    Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort
    Requires Stronger Collaboration (16-APR-04, GAO-04-494).

    One of the five priorities in the President's Management Agenda
    is the expansion of electronic government (e-government)--the use
    of Internet applications to enhance access to and delivery of
    government information and services. Project SAFECOM is one of
    the 25 initiatives sponsored by the Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB) to implement this agenda. Managed by the Department
    of Homeland Security, the project's goal is to achieve
    interoperability among emergencyresponse communications at all
    levels of government, while at the same time realizing cost
    savings. GAO assessed the government's progress in implementing
    Project SAFECOM.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-494
        ACCNO:   A09794
      TITLE:     Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency
    Communications Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration
         DATE:   04/16/2004
      SUBJECT:   Electronic government
    	     Emergency preparedness
    	     Government information dissemination
    	     Intergovernmental relations
    	     Internet
    	     National preparedness
    	     Program evaluation
    	     Program management
    	     OMB Project 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-04-494

    United States General Accounting Office

                         GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

    April 2004

    PROJECT SAFECOM

    Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration

                                           a

    GAO-04-494

    Highlights of GAO-04-494, a report to congressional requesters

    One of the five priorities in the President's Management Agenda is the
    expansion of electronic government (e-government)-the use of Internet
    applications to enhance access to and delivery of government information
    and services. Project SAFECOM is one of the 25 initiatives sponsored by
    the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to implement this agenda.
    Managed by the Department of Homeland Security, the project's goal is to
    achieve interoperability among emergencyresponse communications at all
    levels of government, while at the same time realizing cost savings. GAO
    assessed the government's progress in implementing Project SAFECOM.

    To enhance the ability of Project SAFECOM to improve communications among
    first responders at all levels of government, GAO recommends that the
    Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Under Secretary for Science and
    Technology to complete agreements with the project's federal and
    nonfederal stakeholders that define how they will contribute to SAFECOM
    and measure program progress. Commenting on a draft of this report, the
    department provided information about the project's recent activities and
    noted that draft agreements had been sent to all of the project's federal
    funding partners.

    April 2004

    PROJECT SAFECOM

    Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration

    While its overall objective of achieving communications interoperability
    among emergency response entities at all levels of government is a
    challenging task that will take many years to fully accomplish, Project
    SAFECOM, in its 2-year history, has made very limited progress in
    addressing this objective. OMB's e-government objectives of improving
    operating efficiency and achieving budgetary savings within federal
    programs have also been largely stymied.

    Two major factors have contributed to the project's limited progress: (1)
    lack of consistent executive commitment and support, and (2) an inadequate
    level of interagency collaboration. In its 2 1/2-year history, Project
    SAFECOM has had four different management teams in three different
    agencies (see figure). In recent months, the current project team has
    pursued various near-term activities that are intended to lay the
    groundwork for future interoperability, including establishing a
    governance structure that emphasizes collaboration with stakeholders and
    developing guidance for making grants that can be used to encourage public
    safety agencies to plan for interoperability. However, it has not yet
    reached written agreements with several of its major stakeholders on their
    roles in the project or established a stable funding mechanism. Until
    these shortcomings are addressed, the ability of Project SAFECOM to
    deliver on its promise of improved interoperability and better response to
    emergencies will remain in doubt.

    Time Line of Major Project SAFECOM Management Changes

    www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-494.

    To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
    the link above. For more information, contact Linda D. Koontz at (202)
    512-6240 or koontzl@gao.gov.

    Contents

        Letter                                                                  1
                                             Results in Brief                   2
                                                Background                      3
                                  Leadership Changes and Shortcomings in
                                            Collaboration Have
                                       Hampered SAFECOM's Progress              9
                                               Conclusions                     15
                                   Recommendation for Executive Action         16
                                    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation         16
    Appendix
                Appendix I:   Comments from the U.S. Department of Homeland
                                                 Security
                              Table 1: Status of Agreements Reached between
        Table                                Federal Agencies
                            and Project SAFECOM in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004
                               Figure 1: Achieving Seamlessly Interoperable
    Figures              Communications among Emergency Response Officials
                                              Is Challenging                    7
                               Figure 2: Time Line of Major Project SAFECOM
                                                Management
                                                 Changes                       11

    Abbreviations

    AGILE Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement
    DHS Department of Homeland Security
    FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
    GAO General Accounting Office
    OMB Office of Management and Budget
    PSWN Public Safety Wireless Network

    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.

    A

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548

    April 16, 2004

    The Honorable Tom Davis Chairman, Committee on Government Reform House of
    Representatives

    The Honorable Adam H. Putnam

    Chairman, Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
    Intergovernmental Relations and the Census

    Committee on Government Reform

    House of Representatives

    The Honorable Christopher Shays

    Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and
    International Relations Committee on Government Reform House of
    Representatives

    As you know, the President has identified the expansion of e-government1
    as one of five priorities in his management agenda; accordingly, the
    Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has sponsored 25 initiatives to
    implement this agenda. This report specifically reviews the progress made
    to date on one of these initiatives, Project SAFECOM, which has an overall
    objective of achieving national wireless communications interoperability2
    among first responders and public safety systems at all levels of
    government. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently the
    federal managing partner for this project.

    The 25 e-government initiatives sponsored by OMB, including Project
    SAFECOM, were originally chosen on the basis of their (1) likelihood of
    being deployed within 18 to 24 months, (2) value to citizens, and (3)
    potential to improve federal agency efficiency. By achieving interoperable
    public safety communications systems at all levels of government, Project

    1E-government (electronic government) refers to the use of information
    technology (IT), particularly Web-based Internet applications, to enhance
    the access to and delivery of government information and service to
    citizens, business partners, and employees and among agencies at all
    levels of government.

    2Interoperability is the ability of two or more systems or components to
    exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged.

    SAFECOM was intended to not only improve public services in emergencies
    but also to realize cost savings.

    Achieving communications interoperability among emergency personnel is a
    complex and challenging task involving many different governmental and
    nongovernmental entities and a range of inter-related technical issues,
    such as how the communications spectrum is managed and how local
    governments buy and upgrade equipment.3 Given the importance of addressing
    this challenge, you requested that we assess the progress of the federal
    government in implementing Project SAFECOM. To achieve this objective, we
    reviewed documents outlining the program's goals, plans, and achievements;
    its management structure and objectives; its collaboration and funding
    strategy; and its selection as one of the 25 OMB-sponsored electronic
    government initiatives. We identified documented activities and
    achievements directly associated with Project SAFECOM and assessed the
    extent to which they contributed to fulfillment of the project's original
    objectives. We also discussed the program's management with current and
    former program managers. Our work was conducted at DHS in Washington,
    D.C., from December 2003 through March 2004, in accordance with generally
    accepted government auditing standards.

    Results in Brief	After more than 2 years, Project SAFECOM has made very
    limited progress in addressing its overall objective of achieving
    communications interoperability among entities at all levels of
    government. In addition, although the project was originally expected to
    realize billions of dollars in federal budgetary savings by improving
    agency efficiency, program officials no longer expect it to produce such
    savings.

    Two major factors have contributed to the project's limited progress.
    First, Project SAFECOM has not received consistent executive commitment
    and support, as evidenced by the fact that it has been assigned to three
    different agencies and has had four management teams in its 2 1/2-year
    history. Second, the project has not achieved the level of collaboration
    necessary for a complex cross-government initiative of this type. In
    recent months, the current project team has pursued various near-term
    activities that are

    3For a more detailed discussion of the challenges in achieving
    communications interoperability, see U.S. General Accounting Office,
    Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable Communications
    for First Responders, GAO-04-231T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2003).

    intended to lay the groundwork for future interoperability, including
    establishing a governance structure that emphasizes collaboration with
    stakeholders and developing grant guidance for use with awards to public
    safety agencies that encourage planning for interoperability. However, it
    has not yet reached written agreements with several of its major
    stakeholders on their roles in the project or established a stable funding
    mechanism. Until these shortcomings are addressed, the ability of Project
    SAFECOM to deliver on its promise of improved interoperability and better
    response to emergencies will remain in question.

    To enhance the ability of DHS to effectively collaborate with other
    agencies involved with SAFECOM, and to better ensure that the project
    receives stable funding, we are recommending that the Secretary of
    Homeland Security take steps to complete written participation and funding
    agreements with organizations representing all of the project's
    stakeholders. Commenting on a draft of this report, DHS's GAO liaison
    provided additional information about SAFECOM's activities since May 2003.
    The DHS official also noted activities under way that could partially
    address our recommendation. However, until DHS reaches agreements with all
    of SAFECOM's stakeholders, including nonfunding federal partners and state
    and local partners, its ability to achieve its objectives will continue to
    be hampered.

    Background	One of the key provisions of the President's Management Agenda,
    released in 2001, is the expansion of electronic government. To implement
    this provision, OMB sought to identify potential projects that could be
    implemented to address the issue of multiple federal agencies' performing
    similar tasks that could be consolidated through e-government processes
    and technology. To accomplish this, OMB established a team called the E-
    Government Task Force, which analyzed the federal bureaucracy and
    identified areas of significant overlap and redundancy in how federal
    agencies provide services to the public. The task force noted that
    multiple agencies were conducting redundant operations within 30 major
    functions and business lines in the executive branch. For example, the
    task force found that 10 of the 30 federal agencies it studied had ongoing
    activities in the National Security and Defense line of business, while 13
    of the 30 agencies had ongoing activities related to Disaster Preparation
    and Response Management.

    To address such redundancies, the task force evaluated a variety of
    potential projects, focusing on collaborative opportunities to integrate
    IT

    operations and simplify processes within lines of business across agencies
    and around citizen needs. Twenty-five projects were selected to lead the
    federal government's drive toward e-government transformation and enhanced
    service delivery.4 In its e-government strategy, published in February
    2002,5 OMB established a portfolio management structure to help oversee
    and guide the selected initiatives. The five portfolios in this structure
    are "government to citizen," "government to business," "government to
    government," "internal efficiency and effectiveness," and "cross-cutting."
    For each initiative, OMB designated a specific agency as the managing
    partner responsible for leading the initiative, and also assigned other
    federal agencies as partners in carrying out the initiative.6 OMB
    initially approved Project SAFECOM as an e-government initiative in
    October 2001. SAFECOM falls within the government-to-government portfolio,
    due to its focus on accelerating the implementation of interoperable
    public safety communications at all levels of government.

    As described in its 2002 e-government report, OMB planned for SAFECOM to
    address critical shortcomings in efforts by public safety agencies to
    achieve interoperability and eliminate redundant wireless communications
    networks. OMB also stated that the project was expected to save lives and
    lead to better-managed disaster response, as well as result in billions of
    dollars in budget savings from "right-sized" federal communications
    networks and links to state networks .7

    4For a detailed assessment of the selection process, see U.S. General
    Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Selection and Implementation of
    the Office of Management and Budget's 24 Initiatives, GAO-03-229
    (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002). In 2002, a decision was made to
    separate one initiative into two individual projects, resulting in the
    current count of 25 projects.

    5Office of Management and Budget, E-Government Strategy (Washington, D.C.:
    Feb. 27, 2002).

    6Federal agencies that OMB assigned as partners in the Project SAFECOM
    initiative include the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health
    and Human Services, Interior, Justice, and the Treasury.

    7For an assessment of the overall management and oversight of the
    initiatives, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government:
    Success of the Office of Management and Budget's 25 Initiatives Depends on
    Effective Management and Oversight, GAO-03495T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13,
    2003).

      Lack of Interoperable Communications Hampers Emergency Response

    In order to effectively carry out their normal duties and respond to
    extraordinary events such as natural disasters and domestic terrorism,
    public safety agencies need the ability to communicate with those from
    other disciplines and jurisdictions. However, the wireless communications
    used today by many police officers, firefighters, emergency medical
    personnel, and other public safety agencies do not provide such
    capability, which hinders their ability to respond. For example, emergency
    agencies responding to events such as the bombing of the federal building
    in Oklahoma City and the attacks of September 11, 2001, experienced
    difficulties while trying to communicate with each other.8

    Historically, the ability of first responders to communicate with those
    from other disciplines and jurisdictions has been significantly hampered
    because they often use different and incompatible radio systems operating
    on different frequencies of the radio spectrum. In February 2003, the
    National Task Force on Interoperability9 estimated the number of emergency
    response officials in the United States-also called first-responders-at
    about 2.5 million, working for 50,000 different agencies, such as law
    enforcement organizations, fire departments, and emergency medical
    services. Response to an emergency may involve any or all of these
    disciplines, as well as may additional personnel from the transportation,
    natural resources, or public utility sectors.

    A complex array of challenges affects the government's ability to address
    the emergency communications interoperability problem. In addition to the
    vast number of distinct governmental entities involved, the National Task
    Force on Interoperability identified a variety of additional barriers,
    including the fragmentation and limited availability of radio
    communications spectrum for dedicated use by emergency personnel,
    incompatible and aging communications equipment, limited equipment
    standards within the public safety community, and the lack of appropriate

    8See, for example, the testimony presented at a joint hearing of two
    Subcommittees of the House Committee on Government Reform (National
    Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations and Technology,
    Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census) held on
    November 6, 2003.

    9The National Task Force on Interoperability-made up of state and local
    officials, public safety officials, and members from 18 national
    associations-met several times in 2002 to discuss emergency communications
    interoperability.

    life-cycle funding strategies.10 These barriers have been long-standing,
    and fully overcoming them will not be accomplished easily or quickly.
    Figure 1 summarizes the challenge of achieving seamlessly interoperable
    communications among the many personnel and organizations responding to an
    emergency.

    10The findings of the National Task Force on Interoperability are
    summarized in Department of Homeland Security, Current Status of
    Government's Response to Interoperability Efforts and SAFECOM Program: A
    Report to the Committee on Appropriations of the United States House of
    Representatives (Washington, D.C.: February 2004).

    Figure 1: Achieving Seamlessly Interoperable Communications among
    Emergency Response Officials Is Challenging

    In some cases, first responders have resorted to stopgap measures to
    overcome communications problems. For example, some may swap radios with
    another agency at the scene of an emergency, others may relay messages
    through a common communications center, and still others may employ
    messengers to physically carry information from one group of responders to
    another. However, these measures have not always been adequate. The
    National Task Force on Interoperability identified several cases where the
    inability to communicate across agencies and jurisdictions

    in emergency situations was a factor in the loss of lives or delayed
    emergency response.

    Over the last decade, several federal programs have been established to
    address various aspects of public safety communications and
    interoperability. Among these was the Public Safety Wireless Network
    (PSWN) program-originally developed as a joint undertaking of the
    departments of Justice and the Treasury. PSWN's focus was to promote state
    and local interoperability by establishing a technical resource center,
    collecting and analyzing data related to the operational environment of
    public safety communications, and initiating pilot projects to test and
    refine interoperable technology. Another similar initiative is the
    Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement (AGILE)
    program, which is run by the Department of Justice's National Institute of
    Justice. AGILE was created to coordinate interoperability research within
    the Department of Justice and with other agencies and levels of
    government. AGILE has four main activities: (1) supporting research and
    development, (2) testing and evaluating pilot technologies, (3) developing
    standards, and (4) educating end users and policymakers.11

    With roughly 100 agencies that use radio communications in law enforcement
    activities, the federal government also has a need for interoperable
    communications, both internally among its own departments and agencies and
    with state and local entities. This need has grown since the attacks of
    September 11, 2001, which blurred the distinctions between public safety
    and national security, and has placed federal entities such as the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Secret Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard
    into broader public safety roles. As a result, federal public safety
    personnel have an increased need to be able to communicate directly with
    one another and with their state and local counterparts.

    11In August 2003, PSWN was merged into the SAFECOM project. AGILE
    continues to operate as a program of the Department of Justice.

      Leadership Changes and Shortcomings in Collaboration Have Hampered SAFECOM's
      Progress

    After more than 2 years, Project SAFECOM has made very limited progress in
    addressing its overall objective of achieving communications
    interoperability among entities at all levels of government. SAFECOM's
    lack of progress has prevented it from achieving the benefits that were
    expected of it as one of the 25 OMB-sponsored e-government initiatives,
    including improving government efficiency and realizing budgetary savings.
    Two factors have contributed significantly to the project's limited
    results. First, there has been a lack of sustained executive leadership,
    as evidenced by multiple shifts in program responsibility and management
    staff. Second, the project has not achieved the level of collaboration
    necessary for a complex cross-government initiative of this type. In
    recent months, the current project team has pursued various near-term
    activities that are intended to lay the groundwork for future
    interoperability, including establishing a governance structure that
    emphasizes collaboration with stakeholders and developing grant guidance
    for use with awards to public safety agencies that encourage planning for
    interoperability. However, it has not yet reached written agreements with
    several of its major stakeholders on their roles in the project or
    established a stable funding mechanism. Until these weaknesses are
    addressed, SAFECOM's ability to achieve its ultimate goal of improving
    interoperable communications will remain in doubt.

      SAFECOM Has Fulfilled Neither Its Program Goals nor the Overall E- Government
      Objectives

    When the e-government initiative was launched in 2002, OMB identified
    achieving public safety interoperability and reducing redundant wireless
    communications infrastructures as the goal for Project SAFECOM.
    Specifically, SAFECOM was to

    o  achieve federal-to-federal interoperability throughout the nation,

    o  achieve federal-to-state/local interoperability throughout the nation,
    and

    o  achieve state/local interoperability throughout the nation.

    As of March 2004, Project SAFECOM has made very limited progress in
    addressing its overall objective of achieving communications
    interoperability among entities at all levels of government. Specifically,
    project officials could provide no specific examples of cases where
    interoperability had been achieved as a direct result of SAFECOM
    activities. Furthermore, program officials now estimate that a minimum

    level of interoperability will not occur until 2008, and full
    interoperability will not occur until 15 years later, in 2023.

    OMB expected SAFECOM's value to citizens to include saved lives and better
    managed disaster response; however, because of the program's limited
    progress, these benefits have not yet been achieved. OMB also forecasted
    that a reduction in the number of communications devices and their
    associated maintenance and training would result in cost savings,
    including "billions" in federal savings. Project officials are currently
    conducting a study to estimate potential federal savings, such as savings
    from reducing equipment purchases. However, according to the program
    manager, federal savings in the billions of dollars are not likely. He
    added, however, that state and local agencies could realize significant
    savings if they could rely on Project SAFECOM to conduct consolidated
    testing of equipment for compliance with interoperability standards.
    Finally, on the issue of federal agency efficiency, the project has
    achieved mixed results. Although SAFECOM absorbed the projects and
    functions of PSWN, it has not consolidated the functions of Project AGILE,
    despite the similarities between the two programs' activities. According
    to SAFECOM's manager, the project lacks the authority to consolidate
    additional programs.

      Lack of Sustained Leadership Has Hampered SAFECOM's Progress

    As we have identified in previous work, successful organizations foster a
    committed leadership team and plan for smooth staff transitions.12 The
    transition to modern management requires sustained, committed leadership
    on the part of agency executives and managers. As in the case with
    well-run commercial entities, strong leadership and sound management are
    central to the effective implementation of public-sector policies or
    programs, especially transformational programs such as the OMB-sponsored
    e-government initiatives.

    Instead of sustained management attention, SAFECOM has experienced
    frequent changes in management, which have hampered its progress. OMB
    originally designated the Department of the Treasury, which was already
    involved in overseeing PSWN, as the project's managing partner. As
    originally conceived, SAFECOM would build on PSWN's efforts to achieve
    interoperability among state and local agencies by building an
    interoperable federal communications network. However, in May 2002, the

    12See U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Potential
    Exists for Enhancing Collaboration on Four Initiatives, GAO-04-6
    (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 10, 2003).

    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which had an
    emergency-response mission more closely aligned with SAFECOM's goals, was
    designated managing partner. At that time, project staff focused their
    efforts on securing funding and beginning outreach to stakeholders such as
    the AGILE program and associations representing local emergency agencies.
    By September 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency had replaced
    its SAFECOM management team and shifted its implementation strategy to
    focus on helping first responders make shortterm improvements in
    interoperability using vehicles such as demonstration projects and
    research. At that time, development of an interoperable federal
    first-responder communications system was seen as a long-term goal.

    Following the establishment of DHS,13 in May 2003, the project was taken
    out of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and assigned to the
    department's new Science and Technology Directorate because of a perceived
    need to incorporate more technical expertise. At that time, the project
    was assigned to a fourth management team. Figure 2 summarizes the major
    management changes that have occurred throughout Project SAFECOM's
    history.

    Figure 2: Time Line of Major Project SAFECOM Management Changes

    This lack of sustained, committed executive leadership hampered SAFECOM's
    ability to produce results tied to its overall objective. The changing of
    project teams approximately every 6 to 9 months has meant

    13The Federal Emergency Management Agency became part of the Department of
    Homeland Security in March 2003.

    that much of the effort spent on the project has been made repeatedly to
    establish administrative structures, develop program plans, and obtain
    stakeholder input and support. Additionally, according to the project
    manager of PSWN, the changes in leadership have led to skepticism among
    some of the project's stakeholders that the project's goals can be met.

      Inadequate Collaboration Has Also Hampered Progress, Although Recent Actions
      May Promote Success in the Future

    The ability of Project SAFECOM to meet its overall objective has also been
    hampered by inadequate collaboration with the project's stakeholders. As
    an umbrella program meant to coordinate efforts by various federal, state,
    and local agencies to achieve interoperability, SAFECOM's success relies
    on cross-agency collaboration. As we have previously reported,
    crossorganizational initiatives such as this require several conditions to
    be successful, including: (1) a collaborative management structure; (2)
    clear agreements among participants on purpose, outcomes, and performance
    measures; (3) shared contribution of resources; and (4) a common set of
    operating standards.14

    While the project's current management team has made progress in
    developing a collaborative management structure, SAFECOM does not yet have
    other necessary structures or agreements in place. Its previous management
    teams worked on creating a collaborative management structure by, for
    example, seeking input from stakeholders and drafting a memorandum of
    understanding among the departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and the
    Treasury, but these activities were not completed at the time of the
    transition to DHS.

    Since taking control of the project in May 2003, Project SAFECOM has
    pursued a number of activities that stress collaboration and are intended
    to lay the groundwork for future interoperability, according to its
    current manager. Specifically, DHS established a governance structure for
    the project in November 2003 that includes executive and advisory
    committees to formalize collaboration with stakeholders and provides a
    forum for significant input on goals and priorities by federal agencies
    and state and local representatives. The department has also conducted
    several planning conferences meant to identify project stakeholders to
    reach agreements with them on the program's purpose and intended outcomes.
    One such conference, in December 2003, provided an opportunity for
    stakeholders to

    14GAO-04-6.

    modify program goals and the tasks planned to address them. The program
    manager also cited a statement of support by several organizations
    representing local first responders as evidence that the current structure
    is achieving effective collaboration. In addition, project officials are
    working with the Commerce Department to catalog all existing federal
    agencies that use public safety communications systems and networks.

    Further, program officials noted that the SAFECOM project developed grant
    guidance that promotes interoperability by requiring public safety
    agencies to describe specific plans for achieving improved
    interoperability when applying for grants that fund communications
    equipment. This guidance represents a positive step, but it does not
    provide public safety agencies with complete specifications for achieving
    interoperability. Specifically, the guidance strongly encourages
    applicants to ensure that purchased equipment complies with a technical
    standard for interoperable communications equipment that has not yet been
    finalized and that, according to program officials, addresses only part of
    the interoperability problem. This guidance has already been incorporated
    into grants awarded by the Department of Justice's Office of Community
    Oriented Policing Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    However, Project SAFECOM has not yet fulfilled other conditions necessary
    for successful cross-government collaboration. First, project officials
    have not signed memorandums of agreement with all of the project's
    stakeholders. As shown in table 1, agreements were completed on funding or
    program participation with five agencies in fiscal year 2003.15 However,
    DHS did not reach a 2003 agreement with the Department of the Interior or
    the Department of Justice, both agencies designated as funding partners.
    According to the SAFECOM program manager, the Department of the Interior
    has not fully determined the extent of its expected participation in the
    program, and the Department of Justice had to delay its agreement until it
    received approval to reprogram the necessary funds. Justice has reached an
    agreement with DHS for fiscal year 2004, but as of March 2004, none of the
    other funding partners have signed agreements covering the current year.
    In addition, although other federal agencies and the organizations
    representing state and local stakeholders are represented

    15Participation agreements between DHS and the funding partners describe
    the responsibilities of each party. For example, the funding partners
    agreed to attend meetings, provide funding, and coordinate SAFECOM
    activities with their component agencies, while DHS agreed to provide
    periodic reports and exchange information with OMB.

    in SAFECOM's governing structure and some have expressed support for the
    program, none has reached an agreement with DHS that commits it to provide
    nonfinancial assistance to the project. Finally, those agreements that
    were in place did not address key program parameters, such as specific
    program outcomes or performance measures. While the program's stakeholders
    agreed to a broad set of goals and expected outcomes at the December
    planning meeting, as of March 2004, there was no agreement on performance
    measures for them. According to the program manager, new performance
    measures were under development.

    Table 1: Status of Agreements Reached between Federal Agencies and Project
    SAFECOM in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004

                                 Agency   Type of agreement   Period of agreement
                          Department of
                            Agriculture           Funding and  Fiscal year 2003
                                        program participation
                  Department of Defense           Funding and  Fiscal year 2003
                                        program participation
                   Department of Energy          Funding only  Fiscal year 2003

    Department of Health and Human Funding and Fiscal year 2003 Services
    program participation

    Department of Justice	Funding and program Fiscal year 2004 participation

                       Department of the Interior None completed

    Department of the Treasury Funding only Fiscal year 2003

    Source: DHS.

    Second, while effective collaboration requires the sharing of resources,
    DHS had not received all of the funding it planned to receive from its
    federal partners. During fiscal year 2003, SAFECOM received only about $17
    million of the $34.9 million in funding OMB allocated to it from these
    funding partners. About $1.4 million of that $17 million was not received
    until late September 2003, when only a week remained in the fiscal year.
    According to program officials, these funding shortfalls and delays
    resulted in the program's having to delay some of the tasks it had
    intended to complete, such as identifying the project's major milestones.

    Finally, although DHS has not yet developed a common set of operating
    standards for SAFECOM, efforts to identify technical standards are
    underway, according to program officials. For example, program officials
    from SAFECOM and AGILE plan to accelerate the development of an

    incomplete standard for interoperable communications equipment that is
    cited in SAFECOM's grants guidance. Program officials are also developing
    a document describing the requirements for public safety communications
    interoperability, which is intended to form the basis for future technical
    development efforts. SAFECOM also is supporting several demonstration
    projects and vendor presentations to publicize currently available
    interoperable systems.

    The absence of many aspects of successful collaboration could hamper
    SAFECOM officials' ability to achieve the program's goals. For example,
    the lack of written agreements with some stakeholders raises concerns
    about the extent to which those agencies are willing to contribute to the
    program's success. Also, until performance measures and technical
    standards are finalized and implemented, it will be difficult to determine
    the extent of any progress. Should such difficulties continue to hamper
    the program's progress in fulfilling its overall goals, solutions to the
    problems of public safety interoperability will be further delayed.

    Conclusions	While the lack of rapid progress in improving interoperable
    communications among first responders may be understandable, considering
    the complexity of the issues and the number of entities involved, federal
    efforts to address the issue as an e-government initiative have been
    unnecessarily delayed by management instability and weaknesses in
    collaboration. Since taking over management of the project in May 2003,
    DHS has shown greater executive commitment to the project than had
    previously been demonstrated. The agency has determined that a long-term,
    intergovernmental effort will be needed to achieve the program's overall
    goal of improving emergency response through broadly interoperable
    first-responder communications systems, and it has taken steps to lay the
    groundwork for this by creating a governance structure allowing for
    significant stakeholder input on program management. However, DHS has made
    less progress in establishing written agreements with other government
    agencies on responsibilities and resource commitments. The DHS effort
    could experience difficulties if it does not reach such agreements, which
    have proven essential to the success of other similarly complex,
    cross-agency programs.

      Recommendation for Executive Action

    To enhance the ability of Project SAFECOM to improve communications among
    emergency personnel from federal, state, local, and tribal agencies, we
    recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Under
    Secretary for Science and Technology to complete written agreements with
    the project's identified stakeholders, including federal agencies and
    organizations representing state and local governments. These agreements
    should define the responsibilities and resource commitments that each of
    those organizations will assume and include specific provisions that
    measure program performance.

      Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    In written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in
    appendix I, the Department of Homeland Security's GAO liaison agreed that
    the lack of interoperable communications hampers emergency response. The
    official also provided additional information about activities undertaken
    by the current program management team since May 2003, including the
    implementation of a management structure that includes state and local
    stakeholders, the ongoing development of technical standards, and
    development of a database to track federal interoperability efforts. We
    discuss these activities in our report.

    Regarding our draft recommendation, this official indicated that DHS has
    provided draft agreements to SAFECOM's federal funding partners, and added
    that DHS supports the need for further delineation of responsibilities and
    funding in future MOUs. Until DHS reaches specific agreements with all of
    SAFECOM's stakeholders, including nonfunding federal partners and state
    and local partners, its ability to achieve its objectives will continue to
    be hindered.

    The official also stated that DHS agrees that performance measures are
    essential for adequate program management, and added that SAFECOM had
    developed a strategic performance management tool. However, DHS did not
    provide any evidence that SAFECOM had determined the specific performance
    measures that will be used to assess progress against its goals, or the
    process for applying them. Until such measures are implemented, program
    managers will be unable to determine the impact of their efforts. We also
    made technical corrections, as appropriate, in response to DHS's comments.

    We plan to send copies to this report to the Ranking Minority Member,
    House Committee on Government Reform; the Ranking Minority Member,
    Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
    Relations and the Census; and the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
    National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations. In
    addition, we will provide copies to the Secretary of Homeland Security and
    the Director of OMB. Copies will also be available without charge on GAO's
    Web site at www.gao.gov.

    Should you have any questions concerning this report, please call me at
    (202) 512-6240 or John de Ferrari, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-6335.
    We can also be reached by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov and
    deferrarij@gao.gov, respectively. Other key contributors to this report
    were Felipe Colon, Jr., Neil Doherty, Michael P. Fruitman, Jamie Pressman,
    and James R. Sweetman, Jr.

    Linda D. Koontz Director, Information Management Issues

    Appendix I

    Comments from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

    Appendix I
    Comments from the U.S. Department of
    Homeland Security

    Appendix I
    Comments from the U.S. Department of
    Homeland Security

    Appendix I
    Comments from the U.S. Department of
    Homeland Security

    Appendix I
    Comments from the U.S. Department of
    Homeland Security

    The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
    of

    GAO's Mission 	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 the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
    and full-

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

    text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of
    older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
    documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
    their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

    Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
    correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
    Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
    To have GAO email this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
    select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
    heading.

    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. General Accounting 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: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

      Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

    Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
    512-7470

    Public Affairs 	Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202)
    512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548

                                   Presorted Standard
                                  Postage & Fees Paid
                                          GAO
                                    Permit No. GI00

    United States
    General Accounting Office
    Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

    Official Business
    Penalty for Private Use $300

    Address Service Requested
    *** End of document. ***