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 [email protected].
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 [email protected] and
[email protected], 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: [email protected]
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (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. ***