These centers, which are funded by state and local governments but also receive federal support, have raised concerns with civil libertarians who argue that they threaten civil rights. California similarly has a statewide center, and it also has regional centers in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Orange County, Sacramento, and San Diego. In 2013, Michael McCaul (R-TX), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, and Representative Peter King (R-NY) released a report that offered a more positive view of fusion centers.
Today there are at least 77 fusion centers across the country receiving federal funding. There are still problems that need to be addressed.
FEMA continues to struggle to track the amount of federal funding going to fusion centers. For example, while some focus on terrorism, the responsibilities of others have evolved to include different threats, such as crime and natural disasters. It pointed to numerous instances where they had proven beneficial—such as in Colorado, where the state fusion center had helped streamline information sharing concerning wildfires, and in Arizona, where the center had played a key role in a significant drug investigation.
With ample evidence of abuse, the time has come for Congress and your local government representatives to act by cutting off funds to fusion centers that do not have a narrowly-tailored law enforcement mission, strict guidelines to protect Americans’ privacy, and independent oversight to prevent abuse.
The report also raised concerns that the centers were monitoring lawful political and religious activities, charges that have been echoed by the ACLU and NYU’s Brennan Center. But in evaluating their effectiveness, the report limited its analysis to the information fusion centers sent up to the federal government and neglected to examine what they sent out to other state and local agencies. Further, more than 40% of the centers are not reviewing their analytical products for civil liberty infringements—a large enough number to raise eyebrows. The Colorado Information and Analysis Center even produced a fear-mongering public service announcement asking the public to report innocuous behaviors such as photography, note-taking, drawing and collecting money for charity as "warning signs" of terrorism. Most states have one, and a number have more than that.
For example, fusion centers have evaluated whether they follow proper privacy, civil rights, and civil liberty protections, but it’s unclear if they’re correcting deficiencies they find. The NFCA is an association that represents all of the fusion centers located across the country that make up the National Network.
To do this they need to show that they’re protecting the public’s rights, not just its security. Moreover, the federal government needs to prioritize the support it provides. One of the more contentious debates in homeland security over the past several years has concerned fusion centers—state and local run organizations dedicated to information sharing and analysis.
In its review, GAO found that FEMA had improved its process for keeping tabs on the funding but that it was still unreliable.
The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute published a survey of fusion center employees in September 2012, which characterized suspicious activity reports as “white noise” that impeded effective intelligence analysis. There is some good news, however. While these are only small steps, they are important advances toward establishing an effective governance and oversight structure over fusion centers.