increased public scrutiny on government spending, and declining revenues across

the public sector, efficient execution of public duties must be dominant in future fiscal planning.

One area where efficient management of government funds seems to increasingly meet head-to-

head with operational costs is law enforcement. Old methods of police work are being

scrutinized for not only for fiscal savings, but overall effectiveness in crime fighting. As these

methods are examined, new ideas are emerging and old ideas are given a re-birth through new

collaborative techniques. One area where this is most evident is the use of information fusion

centers. Across the United States, local jurisdictions have formed fusion centers with the goal of

facilitating the exchange of criminal information. The affect has been a new attitude of

cooperation, an emphasis on intelligence led policing, and efficient police tactics. Fusion centers

have also met challenges with declining revenues. Agencies are less willing to allocate human

capital to the specialty assignments out of fear they will not be adequately staffed to handle local

crime concerns. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the benefit fusion centers provide to the

community in an age of fiscal austerity, and in light of that benefit, explore state level funding

for regional fusion centers.

2

Funding the Future

Introduction

Cities and counties in Arizona have not been spared from the nationwide financial crisis.

Tax revenues, largely based on property taxes, stayed buoyant throughout the 2002-2003

financial lag that affected state budgets (Greenblatt, 2010). The bursting of the housing market

bubble however sunk many cities and counties deep into the current wide spread recession.

Because property taxes in Arizona are based on land valuations, they decrease concurrently.

From 2007 to 2010 Arizona cities saw a 10% decline in property tax revenues (Greenblatt,

2010). The decline in revenues began opening shortfalls in local budgets beginning at 3%. The

National League of Cities estimated in 2010 that the municipal sector alone would see shortfalls

in the range of “$80 billion between 2010 and 2012” (Greenblatt, 2010 p.31). With budget

shortfalls come deep cuts in many city budgets.

City of Mesa Mayor Scott Smith reported in a February 2011 interview that the budget

situation in Mesa was grim. The city was facing a shortfall of $42 million in FY2012, even with

the cuts already made. City Manager Chris Brady reported $100 million in cuts, over a three year

period, but warned city department heads that cuts amounting to 5% more were needed

(Thompson, 2011). City of Tempe Police Chief Tom Ryff reported in a 2010 article that the city

of Tempe would see “a severe impact on police operations” including the outsourcing of jail

functions (Ryff, 2010). The Town of Gilbert also faced shortfalls and proposed a 5% pay

reduction and mandatory 10 furlough days (Leavitt, 2010). Mayors from Eloy, Flagstaff, and

Avondale all reported similar problems with their budgets. Some have discussed layoffs and cut

backs, but most are opposed to drastic cuts in public safety (Chihak, 2011). Even with the

opposition, some cities found it impossible to make cuts without directly impacting police

3

Funding the Future

services. Whether cuts were made or not, the public spotlight is on police agencies to deliver

efficient service, regardless of economic conditions

The current financial crisis has not gone unnoticed by the general public. A 2009

Rasmussen report showed 59% of the public was wary of increased government spending (“59%

Fear too much government,” 2009). A 2010 Pew Research publication revealed that 77% of the

population was aware of the increasing federal deficit (“Public knows basic facts,” 2010). And a

2011 CBS News poll showed the same percentage, 77%, of Americans favor cutting government

spending over raising taxes (Montopoli, 2011). What is even more striking in that same poll is

58% of the respondents were willing to cut local public expenditures. What this all means to

local governments is a need to remain focused on efficiency when spending public funds.

Against the backdrop of depressing financial news, and an increasing public awareness, is

the need to provide services like law enforcement. With each city mentioned above pondering

public safety cuts to aid in the budget battle, basic police services seem next in line for cuts.

The answer to the underlying question of how police agencies continue to provide

adequate, fiscally responsible public safety, while caught in the midst of such austerity, is the

establishment of information fusion centers. Arizona has two fusion centers, the Arizona Counter

Terrorism Information Center and the East Valley Gang and Criminal Information Fusion

Center, also known as the East Valley Fusion Center. Their missions are different as are their

funding sources, but both centers highlight the benefit of collaboration and intelligence led

policing tactics. Of the two centers, the one that shows the greatest benefit to the local

community is the East Valley Fusion Center by virtue of its connection to immediate law

enforcement needs (Harper, 2007).

4

Funding the Future

Regional fusion centers like the East Valley Fusion Centers are facing problems due to

the declining economy, and a misunderstanding of their role in public safety. As reported above,

local law enforcement agencies are tasked with making budget cuts that are deep and potentially

damaging to public safety. When you combine cut backs with a lack of education on fusion

center benefits (Marshall, 2011) (“Fusion leads to Confusion,” 2010), it is obvious that the first

choice of many police executives is to refuse to participate in, or pull people out of, regional

fusion centers. While education takes time, and many police executives do see the benefits of

local fusion centers (Marshall, 2011), the budgetary concerns are something that can be handled

at the state level. By allocating funds to cover the salaries of fusion center assigned employees,

the State of Arizona could ensure the mission of fusion centers remains focused on fighting

crime in the most efficient way possible.

Federal versus Regional Fusion Centers

According to a 2010 report from the American Civil Liberties Union there are 72

federally funded fusion centers across the United States (“What’s wrong with fusion centers,”

2010). A “federally funded” fusion center is one that was set up with the original goal of

combating terrorism in the United States (Masse, Siobhan, O’Neill & Rollins, 2007). The fusion

centers are staffed with analysts, agents, and officers from the Federal Bureau of Investigations,

the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Homeland Security, and many more. Federal

fusion centers rely heavily on allocated funds from Congress, and grant funding from the

Department of Homeland Security. As such, they are subject to the intelligence gathering needs

of DHS, and other members of the federal intelligence community (Masse et al, 2007). As the

events of 9/11 began to wane in the public’s eye, federal fusion centers began to incorporate an

“all hazards” mission which included the goals of mitigating damage from natural disasters, and

5

Funding the Future

coordinating response and recovery efforts. Some fusion centers began to take on a local

criminal intelligence role, which conflicted with the needs of the larger federal intelligence

community. The dilemma caused many to question the use of federal fusion centers when

combating local crime trends (Harper, 2007). In 2007 and 2008 a collaborative was formed

consisting of representatives from several federal intelligence agencies and a proposal was made

to the United Sates Congress to standardize federal fusion centers (Masse et al, 2007). The goal

was to ensure fusion centers remained focused on the needs of federal government and

maintained civil rights, especially in light of the fact that much of the funding for federal fusion

centers came from the United States Congress. This report and the resulting actions of several

fusion centers across the United States revealed a void in local law enforcement that was soon

filled by smaller, region specific fusion centers.

The East Valley Gang and Criminal Information Fusion Center opened its doors on

September 1st, 2007 in Mesa, Arizona (Gonzalez, 2009). The fusion center was the brain child of

Mesa Police Chief George Gascon, Mesa Police Detective Lance Heivilin, and Mesa Police

Sergeant Kevin Baggs, and was an answer to the communication void that existed between local

law enforcement agencies. Whereas federal agencies were reportedly “connecting the dots” on a

national level, local agencies were still struggling. When the center opened in 2007 it included

police detectives and analysts from Chandler, Mesa, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian

Community, and Tempe. Associate members, meaning those who could join the fusion center

but not dictate its needs included the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the

Arizona Department of Corrections (Gonzalez, 2009). By 2011 the center had grown to include

Apache Junction, Scottsdale, the Department of Homeland Security, and Arizona National

Guard. The East Valley Fusion Center was set up and funded out of the budgets from the

6

Funding the Future

participating agencies. Similar to the same funding theory noted by Masse et al (2007), the

funding determined the direction. The autonomy given to the East Valley Fusion Center allowed

it to focus on local crime trends. According to a 2007 interview conducted with then Sergeant

Lance Heivilin, the fusion center cleared 200 cases in its first year. In 2008 it cleared over 800,

and by June 2009, they had already cleared over 1,000 cases (Gonzalez, 2009). The success of

the East Valley Fusion Center was noted by Tempe Police Chief Tom Ryff in his FY 2010

budget analysis when he touted Tempe’s membership as an example of cross jurisdictional

police tactics (Ryff, 2010).

The East Valley Fusion Center is not unique in its composition and goals. In September

2010, the City of San Francisco opened the Bay Area Regional Information and Crime Center

(“Chief Gascon Brings Crime Center to SF,” 2010), and immediately became an example of

effective crime fighting. The San Francisco Police Department made the crime center the “hub”

of patrol operations, meaning major deployments and operations would be formed and run by the

information supplied by the center. To many in San Francisco, the center represented the future

of police work.

Where both the East Valley Fusion Center and the Bay Area Center succeeded was in the

way they directly benefitted the local community. The centers took real time crime information,

and “fused” it with known crime data. The result in many cases was accurate crime predictions,

identification of cross jurisdictional crime trends and criminal intelligence products that were

used to direct street level officers to high crime areas. The goal of both centers was not simply to

suppress crime, but to eradicate it through intelligence led deployments. Police executives like

Tempe Police Chief Tom Ryff described the effect of the fusion center as a “One stop shop…

instead of having to get on the telephone to call various agencies trying to figure out what

7

Funding the Future

resources are available to them, this fusion center has brought all those resources together under

one roof” (Gonzalez, 2010). In the same interview Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said

the fusion center, “allows the unique opportunity to bring law enforcement intelligence together

in one place so they track repetitive crimes and career criminals” (Gonzalez, 2010).

The East Valley Fusion Center and the Bay Area Information Center are only two

examples of regional fusion centers. Other jurisdictions in Arizona have expressed the desire for

similar centers, especially in Tucson. The fusion concept has given a life to police philosophies

like “Intelligence Led Policing” and is doing away with old tactics like saturation patrol.

Intelligence Led Policing: Efficient public service

Efficiency in government cannot be stressed enough, especially in local government. In

times of austerity and general budget woes, police tactics must change and focus on efficiency

rather than visibility. The old tactic of “saturation patrol” for example has proven to fiscally

irresponsible and ineffective in crime eradication. In 1977 researchers from the Nashville

Metropolitan Police Department, the Luton Mental Health Center, and the Middle Tennessee

State University partnered together to research the merits of saturation patrol. For the purposes of

the research, saturation patrol was defined as increasing the number of patrol cars driving

through a specific area (Schnelle, Kirchner, Casey, Uselton, & Mc Nees, 1977).

The study revealed no significant decrease in crime rates during the daylight hours, and

only a nominal decrease in nighttime crime statistics. The researchers made sure to highlight the

point that they increased the patrol presence by four, which in real application would be very

costly (Schnelle et al, p.39). Since saturation patrol relies on visibility alone as a crime

prevention measure, there is no evidence that the criminals have permanently left the area. Once

8

Funding the Future

the saturation patrol ends the criminal, in theory, would re-emerge and offend. The researchers

also pointed out that as a practical crime suppression method, the saturation patrol would have to

be constant which was far too costly for the Nashville Police Department and would be

presumably so today. Little other research has been done on saturation patrol, but factors used in

the 1977 study are relevant today, as is the conclusion that it does not provide crime eradication

and is not cost efficient. An alternative to saturation patrol is intelligence led policing.

Intelligence led policing is defined as a policing strategy that combines crime analysis,

criminal intelligence, and directed police actions focused on active criminal threats and repeat

offenders. The tactic was formed in the United Kingdom and partially adopted in the Unites

States (Ratcliff, 2008). Where saturation patrol relies on luck and visibility to reduce crime,

intelligence led policing relies on information to eradicate crime. Fusion centers are thus a

physical manifestation of the intelligence led policing concept. Fusion centers provide a place for

detectives and analysts to come together, analyze the information, and conduct targeted crime

eradication operations. Fusion centers, as pointed out earlier by Chief Ryff, reduce the amount of

time needed to fight crime. Reducing time translates into reduced cost for each agency. For these

reasons fusion centers help serve the public in an intelligent and efficient manner.

State Assistance

Fusion centers offer an intelligence led, fiscally responsible method for fighting crime.

Because they are built and operated by local law enforcement agencies, the mission will always

be on combating local crime trends. As was pointed out earlier however, the dire financial

conditions present in many Arizona cities, have resulted in major cut backs. Some of those cut

backs may include removing personnel from specialty assignments like fusion centers.

9

Funding the Future

According to a July 2011 article on the Arizona Republic web site, the Maricopa County

Sherriff’s Office and the Arizona Department of Public Safety have already pulled dozens of

officers out of state and federal task forces due to budget problems (Hensley, 2011). To avoid the

pitfalls of reverting back to old, inefficient police methods like saturation patrol, the state should

intervene by providing a funding source for local agencies. The funding would be strictly

allocated to cover the salaries of officers assigned to regional fusion centers.

The use of state monies for fusion centers is not a new idea, as was shown in September

of 2010. At that time Attorney General Terry Goddard awarded the East Valley Fusion Center

with a grant for $248,000 for purchasing software and enhancing the training of the center

participants (Gonzalez, 2010). The money came from a 2004 settlement with the El Paso Gas

Corporation after the company was accused of price fixing. Obviously a court settlement is a

one-time revenue stream, and other methods of funding the fusion centers would need to be

explored. But the path has been blazed by the El Paso settlement.

Conclusion

In an age of fiscal turmoil, municipalities and counties are seeing a decline in revenue.

With declining revenues come cutbacks and other cost saving measures. In the current economic

crisis, law enforcement agencies are not safe from the knives of austerity. Old police tactics like

saturation patrols have been found to ineffective and not cost efficient. With a public that is

increasingly aware of how government spends money, it is imperative police agencies conduct

business in the most cost efficient manner while still providing quality police service. In this

present crisis the solution to these challenges are regional information fusion centers like the East

Valley Fusion Center in Mesa. Fusion centers combine elements of intelligence led policing,

10

Funding the Future

with targeted, cost effective police actions. Fusion centers also face economic backlash, but the

State of Arizona is in a position where funds can be allocated at the state level to assist local

jurisdictions with staffing the centers. Fusion centers represent the future of policing and deserve

a solid economic foundation to build upon. The State of Arizona can provide that foundation and

be an example of a responsibly steward of the public’s money.

11

Funding the Future

Citations

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-time-

crime-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-amid-

cuts-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-31/1217-

fusion-leads-to-confusion.html

German, M., & Stanley J. (2007). What’s 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/2009/08/28/20090828mr-

fusion0828.html

12

Funding the Future

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-valley-

gangs-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 Institute’s 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/2011/07/16/20110716arizona-

police-agencies-budget-adapting.html

Leavitt, P. (2010, April 21). Town employee’s pay exceeds other Gilbert residents. The Arizona

Republic. Retrieved from

http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2010/04/21/20100421gilbert-town-

salaries-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_162-20028612-

503544.html

13

Funding the Future

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-tarp-

inflation-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). Mesa’s declining sales-tax revenue has city scrambling. The

Arizona Republic. Retrieved from

http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/2011/02/16/20110216mesa-city-

budget-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 O’Neill, and

John Rollins.

14