South florida virtual fusion center

THE BUSINESS PARTNERS AGAINST TERRORISM

PROGRAM

A collaborative model for

Protecting Critical infrastructure and Key Resources

In

Palm Beach County, Florida

Homeland Security Bureau

3228 Gun Club Road

West Palm Beach, FL 33406-3001

Commander

Major ROBERT L. ALLEN

Latest Update: JANUARY, 2016

John J. Sullivan, Jr., Ph.D., CFE, CNTA, CHS-V

Executive Liaison

To

Homeland Security

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 2 of 38

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A Message from the Sheriff 3 Acknowledgements 4

Historical Background of the Agency 4 Outreach Programs with Business 5 Context: Law Enforcement and Private Sector Relationships 5 The Goals of Partnership 6

Security within the Private Sector – Understanding the Differences 7 Benefits of Law Enforcement Private Security Partnerships 9 Law Enforcement Capabilities 9 Private Security Capabilities 9

Working Together 9 Potential Obstacles to Law Enforcement - Private Sector Partnerships 9 Typical Barriers to Information Sharing 10 When Lack of Trust Impedes Communication 10

Impediments to Progress: Misinformation and Misunderstanding 11 Foundational Pathways to Progress 11 The 12 Components of Successful Public-Private Partnerships 12

Guidelines for Collaboration 13

National Critical Infrastructure Sectors 13 Local Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Councils 14 Developing a Process: Information Sharing and Analysis 14 Risk Management at the Local Level 15

Locally Identified Critical Infrastructure Divisions 15 The B-PAT Organizational Philosophy and Structure 16 The B-PAT Executive Council Organizational Chart 16 Local Council Membership 17

Local Infrastructure Council Organization 17 Sub-Committee Formation and Operational Procedure 18 Our Mission Statement 19 Our Vision Statement 19

Our Values Statement 19 The B-PAT Sector Council Organizational Chart 20 Information Security Standards & Procedures 21 Flow of Referral Information Diagram 23

Transparency and Compatibility of Reporting Structures 24 The Fusion Center Concept and Information Sharing 24 Data Fusion 26 The Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center 26

The Role of B-PAT in the Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center 31 The South Florida Virtual Fusion Center 31 Local Intra-Council Communications Standards 32 Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center Staffing 34

The Long-Term Goal: A Futuristic Approach Embedded with Technology 34 References 37

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 3 of 38

Dear Friends: While it is a privilege for me and our men and women in and out of uniform to protect you, it is also an awesome responsibility. We can not ignore history and history tells us

that law enforcement is infinitely more effective when supported by an educated, aware, and engaged citizenry. The Program described in the following document outlines an initiative of our Homeland

Security Bureau. It is called the Business Partners Against Terrorism Program, commonly known as the B-PAT Program. This is just one in a series of proactive initiatives by this Office to comprehensively address the needs of infrastructure protection in Palm Beach County. The B-PAT program is designed to help private

sector businesses deemed critical to American infrastructure become active partners with the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office in recognizing and reporting suspicious activity that could be terrorist related.

It is important to remember that particular actions taken by people do not, in and of themselves, necessarily constitute a criminal violation or forewarn of a terrorist attack. However when examined in the context of a total picture, may be coupled with other acts that subsequently may indicate suspicious activity that warrants law enforcement

scrutiny. Like programs such as community policing or neighborhood watch, objective observation and reporting is the key to operational success in keeping our communities safe. B-PAT helps to accomplish that goal by providing another channel of information to the law enforcement community.

The enclosed information is a detailed description of a successful initiative that engages the business communities of South Florida in assisting law enforcement maintain a safe environment for the residents and visitors to our area. We all know that terrorists DO

NOT come from any one particular race, ethnic group or religious affiliation and the Business Partners Against Terrorism Program (B-PAT) is one way that we can help to educate the public about the threat of terrorism, while engaging our critical infrastructure partners in maintaining the continuity of services they provide.

To all those who participate in the B-PAT Program initiative, I thank you for working with us to make Palm Beach County a safer place for all its citizens.

Sincerely, Ric L. Bradshaw Sheriff - Palm Beach County

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 4 of 38

Acknowledgements

Much of the material contained in this document was developed directly from public

source documents available from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Government recommendations have been proffered since the wake of September 11, 2001, and the Business Partners Against Terrorism (B-PAT) Program is

a localized approach that incorporates the best of those recommendations with the general needs of the South Florida area and most specifically the needs of the communities within Palm Beach County, Florida.

Several sources are cited within this document and a com plete References page can be found at the close of this document. Historical Background of the Agency

The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office (PBSO) employs over 4,000 dedicated employees comprised of Law Enforcement, Corrections, and Civilian staff professionals committed to providing quality service to the county’s approximately 1.35 million

residents. Additionally, PBSO has approximately 2,300 volunteers working in patrol, support, and administrative functions. Under the leadership of the Sheriff, Colonels or Directors manage the activities of four departments:

 Department of Administrative Services

 Department of Corrections

 Department of Legal Affairs

 Department of Law Enforcement

The Department of Law Enforcement Operations oversees six Bureaus and is responsible for the safety and protection of a diverse mix of urban, rural, equestrian and

agricultural communities countywide by providing law enforcement patrol and property crime investigative services. One of the Bureaus, the Homeland Security Bureau, contributes to that organizational goal by coordinating emergency response and operations efforts in support of Regional Bureaus and Districts. The agency’s

organizational goal is to ensure the needs of the citizens of Palm Beach County are addressed by actively:

 Improving the flow of information between the Palm Beach County Sheriff's

Office and the community it serves;

 Engaging volunteer and community resources to support law enforcement

services;

 Employing problem solving techniques and processes to enhance operational efficiency; and

 Incorporating operational accountability into daily supervisory and management practices

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 5 of 38

The Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office is one of the largest sheriff’s offices in the United States. Under the leadership of Sheriff Ric L. Bradshaw, the agency is proactive in developing a series of outreach programs that foster partnerships with the public and

the results demonstrate how law enforcement is infinitely more effective when supported by an educated, aware, and engaged citizenry. Outreach Programs with Business

One such outreach program described in greater detail within this document is the Business Partners Against Terrorism Program, commonly referred to as B-PAT.

The B-PAT initiative was founded in 2006 and placed under the command of the

Homeland Security Bureau so as to provide an effective medium of communication between law enforcement’s first responders and the representatives of the county’s critical infrastructures.

The B-PAT Program is a derivative from the operational reality that 85% of America’s critical infrastructure is owned and/or operated by the private sector. This initiative has divided the county’s private sectors into eleven individual councils, each representing a selected critical infrastructure. The purpose of creating separate councils was to

maintain close two-way partnerships between the Sheriff’s Office and the key representatives of the critical infrastructures within the private sector. The impetus for the initiative and the choice of sectors has been drawn from materials developed by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Context: Law Enforcement and Private Sector Relationships

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, law enforcement-private security

partnerships have been viewed as critical to preventing or deterring crime, including terrorism and terror-related acts. The private sector owns and protects 85 percent of the nation’s critical infrastructure, while local law enforcement often possesses threat information regarding infrastructure, the development and continuity of law

enforcement-private sector partnerships can put vital information into the hands of the people who need it. Thus, to effectively protect the nation’s infrastructure, law enforcement and the private sector representatives must work collaboratively because neither possesses the necessary resources to do so alone.

When looking at certain aspects of public-private organizational relationships, some are not new. Law enforcement and private sector security organizations have successfully forged partnerships in the past. Prior to September 11, the International Association of

Chiefs of Police (IACP), National Sheriffs’ Association, and ASIS International (formerly the American Society for Industrial Security) joined together, with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), to launch “Operation Cooperation,” a national effort to increase collaborative efforts

between the private sector, particularly private security, and state and local law enforcement agencies. But efforts such as this one must expand beyond a crime-and-

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 6 of 38

disorder focus to include homeland security-related issues if the policing community is to genuinely assist in the prevention of future terrorist acts. In terms of security and the prevention of terrorism, both law enforcement and private

sector security have strengths and weaknesses that must be considered in order to form realistic expectations of what each can bring to collaborative partnerships. Partnerships offer a number of benefits to both sides, including

 creative problem solving;

 increased training opportunities;

 information, data, and intelligence sharing;

 “force multiplier” opportunities;

 access to the community through private sector communications technology; and

 reduced recovery time following disasters.

Partnerships, however, are not without their obstacles. The primary ones are barriers to information sharing, mistrust, and misinformation. Even though a reported lack of trust and mutual knowledge has previously inhibited the

formation of partnerships between public and private entities, law enforcement-private sector security partnerships have made gains that might be used as models for future success in a host of private infrastructures in the United States. The Goals of Partnership

The goal of partnerships is collaboration, in which partners recognize that their missions overlap and work to share resources and achieve common goals. Often,

successful collaborative partnerships include common tasks, clearly identified leaders, operational planning, and a mutual commitment to provide necessary resources. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued recommendations for

governmental jurisdictions seeking to improve collaboration with their respective private sector agency counterparts, which can also include private sector organizations that play a critical role in the development, maintenance, and continuity of critical infrastructures. To prevent terrorism, DHS recommends that public and private

organizations:

 prepare memorandums of understanding and formal coordination agreements describing mechanisms for exchanging information regarding vulnerabilities and

risks;

 use community policing initiatives, strategies, and tactics to identify suspicious activities related to terrorism;

 establish a regional prevention information command center; and

 coordinate the flow of information regarding infrastructure.

Police chiefs and sheriffs have long considered formalizing relationships with their private sector security counterparts; however the expansion of this concept to include all

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 7 of 38

components of the national critical infrastructure is vital to the security of our nation. Formalization shows both law enforcement and private security employees that the partnership is an organizational priority. Law enforcement-private sector partnerships

tend to offer expanded opportunities for:

 organizational networking,

 critical information sharing,

 crime prevention;

 resource sharing,

 training for partnership members,

 the introduction of legislation, operations, and/or homeland security initiatives that lead to terrorism prevention, not to mention areas of responsibility that might otherwise be overlooked.

Security within the Private Sector – Understanding the Differences

Since the private sector responsible for protecting the critical infrastructure has access to both public law enforcement and assets of private security with whom they may have

contractual agreements, it is important to understand the differences that exist surrounding expectations for service from public law enforcement and members of private security.

While some overlap in the missions of public law enforcement and private security exists, the two groups are not the same and thus the expectations of capability cannot be the same. To explain how local law enforcement and private security can better protect the country, this section starts by clarifying the differenc e between public and

private security. “Public policing” consists of services offered by local, state, tribal, and federal agencies, i.e., local and state police, tribal agencies, and sheriffs’ offices. These agencies provide the bulk of policing services across the United States. “For the most part, they are not concerned with corporate internal problems; they are concerned

primarily with street crimes” (Conners, et al, 1999).

Private security services, on the other hand, fall into two categories: (1) proprietary or corporate security; and (2) contract or private security firms. Corporate security

generally refers to the security departments that exist within businesses or corporations. Contract security firms by contrast sell their services to the public, including businesses, homeowners, and banks.

Private security is not a monolithic entity. Just as differences exist between state and local law enforcement, private security performs functions that can differ considerably. The summit report of the International Association of Chiefs of Police notes that “[a] security practitioner could be an experienced director of security at a major multinational

corporation, a manager of contract security officers at a client site, a skilled computer crime investigator, an armed protector at a nuclear power plant, or an entry-level guard at a retail store” (IACP, et al, 2004). For local police chiefs and sheriffs, some or all of

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 8 of 38

these classes of private security might be appropriate to incorporate into their hom eland security strategies, depending on the characteristics of their jurisdictions.

Law enforcement and private security have strengths and weaknesses that must be considered to form realistic expectations of what each can bring to partnerships. Private security is often criticized for absent or inadequate pre-employment screening, training, standards, certification, and regulation, and high turnover rates. However, recent

findings indicate that private security has made gains in these areas (Cunningham, 2003). Private sector security also has significant strengths. The sheer number of private security officers makes it an important force capable of contributing to the prevention of terrorism. It often is able to protect small geographic areas with large

numbers of officers or guards, something law enforcement cannot afford. Some private security officers, moreover, possess specialized technical capacity, including the knowledge and ability to protect computer networks, chemical plants, financial institutions, health care institutions, and retail establishments. Law enforcement often

does not possess this knowledge or only the largest agencies possess it (National Policy Summit, 2004). More generally, the large and growing security industry “is armed with considerable and often sophisticated resources to deter crime and prevent other losses” (Cunningham, 2003).

The public law enforcement community is substantially smaller in size. Yet it is strong where private security is weak. To begin with, public law enforcement powers are far greater than those of private security. The selection process for becoming a deputy or

police officer, moreover, is vigorous and includes a thorough background investigation. Law enforcement officers are well trained, receiving academy, field, and in-service instruction. Officers tend to stay at the same agency for the duration of their careers, and officers in agencies that practice community policing are likely to have established

rapport and trust with local citizens and business groups that can share information with them. Trust and information are invaluable for preventing terrorist acts. Law enforcement agencies, however, like private security, have limitations. They sometimes lack the financial resources of private firms because of restrictive, publicly funded

budgets. Law enforcement response time can also lag: In rural jurisdictions it is not unusual for a service call to require a considerable drive; in urban jurisdictions, on the other hand, a considerable delay in response can result from a heavy call load.

The IACP’s summit report notes that in some respects, “the line between public law enforcement and private security [can be] blurred” (National Policy Summit, 2004). It is not unusual for law enforcement executives at local, state, and federal levels to start a second career in private security. Sheriffs’ deputies and police officers work part time in

private security to supplement their incomes. Colleges and universities are also much more likely to possess “private sector, sworn law enforcement agencies” than they were 20 years ago (National Policy Summit, 2004).

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 9 of 38

Benefits of Law Enforcement Private Security Partnerships

The advent of radical terrorism in the United States has placed great pressure on the

law enforcement community. Specifically, agencies have been searching for a way to balance homeland security and traditional crime and disorder responsibilities. Limited and sometimes scarce resources must be allocated based on need, leading some chief executives to acknowledge that they are having considerable difficulty balancing these

important functions. Private security officials are experiencing a similar phenomenon. While their traditional responsibility to protect people, property, and information has continued, they are now also expected to be active participants in the national effort to protect the country’s infrastructure. Clearly, law enforcement and private security have

much to gain from working together. Law enforcement can:

 Prepare private security to assist in emergencies.

 Coordinate efforts to safeguard the nation’s critical infrastructure.

 Obtain free training and services.

 Gain additional personnel and expertise.

 Use the private sector’s specialized knowledge and advanced technology.

 Obtain evidence in criminal investigations.

 Gather better information about incidents (through reporting by security staff).

 Reduce the number of calls for service.

Private security can:

 Coordinate plans with the public sector regarding evacuation, transportation, and food services during emergencies.

 Gain information from law enforcement regarding threats and crime trends.

 Develop relationships so that private practitioners know whom to contact when they need help or want to report information.

 Build law enforcement understanding of corporate needs (e.g., confidentiality).

 Boost law enforcement’s respect for the security field. Working together, private security and law enforcement can realize impressive

benefits:

 Creative problem solving.

 Increased training opportunities.

 Information, data, and intelligence sharing.

 “Force multiplier” opportunities.

 Access to the community through private sector communications technology.

 Reduced recovery time following disasters. Potential Obstacles to Law Enforcement - Private Sector Partnerships

While the benefits of law enforcement-private sector partnerships are many, a chief executive of a public or private organization must know that these partnerships are not

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 10 of 38

without obstacles: barriers to information sharing, lack of trust, and misinformation are the primary problems and all participants must be willing to embrace processes and methods designed to overcome these challenges. Typical Barriers to Information Sharing

“Corporations hire former law enforcement, FBI, and CIA employees as security

staff because these individuals typically retain strong information networks. Although these information networks are clearly valuable, information sharing of this type is normally limited and often inefficient. Law enforcement and the private sector must work together to cultivate more effective systems of

information sharing” (National Policy Summit, 2004).

Barriers to information sharing between law enforcement and private sec tor participants clearly exist. Starting with private sector limitations, law enforcement staff should

bear in mind the for-profit nature of businesses. Specifically, because the private sector is in the business of making money, companies often do not want to release, give away, or otherwise share privileged business information that could ultimately hurt profitability. For example, if company representatives speak candidly at a public

meeting, business competitors could exploit this information, as it may become publicly available through Freedom of Information Act requests. Law enforcement agencies, by the same token, have their own difficulties: They may be reticent to share information with companies owned by foreign enterprises and may also not be able to do so legally

due to the classification of official documents. When it comes to sharing information, however, the two greatest barriers are a lack of trust and misinformation. When Lack of Trust Impedes Communication

Although there are exceptions, one obstacle to creating effective partnerships may be a lack of trust between law enforcement and private security. Despite considerable discussion about partnerships between the two groups, overlapping missions and the

need to work together, the level of trust is reported to be quite low. The two sectors often view each other as having separate goals and have even viewed each other as competitors.

Both sides must overcome the trust obstacle. Organizational experts agree that partnerships cannot endure that are not based on mutual trust. If trust does exist, it is often based on the working relationship of top executives seeking to establish a law enforcement-private security partnership. In many cases, these executives have

worked together in the past because many security managers and directors serve in local law enforcement agencies prior to joining private industry. But trust at the top among a couple of key players cannot overcome decades of distrust across the professions.

To develop trust, police chiefs, sheriffs, and their staffs must:

 Create a vision and passion that brings workers together.

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 11 of 38

 Deliver what is promised.

 Ensure consistency. Constant change or change that is not understood destroys

credibility.

 Communicate.

 Draw out and address past suspicions and concerns.

 Pay attention to detail.

 Train.

 Ensure equity and equality. Both sides must produce their share of work and be recognized for it.

 Reinforce the importance of the partnership (with an emphasis on sharing the

credit for successes).

 Admit mistakes and learn from them. Both sides will make errors. Impediments to Progress: Misinformation and Misunderstanding

One of the major causes of lack of trust is misinformation and misunderstanding. Often, neither law enforcement nor private security has an accurate understanding of what the other does or can do. This can be problematic with regard to crime and disorder, but in

the area of homeland security and terrorism it can be perilous. Even smaller scale terrorist acts can cause considerable physical, psychological, and economic damage. As noted in Perspectives on Preparedness, “the private sector’s current lack of integration into domestic preparedness programs is dangerous” (Kayyem, et al, 2002).

Every law enforcement officer needs to know how private citizens or private security can help with homeland security and he or she must know this before an incident occurs, not after. The best way to gain this information is from the source: private sector and private security professionals in their community.

If law enforcement-private security partnerships are to be effective, law enforcement executives must work with their private sector and private security counterparts to communicate clear and consistent messages not only to each other, but also down

through their organizations to the line-level officer or guard. At the national policy summit, joint training was recommended so that each side knows what the other has to offer. Training can also broaden the knowledge of line-level employees (e.g., private security guards could receive training on homeland security, crime prevention, and

problem solving). Foundational Pathways to Progress

In the past, lack of trust and knowledge has inhibited the formation of law enforcement- private sector partnerships. This is not to say, however, that gains have not been made over the years. As previous successful operational guidelines have noted, “law enforcement agencies and private security operations (both contract security providers

and corporate security departments) have increasingly come together, pooling their strengths to prevent and solve crimes” (Connors, et al, 2000).

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 12 of 38

Today, however, these partnerships must not simply prevent and solve crimes, they must also prevent terrorist acts. And although significant progress has been made in establishing partnerships, some partnerships are more comprehensive and effective

than others. Understanding the 4 C’s—communication, cooperation, coordination, and collaboration—is crucial to achieving effective partnerships. Readers can think of each of the 4 C’s as a step on the way to full partnering.

Communication, the exchange of information and ideas, is the first step in establishing a relationship between two organizations. The second step, cooperation, involves partners undertaking a joint project or operation such as the sharing of personnel. Coordination, the third step, is achieved when the partners adopt a common goal, for

instance, to reduce crime in a certain neighborhood. The final and most comprehensive step, collaboration, occurs when partners understand that their missions overlap and adopt policies and projects designed to share resources, achieve common goals, and strengthen the partners. The goal of public-private partnerships, described in greater

detail below, is to achieve collaboration.

The 12 Components of Successful Public-Private Partnerships

Understanding that law enforcement-private sector partnerships are important to the nation’s security is only a first step. Defining and operationalizing a partnership are the critical next steps. What do chief executives need to do to engage in these partnerships? First, they must understand what a partnership is. Although this may

seem too simple a factor to consider, people often overlook the basics. Also, agencies seeking to achieve collaboration must understand the components that their partnerships will contain.

A successful public-private partnership has 12 essential components:

 Common goals.

 Common tasks.

 Knowledge of participating organizations’ capabilities and missions.

 Well-defined projected outcomes.

 A timetable.

 Education and training for all involved.

 A tangible purpose.

 Clearly identified leaders.

 Operational planning.

 Agreement by all partners as to how the partnership will proceed.

 Mutual commitment to providing necessary resources.

 Assessment and reporting. Executives need to agree on these components before the partnership moves forward. For the police chief or sheriff, this may include not only working with a corporation’s

security director but also with the corporation’s chief executive or similar designee. Private security professionals at the summit, both executives and others, expressed

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 13 of 38

great interest in collaborating with local law enforcement to protect the nation’s infrastructure. They simply need to be asked.

Executives should also be mindful of adopting policies that only partially contribute to successful partnerships. For instance, although the following can be elements in a partnership, in and of themselves they do not constitute public-private collaboration:

 Executives attending partner meetings.

 Officers attending partner meetings.

 Individual projects undertaken with private security.

 Joint grants undertaken with private security.

Attending meetings and working on projects can be integral parts of a partnership. In fact, meetings are often used to share information and plan activities. Likewise, working together on projects or grants is often of value. However, these activities do not add up

to the 12 components that tie groups together in collaborative partnerships.

Guidelines for Collaboration

While public-private cooperation can take many forms, collaborative partnerships are

more defined; collaboration requires common goals and tasks, clearly identified leaders, and the other components described above. Cooperation might simply entail government contracting with private security for services traditionally performed by law enforcement agencies, or the employment of off-duty police officers or sheriffs’ deputies

by private security agencies. However, these activities only scratch the surface of what the two sides can do to foster public safety. Homeland security arrangements between law enforcement and private security require much more than cooperation.

Eight years after September 11, few jurisdictions have homeland security-driven law enforcement-private sector partnerships. Instead, most focus on proven crime prevention-driven partnerships.

National Critical Infrastructure Sectors

The 9/11 Commission estimated that 85 percent of the nation’s infrastructure is privately owned (The 9/11 Commission, Final Report, 2004).

Infrastructure includes not only

physical assets, such as buildings, but also energy production facilities and assets, utilities (e.g., water and waste management), and transportation and communication networks. The number of people employed by private security, moreover, was at the time at least three times larger than the number employed by public law enforcement

(Reynolds, 2001) and that number may now approach five times larger than the number employed by law enforcement.

The amount of money spent on private security is many times greater than state, county, and local law enforcement expenditures combined. The growth in private protective forces ranges from mobile community

patrols to executive protection personnel.

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 14 of 38

Concerns over protecting the critical infrastructure of the United States existed long before the September 11 attacks. A Presidential Decision Directive #63 (PDD) dated May 22, 1998 defined critical infrastructure as those physical and cyber-based systems

essential to the minimum operations of the economy and government (Sauter, et al, 2005). In the post September 11 environment, infrastructure identification set up a framework for organizing activities including establishing lead federal agencies to liaison with representatives of different private sectors; establishing interagency coordination

on critical infrastructure matters; and assigning responsibility to federal agencies for protecting their own critical assets. Perhaps most importantly, the PDD reaffirmed the primacy of private-sector responsibilities for protecting commercial assets and established information-sharing and analysis centers for sharing information between

the public and private sectors. In summary, the September 11 attacks did much to expand the scope of national critical infrastructure protection initiatives, which led to the establishment of a directorate within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with specific responsibilities for assessing the risks and vulnerabilities of national critical

infrastructure. Subsequently, strategies at all levels of government began to emerge that provided a means for protecting the critical infrastructure from both man-made and natural critical incidents of potential catastrophic proportion. The cornerstone of these efforts is sector coordinating councils, information-sharing and analysis centers,

and risk management (Sauter, et al, 2005). Local Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Councils

These councils, which were envisioned as a representation of the private sector, have the potential to serve as the government’s point of entry for coordinating infrastructure protection activities and issues. The Business Partners Against Terrorism Program created by the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office is believed to be among the most

comprehensive private sector programs in the country. The businesses of South Florida deemed critical to the American infrastructure have become strong, effective partners with the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office in recognizing and reporting suspicious or potential terrorist related activity.

Developing a Process: Information Sharing and Analysis

The public-private stakeholders’ exchange of meaningful information that relates to

threats depends upon two significant factors: 1) that the information is timely, and 2) that the information is appropriate to the sector to which it is transmitted. Such criteria is dependent upon a well established information gathering function and an analysis function that is capable of efficiently evaluating information for the purpose of identifying

threat potential and risks to specific infrastructure. The Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office has experienced law enforcement professionals assigned to the Homeland Security Bureau dedicated solely to the gathering and analysis of information that contributes to dependable risk management. All information is processed in accordance with the

Florida Public Records Law, Title X, Chapter 119 of the Florida State Statutes.

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 15 of 38

Risk Management at the Local Level

Threat and vulnerability assessments are at the core of critical infrastructure risk

management because these activities identify potential security weaknesses and the likelihood that terrorism will exploit them, from which operational priorities may be developed to mitigate the threats. Effective strategy development is also dependent upon a careful balance between cost-benefit analysis and the deployment of national or

local resources. While there is no commonly accepted national risk-management methodology for either government or the private sector, typical models include a five- step process: 1) Asset Assessment; 2) Threat Assessment; 3) Vulnerability Assessment; 4) Risk Assessment; and 5) Identification of Countermeasures. In the

Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office, risk management strategies now include an effective exchange of information between government agencies and the private sector. Through an ongoing exchange of training methods, security concerns, and operational readiness practices, the Business Partners Against Terrorism (B-PAT) program

establishes a cost-effective medium for information exchange that ultimately enhances the protection of critical infrastructures within our jurisdiction, as well as providing an established network that can contribute to recovery efforts associated with either man- made or natural critical incidents in our region. Locally Identified Critical Infrastructure Divisions

The United States critical infrastructure is defined by Homeland Security Presidential

Directive 7 (HSPD-7, 2003) and identifies a vast scope of assets consisting of people, operational physical plants, and comprehensive information systems. In many instances, the U.S. critical infrastructure is interdependent where one function is dependent upon another function being operational. For the most part, critical infrastructure assets are defined by three characteristics: 1) production of essential goods and services; 2) providing essential interconnectedness and operability among various sectors; and 3) those sectors that are essential for public safety and security, public health, emergency services, the defense industrial base, and

government operations.

Each geographical area of the country may reflect various differences in what is identified as critical infrastructure. In Palm Beach County, the following divisions of

critical infrastructure have been identified in the first step of creating the Business Partners Against Terrorism (B-PAT) program and each area was then separated into a specific council:

 Agriculture Council

 Chemical / Petrochemical Council

 Communications & Energy Council

 Financial Security Council

 Healthcare Council

 Hotel, Lodging , Food, and Storage Council

 Packing and Shipping Council

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 16 of 38

 Private Sector Security Council

 Real Estate Council

 Retail Council

 Transportation Council As reflected above, chemicals and petrochemicals are a significant part of the South

Florida economy and critical infrastructure, specifically as they relate to the agricultural industry in Florida. For that reason, a Chemical Advisory Committee was initially formed under the Agriculture Council and later became an individual Council.

The B-PAT Organizational Philosophy and Structure

The organizational structure of B-PAT is intentionally designed to be a cohesive and close-knit organization so as to enhance communications between specific individuals

representing the private sector and the county’s largest law enforcement organization. Under the command of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Homeland Security Bureau, the members of the Business Partners Against Terrorism (B-PAT) critical

infrastructure are organized as a tiered organization. Each critical infrastructure council has a leader. This body of leaders is made up of one Chair for each of the identified critical infrastructures. The collective body of Chairs, known as the Executive Council, is led by the Chair of the Executive Council who is chosen from among the existing

sector infrastructure Chairs and will serve a term of leadership as determined by the Executive Council members. Any member of the Executive Council, or the respective infrastructure sector Council is

encouraged to communicate within and across infrastructure divisions for the purpose of facilitating a smooth and effective flow of information that contributes to the safety and security of their infrastructure. For referrals of information between any Council member and the law enforcement community, any member may communicate directly with a full-time professional serving as a liaison for the Homeland Security Bureau. The

Executive Council is made up as follows:

Commander Homeland Security

Bureau

Executive Liaison

To Homeland Security

Chair

Executive Council

Chair Financial Security

Council

Chair Retail

Council

Chair Agriculture Council

Co-Chairs Private Sector

Security Council

Chair Packing &

Shipping Council

Chair Communications &

Energy Council

Chair Chemical/

Petrochemical Council

Chair Healthcare

Council

Chair Transportation

Council

Chair Hotel,Lodging,Food &

Storage Council

Chair Real Estate

Council

B-PAT Executive Council

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 17 of 38

As reflected in the above diagram, the Executive Council is made up of one Chair for each of the identified critical infrastructures sectors. The Executive Council will

establish operating procedures and as stated previously, the Chair of the Executive Council will be chosen from among the existing sector infrastructure Chairs while also serving as a Chair of a specific infrastructure Sector Council.

Each Sector Council is then made up of representatives from industries and service providers within each of the infrastructures. While there is no limit on the number of representatives within each infrastructure Sector Council, membership comes with specific requirements and responsibilities, as discussed later in this document. At its

outset, B-PAT was anticipated to have no more than 10-12 representatives in each Sector Council. The current size of the B-PAT Executive and Sector Councils comprise approximately 102 people. Local Council Membership

Council membership is restricted to individuals who meet specific security standards set forth by the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office. Each candidate for Council membership

must 1) be a U.S. Citizen, 2) successfully pass a background screening, 3) remain employed within an identified sector of the critical infrastructure, and 4) sign and adhere to a formal Confidentiality Agreement.

Screening of applicants to the B-PAT program is conducted by the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office Internal Affairs Division in accordance with security standards set forth by the Homeland Security Bureau. Successful candidates are issued official identification that enables them limited access to specific areas within the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office

headquarters building. Once appointed to either the Executive Council or an individual Sector Council, members are issued an official email address which serves as the portal for the

exchange of sector related information. Each Council member has been sufficiently cleared to receive up to Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) information that is predicated upon 1) a need to know, and 2) that written permission from the information originator is on file with the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office, Homeland Security Bureau.

Local Infrastructure Council Organization

As depicted in the following organizational chart, the B-PAT organization is structured

as a tiered hierarchy that emanates from the Chair of the Executive Council so as to provide clear guidance for the flow of information within the B-PAT organization. Immediately under the Chair of the Executive Council is the Chair of each individual infrastructure Sector Council. The respective Sector Council Chairs will lead their

individual meetings, provide guidance and direction in terms of prioritized initiatives within the infrastructure sector, provide a venue for effective and efficient communication within the individual infrastructure sectors, as well as facilitate cross -

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 18 of 38

communication between infrastructure sectors through their counterparts on the Executive Council.

It is the position of the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office that the collective body of Council members, both Executive Council and infrastructure Sector Council members are subject matter experts within their respective infrastructure sectors. With that said, the mission, vision, and values of the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office B-PAT program is to

provide a venue, structure, and processes in place that empowers the members to openly share information, send and receive meaningful and relevant information to their corresponding sector members, and to enable the members to offer their expertise in such a way that both first-responders and private-sector professionals will effectively

meet the demands that may be needed during or in recovery to a critical incident. This may include direct participation and support of fusion center operations in accordance with federal government guidelines. It is further the belief that these subject matter experts are in an excellent position to provide meaningful recommendations to the law

enforcement community about issues, processes, procedures, and potential impediments to effective public safety service. The individual Executive Council Chairs are free to conduct meetings with their

respective council members on an as-needed basis, but they are equally encouraged to meet with fellow Executive Council Chairs to openly discuss common areas of interest or concern. Sub-Committee Formation and Operational Procedures

An Executive Council Chair, at his/her sole discretion and/or upon the recommendation of a sitting Council Member, may establish a sub-committee as a working group of the

respective infrastructure Council. The term of the sub-committee shall be agreed upon in advance by a majority of the existing infrastructure Council members within the respective infrastructure. Such sub-committees may be formed so as to provide advice and counsel to the respective infrastructure Council that might not otherwise be found

within the B-PAT membership. As each Council initiates and conducts its own security initiatives within their scope, existing members shall remain alert to professional individuals who may be able to contribute to the overall body of knowledge in the field. Any Council members may nominate an individual to serve on a legitimately constituted

sub-committee with the approval of the Executive Chair of the respective infrastructure Council. Sub-committee membership shall not be restricted to vetted members of the existing

infrastructure councils and may include individuals who are subject-matter experts outside of the existing B-PAT organization during the period of time in which the sub- committee exists. Non-vetted members may serve as a consultative body to the respective infrastructure Council at the direction of the Executive Council Chair;

however, the Sub-Committee Chair must be a vetted B-PAT council member. Non- vetted sub-committee members shall not be permitted to serve as a Sub-committee Chair.

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 19 of 38

Upon conclusion of the need for a sub-committee, the Executive Council Chair shall dissolve the sub-committee and any non-vetted members of that committee shall

discontinue their service to B-PAT unless otherwise invited to join B-PAT and successfully complete the official vetting process. The Executive Liaison to Homeland Security will be available to be present at any

meeting of the Executive Council, specific Sector Council meetings, or sub-committee meetings so as to effectively represent the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office and the B-PAT program.

In summary, the B-PAT initiative and its organizational blueprint is meant to be an open channel of communication between law enforcement and the private sector representatives of the various critical infrastructures.

Our Mission Statement

To provide an innovative, trusting, and mutually beneficial working environment dedicated to the purpose of improving opportunities and methods for cooperative action between the public and private sectors in the prevention of terrorism and fostering the

safety of Palm Beach County.

Our Vision Statement

Empowering our members with shared knowledge and skills for the advancement of a secure and safe society through cooperation and collaboration.

Our Values Statement

Balance – Striving to maintain a balance between civil liberties and security Protection – Taking care to protect information and people equally Abilities – Recognizing the diversity of abilities within the organization

Trust – Belief in the community and each other for the common good Responsibility – Accountability in our private and public responsibilities Integrity – Adhering to the highest levels of ethics and honesty Objectivity – Listening objectively to the collective wisdom of the group

Teamwork – Solidarity to the shared needs of the professions and people we serve Service – Always putting others before self

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 20 of 38

Commander

Homeland Security

Bureau

Executive

Liaison To

Homeland

Security

Chair

Executive

Council

Chair

Hotel,Lodging,

Food & Storage

Council

Chair

Packing &

Shipping

Council

Chair

Healthcare

Council

Co-Chairs

Private Sector

Security

Council

Chair

Financial Security

Council

Chair

Real Estate

Council

Chair

Communications

& Energy

Council

Chair

Retail

Council

Chair

Chemical/

Petrochemical

Council

Chair

Transportation

Council

Chair

Agriculture

Council

B-PAT Sectors Council *

* Number of Council members is dependent upon community need

Council

Members Council

Members

Council

Members

Council

Members

Council

Members

Council

Members

Council

Members

Council

Members

Council

Members

Council

Members

Council

Members

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 21 of 38

Information Security Standards & Procedures

The foundation upon which the protection of a community is built is comprised of many

factors, not the least of which is the Constitution of the United States. The challenge for those committed to fighting terrorism is the ability to strike a balance between the preservation of individual civil liberties and the appropriate exchange of information between the private and government sectors designed to ferret out those who would do

harm to American ideals and critical infrastructures that contribute to the safety of our nation. Such balance is dependent upon strict operational standards and internal controls being

integrated into every aspect of information receipt, preservation, and exchange to ensure that civil liberties are preserved in accordance with the law and that abuses do not take place.

In the context of the Business Partners Against Terrorism (B-PAT) program, the incumbent of the Executive Liaison to Homeland Security position at Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office coordinates all aspects of the B-PAT program. In that capacity, the Executive Liaison is subject to receiving information that may be of value to a variety of

law enforcement missions, including potential acts or suspicions of terrorism, suspected criminal activity, and operational issues of infrastructure security that need to be disseminated quickly to governmental officials to determine the efficacy and validity of the information. Any information received by the Executive Liaison through the B-PAT

program is not evaluated for merit or retained in any way. Any information about suspicious behavior or suspicious criminal activity received through the B-PAT program is immediately transmitted within the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office in a timely manner for subject matter evaluation and action by assigned law enforcement officials best suited

to evaluate and act upon the information received. Methods of receipt, tracking, processing, disposing, or retention of the received information is controlled in strict accordance with one of three standards, depending upon the nature of the information received:

 Title X, Chapter 119 Florida Statutes

Statutory guidelines governing public officers, employees, and records.

 28 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 23: Guideline for law enforcement agencies that operate federally funded multijurisdictional criminal intelligence systems.

 The Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation Accreditation is the certification by an independent reviewing authority that an entity has met specific requirements and prescribed standards.

It is important to note that the Executive Liaison position is the bridge between the business community and the Homeland Security Bureau, however, all non-emergency information received is immediately channeled to operational units within the agency for

investigation and/or response. Any receipt of emergency information is immediately transferred to the Communications Center for actionable field response. As new technology expands our ability to communicate quickly and efficiently, the Homeland

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 22 of 38

Security Bureau adapts to the technical environment and incorporates such technology whenever possible.

For instance, reporting suspicious information typically generates what is known as a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR). That SAR then becomes the catalytic document that initiates subsequent investigation to determine the efficacy of the suspicious information and to determine if the suspicions are founded. In May 2012, the Homeland Security

Bureau began using an iPhone app designed to instantaneously transmit voice, photographic, and video information surrounding suspicious behaviors directly to the Homeland Security Bureau.

The app, known as SAR Reporter, was designed and circulated by Avaya, Inc., a unified communications technology company that does significant work in the governmental sector. Essentially, this smart phone application allows the observer to touch one button, bring up a choice of a camera, video, and voice recorder in order to

capture the suspicious behavior and immediately transmit that information with a text- based explanation to a participating law enforcement agency for further investigation. The beauty of this simple application is that the latitude and longitude of the point of origin is transmitted with the photo or video so that law enforcement instantly has a

location of the occurrence. The diagram below depicts its simplicity.

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 23 of 38

Flow of Referral Information

The following illustration graphically depicts examples of the flow of information between

the private and government sectors as it relates to the B-PAT program.

The above illustration is an example only and does not represent all conceivable

destinations of referred information within the law enforcement, public safety, or emergency management communities. When information is received by the Executive Liaison to Homeland Security, he/she

will forward the information to the operational unit within the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office (PBSO) for appropriate evaluation and action. The information will be logged in by the Executive Liaison and will contain only the date and time of receipt, the type or nature of the information received, and the person and entity within PBSO to whom the

information was given. If identities of individuals or businesses are contained within the referral information, that information will not be reflected in the Referral Log maintained by the Executive Liaison; all personal identity and identification specific information becomes a permanent part of the referral.

As depicted in the illustration, the Executive Liaison to Homeland Security and/or individual B-PAT Council members will never receive the identities, specific information, or investigative results or resolutions to the referred information. The only information

referred back to the B-PAT program coordinator will be the percentage of information referrals that appeared to be valid and actionable within the government sector.

Pri vate Sector Government Sector

I N

F O

R M

A T

IO N

S E

C U

R IT

Y S

T A

N D

A R

D S

S S

T A

N D

A R

D S

S T

A N

D A

R D

S G

U ID

E L

IN E

S

PBSO Information Evaluation

SPECIFIC FACTS REFERRED FOR ACTION

FBI

DHS

OTHER FEDERAL

TSC

STATE AGENCIES

OTHER STATE

NO SPECIFIC FEEDBACK: NO RESOLUTIONS REPORTED

B-PAT GIVEN ONLY PERCENTAGE OF REFERRALS VALID

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 24 of 38

The information referrals will be quantified each year on an annual basis and the Executive Liaison will report the number and percentage of referrals deemed actionable to the Homeland Security Bureau Commander each calendar year. Like all matters of

public record within PBSO, the aforementioned logs and annual reporting of statistics will be maintained in accordance with Title X, Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes. Transparency and Compatibility of Reporting Structures

With the development of a public-private partnership designed to engage the public in keeping a community safe, it is imperative to minimize or eliminate unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. The faster that information is received, processed, and forwarded to

the appropriate law enforcement field component, the greater the potential for preventing or mitigating acts of terrorism. To that end, private sector partners who observe suspicious behavioral activity must be

provided an uncomplicated system of reporting that is user-friendly, intuitive, and efficient. Additionally, this system must be transparent and capable of providing a clear audit trail. The Business Partners Against Terrorism (B-PAT) program, has adopted the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) as the primary written method by which information

will be shared with law enforcement. In a larger sense, Business Partners Against Terrorism (B-PAT) members have become a cadre of individuals with a general understanding of the needs of law enforcement and

other components of public safety, in addition to their own sector-specific infrastructural expertise. This combined expertise continues to make B-PAT members an extremely valuable reserve of subject matter experts (SMEs) available to key public safety decision makers during a critical incident or event, especially in a Fusion Center

environment when situationally appropriate.

The Fusion Center Concept and Information Sharing

A Fusion Center is a collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise, and information to the center with the goal of maximizing their ability to detect, prevent, investigate, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity. Intelligence processes, through which information is collected, integrated, evaluated, analyzed, and

disseminated, are a primary focus. Many State and major urban areas have established information fusion centers to coordinate the gathering, analysis, and dissemination of law enforcement, homeland security, public-safety, and terrorism information. As of September 1, 2007, over 66 of these centers are operating or are

being established in States and localities across the country. A majority operate under national guidelines developed through the DOJ-sponsored Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative and DHS-sponsored Homeland Security Advisory Council.

State and major urban area fusion centers are vital assets critical to sharing information related to terrorism. They will serve as the primary focal points within the State and local environment for the receipt and sharing of terrorism-related information. As a part

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 25 of 38

of the National Strategy for Information Sharing, the Federal Government is promoting that State and major urban area fusion centers achieve a baseline level of capability and become interconnected with the Federal Government and each other, thereby

creating a national, integrated, network of fusion centers to enable the effective sharing of terrorism-related information. The Federal Government will support the establishment of these centers and help sustain them through grant funding, technical assistance, and training to achieve a baseline level of capability and to help ensure

compliance with all applicable privacy laws. This approach respects our system of federalism and strengthens our security posture.

In support of the National Strategy, DOJ’s Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative issued Baseline Capabilities for State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers, a supplement to the Fusion Center Guidelines. Additionally, the Department of Homeland

Security’s FY 2009 Homeland Security Grant Program (released November 2008) designates “Maximizing Information Sharing via the National Network of Fusion Centers” as a national priority. The grant guidance requires designated State and Urban Area fusion centers to prioritize their allocation of grant funding to meet the

identified levels of baseline capabilities. Federal departments and agencies will provide terrorism-related information to State, local, and tribal authorities primarily through these fusion centers. Unless specifically

prohibited by law, or subject to security classification restrictions, these fusion centers may further customize such information for dissemination to satis fy intra- or inter-State needs. Fusion centers will enable the effective communication of locally generated terrorism-related information to the Federal Government and other fusion centers

through the ISE. Locally generated information that is not threat- or incident-related will

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 26 of 38

be gathered, processed, analyzed, and interpreted by those same fusion centers - in coordination with locally based federal officials - and disseminated to the national level via the DoD, DHS, FBI, or other appropriate federal agency channels. Where practical,

federal organizations will assign personnel to fusion centers and, to the extent practicable, will strive to integrate and co-locate resources. Appendix 1 of the National Strategy delineates the specific roles and responsibilities of

Federal, State, local, and tribal governments as they relate to the establishment and continued operation of State and major urban area fusion centers and provides guidelines to support the performance of those roles and responsibilities. It recognizes that the Federal Government may need to provide financial and technical assistance, as

well as human resource support, to these fusion centers if they are to achieve and sustain a baseline level of capability. The objective is to assist State and local governments in the establishment and the sustained operation of these fusion centers. A sustained federal partnership with State and major urban area fusion centers is critical

to the safety of our Nation, and therefore a national priority. Data Fusion

Data fusion is generally defined as the use of techniques that combine data from multiple sources and gather that information in order to achieve inferences, which will be more efficient and potentially more accurate than if they were achieved by means of a single source. Fusion processes are often categorized as low, intermediate or high,

depending on the processing stage at which fusion takes place and data fusion is often considered a low-level fusion process. Low level fusion, (data fusion) combines several sources of raw data to produce new raw data. The expectation is that fused data is more informative and synthetic than the original inputs. Data fusion in the counter-

terrorism context involves the exchange of information from different sources, including law enforcement, public safety, and the private sector. Relevant and actionable intelligence results from analysis and data fusion. The fusion process helps agencies be proactive and protect communities.

The Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center

Background

The Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center operated by the Homeland Security Bureau of the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office in conjunction with other public agencies including, Emergency Management, Health Department, Fire Rescue, Department of

Transportation, local police, federal authorities and private sector representatives is responsible for the management of real time situational awareness and the monitoring of criminal activity; within the unincorporated portions of Palm Beach County and contracted municipalities; with the primary goal of detecting, deterring, and preventing

terrorist acts and or other criminal activity. Moreover the fusion center will coordinate the collection and dissemination of real time crime or situational information in support of ongoing field operations, active violent crime division investigations, traffic emergencies,

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 27 of 38

natural or manmade disasters, or major scheduled public events, intended to support authorized decision makers of participant agencies, to best ensure timely and effective outcomes.

Mission The Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center works to deter, detect and prevent terrorist

acts, as well as prepare for and respond to natural or manmade disasters. It serves as the conduit to provide real time tactical information to investigative and field personnel for the purpose of crime prevention and/or resolution.

Goals The Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center is responsible for:

 Establishing, enhancing, and maintaining collaborative relationships with all

information sharing entities in the region to create and maintain a seamless flow of communication;

 Reaching out to disciplines other than law enforcement to create a level of cooperation and coordination that will assist in the protection of our citizens,

visitors, and critical infrastructure;

 Coordinating information and analysis in support of incident management;

 Employing interagency resources to translate intelligence and policy into action;

 Serving as a single source action point for decision makers during real time events;

 Ensuring that the constitutional rights, civil liberties, civil rights, and privacy of the citizenry are protected.

Organizational Structure Information is collected from a multitude of internal as well as external sources . The Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center maintains a strong alliance with other local,

county, state, and federal entities, including the U.S. Coast Guard and other military services. Throughout the county, there are dedicated assets s trategically placed to offer vital information or intelligence that contributes to the homeland security mission. In addition to trained personnel, technology is constantly deployed, evaluated, and

modified to meet mission requirements. CCTV cameras, LEX, the long-range coastal radar system, Pictomotry®, facial recognition, AVL, AutoTrack ®, maritime cameras, ISYS®, Web EOC®, Virtual Fusion Center, Helicopter downlink, Homeland Security Intelligence Network (HSIN), National Operations Center, Washington D.C. (NOC),

fire/rescue, Emergency Management, school police cameras, Florida Water Management cameras, Traffic cameras (I-95, Fla. Turnpike), Tri-Rail, Palm Tran, Palm Beach County Court House, Airport, Wellington Mall and the Port of Palm Beach are examples of how the latest technology contributes to overall safety and effectiveness.

These and other links permit real time monitoring of many locations and activities throughout the county and the nation.

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 28 of 38

The Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center consists of a blended staff assigned by contributing agencies either on a full time or on an as-needed basis. PBSO analytical staff will monitor and interpret real time information relative to ongoing events within the

PBSO jurisdiction, conduct enhanced background data checks in support of critical incident management, analyze crime trends and patterns developing on a daily or weekly basis by monitoring calls for service and plotting areas of increased criminal activity, acting as a one stop shop for field commanders to rely upon while managing

real time events, and access local, state and national intelligence sources to support field operations or criminal investigations. In addition the Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center will be used during critical short or long term incidents to manage and coordinate the flow of information from participating agencies in order to bring the incident to a

timely and successful conclusion; i.e. major power outages, highway blockage, traffic control, support of fire/rescue, hazmat incidents as well as operations in assist to outside law enforcement agencies when requested.

The Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center operates in concert with the Intelligence Operations Center, located in an adjacent but separate space, which is charged with analytical support of highly sensitive and sometimes classified criminal investigations. The collaboration of these two specialized units is designed to optimize the quantity and

quality of information / intelligence gathered in support of agency operations. The flow of information between the two distinct units enhances the value of the overall work product of each, while maximizing the quantity and quality of information available to PBSO and participating agencies deemed crucial in the real time decision making

process.

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 29 of 38

An additional role of the Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center is to act as a key source of daily situational awareness that can be accessed by Emergency Management,

Fire/Rescue, the Health Department, Department of Transportation, local and federal law enforcement and others in order to enhance and assist in operations in which they are the primary responding agency and where PBSO is providing a support function. The Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center will serve in a support role following the

activation of the Palm Beach County Emergency Operations Center and will serve to respond to requests for information in support of the EOC mission during or following such incidents, while at the same time serving as a primary point of internal coordination for PBSO as it pertains to the response and coordination of its assets intended to

mitigate the event.

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 30 of 38

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 31 of 38

The Role of B-PAT in the Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center

The Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center is a centralized location for the receipt,

analysis, and dissemination of real-time information that has potential value to command and operational field personnel engaged in responding to and managing critical incidents in Palm Beach County and the surrounding region.

The Fusion Center in its new configuration works in concert with multiple partner agencies to deter, detect and prevent terrorist acts, as well as prepare for and respond to natural or manmade disasters. It is also a location for the exchange of information with the private sector critical infrastructure representatives when operational events for

the public safety sector involve a significant portion of critical infrastructure or key resources owned or operated by the private sector. While the Fusion Center serves as the operational conduit to provide real-time tactical

information to investigative and field personnel for the purpose of crime prevention and/or resolution, it also enables key representatives to furnish real-time private sector information about critical infrastructure and key assets in the county from reliable, vetted members of B-PAT. The South Florida Virtual Fusion Center

The South Florida Virtual Fusion Center (SFVFC) is a unique form of fusion center in that it extends the reach of the operational fusion center concept by leveraging technology to enhance operational effectiveness and efficiency. Although virtual in nature, the SFVFC leverages technology for the benefit of disseminating information

and intelligence from its regional partners to produce a comprehensive view of the situational awareness of the region. The goals of the South Florida Virtual Fusion Center are:

 To establish, enhance, and maintain collaborative relationships with all information sharing entities in the region to create and maintain a seamless flow of information.

 To reach out to disciplines other than law enforcement to create a level of

cooperation and coordination that will assist in the protection of our citizens, visitors, and critical infrastructure.

 To leverage all possible sources of information and technology for SFVFC partners.

 To ensure that the constitutional rights, civil liberties, civil rights, and privacy of the citizenry are protected.

The core functions of the South Florida Virtual Fusion Center are:

 To compile information and intelligence from all relevant sources.

 Analyze information and intelligence.

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 32 of 38

 Distribute intelligence products.

The South Florida Virtual Fusion Center incorporates the information sharing aspect of traditional fusion centers with the accessibility of virtual connectivity. By embracing this all-crime, all-hazards concept, the South Florida Virtual Fusion Center is able to effectively and efficiently leverage the use of technology to safeguard its region and

maximize anticrime efforts. Local Intra-Council Communication Standards

One constant thread throughout the Council membership is that each of the B-PAT

Council Members is very busy in their professional lives and therefore a rapid, secure means of information exchange became essential for efficient operation. In addition, security of exchanges of information was a priority. In 2006, upon creation of the Council, the ATIX-RISS secure communications system was implemented as the

primary method of information dissemination so as to provide a secure platform of information exchange among the Council membership. The members were all granted appropriate ATIX-RISS logins and email addresses within the system. Over time, the Council members provided considerable feedback about the ATIX-RISS platform as

their familiarity grew and as new and improved methods of communication exchange were sought. In 2008, other functions throughout the national homeland security environment were

experimenting with fusion centers and effective and efficient communication exchange. The PBSO Homeland Security Bureau began looking at the way information was previously communicated throughout all of its initiatives, including how the B-PAT initiative handled information. Two communication goals were subsequently established for the B-PAT initiative: 1) a user-friendly, accessible web environment that was intuitive, and 2) a relatively secure method of two-way communication so

as to streamline the ways that information is exchanged throughout the B-PAT Councils.

With the simultaneous development of leveraging technology to enhance information exchange, the South Florida Virtual Fusion Center (SFVFC) began to mature as an

efficient, operational initiative with Palm Beach County leading its development. The originating design of the SFVFC enables the partitioning of secure information, thus

allowing member organizations of varying levels of the secure information spectrum (For Official Use Only, Law Enforcement Sensitive, Confidential, etc.) to be assigned profiled access to information appropriate only for their level of clearance. Using one centralized access point, authorized users could only access information pertinent to the

clearance level assigned to their log-in profile. Because of this ability to use a common access point for varying levels of secure information, it was soon recognized that a portion of the South Florida Virtual Fusion Center concept could be applied to B-PAT secure communications using the Private Partners section of the South Florida Virtual

Fusion Center. The SFVFC is currently web-based and affords authorized B-PAT members a secure interface with relevant information available 365 days per year, 24/7 to the membership of the eleven critical infrastructure councils. In that manner,

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 33 of 38

authenticated Council Members may now log-in as often as needed, yet not be dependent upon the ATIX-RISS system or email for the receipt or transmission of information.

The South Florida Virtual Fusion Center was designed using the Microsoft collaboration software called SharePoint® that was first developed in 2001. SharePoint is a server- based platform with multiple layers of connective communication layers that offers

manageable, searchable, and accessible information capability to its authorized users. The initial product developed in 2001 has matured into a much more comprehensive cornerstone of what Microsoft now calls Windows SharePoint Services (WSS). Essentially, the core of WSS are building blocks - lists, libraries, and user-customizable

Web pages that are used by WSS to create team sites that have become very versatile and can be used for much more than just collaboration. Initially, many private companies started creating SharePoint sites to solve a host of internal business challenges such as help-desk tickets and automating expense check requests.

Eventually, Microsoft created a more comprehensive add-on product called SharePoint Portal Sever which added the ability to create portals across team sites. SharePoint Portal Server was then succeeded by the current generation Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (MOSS). That product enabled organizations to provide centralized

access to all their team sites. Large organizations in both the private and public sector recognized the benefits and began adopting MOSS as the core of its intelligence and business process integration. As an example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation adopted SharePoint in 2009 as its central record management tools for web-based

communications. As a result, the B-PAT organization looked at SharePoint as an ideal web interface that was scalable and could be designed with the various critical infrastructures in mind.

Councils could be separated for ease of information exchange, yet available to the members from each of the other councils, should any of the represented infrastructures intersect or be interdependent.

Additionally, Council members have access to a virtual B-PAT membership directory, calendar of events, meeting calendars, and archives of previously disseminated information, thus affording one central location for all B-PAT related programs and documents. A working prototype was made operational in November 2008, and was

previewed and approved by the Executive Council. In February 2009, the website became fully operational and available to the Council membership at large. The final version of informational exchange within the South Florida Virtual Fusion Center model continues to evolve. Currently, it includes topical brief summaries of relevant

information pieces and Council members are able to merely click on the information headline and are taken to the source document for more detailed information. In its first year of development, from February 2009 to February 2010, each B-PAT

Council Member was afforded an opportunity to provide input on their usage of the web platform, as well as things that they might like to see on this website to enrich their participation and improve the efficiency of the B-PAT communications initiatives.

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 34 of 38

As a result, the web platform was modified in such a way as to provide easily organized sources of information that would prove beneficial to the infrastructural council member

seeking additional information. Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center Staffing

The Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center opened on June 1, 2010. The facility became the operational readiness center for coordinating a variety of operations intended to deter, detect and prevent terrorist acts, as well as prepare for and respond to natural or manmade disasters. It increasingly serves as the core conduit in providing real time

tactical information to investigative and field personnel for the purpose of crime prevention and/or crime resolution. Staffing this vital facility incorporates the best of available subject matter expertise from

both the governmental and private sectors by including law enforcement, emergency management, and security personnel from local, regional, state, and federal organizations, as well as vetted members of the private sector who have a vested interest in operational continuity for the safety and security of the South Florida region.

For each of the participating agencies or organizations, there are a variety of staffing categories. Each designated category reflects the assignment of respective personnel from contributing agencies, such as full-time or part-time, located, or co-located, etc.

which is demonstrable of the flexible staffing approach of fusion centers. By maintaining a flexible approach, economy of scale is realized; duplication of effort is minimized while access, either on-site or off-site, to subject matter expertise is readily

available to the mission through the participating agencies. The Long-Term Goal: A Futuristic Approach Embedded with Technology

In December 2011, the Homeland Security Bureau reorganized their use of analytical reporting and the processes that were previously dedicated to the CompStat product were realigned to form what is now the Crime Analysis Unit (CAU). The CAU expanded their scope and production process to better deliver predictive analytics to the field in a

more organized, time-sensitive product. In concert with that reorganization, the Homeland Security Bureau (HSB) merged its assets dedicated to community awareness & outreach, long-term planning, technology research & development, and infrastructural business partnerships into one unit, the Technology Assessment Unit

(TAU) in order to enhance creativity, team effectiveness, and innovative uses of emerging technologies and the development of new law enforcement uses for technology.

This reorganization of CAU and TAU became the first phase in a three phase process to transition how the law enforcement functions of the agency use crime information data and emerging technology. The Homeland Security Bureau and its centralized analytical

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 35 of 38

staff is spearheading the initiative to enhance how crime information data is collected and used by the agency. Previously, the CompStat process involved what became known as an analytic “post mortem” of the collected crime data (including potential

terror related threats) which was then furnished to the District Commanders for a strategic response. The process was very much reactive, as opposed to being in real- time, which inherently caused delays between the receipt of information and the deployment of assets. With the creation of the CAU, all analysts throughout the agency

have unified access to the data and share, in real-time, the current crime trends and data applicable to Palm Beach County and its surrounding areas . By having unified access to the data by all analytical personnel, the identification of

emerging trends becomes more realistic and current, reducing the time between analysis and action. With immediate access to the data, emerging trends can more rapidly be identified and disseminated to District Commanders and better position the agency to then transition towards intelligence led policing; the process which

capitalizes on the strategic placement of assets based on the most current data. The PBSO jurisdiction encompasses thousands of square miles; therefore by using timely intelligence information about crime occurrence, assets (equipment and personnel) are more easily deployed to provide a deterrent effect.

The third phase is predictive policing which utilizes the concept of a Real Time Crime Center as a hub for the receipt, analysis, and dissemination of all crime data. With the current economic trends in the State, it is evident that the agency must continue to

search for options that result in greater efficiencies and higher productivity while maintaining fiscal restraint. The Homeland Security Bureau (HSB), with its Regional Fusion Center, Intelligence Operation Center (IOC), and Crime Analysis Unit is now exploring how to leverage technology, processes, current assets, and current staffing

levels so that crime reduction, efficiency, and effectiveness are enhanced while costs are reduced. Since 2013, the Palm Beach Regional Fusion Center and the CAU have integrated our

agency efforts to move increasingly more towards data driven decisions, intelligence led policing, and eventually a predictive policing model if the results of our efforts are validated in the data. While our eventual model may, in fact, be seen as a hybrid combining the best of these aforementioned theoretical concepts, it is the ultimate goal

of PBSO to reduce crime through the strategic use of assets and the leveraging of technology to assist in goal acquisition. To that end, a multi-disciplined task force involving sworn, civilian, and outside academic consulting personnel was created in the first quarter 2013 within the HSB to study and propose specific standards of operation

that will ensure higher levels of transparency and accountability. The focus of the interdisciplinary group was to employ the best practices from the theoretical concepts of intelligence led policing and predictive policing, while reaching an operational construct that makes sense for Palm Beach County. Our stratified model of approach focuses on

the centralization of our 26 analysts within the CAU, Regional Fusion Center, IOC, the Districts, and Investigative Units. That centralized team of analysts are then subdivided into appropriate enforcement-related specializations so as to provide actionable

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 36 of 38

intelligence on crime patterns and trends with new products systemically generated that are designed specifically for the agency decision-makers. The initiative, known as Strategic Analysis for Enforcement (S.A.F.E.), has many methodological similarities to

the Smart Policing Initiative (SPI) as set forth by the consortium of agencies working in concert with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).

The Technology Assessment Unit of the HSB coordinates all forms of outreach to elements of the national critical infrastructure in Palm Beach County through its Business Partners Against Terrorism (B-PAT) Program. The TAU also uses a variety of outreach initiatives to educate the public in partnering with law enforcement to keep the

community safer and works very closely with the agency’s Crime Prevention Officers. The TAU uses social media forums such as Facebook, Twitter, and others, and currently engages thousands of community followers each day. Such initiatives as the Community Partners Against Terrorism (C-PAT) Program and the Safe Citizen Coalition

(SCC) are examples of how the PBSO furthers the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) awareness campaigns like Transit Watch, See Something, Say Something, and other dedicated programs designed to foster the public’s participation in reporting suspicious activity to law enforcement agencies.

Additionally, the TAU monitors a host of public sources in the private sector that are dedicated to reporting emerging trends in all forms of technology. The purpose of this monitoring activity is to identify, evaluate, and recommend emerging technologies that

could serve the law enforcement community in their mission to protect and serve the citizens and visitors of Palm Beach County. Examples of ongoing projects involve UAV (drone) technology, Body Scanning technology, Facial Recognition technology, DNA Forensic technology, RFID technology, driverless vehicle technology, and leveraging

academic-government and public-private partnership arrangements that enhance research and provide for future federal grant opportunities. More detailed information and informative videos about Business Partners Against

Terrorism (B-PAT), Community Partners Against Terrorism (C-PAT), Safe Citizen Coalition (SCC), and Transit Watch can be found under the Law Enforcement/Homeland Security tab on the PBSO website at http://www.pbso.org

The Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office continues to share its vision of effective busines s partnerships with other law enforcement agencies around the world. As a large law enforcement agency, it stands ready to provide historical insights that will assist public safety agencies in creating realistic public-private initiatives that effectively support the

mission…to protect and serve.

http://www.pbso.org/
Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 37 of 38

REFERENCES

Carter, D.L. 2009. Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies, 2

nd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Community Oriented Policing Services, Chapter 9.

Casady, Tom. (2011). Police legitimacy and Predictive Policing. Geography and Public Safety; Quarterly Bulletin of Applied Geography for the Study of Crime and

Public Safety, Vol. 2, Issue 4.

Connors, E., W. Cunningham, and P. Ohlhausen. 1999. Operation Cooperation: A

Literature Review. ILJ and Hallcrest Division of SAIC, p. 1.

Connors, E., W. Cunningham, P. Ohlhausen, L. Oliver, and C. Van Meter. 2000. Operation Cooperation: Guidelines. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, p.

1.

Cope, Nina. (2004). Intelligence Led Policing or Policing Led Intelligence: Integrating

Volume Crime Analysis into Policing.; British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 44, 188-203.

Cunningham, W. 2003. “U.S. Private Security Trends.” Presentation. February, p.

1.

Edge, Jeff. (2011). Experimenting with Future-Oriented Analysis at Crime Hot Spots in

Minneapolis; Geography and Public Safety; Quarterly Bulletin of Applied Geography for

the Study of Crime and Public Safety, Vol. 2, Issue 4.

IACP et al. 2004. Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships. Washington,

DC: COPS, p. 2.

Justice, U.S. Department of. (2011). Intelligence-Led Policing: The Integration of

Community Policing and Law Enforcement Intelligence; USDOJ.gov.

Kayyem, Juliette, and Patricia Chang. 2002. “Beyond Business Continuity: The Role of

the Private Sector in Preparedness Planning,” Perspectives on Preparedness, August, p. 2.

McGarrell, Edmund F. (2007). Intelligence-Led Policing as a Framework for Responding

to Terrorism; Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 23, No. 2, 142-158.

National Policy Summit. Held in Arlington, Virginia, January 26–27, 2004. Participants included law enforcement, private security, professional organizations, academic institutions, and the federal government. The summit formed working groups on crime,

disorder, and homeland security related issues.

Business Partners Against Terrorism Prospectus – 1ST Quarter 2016

Page 38 of 38

Ratcliffe, Jerry H. (2001). Intelligence-Led Policing and The Problems of Turning

Rhetoric into Practice; New South Wales Police College: Goulburn, Australia.

Reynolds, Morgan O. 2001. Using the Private Sector to Deter Crime at www.ncpa.org/studies/s181/s181.html, p. 1.

Sauter, M.A. and Carafano, J.J. (2005). Homeland Security: A Complete Guide to Understanding, Preventing, and Surviving Terrorism. New York: McGraw-Hill.

The 9/11 Commission. 2004. Final Report, Official Government Edition. Washington, DC: GPO.