National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan

National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan
Name	National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan
Acronym	NCISP
Launched	2003
Developer	United States Department of Justice; Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative
Country	United States
Scope	National
Status	Implemented

Contents

National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan The National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan was a strategic initiative developed to enhance information sharing among Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Drug Enforcement Administration, and state and local law enforcement partners including the National Sheriffs' Association and International Association of Chiefs of Police. It aimed to connect disparate data systems across agencies such as Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, and U.S. Marshals Service with municipal partners like the New York City Police Department, Los Angeles Police Department, and tribal entities including the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Background and Development

The plan emerged following analyses by 9/11 Commission-inspired reforms and reviews conducted by Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Project on National Security Reform, and the Homeland Security Council. Influences included lessons from the Oklahoma City bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and responses to organized crime investigations led by Federal Bureau of Investigation task forces in cities such as Chicago, Miami, and New Orleans. Early contributors included practitioners from National Governors Association, Major City Chiefs Association, and academic centers at Johns Hopkins University, George Washington University, and RAND Corporation.

The plan set objectives aligned with recommendations from the 9/11 Commission Report, the USA PATRIOT Act, and directives from the President's Intelligence Advisory Board. Core principles drew on standards from National Information Exchange Model development, interoperability frameworks promoted by Office of Management and Budget, and privacy guidance from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. It emphasized interoperability among systems used by Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and state fusion centers such as those in California, Texas, and Virginia.

Key components included model policies for analytic units in agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation and analytical standards used by fusion centers associated with Department of Homeland Security. Technical elements referenced protocols from National Criminal Justice Association, data standards endorsed by National Institute of Standards and Technology, and information-sharing portals similar to those used by Drug Enforcement Administration and Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. Organizational components involved liaison structures between municipal police departments like Houston Police Department and federal entities including Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Implementation required coordination among multi-jurisdictional task forces, memoranda of understanding modeled after agreements used by the U.S. Attorney's Office, and training supported by institutes such as the National Criminal Justice Training Center and Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. Funding streams flowed through grants administered by Bureau of Justice Assistance, programmatic input from Office for Victims of Crime, and oversight by congressional committees including the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the United States House Committee on Homeland Security.

Proponents cited improvements in information flow between entities like the Federal Bureau of Investigation and local fusion centers in Phoenix and Detroit, and case outcomes involving cross-jurisdictional investigations with partners such as Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Marshals Service. Critics referenced concerns raised by civil liberties groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and congressional hearings where representatives from Government Accountability Office testified. Academic critiques from scholars at University of Chicago, Harvard Kennedy School, and Stanford University questioned efficacy, resource allocation, and mission creep.

Legal frameworks relevant to the plan encompassed statutes such as the Privacy Act of 1974, Freedom of Information Act, and court decisions from the United States Supreme Court that shaped surveillance and data access. Privacy safeguards were informed by recommendations from the Department of Justice Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties and compliance regimes drawing on standards from National Institute of Standards and Technology. Oversight mechanisms referenced roles for the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and congressional oversight by the United States Senate Judiciary Committee.

Related initiatives included the creation and evolution of fusion centers sponsored by Department of Homeland Security, the National Information Exchange Model efforts led by Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, and interoperability projects associated with National Crime Information Center modernization. Legacy effects are visible in cooperative frameworks used by Federal Bureau of Investigation Joint Terrorism Task Forces, asset-sharing arrangements with Drug Enforcement Administration, and analytical collaboration with academic labs at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carnegie Mellon University.

Category:United States federal law enforcement