Better Sharing with State and Local Officials

By Michael Kraft

An important step toward improving the sharing of terrorism-related information with state and local law enforcement officials is underway with the development of a new framework to help get around existing roadblocks.

The federal government proposals, as initially reported by the Washington Post today, establishes a threat assessment group that would speed the distribution of potentially useful information and streamline the numerous classification categories for sensitive information.

Questions remain though whether the new structure will be enough to utilize the full potential of the police and other local officials who are on the ground and often the best positioned to spot suspicious behavior that could lead to terrorist related-activities. With the growing awareness that the international terrorism threat is morphing into localized groups without necessarily having overseas links the role of local police can be even more important in detecting and deterring terrorist activities.

The plan submitted to Congress yesterday by the Director of National Intelligence, is part of the effort to deal with complaints by state and local officials that they do not receive enough information on a timely fashion and that the various colored alerts and other warnings are often confusing.

The new framework was developed under a DNI group lead by Ambassador Ted McNamara, an experienced diplomat with a great deal of experience in the interagency process. He has served on the NSC staff and was the State Department’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism in the early 1990’s. Several years ago he came out of retirement to head up a small State Department office to coordinate liaison with the Department of Homeland Security. McNamara was well suited for the new task, which he took on early this year, having dealt with counterterrorism cooperation and information sharing issues in his past positions. (Full disclosure: I had worked under him at State.)

The plan envisions state and local officials taking part in the distribution of terrorism-related information through a new Interagency Threat Assessment Coordination Group based at the National Counterterrorism Center. A computerized channel would be used to distribute the information.

Although setting up a new threat analysis and distribution center with a closer working relationship to local officials is an important step, it in itself will not be enough.

State and local officials have often complained that information is delayed in Washington and not specific enough for their needs. Having a central point analysis and relay point is good, but it could still lead to bottle necks or, on the other side of the ledger, the relay of so much information that local officials will have a hard time determining what is important.

To help deal with this problem private sector firms already have been developing soft-ware based systems that will make it easier for law enforcement officials in one state to quickly share information of specific interest to another state or to query another state without going through a Washington hierarchy. Years ago, the New York City Police Department set up its own liaison offices with their counterparts in London and elsewhere overseas, somewhat to the consternation of the FBI and State Department. (Until recently, the NYPD’s Assistant Commissioner for Intelligence for several years was another former State Department Counterterrorism Coordinator, Michael Sheehan. He is now teaching at the West Point Counterterrorism Center and NYU.)

A recent RAND Review paper “Think Locally, Act Nationally: Police Efforts in Fighting Terrorism need Greater Federal Leadership” said “the training of state and local personnel involved in terrorist activities seems insufficient.” Indeed there have been cases in which information about possible threats was made public and sometimes over-interpreted by local officials.

McNamara alluded to this in a Washington Post interview in which he was quoted as saying “A lot of people think that the information-sharing means that security and control of information being share will be diminished and if security diminishes that is a negative. I’m trying to convince them that if this is done right, security will be at least as good and possibly better.”

The RAND study also noted that the financial sustainability of state and local counterterrorism intelligence activities also is in question because the federal government is not providing funding for these activities. The study says it remains unclear whether state and local governments will be able to continue funding these activities because of other policing and budget demands. Indeed it estimated that the White House’s proposed FY 200 budget request to Congress was 41 per cent lower for the law enforcement assistance programs run by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

In short, the new plan appears to be a good step forward but as with many federal counterterrorism programs the key will be in the implementation -- and the level of OMB and Congressional funding.

TrackBack