Homeland Security: Federal Leadership Needed to Facilitate	 
Interoperable Communications Between First Responders (08-SEP-04,
GAO-04-1057T).							 
                                                                 
Lives of first responders and those whom they are trying to	 
assist can be lost when first responders cannot communicate	 
effectively as needed. This testimony addresses issues of	 
determining the status of interoperable wireless communications  
across the nation, the potential roles that federal, state, and  
local governments can play in improving these communications, and
the need to structure grant programs so that they better support 
public sector efforts to improve these communications.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-1057T					        
    ACCNO:   A12276						        
  TITLE:     Homeland Security: Federal Leadership Needed to	      
Facilitate Interoperable Communications Between First Responders 
     DATE:   09/08/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Communication					 
	     Emergency preparedness				 
	     Federal agencies					 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Intergovernmental relations			 
	     Police communication				 
	     Radio frequency allocation 			 
	     State/local relations				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Homeland security					 
	     Interoperability					 
	     SAFECOM						 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-1057T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO	Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,

Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST HOMELAND SECURITY

Wednesday, September 8, 2004

  Federal Leadership Needed to Facilitate Interoperable Communications Between
                                First Responders

Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr.
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

GAO-04-1057T

Highlights of GAO-04-1057T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the
Census, House of Representatives

Lives of first responders and those whom they are trying to assist can be
lost when first responders cannot communicate effectively as needed. This
testimony addresses issues of determining the status of interoperable
wireless communications across the nation, the potential roles that
federal, state, and local governments can play in improving these
communications, and the need to structure grant programs so that they
better support public sector efforts to improve these communications.

In a recent report on interoperable communications, we recommended that
the Secretary of DHS (1) continue to develop a nationwide database and
common terminology for public safety interoperability communications
channels; (2) help states assess interoperability in specific locations
against defined requirements; (3) through federal grant awards, encourage
state action to establish and support a statewide body to develop and
implement detailed improvement plans; and (4) require that grant
applications be in compliance with statewide interoperability plans, once
they are developed. GAO also recommends that the Director of OMB work with
DHS to review SAFECOM's functions and establish a long-term program with
appropriate authority and funding to coordinate interoperability efforts
across the federal government.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-1057T.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact William O. Jenkins, Jr. at
(202) 512-8777 or [email protected].

September 2004

HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Leadership Needed to Facilitate Interoperable Communications Between
First Responsders

The current wireless interoperable communications capabilities of first
responders nationwide have not been determined. To assess these
capabilities, a set of requirements is needed that can be used to assess
"what is" compared to "what should be." The Office of Management Budget
(OMB) has established the Wireless Public Safety Interoperable
Communications Program, SAFECOM, within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) as the focal point for coordinating federal efforts to
improve interoperable communication. In April 2004, SAFECOM issued a
document designed to serve as a set of baseline requirements and is
working to develop a baseline of current capabilities by July 2005. This
is a difficult task, and the details of SAFECOM's baseline study have yet
to be finalized.

The federal government can take a leadership role and provide support for
developing (1) a national database of interoperable communication
frequencies, (2) a common nomenclature for those frequencies, (3) a
national architecture that identifies communications requirements and
technical standards, and (4) statewide interoperable communications plans.
SAFECOM has limited authority and ability to oversee and coordinate
federal and state efforts as it is dependent upon other agencies for
funding and their willingness to cooperate. DHS, where SAFECOM now
resides, has recently announced it is establishing an Office for
Interoperability and Compatibility to coordinate the federal response to
the problems of interoperability. The exact structure and funding for this
office, which will include SAFECOM, are still being developed.

State and local governments can play a large role in developing and
implementing plans to improve public safety agencies' interoperable
communications. State and local governments own most of the physical
infrastructure of public safety communications systems, and states play a
central role in managing emergency communications. States, with broad
input from local governments, are a logical choice to serve as a
foundation for interoperability planning because incidents of any level of
severity originate at the local level with states as the primary source of
support. However, states are not required to develop interoperability
plans, and there is no clear guidance on what should be included in such
plans.

The federal funding assistance programs to state and local governments do
not fully support regional planning for communications interoperability.
Federal grants that support interoperability have different requirements
to tie funding to interoperable communications plans. In addition,
uncoordinated federal and state level reviews limit the government's
ability to ensure that federal funds are used to effectively support
improved regional and statewide communications systems.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the critical
issue of wireless interoperable communications for first responders.1 In a
recent report, we addressed the importance of determining the status of
interoperable wireless communications across the nation and defining the
potential roles that federal, state, and local governments can play in
improving these communications.2 The inability of first responders- police
officers, fire fighters, emergency medical service personnel, public
health officials, and others-to communicate effectively over wireless
systems with one another as needed during an emergency is a longstanding
and widely recognized problem in many areas across the country. Lives of
first responders and those whom they are trying to assist can be lost when
first responders cannot communicate effectively as needed.

Public safety officials generally recognize that effective "interoperable"
communications is the ability to talk with whom they want, when they want,
when authorized, but not the ability to talk with everyone all of the
time. The effective interoperability of wireless systems permits a rapid
and coordinated response to an emergency incident, whether that incident
is a "routine" spill from an overturned tanker truck or railcar, a natural
disaster, or a terrorist attack. In this statement, we (1) discuss the
current status of interoperable wireless communication between first
responders across the nation, (2) identify areas in which the federal
government can take a leadership role, (3) highlight the critical role
that state and local governments can play in the emergency communications
planning process, and (4) discuss the need to structure grant programs so
that they better support long-term, ongoing, and sustainable public sector
efforts to improve security.

1Our work addressed issues of public safety wireless communications
interoperability- i.e., communications that use radio frequency waves
instead of telephone wires for transmitting voice and data. We did not
address interoperability problems that may be found in other homeland
security functions, such as fire equipment, chem-bio equipment, and
information technology.

2U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Federal
Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First
Responder Interoperable Communications, GAO-04-740 (Washington, D.C.: July
2004).

In doing our work, we met with federal, state, and local officials,3
obtained and reviewed appropriate documentation, attended several meetings
of public safety communications officials, and met with staff of the
National Governors Association. We conducted our work from July 2003
through August 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.

o  	The current wireless interoperable communications capabilities of
first responders nationwide has not been determined. To assess these

                                    Summary

capabilities, a set of requirements is needed that can be used to assess
"what is" compared to "what should be." The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has designated the Wireless Public Safety Interoperable
Communications Program (SAFECOM), within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), as the focal point for coordinating federal efforts to
improve interoperable communications. In April 2004, SAFECOM issued a
document designed to serve as a set of baseline requirements and is
working to develop a baseline of current capabilities by July 2005. This
is a difficult task, and the details of SAFECOM's baseline study are still
being worked out.

o  	The federal government can provide the leadership, long-term
commitment, and focus to help state and local governments meet
interoperability goals. For example, the federal government can provide
the leadership and support for developing (1) a national database of
interoperable communications frequencies, (2) a common nomenclature for
those frequencies, (3) a national architecture that identifies
communications requirements and technical standards, and (4) statewide
interoperable communications plans.

o  	DHS has recently created the Office of Interoperability and
Compatibility to coordinate the federal response to the problems of
interoperability in several functions, including wireless communications.
DHS expects the office to be fully established by November 2004. As of
August 2004, the exact structure and funding for the office, including
SAFECOM's role within the office, were still being developed.

o  	With input from local governments and first responders, states can
serve as focal points for statewide planning to improve interoperable

3To examine potential roles that state and local governments can play in
improving interoperability of first responder wireless communications, we
interviewed state and local officials in California, Florida, Georgia, and
Washington.

Background

communications. States can play a key role in improving interoperable
communications by establishing a management structure that includes local
participation and input to analyze and identify interoperability gaps
between "what is" and "what should be," developing comprehensive local,
state, and regional plans to address such gaps, and funding implementation
of these plans.

o  	The fragmented federal grant structure for first responders does not
support statewide interoperability planning. SAFECOM has developed grant
guidance for interoperability, but cannot require that consistent guidance
be incorporated in all federal first responder grants. The structure of
some federal grants does not support long-term planning efforts because,
for example, they did not require a communications plan prior to receiving
grant funds and required a 1-or 2-year performance period. The federal and
state governments lack a coordinated grant review process to ensure that
funds allocated to local governments are used for communication projects
that complement each other and add to overall statewide and national
interoperability capacity.

Interoperable communications is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a
necessary means for achieving an important goal-the ability to respond
effectively to and mitigate incidents that require the coordinated actions
of first responders, such as multi-vehicle accidents, natural disasters,
or terrorist attacks. Interoperable communications are but one component,
although a key one, of an effective incident command planning and
operations structure. As shown in figure 1, determining the most
appropriate means of achieving interoperable communications must flow from
a comprehensive incident command and operations plan that includes
developing an operational definition of who is in charge for different
types of events and what types of information would need to be
communicated (voice, data, or both) to whom under what circumstances.
Other steps include:

o  	defining the range of interoperable communications capabilities needed
for specific types of events;

o  assessing the current capabilities to meet these communications needs;

o  identifying the gap between current capabilities and defined
requirements;

o  	assessing alternative means of achieving defined interoperable
communications requirements; and

o  	developing and implementing a comprehensive plan-including, for
example, mutual aid agreements, technology and equipment specifications,
and training-for closing the gap between current capabilities and
identified requirements.

Interoperable communications requirements are not static, but change over
time with changing circumstances (e.g., new threats) and technology (e.g.,
new equipment) and additional available broadcast spectrum. Consequently,
both a short-and long-term "feedback loop" that incorporates regular
assessments of current capabilities and needed changes is important.

Figure 1: A Planning Process for Interoperable Communications

In addition, the first responder community is extensive and extremely
diverse in size and the types of equipment in their communications
systems. According to SAFECOM officials, there are over 2.5 million public
safety first responders within more than 50,000 public safety
organizations in the United States. Local and state agencies own over 90

percent of the existing public safety communications infrastructure. This
intricate public safety communications infrastructure incorporates a wide
variety of technologies, equipment types, and spectrum bands.4 In addition
to the difficulty that this complex environment poses for federal, state,
and local coordination, 85 percent of fire personnel, and nearly as many
emergency management technicians, are volunteers with elected leadership.
Many of these agencies are small and do not have technical expertise; only
the largest of the agencies have engineers and technicians.

In the past, a stovepiped, single jurisdiction, or agency-specific
communication systems development approach prevailed-resulting in none or
less than desired interoperable communications systems. Public safety
agencies have historically planned and acquired communications systems for
their own jurisdictions without concern for interoperability. This meant
that each state and local agency developed communications systems to meet
their own requirements, without regard to interoperability requirements to
talk to adjacent jurisdictions.

For over 15 years, the federal government has been concerned with public
safety spectrum issues, including communications interoperability issues.5
A variety of federal departments and agencies have been involved in
efforts to define the problem and to identify potential solutions, such as
DHS, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), and the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) within the Department of Commerce (DOC), among
others. Today, a combination of federal agencies, programs, and
associations are involved in coordinating emergency communications.

DHS has several agencies and programs involved with addressing first
responder interoperable communication barriers, including the SAFECOM
program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the

4Spectrum bands are the useable radio frequencies in the electromagnetic
distribution. Specific frequencies have been allocated to the public
safety community.

5The radiofrequency spectrum is the medium that enables wireless
communications of all kinds. Although the radio spectrum spans the range
from 3 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz, 90 percent of its use is concentrated
in the 1 percent of frequencies that lie below 3.1 gigahertz, because
these frequencies have properties that make this portion of the spectrum
well suited for many important wireless technologies. Radio waves are a
form of electromagnetic radiation that propagate in space as the result of
particle oscillations. The number of oscillations per second is called
"frequency," which is measured in units of hertz. The term "kilohertz"
refers to thousands of hertz and "gigahertz" to billions of hertz.

Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). As one of its 24 E-Gov
initiatives, OMB in 2001 created SAFECOM to unify the federal government's
efforts to help coordinate the work at the federal, state, local, and
tribal levels to establish reliable public safety communications and
achieve national wireless communications interoperability. The SAFECOM
program was brought into DHS in early 2003. In June 2003, SAFECOM
partnered with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to hold a summit that brought
together over 60 entities involved with communications interoperability
policy setting or programs.

Several technical factors specifically limit interoperability of public
safety wireless communications systems. First, public safety agencies have
been assigned frequencies in new bands over time as available frequencies
become congested and as new technology made other frequencies available
for use. As a result, public safety agencies now operate over multiple
frequency bands-operating on these different bands required different
radios because technology was not available to include all bands in one
radio. Thus, the new bands provided additional capabilities but fragmented
the public safety radio frequency spectrum, making communications among
different jurisdictions difficult. Another technical factor inhibiting
interoperability is the different technologies or different applications
of the same technology by manufacturers of public safety radio equipment.
One manufacturer may design equipment with proprietary technology that
will not work with equipment produced by another manufacturer.

The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the
nation-including the current interoperable communications capabilities of
first responders and the scope and severity of the problems that may
exist-has not been determined. Although various reports have documented
the lack of interoperability of public safety first responders wireless
communications in specific locations, complete and current data do not
exist documenting the scope and severity of the problem at the local,
state, interstate, or federal levels across the nation. Accumulating this
data may be difficult, however, because several problems inhibit efforts
to identify and define current interoperable communications capabilities
and future requirements.

First, current capabilities must be measured against a set of requirements
for interoperable communications, and these requirements vary according to
the characteristics of specific incidents at specific locations. Who needs

  Current Status of Wireless Communications Interoperability Nationwide Is
  Unknown

to talk to whom, when they need to talk, and what set of communications
capabilities should be built or acquired to satisfy these requirements
depends upon whether interoperable communications are needed for dayto-day
mutual aid, task force operations that occur when members of different
agencies come together to work on a common problem such as the National
Capitol Region sniper investigation, or major events such as a terrorist
attack. Requirements for interoperable communications also may change with
the expanding definition of first responders-from the traditional police,
fire, and emergency medical providers to include such professions as
health care providers and other professions-and the evolution of new
technology.

Establishing a national baseline for public safety wireless communications
interoperability will be difficult because the definition of whom to
include as a first responder is evolving, and interoperability problems
and solutions are situation specific and change over time to reflect new
technologies and operational requirements. SAFECOM has embarked on an
effort to establish a national baseline of interoperable communications
capabilities by July 2005, but SAFECOM is still working out the details of
the study that would be used to develop the baseline. At the time of our
review, SAFECOM officials acknowledged that establishing a baseline will
be difficult and said they are working out the details of their baseline
study but still expect to complete it by July 2005.

Second, technical standards for interoperable communications are still
under development. Beginning in 1989, a partnership between industry and
the public safety user community developed what is known as Project 25 (P-
25) standards. According to the Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN)6
program office, Project 25 standards remain the only userdefined set of
standards in the United States for public safety communications. DHS
purchased radios that incorporate the P-25 standards for each of the
nation's 28 urban search and rescue teams. PSWN believes P-25 is an
important step toward achieving interoperability, but the standards do not
mandate interoperability among all manufacturers' systems. Standards
development continues today as new technologies emerge that meet changing
user needs and new policy requirements.

6DOJ and the Department of the Treasury formed PSWN to promote effective
public safety communications and to foster interoperability among local,
state, federal, and tribal communications systems. PSWN was incorporated
into DHS as part of the SAFECOM project in 2003.

Third, new public safety mission requirements for video, imaging, and
high-speed data transfers, new and highly complex digital communications
systems, and the use of commercial wireless systems are potential sources
of new interoperability problems. Availability of new spectrum can also
encourage the development of new technologies and require further
development of technical standards. For example, the FCC recently
designated a new band of spectrum, the 4.9 Gigahertz (GHz) band, for use
and support of public safety. The FCC provided this additional spectrum to
public safety users to support new broadband applications such as
highspeed digital technologies and wireless local area networks for
incident scene management. In providing the additional spectrum, the FCC
requested comments on the implementation of technical standards for fixed
and mobile operations on the band.

  Federal Leadership Could Facilitate Interoperable Wireless Communications

The federal government, states, and local governments have important roles
to play in assessing interoperability needs, identifying gaps in meeting
those needs, and developing comprehensive plans for closing those gaps.
The federal government can provide the leadership, long-term commitment,
and focus to help state and local governments meet these goals. For
example, currently national requirements for interoperable communications
are incomplete and no national architecture exists, there is no standard
database to coordinate frequencies, and no common nomenclature or
terminology exists for interoperability channels. States alone cannot
develop the requirements or a national architecture, compile the
nationwide frequency database, or develop a common nationwide
nomenclature. Moreover, the federal government alone can allocate
communications spectrum for public safety use.

National Requirements and a National Architecture Are Needed

One key barrier to the development of a national interoperability strategy
has been the lack of a statement of national mission requirements for
public safety-what set of communications capabilities should be built or
acquired-and a strategy to get there. A key initiative in the SAFECOM
program plan for the year 2005 is to complete a comprehensive Public
Safety Statement of Requirements. The Statement is to provide functional
requirements that define how, when, and where public safety practitioners
communicate. On April 26, 2004, DHS announced the release of the first
comprehensive Statement of Requirements defining future communication
requirements and outlining future technology needed to meet these
requirements. According to DHS, the Statement provides a shared vision and
an architectural framework for future interoperable public safety
communications. DHS describes the Statement of Requirements as a living

document that will define future communications services as they change or
become new requirements for public safety agencies in carrying out their
missions. SAFECOM officials said additional versions of the Statement will
incorporate whatever is needed to meet future needs but did not provide
specific details.

A national architecture has not yet been prepared to guide the creation of
interoperable communications. An explicit, commonly understood, and
agreed-to blueprint, or architecture, is required to effectively and
efficiently guide modernization efforts. SAFECOM officials said they are
responsible for development of a national communications architecture and
that will take time because SAFECOM must first assist state and local
governments to establish their communications architectures. They said
SAFECOM will then collect the state and local architectures and fit them
into a national architecture that links federal communications into the
state and local infrastructure.

Standard Databases and Common Nomenclature Have Not Been Established

Technology solutions by themselves are not sufficient to fully address
communication interoperability problems in a given local government,
state, or multi-state region. State and local officials consider a
standard database of interoperable communications frequencies to be
essential to frequency planning and coordination for interoperability
frequencies and for general public safety purposes. Police and fire
departments often have different concepts and doctrines on how to operate
an incident command post and use interoperable communications. Similarly,
first responders, such as police and fire departments, may use different
terminology to describe the same thing. Differences in terminology and
operating procedures can lead to communications problems even where the
participating public safety agencies share common communications equipment
and spectrum. State and local officials have drawn specific attention to
problems caused by the lack of common terminology in naming the same
interoperability frequency.

The Public Safety National Communications Council (NCC) was appointed by
the FCC to make recommendations for public safety use of the 700 MHz
communications spectrum. The NCC recommended that the FCC mandate

(1) Regional Planning Committee7 use of a standard database to coordinate
frequencies during license applications and (2) designation of specific
names for each interoperability channel on all pubic safety bands. The NCC
said that both were essential to achieve interoperability because public
safety officials needed to know what interoperability channels were
available and what they were called. In January 2001, the FCC rejected
both recommendations. It said that the first recommendation was premature
because the database had not been fully developed and tested. The FCC
directed the NCC to revisit the issue of mandating the database once the
database was developed and had begun operation. The FCC rejected the
common nomenclature recommendation because it said that it would have to
change the rules each time the public safety community wished to revise a
channel label. In its final report of July 25, 2003, the NCC renewed both
recommendations. It noted that the FCC had received a demonstration of a
newly developed and purportedly operational database, the Computer
Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and Database System (CAPRAD), and that
its recommendations were consistent with previous FCC actions, such as the
FCC's designating medical communications channels for the specific purpose
of uniform usage.

SAFECOM's Functions Are Critical for a Long-Term Program

In 2001, OMB established SAFECOM to unify the federal government's efforts
to help coordinate work at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels in
order to provide reliable public safety communications and achieve
national wireless communications interoperability. However, SAFECOM was
established as an OMB E-Gov initiative with a goal of improving
interoperable communications within 18-24 months-a timeline too short for
addressing the complex, long-term nature of the interoperability problem.8
In addition, the roles and responsibilities of various federal

7In 1987, the FCC developed a National Plan for Public Safety Radio
Services that set national guidelines for use of the 800 MHz spectrum
while allowing regional public safety planning committees to develop
regional plans tailored to their areas own particular communications
needs. A large portion of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum,
approximately 53 percent (12.5 MHz), is designated for general use by
local, regional, and state users. A regional planning process was adopted
to govern management of this public safety spectrum. It is a process
similar to that used in the 821-824 MHz and 866-869 MHz bands. Regional
Planning Committees (RPCs) are allowed maximum flexibility to meet state
and local needs, encourage innovative use of the spectrum, and accommodate
new and as yet unanticipated developments in technology equipment. They
are responsible for creating and managing regional plans.

8U.S. General Accounting Office, Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency
Emergency Communications Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration,
GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004).

agencies within and outside DHS involved in communications
interoperability have not been fully defined, and SAFECOM's authority to
oversee and coordinate federal and state efforts has been limited in part
because it has been dependent upon other federal agencies for cooperation
and funding and has operated without signed memorandums of understanding
negotiated with various agencies.

DHS, where SAFECOM now resides, announced in May 2004 that it had created
an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility within the Science and
Technology Directorate, to coordinate the federal response to the problems
of wireless and other functional interoperability and compatibility. The
new office is responsible for coordinating DHS efforts to address
interoperability and compatibility of first responder equipment, to
include both communications equipment and equipment such as personal
protective equipment used by police and fire from multiple jurisdictions.
The plan as approved by the Secretary of DHS states that by November 2004
the new office will be fully established and that action plans and a
strategy will be prepared for each portfolio (type or class of equipment).
The plan presents a budget estimate for creation of the office through
November 2004 but does not include costs to implement each portfolio's
strategy. The plans for the new office do not clarify the roles of various
federal agencies or specify what oversight authority the new office will
have over federal agency communications programs. As of August 2004, the
exact structure and funding for the office, including SAFECOM's role
within the office, were still being developed.

Multiple Federal Agencies Have Roles And Responsibilities For
Interoperability

DHS has not defined how it will convert the current short-term program and
funding structures to a permanent program office structure. When it does,
DHS must carefully define the SAFECOM mission and roles in relation to
other agencies within DHS and in other federal agencies that have missions
that may be related to the OMB-assigned mission for SAFECOM. SAFECOM must
coordinate with multiple federal agencies, including ODP within DHS, the
Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement (AGILE)9
program and the Office for Community

9AGILE was the DOJ program to assist state and local law enforcement
agencies to communicate effectively and efficiently with one another
across agency and jurisdictional boundaries. DOJ's National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) has announced it is bringing the AGILE program to a close
and initiating a new program called Communications Technology, or
CommTech.

Oriented Policing Services (COPS)10 in DOJ, the Department of Defense, the
FCC, NTIA within the Department of Commerce, and other agencies. The
Homeland Security Act of 2002 assigns the DHS Office for Domestic
Preparedness (ODP) primary responsibility within the executive branch for
preparing the United States for acts of terrorism, including coordinating
or, as appropriate, consolidating communications and systems of
communications relating to homeland security at all levels of government.
An ODP official said the Homeland Security Act granted authority to ODP to
serve as the primary agency for preparedness against acts of terrorism, to
specifically include communications issues. He said ODP is working with
states and local jurisdictions to institutionalize a strategic planning
process that assesses and funds their requirements. ODP also plans to
develop tools to link these assessments to detailed interoperable
communications plans.

SAFECOM officials also will face a complex issue when they address public
safety spectrum management and coordination. NTIA is responsible for
federal government spectrum use, and the FCC is responsible for state,
local, and other nonfederal spectrum use. The National Governors' Guide to
Emergency Management noted that extensive coordination will be required
between the FCC and the NTIA to provide adequate spectrum and to enhance
shared local, state, and federal communications. In September 2002, GAO
reported that FCC and NTIA efforts to manage their respective areas of
responsibility were not guided by a national spectrum strategy, and the
agencies had not implemented long-standing congressional directives to
conduct joint, national spectrum planning.11 The FCC and the NTIA
generally agreed with our recommendation that they develop a strategy for
establishing a clearly defined national spectrum plan and submit a report
to the appropriate congressional committees. In a separate report, we also
discussed several barriers to reforming spectrum management in the United
States.12 On June 24, 2004, the Department of

10Congress authorized COPS within DOJ to administer the Interoperable
Communications Technology Program in 2003. The program awarded 14 grants
totaling more than $66 million to first responders for interoperable
communications and provides technical assistance to grantees.

11U.S. General Accounting Office, Telecommunications: Better Coordination
and Enhanced Accountability Needed to Improve Spectrum Management,
GAO-02-906 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2002).

12U.S. General Accounting Office, Telecommunications: Comprehensive Review
Of U.S. Spectrum Management With Broad Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed,
GAO-03-277 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003).

Commerce released two reports entitled Spectrum Policy for the 21st
Century-The President's Spectrum Policy Initiative, the second of which
contained recommendations for assessing and managing public safety
spectrum.13

SAFECOM's Authority to Coordinate Federal and State Efforts Is Limited

SAFECOM has limited authority to coordinate federal efforts to assess and
improve interoperable communications. Although SAFECOM has developed
guidance for use in federal first responder grants, SAFECOM does not have
authority to require federal agencies to coordinate their grant award
information. SAFECOM is currently engaged in an effort with DOJ to create
a "collaborative clearinghouse" that could facilitate federal oversight of
interoperable communications funding to jurisdictions and allow states
access to this information for planning purposes. The database is intended
to decrease duplication of funding and evaluation efforts, de-conflict the
application process, maximize efficiency of limited federal funding, and
serve as a data collection tool for lessons learned that would be
accessible to state and locals. However, SAFECOM officials said that the
challenge to implementing the coordinated project is getting federal
agency collaboration and compliance. As of February 2004, the database
contained award information from the 2003 COPS and FEMA interoperability
communications equipment grants, but no others within or outside DHS.

SAFECOM's oversight authority and responsibilities are dependant upon its
overall mission. OMB officials told us that they are currently in the
process of refocusing the mission of the SAFECOM program into three
specific parts: (1) coordination of federal activities through several
initiatives, including participation in the Federal Interagency
Coordination Council (FICC)14 and establishment of a process for federal
agencies to report and coordinate with SAFECOM on federal activities and

13U.S. Department of Commerce, Spectrum Policy For the 21st Century-The
President's Spectrum Policy Initiative: Report 1, Recommendations Of The
Federal Government Spectrum Task Force and Report 2, Recommendations From
State and Local Governments And Private Sector Responders (Washington,
D.C.: June 2004).

14FICC is an informal council consisting of federal agencies, whose
mission is to help local, tribal, state, and federal public safety
agencies improve public safety response through more effective and
efficient interoperable wireless communications by reducing duplication in
programs and activities, identifying and promoting best practices, and
coordinating federal grants, technical assistance, training, and
standards. Proposed FICC members are federal agencies within DOJ, DHS,
Defense, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Commerce.

  State and Local Governments Can Play a Central Role

investments in interoperability; (2) developing standards; and (3)
developing a national architecture for addressing communications
interoperability problems. They said identification of all current and
planned federal agency communications programs affecting federal, state,
and local wireless interoperability is difficult. According to these
officials, OMB is developing a strategy to best utilize the SAFECOM
program and examining options to enforce the new coordination and
reporting process. SAFECOM officials said they are working to formalize
the new reporting and coordination process by developing written
agreements with other federal agencies and by obtaining concurrence of
major state and local associations to the SAFECOM governance structure.
SAFECOM officials noted that this newly refocused SAFECOM role does not
include providing technical assistance or conducting operational testing
of equipment. They said that their authority to conduct such activities
would come from DHS enabling directives. SAFECOM officials also said that
they have no enforcement authority to require other agencies to use the
SAFECOM grant guidance in their funding decisions or to require agencies
to provide grant program information to them for use in their database.

States, with broad input from local governments, can serve as focal points
for statewide planning to improve interoperable communications. The FCC
has recognized the important role of states. In its rules and procedures,
the FCC concluded that because states play a central role in managing
emergency communications and are usually in control at large scale-events
and disasters, states should administer the interoperability channels
within the 700 MHz band of communications spectrum. States can play a key
role in improving interoperable communications by establishing a
management structure that includes local participation and input to
analyze and identify interoperability gaps between "what is" and "what
should be," developing comprehensive local, state, and regional plans to
address such gaps, and funding implementation of these plans. The states
we visited or contacted-California, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Washington
and a five-state Midwest consortium-were in various stages of formulating
these management structures.

States are not required to establish a statewide management structure or
to develop interoperability plans, and there is no clear guidance on what
should be included in such plans. In addition, no requirement exists that
interoperability of federal communications systems be coordinated with
state and local government communications systems. The use of a standard
database on communications frequencies by public safety agencies within
the state and common terminology for these frequencies

in preparation and implementation of these statewide interoperable plans
are essential but are also not required. Without planning, coordination,
and applicable standards, the communications systems developed between and
among locations and levels of government might not be interoperable.

States are key players in responding to normal all-hazards emergencies and
to terrorist threats. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 notes
that awards to states are the primary mechanism for delivery of federal
preparedness assistance for these missions. State and local officials also
believe that states, with broad local and regional participation, have a
key role to play in coordinating interoperable communications supporting
these missions. The Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN), in its report
on the role of the state in providing interoperable communications,
agreed. According to the PSWN report, state leadership in public safety
communications is key to outreach efforts that emphasize development of
common approaches to regional and statewide interoperability. The report
said that state officials have a vested interest in establishing and
protecting statewide wireless infrastructures because public safety
communications often must cross more than one local jurisdictional
boundary.15

However, states are not required to establish a statewide capability to
(1) integrate statewide and regional interoperability planning and (2)
prepare statewide interoperability plans that maximize use of spectrum to
meet interoperability requirements of day-to-day operations, joint task
force operations, and operations in major events. Federal, state, and
local officials are not required to coordinate federal, state, and local
interoperability spectrum resources that, if successfully addressed, have
significant potential to improve public safety wireless communications
interoperability. As a result, states may not prepare comprehensive and
integrated statewide plans that address the specific interoperability
issues present in each state across first responder disciplines and levels
of government.

Federal interoperability with state and local wireless communications
systems is hindered because NTIA and FCC control different frequencies in
the VHF and UHF bands. To enhance interoperability, NTIA has identified 40
federal government frequencies that can be used by state and local public
safety agencies for joint law enforcement and incident

15See The Role of The States in Public Safety Wireless Interoperability,
PSWN (2002).

  Federal Grant Structure Does Not Support Statewide Planning

response purposes.16 FCC, however, designated different frequencies for
interoperability in the VHF band and in the UHF band from spectrum it
controls for use by state and local public safety agencies.

DHS recently estimated that reaching an accelerated goal of communications
interoperability will require a major investment of several billion
dollars within the next 5 to 10 years. As a result of these extraordinary
costs, federal funding is but one of several resources state and local
agencies must use in order to address these costs. Furthermore, given the
high costs, the development of an interoperable communications plan is
vital to useful, non-duplicative spending. However, the federal funding
assistance programs to state and local governments do not fully support
regional planning for communications interoperability. Federal grants that
support interoperability have different requirements to tie funding to
interoperable communications plans. In addition, uncoordinated federal and
state level grant reviews limit the government's ability to ensure that
federal funds are used to effectively support improved regional and
statewide communications systems.

States and Local Governments Are Not Required to Provide Interoperable
Communications Plans

Local, state and federal officials agree that regional communications
plans should be developed to guide decisions on how to use federal funds
for interoperable communications; however, the current funding
requirements do not support this planning process. Although recent grant
requirements have encouraged jurisdictions to take a regional approach to
planning, current federal first responder grants differ in their
requirements to tie funding to interoperable communications plans. State
and local jurisdictions are not required to provide an interoperable
communications plan as a prerequisite to receiving some federal grant
funds. As a result, there is no assurance that federal funds are being
used to support a welldeveloped strategy for improving interoperability.
For example, the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Grants and Urban Areas
Security Initiative (UASI) grants require new grantees to conduct a needs
assessment and submit a Homeland Security Strategy to ODP, and
continuation grantees to allocate funds according to their existing
Homeland Security Strategies. However, the required strategies are
high-level and broad in nature. They

16NTIA states that these frequencies may not be used to meet day-to-day
communications needs of non-federal public safety agencies.

do not require that project narratives or a detailed communications plan
be submitted by grantees prior to receiving grant funds.

In another example, fiscal year 2003 funding provided by COPS and FEMA for
the Interoperable Communications Equipment Grants did not require that a
communications plan be completed prior to receiving grant funds. However,
grantees were required to provide documentation that they were actively
engaged in a planning process and a multi-jurisdictional and
multidisciplinary project narrative was required. In addition to
variations in requirements to create communications interoperability
plans, federal grants also lack consistency in defining what "regional"
body should conduct planning.

Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also Present
Challenges to Short-and Long-Term Planning

State and local officials also said that the short grant application
deadlines for recent first responder grants limited their ability to
develop cohesive communications plans or perform a coordinated review of
local requests. Federal officials acknowledged that the limited submission
timeframes present barriers to first responders for developing plans prior
to receiving funds. For example, several federal grant programs-the
Homeland Security Grants, UASI grants, COPS and FEMA interoperable
communication equipment grants, and Assistance to Firefighters Grants-
allow states only 30 or 60 days from the date of grant announcement to
submit a grant proposal. These time frames are sometimes driven by
appropriations language or by the timing of the appropriations enactment.
Furthermore, many grants have been awarded to state and locals for
communications interoperability that have 1 or 2 year performance periods,
and according to state and local officials, do not support longterm
solutions. For example, Assistance to Fire Fighters Grants, COPS/ FEMA's
interoperable communications equipment grants, and National Urban Search
and Rescue grants all have 1-year performance periods.17 UASI, the
Homeland Security Grants program, and DOJ's Local Law Enforcement Block
Grants have 2-year performance periods.

17COPS officials said that although the performance period for the FY 2003
Interoperable Communications Technology Equipment and the COPS
Interoperable Communications Technology Program was one year, no-cost
extensions of time were available to grantees on a case-by-case basis to
accommodate unavoidable delays.

No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure Funds are
Used to Improve Regional or Statewide Communications Interoperability

  Conclusions

The federal and state governments lack a coordinated grant review process
to ensure that funds allocated to local governments are used for
communication projects that complement each other and add to overall
statewide and national interoperability. Federal and state officials said
that each agency reviews its own set of applications and projects, without
coordination with other agencies. As a result, grants could be given to
bordering jurisdictions that propose conflicting interoperability
solutions. In fiscal year 2003, federal officials from COPS and FEMA
attempted to eliminate awarding funds to conflicting communication systems
within bordering jurisdictions by coordinating their review of
interoperable communications equipment grant proposals. However, COPS and
FEMA are only two of several federal sources of funds for communications
interoperability.

In an attempt to address this challenge, in 2003, SAFECOM coordinated with
other agencies to create the document, Recommended Federal Grant Guidance,
Public Safety Communications and Interoperability Grants, which lays out
standard grant requirements for planning, building, and training for
interoperable communications systems. The guidance is designed to advise
federal agencies on who is eligible for the first responder interoperable
communications grants, the purposes for which grant funds can be used, and
eligibility specifications for applicants.18 The guidance recommends
standard minimum requirements, such as requirements to "...define the
objectives of what the applicant is ultimately trying to accomplish and
how the proposed project would fit into an overall effort to increase
interoperability, as well as identify potential partnerships for
agreements." Additionally, the guidance recommends, but does not require,
that applicants establish a governance group consisting of local, tribal,
state, and federal entities from relevant public safety disciplines and
purchase interoperable equipment that is compliant with phase one of
Project-25 standards.

A fundamental barrier to successfully addressing interoperable
communications problems for public safety has been the lack of effective,
collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning.

18DHS officials said that, in addition to outlining the eligibility for
grant dollars and the purposes for which federal dollars can be used, the
SAFECOM grant guidance provides consensus guidelines for implementing a
wireless communications system. DHS said this guidance is useful in
directing all agencies towards interoperability goals, even if they are
not specifically applying for federal funding.

Recommendations

Jurisdictional boundaries and unique public safety agency missions have
often fostered barriers that hinder cooperation and collaboration. No one
first responder agency, jurisdiction, or level of government can "fix" the
nation's interoperability problems, which vary across the nation and often
cross first responder agency and jurisdictional boundaries. Changes in
spectrum available to federal, state and local public safety agencies-
primarily a federal responsibility conducted through the FCC and NTIA-
changes in technology, and the evolving missions and responsibilities of
public safety agencies in an age of terrorism all highlight the
ever-changing environment in which interoperable communications needs and
solutions must be addressed and effective federal leadership provided.
Interdisciplinary, intergovernmental, and multi-jurisdictional partnership
and collaboration are essential for effectively addressing
interoperability shortcomings.

In our July 2004 report,19 we made recommendations to DHS and OMB to
improve the assessment and coordination of interoperable communications
efforts. We recommended that the Secretary of DHS:

o  	in coordination with the FCC and NTIA, continue to develop a
nationwide database of public safety frequency channels and a standard
nationwide nomenclature for these channels, with clear target dates for
completing both efforts;

o  	establish requirements for interoperable communications and assist
states in assessing interoperability in their states against those
requirements;

o  	through DHS grant guidance encourage states to establish a single,
statewide body to assess interoperability and develop a comprehensive
statewide interoperability plan for federal, state, and local
communications systems in all frequency bands; and

o  	at the appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that
federal grant funding for communications equipment be approved only upon
certification by the statewide body responsible for interoperable
communications that grant applications for equipment purchases conform
with statewide interoperability plans.

19U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Federal
Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First
Responder Interoperable Communications, GAO-04-740 (Washington, D.C.: July
2004).

We also recommended that the Director of OMB, in conjunction with DHS,
review the interoperability mission and functions now assigned to SAFECOM
and establish those functions as a long-term program with adequate
authority and funding.

In commenting on our July 2004 report, the Department of Homeland Security
discussed actions the department is taking that are generally consistent
with the intent of our recommendations but did not directly address
specific steps detailed in our recommendations with respect to
establishment of statewide bodies responsible for interoperable
communications within the state, the development of comprehensive
statewide interoperability plans, and tying federal funds for
communications equipment directly to those statewide interoperable plans.
OMB did not provide written comments on the draft report.

This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have at
this time.

                        GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments

(440349)

For future contacts regarding this testimony, please call William O.
Jenkins, Jr., Homeland Security and Justice Issues, at (202) 512-8777.
Other individuals who made key contributions to this testimony include
Katherine Davis, Sally Gilley, Robert Hadley, Latesha Love, Gary
Malavenda, and Thomas James.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

  GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

  To Report Fraud, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected](202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs 	Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                           PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***