Interagency Cooperation …or Not

Any discussion of interagency cooperation becomes a complex dissection of language, cultural ethos, jurisdictional authority, and political and operational issues. By the year 2000, law enforcement in the United States numbered more than 13,000 local police departments and more than 50 federal agencies with varying and overlapping mandates of intelligence gathering and security (McHugh, 2001). The intent of interagency cooperation is not a new one, with task forces operating as investigative tools since the 1970s and more prominently in the 1980s. Initial reports were mixed regarding task force effectiveness. State and local police agencies usually complained about the one-way nature of relations with federal authorities; more often, the complaints involved the actions of the FBI and the DEA. However, federal authorities did not fair any better in relations with one another. Each exerted control found in statutory mandates or through the control of informants and investigative intelligence.

General Accounting Office (GAO, 1982) and media sources reported divergent outcomes ranging from the disruptive influence of differing philosophies and procedures (both administrative and investigative) to the standard claims of law enforcement success (arrests, warrants, and seizures statistics). Testimonial reports of task force success surfaced as often as those of turf battles. Task forces were designed to combine agency resources and personnel, and to develop cases at the highest level for unprecedented impact. These goals were not fully realized, and the spectre of insufficient shared intelligence and mutual professional respect continued to be expressed. The level of commitment and success on individual task forces seemed tied to creative supervisory leadership and the natural camaraderie of investigators working closely together toward a common goal. It was often agency executives who warned their personnel to “not forget who they worked for” or who gave lip [Page 246]service to the mission. At best, these efforts lacked consistency and genuine acceptance within the fabric of agency cultures and operations.

In the wake of September 11, 2001, the catchphrase has been “seamless coordination.” Vows to close the gap in relations among law enforcement entities, as well as the military, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) collectively emerged. Law enforcement versus military imperatives are only the most recent layer of discussions dictating the delineation of responsibilities and “turf.” Some have suggested DHS's lack of experience would complicate an already crowded task environment where one more entity was out to validate its existence.

Perhaps the most glaring deficiencies are found in the language of cooperation while ignoring the immense influence of human behavior in these outcomes. The need for brutal honesty and enforced accountability is critical if change is to occur. It remains a clash between the oft-reported arrogance of federal officials and the full inclusion of state and local law enforcement. Current Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert S. Mueller III reported linking the activities of more than 50 joint terrorism task forces with technology and personnel. Director Mueller identified relations with state and local officials as third in the FBI's list of reassessed priorities post-September 11th Director Mueller insisted he is seeking a change to the FBI's long-reported cultural impediments to the one-way relations with state and local colleagues. Changing culture is more than mission reevaluation and resource allocation; changing culture requires reorienting agency groupthink and teaching interagency cooperation as a value held at the highest levels of the agency. In early 2002, Director Mueller appointed a former police chief as head of the FBI's newly established Office of Law Enforcement Coordination. This office is designated to improve communication and relations with state and local officials. A small point, but interesting, is the use of the term coordination rather than cooperation. Coordination still implies control, whereas cooperation speaks to consensus building. Cooperation is effectively tied to both executive commitment and the socialization of street investigators to the ethics and value of these work groups.

...