Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental
Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable
Communications (20-JUL-04, GAO-04-740).
Lives of first responders and those whom they are trying to
assist can be lost when first responders cannot communicate
effectively as needed. This report addresses issues of
determining the status of interoperable wireless communications
across the nation, and the potential roles that federal, state,
and local governments can play in improving these communications.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-740
ACCNO: A10997
TITLE: Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and
Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder
Interoperable Communications
DATE: 07/20/2004
SUBJECT: Communication
Data collection
Emergency medical services
Emergency preparedness
Federal aid to states
Federal grants
Information technology
Intergovernmental relations
National preparedness
Planning
Safety
Standards and standardization
First responders
Homeland security
Interoperability
Program coordination
Public safety
DOJ Advanced Generation of
Interoperability for Law Enforcement
Program
DOJ Community Oriented Policing Service
Program
NPSTC Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination
Resource and Database System
SAFECOM
DHS Wireless Public Safety Interoperable
Communications Program
******************************************************************
** 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-04-740
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
Report to Congressional Requesters
July 2004
HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First
Responder Interoperable Communications
GAO-04-740
Highlights of GAO-04-740, a report to congressional requesters
Lives of first responders and those whom they are trying to assist can be
lost when first responders cannot communicate effectively as needed. This
report addresses issues of determining the status of interoperable
wireless communications across the nation, and the potential roles that
federal, state, and local governments can play in improving these
communications.
GAO recommends that the Secretary of DHS (1) continue to develop a
nationwide database and common terminology for public safety
interoperability communications channels; (2) assess interoperability in
specific locations against defined requirements; (3) through federal grant
awards, encourage state action to establish and support a statewide body
to develop and implement detailed improvement plans; and (4) encourage
that grant applications be in compliance with statewide interoperability
plans, once they are developed. GAO also recommends that the Director of
OMB work with DHS to review SAFECOM's functions and establish a long-term
program with appropriate authority and funding to coordinate
interoperability efforts across the federal government.
DHS generally agreed with our first two recommendations but did not
specifically address the other recommendations to DHS. OMB had no
comments.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-740.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact William Jenkins at (202)
512-8777 or [email protected].
July 2004
HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First
Responder Interoperable Communications
In a November 6, 2003, testimony, GAO said that no one group or level of
government could "fix" the nation's interoperable communications problems.
Success would require effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and
intergovernmental planning.
The present extent and scope nationwide of public safety wireless
communication systems' ability to talk among themselves as necessary and
authorized has not been determined. Data on current conditions compared to
needs are necessary to develop plans for improvement and measure progress
over time. However, the nationwide data needed to do this are not
currently available. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intends to
obtain this information by the year 2005 by means of a nationwide survey.
However, at the time of our review, DHS had not yet developed its detailed
plans for conducting this survey and reporting its results.
The federal government can take a leadership role in support of efforts to
improve interoperability by developing national requirements and a
national architecture, developing nationwide databases, and providing
technical and financial support for state and local efforts to improve
interoperability. In 2001, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
established the federal government's Wireless Public Safety Interoperable
Communications Program, SAFECOM, to unify efforts to achieve national
wireless communications interoperability. However, SAFECOM's authority and
ability to oversee and coordinate federal and state efforts has been
limited by its dependence upon other agencies for funding and their
willingness to cooperate. OMB is currently examining alternative methods
to implement SAFECOM's mission. In addition, DHS, where SAFECOM now
resides, has recently announced it is establishing an Office for
Interoperability and Compatibility to coordinate the federal response to
the problems of interoperability in several functions, including wireless
communications. The exact structure and funding for this office, which
will include SAFECOM, are still being developed.
State and local governments can play a large role in developing and
implementing plans to improve public safety agencies' interoperable
communications. State and local governments own most of the physical
infrastructure of public safety communications systems, and states play a
central role in managing emergency communications. The Federal
Communications Commission recognized the central role of states in
concluding that states should manage the public safety interoperability
channels in the 700 MHz communications spectrum. States, with broad input
from local governments, are a logical choice to serve as a foundation for
interoperability planning because incidents of any level of severity
originate at the local level with states as the primary source of support.
However, states are not required to develop interoperability plans, and
there is no clear guidance on what should be included in such plans.
Contents
Letter
Results in Brief
Background
Nature and Scope of Interoperable Communications Problems
Nationwide Are Unknown and Not Easily Identified and
Catalogued
Federal Role in Interoperability Problems Continues to Evolve
State and Local Governments' Roles in Statewide Interoperability
Planning and Communications
Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support Statewide
Planning
Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
1
3 6
12 16
28
37 41 43 44
Appendix I Scope and Methodology
Appendix II Cross Border Spectrum Planning 49
Radio Frequency Spectrum Band Structure 49
Cross Border Planning 50
Cross Border Radio Interference 50
Efforts to Address Cross Border Issues 51
Problems Establishing a Single Public Safety Nationwide
Frequency Band 52
Appendix III Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve
Interoperability of Public Safety Wireless
Communications 53
Statement of Public Safety Interoperable Communications
Requirements 53
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Program for Existing
and Emerging Public Safety Communications and
Interoperability 55
Standards to Improve Interoperable Public Safety Communications 58
Technological Near-Term Actions: Bridging Equipment 59
Technological Near-Term Actions: Technical Assistance and
Independent Assessments of Alternative Technologies 60
Appendix IV Role of States Continues to Evolve 61
Challenges in Addressing Communications Interoperability 63
Appendix V Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
Interoperability Planning 66
First Responder Federal Funding Is Structured to Support Short-
Term Rather Than Long-Term Communication Needs 66
Federal Grants Encouraged a "Regional" Approach to Planning, but
Lacked Requirements for Interoperability Communications
Plans 71
Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also
Present Challenges to Short-and Long-Term Planning 73
Fragmented First Responder Grant Structure Complicates and
Limits Coordination at the Federal, State, and Local Levels 75
No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure
Funds Are Used to Improve Regional or Statewide
Communications Interoperability 78
No Comprehensive Grant Database Exists that Can Be Used to
Facilitate Federal Oversight and Coordination of Funding to
Jurisdictions 80
Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Commerce
Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VIII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 90
GAO Contacts 90
Staff Acknowledgments 90
GAO Related Products 91
Bibliography 92
Tables
Table 1: Changes to Funding Sources for Communications
Interoperability Appropriated for Fiscal Years 2003 and
2004 69
Table 2: Federal Interoperable Communications Grant Funding
Sources and Their Eligible Uses 76
Figures
Figure 1: A Planning Process for Interoperable Communications 8
Figure 2: Washington SIEC's Structure to Review Local Requests
for Communications Funds 41
Figure 3: Current Public Safety Spectrum Allocations 49
Abbreviations
AGILE Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement CAPRAD
Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and
Database System COPS Office of Community Oriented Policing Service DHS
Department of Homeland Security DOC Department of Commerce DOJ Department
of Justice EMS Emergency Management Services FCC Federal Communications
Commission FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency IWN Integrated
Wireless Network NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Agency
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NIJ National Institute
of Justice NPSTC National Public Safety Telecommunications Council PSWAC
Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee NCC Public Safety National
Coordination Committee NLECTC National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology
Center NTIA National Telecommunications and Information
Administration ODP Office for Domestic Preparedness OMB Office of
Management and Budget PSWN Public Safety Wireless Network SAFECOM Wireless
Public Safety Interoperable Communications
Program
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.
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548
July 20, 2004
The Honorable Tom Davis, Chairman 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
The Honorable Adam H. Putnam, Chairman
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and the Census Committee on Government Reform House of
Representatives
The inability of first responders-police officers, fire fighters,
emergency medical service personnel, public health officials, and
others-to communicate effectively over wireless systems with one another
as needed during an emergency is a long-standing and widely recognized
problem in many areas across the country.1 Reports have shown that when
first responders cannot communicate effectively as needed, it can
literally cost lives of both emergency responders and those they are
trying to assist. Thus, effective communications between and among
wireless communications systems used by federal, state, and local public
safety agencies is generally accepted as not only desirable but essential
for the protection of life and property. Public safety officials generally
recognize that effective "interoperable" communications is the ability to
talk with whom they want, when they want, when authorized, but not the
ability to talk with everyone all of the time. The effective
interoperability of wireless systems permits a rapid and coordinated
response to an emergency
1Our work addressed issues of public safety wireless communications
interoperability- communications that use radio frequency waves, such as
cellular telephones and other types of wireless radios-instead of
telephone wires for transmitting voice and data. We did not address
interoperability problems that may be found in other homeland security
functions, such as fire equipment, chem-bio equipment, and information
technology.
incident, whether that incident is a "routine" spill from an overturned
tanker truck or railcar, a natural disaster, or a terrorist attack.
Various reports have documented a number of barriers to achieving
interoperable public safety wireless communications, including
incompatible and aging equipment, limited and fragmented funding,
fragmented planning and collaboration, and limited equipment standards.
The federal government has been addressing these issues for over 15 years
through the attempts of a variety of federal agencies to define the extent
of the problem and to identify potential solutions. The September 11
attacks have resulted in greater public and governmental focus on the role
of first responders and their capabilities to respond to emergencies,
including terrorist incidents. In our November 6, 2003, testimony2 before
subcommittees of the House Committee on Government Reform we identified
three principal challenges to improving interoperable communications for
first responders: (1) clearly identifying and defining the problem; (2)
establishing national interoperability performance goals and standards
that balance nationwide standards with the flexibility to address
differences in state, regional, and local needs and conditions; and (3)
defining the roles of federal, state, and local governments and other
entities in addressing interoperability needs. We noted that perhaps the
fundamental barrier to addressing all of the long-standing problems in
interoperable communications is the lack of effective, collaborative,
interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning and that no one first
responder group or governmental agency can successfully "fix" the
interoperability problems that face our nation.
In this report, we examine (1) issues in determining the current
interoperable communications capabilities of first responders nationwide,
including the scope and severity of interoperable wireless communications
problems across the nation; (2) the potential roles that federal, state,
and local governments can play in improving these communications, and (3)
how the variety of federal grants for state and local first responders may
encourage or inhibit the assessment of interoperable problems and the
development of comprehensive plans to address those problems.
2See U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Challenges in
Achieving Interoperable Communications for First Responders, GAO 04-231T
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2003).
To address these issues, we met with officials of the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the
Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Commerce (DOC), the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), and the Department of Defense (DOD), and
obtained and reviewed appropriate documentation. We also met with
officials from the states of California, Florida, Georgia, and Washington
and local governments within those states. We chose these four states
because we had information that they were active in addressing
interoperability issues and because California and Washington provided an
opportunity to examine specific interoperability issues that might be
presented by national borders with Mexico and Canada. We obtained and
reviewed documentation from federal, state, and local officials regarding
interoperability issues, plans and activities. In addition, we attended
several meetings of public safety communications officials and met with
staff of the National Governors Association. See appendix I for more
details on our objectives, scope, and methodology. In addition,
information on cross-border communications issues we obtained during field
visits to the states of California and Washington is included in appendix
II. We conducted our work from July 2003 through June 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the
nation-including the current interoperable communications capabilities of
first responders and the scope and severity of the problems that may
exist-has not been determined. Although various reports have documented
the lack of interoperability of public safety first responders wireless
communications in specific locations, complete and current data do not
exist documenting the scope and severity of the problem at the local,
state, interstate, or federal levels across the nation. Accumulating these
data may be difficult, however, because several problems inhibit efforts
to identify and define current interoperable communications capabilities
and future requirements. Current capabilities must be measured against a
set of requirements for interoperable communications, and these
requirements vary according to the characteristics of specific incidents
at specific locations. Who needs to talk to whom, when they need to talk,
and what set of communications capabilities should be built or acquired to
satisfy these requirements depends upon whether interoperable
communications are needed for day-to-day mutual aid, task force operations
that occur when members of different agencies come together to work on a
common problem such as the National Capitol Region sniper investigation,
or major events such as a terrorist attack. Requirements for interoperable
communications also may change with the
Results in Brief
expanding definition of first responders-from the traditional police,
fire, and emergency medical providers to include such professions as
health care providers and other professions-and the evolution of new
technology. A federal program, the Wireless Public Safety Interoperable
Communications Program, also known as SAFECOM, has embarked on an effort
to establish a national baseline of interoperable communications
capabilities by July 2005, but SAFECOM is still working out the details of
the study that would be used to develop the baseline.
The federal government, states, and local governments have important roles
to play in assessing interoperability needs, gaps in meeting those needs,
and developing comprehensive plans for closing those gaps. The federal
government can provide the leadership, long-term commitment, and focus to
assist state and local governments to meet these goals. For example,
currently national requirements for interoperable communications are
incomplete and no national architecture exists, there is no single
nationwide database of the frequency channels used by public safety
agencies to coordinate frequencies, and no common nomenclature exists for
interoperability channels. States alone cannot develop the requirements or
a national architecture, compile the nationwide frequency database, or
develop a common nationwide nomenclature. In 2001, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) established SAFECOM to unify the federal
government's efforts to help coordinate work at the federal, state, local,
and tribal levels in order to provide reliable public safety
communications and achieve national wireless communications
interoperability. However, SAFECOM was established as an OMB E-Gov
initiative with a goal of improving interoperable communications within
18-24 months-a timeline too short for addressing the complex, long-term
nature of the interoperability problem. In addition, the roles and
responsibilities of various federal agencies within and outside DHS
involved in communications interoperability have not been fully defined,
and SAFECOM's authority to oversee and coordinate federal and state
efforts has been limited in part because it has been dependent upon other
federal agencies for funding and has operated without signed memorandums
of understanding negotiated with various agencies. DHS, where SAFECOM now
resides, announced in May 2004 that it is establishing an Office for
Interoperability and Compatibility to coordinate the federal response to
the problems of wireless and other functional interoperability and
compatibility. The office will include SAFECOM, but, as of June 2004, its
exact structure and funding were still being developed.
States, with broad input from local governments, can serve as focal points
for statewide planning to improve interoperable communications. The
FCC has recognized the important role of states. In its rules and
procedures the FCC concluded that because states play a central role in
managing emergency communications and are usually in control at large
scale-events and disasters, states should administer the interoperability
channels within the 700 MHz band of communications spectrum. States can
play a key role in improving interoperable communications by establishing
a management structure that includes local participation and input to
analyze and identify interoperability gaps between "what is" and "what
should be," developing comprehensive local, state, and regional plans to
address such gaps, and funding these plans. The states we visited or
contacted-California, Florida, Georgia, Washington, Missouri and a five
state Midwest consortium-were in various stages of formulating these
management structures. However, states are not required to establish a
statewide management structure or to develop interoperability plans, and
there is no clear guidance on what should be included in such plans. In
addition, no requirement exists that interoperability of federal
communications systems be coordinated with state and local government
communications systems. The use of a standard database on communications
frequencies by public safety agencies within the state and common
terminology for these frequencies in preparation and implementation of
these statewide interoperable plans are essential but are also not
required. Without planning, coordination, and applicable standards-in
other words, without a commonly understood and accepted blueprint or
national architecture-the communications systems developed between and
among locations and levels of government may not be interoperable.
The federal grant structure does not fully support statewide planning for
communications interoperability because, among other things, grant
guidance is inconsistent and does not include interoperability planning
requirements. In addition, uncoordinated federal and state level grant
reviews limit the government's ability to ensure that federal funds are
used to effectively support improved regional and statewide communications
systems. In an effort to address the issue of inconsistent guidance, in
2003 SAFECOM coordinated with other agencies to develop standard grant
guidance and requirements for planning, building, and training for
interoperable communication. DOJ's Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) Program and DHS's Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), used portions of the guidance in their grant
application requirements.3
We are making recommendations to DHS and OMB to improve the assessment and
coordination of interoperable communications efforts. We recommend that
the Secretary of DHS (1) develop a nationwide database of interoperable
public safety frequency channels and a standard nationwide nomenclature
for these channels, (2) establish requirements for interoperable
communications and assist states in assessing interoperability in their
states against those requirements; (3) through DHS grant guidance,
encourage states to establish a single statewide body to assess
interoperability and develop a single comprehensive statewide
interoperability plan for federal, state, and local communications systems
in all frequency bands, and (4) at the appropriate time, require through
DHS grant guidance that any purchase of interoperable communications
equipment with federal funds must be certified as being in conformance
with statewide interoperability plans. We also recommend that the Director
of OMB in conjunction with DHS review SAFECOM's functions and establish
those functions as a long-term program with adequate authority and
funding.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Homeland
Security discusses actions the department is taking that are generally
consistent with the intent of our recommendations but do not directly
address specific steps detailed in our recommendations with respect to
establishment of statewide bodies responsible for interoperable
communications within the state, the development of comprehensive
statewide interoperability plans and tying federal funds for
communications equipment directly to those statewide interoperable plans.
The Department's comments are discussed later in this report. The
Department letter is reprinted in appendix VII.
Background Interoperable communications is not an end in itself. Rather,
it is a necessary means for achieving an important goal-the ability to
respond effectively to and mitigate incidents that require the coordinated
actions of first responders, such as multi-vehicle accidents, natural
disasters, or
3Congress authorized the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) within the Department of Justice to administer the Interoperable
Communications Technology Program. The program awarded 14 grants totaling
more than $66 million to first responders for interoperable communications
in 2003 and provides technical assistance to grantees.
terrorist attacks. Public safety officials have pointed out that needed
interoperable communications capabilities are based on whether
communications are needed for (1) "mutual-aid responses" or routine
dayto-day coordination between two local agencies; (2) extended task force
operations involving members of different agencies coming together to work
on a common problem, such as the 2002 sniper attacks in the Washington,
D.C. metropolitan area; or (3) a major event that requires response from a
variety of local, state, and federal agencies, such as major wildfires,
hurricanes, or the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. A California
State official with long experience in public safety communications breaks
the major event category into three separate types of events: (1) planned
events, such as the Olympics, for which plans can be made in advance; (2)
recurring events, such as major wildfires and other weather events, that
can be expected every year and for which contingency plans can be prepared
based on past experience; and (3) unplanned events, such as the September
11th attacks, that can rapidly overwhelm the ability of local forces to
handle the problem.
Interoperable communications are but one component, although a key one, of
an effective incident command planning and operations structure. As shown
in figure 1, determining the most appropriate means of achieving
interoperable communications must flow from an comprehensive incident
command and operations plan that includes developing an operational
definition of who is in charge for different types of events and what
types of information would need to be communicated (voice, data, or both)
to whom under what circumstances. Other steps include:
o defining the range of interoperable communications capabilities needed
for specific types of events;
o assessing the current capabilities to meet these communications needs;
o identifying the gap between current capabilities and defined
requirements;
o assessing alternative means of achieving defined interoperable
communications requirements; and
o developing a comprehensive plan-including, for example, mutual aid
agreements, technology and equipment specifications, and training-for
closing the gap between current capabilities and identified requirements.
Interoperable communications requirements are not static, but change over
time with changing circumstances (e.g., new threats) and technology (e.g.,
new equipment), and additional spectrum as it becomes available.
Consequently, both a short-and long-term "feedback loop" that incorporates
regular assessments of current capabilities and needed changes is
important.
Figure 1: A Planning Process for Interoperable Communications
Many Agencies and Groups The first responder community is extensive and
extremely diverse in size Have Examined and and the types of equipment in
their communications systems. According to Reported on SAFECOM officials,
there are over 2.5 million public safety- first
responders within more than 50,000 public safety organizations in the
Interoperability Issues United States. Local and state agencies own over
90 percent of the existing public safety communications infrastructure.
This intricate public safety communications infrastructure incorporates a
wide variety of
technologies, equipment types, and spectrum bands.4 In addition to the
difficulty that this complex environment poses for federal, state, and
local coordination, 85 percent of fire personnel, and nearly as many
emergency management technicians, are volunteers with elected leadership.
Many of these agencies are small and do not have technical expertise; only
the largest of the agencies have engineers and technicians.
In the past, a stovepiped, single jurisdiction, or agency-specific
communication systems development approach prevailed-resulting in none or
less than desired interoperable communications systems. Public safety
agencies have historically planned and acquired communications systems for
their own jurisdictions without concern for interoperability. This meant
that each state and local agency developed communications systems to meet
their own requirements, without regard to interoperability requirements to
talk to adjacent jurisdictions. For example, a Public Safety Wireless
Network (PSWN) analysis of Fire and Emergency Management Services (EMS)
communications interoperability found a significant need for coordinated
approaches, relationship building, and information sharing.5 However, the
PSWN program office found that public safety agencies have traditionally
developed or updated their radio systems independently to meet specific
mission needs.
According to a study conducted by the National Task Force on
Interoperability,6 public safety officials have unique and demanding
communications requirements. According to the study, however, when the
issue of interoperability is raised, officials respond that they are
unable to even talk to their own personnel, much less expand their
communications to include reliable and interoperable local and regional
communications, and, ultimately reliable and interoperable local, state,
and federal
4The spectrum bands are the useable radio frequencies in the
electromagnetic distribution. Specific frequencies have been allotted for
the public safety community.
5Fire and EMS Communications Interoperability, April, 1999. The Department
of Justice and the Department of the Treasury formed PSWN to promote
effective public safety communications and to foster interoperability
among local, state, federal, and tribal communications systems. PSWN was
incorporated into DHS as part of the SAFECOM project in 2003.
6Why Can't We Talk? Working Together to Bridge the Communications Gap to
Save Lives: Feb. 2003). The Task Force was formed and funded by the
National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice, and included
representatives from associations across the public safety community, such
as fire and police chiefs, emergency managers, mayors, cities, and states.
communications. The events of September 11, 2001, which called for an
integrated response of federal, state, and local first responders,
highlighted the need for interoperable first responder communication
across disciplines and throughout levels of government.
The attacks on New York City and the Pentagon have resulted in greater
public and governmental focus on the role of first responders and their
capabilities to respond to emergencies, including those resulting from
terrorist incidents. One result has been significantly increased federal
funding for state and local first responders, including funding to improve
interoperable communications among federal, state, and local first
responders. In fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated at least $154
million targeted specifically for interoperability through a variety of
grants administered by the Department of Homeland Security, the Department
of Justice, and other agencies. Other available grants, such as the
Homeland Security Grant, could be used for a variety of purposes,
including interoperable communications.
For over 15 years, the federal government has been concerned with public
safety spectrum issues, including communications interoperability issues.7
A variety of federal departments and agencies have been involved in
efforts to define the problem and to identify potential solutions, such as
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice
(DOJ), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National
Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) within the Department of
Commerce (DOC), among others. Today, a combination of federal agencies,
programs, and associations are involved in coordinating emergency
communications.
DHS has several agencies and programs involved with addressing first
responder interoperable communication barriers, including the SAFECOM
program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Office
for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). As one of its 24 E-Gov initiatives, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2001 created
7The radiofrequency spectrum is the medium that enables wireless
communications of all kinds. Although the radio spectrum spans the range
from 3 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz, 90 percent of its use is concentrated
in the 1 percent of frequencies that lie below 3.1 gigahertz, because
these frequencies have properties that make this portion of the spectrum
well suited for many important wireless technologies. Radio waves are a
form of electromagnetic radiation that propagate in space as the result of
particle oscillations. The number of oscillations per second is called
"frequency," which is measured in units of hertz. The term "kilohertz"
refers to thousands of hertz and "gigahertz" to billions of hertz.
SAFECOM to unify the federal government's efforts to help coordinate the
work at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels to establish reliable
public safety communications and achieve national wireless communications
interoperability. The SAFECOM program was brought into DHS in early 2003.
In June 2003, SAFECOM partnered with the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to hold
a summit that brought together over 60 entities involved with
communications interoperability policy setting or programs. According to
NIST, the summit familiarized key interoperability players with work being
done by others and provided insight into where additional federal
resources may be needed.
In addition to the many federal agencies and programs involved with
shaping first responder interoperable communication policies, a range of
public safety associations play a significant role in defining the
problems and solutions to emergency communications interoperability. For
example the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) is a
federation representing public safety telecommunications. The purpose of
NPSTC is to follow up on the recommendations made by the Public Safety
Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) to FCC and the National
Telecommunications and Information Agency on public safety communication
needs.8 In addition, NPSTC acts as a resource and advocate for public
safety telecommunications issues and is working with SAFECOM to develop
requirements for first responder communications.
FCC established the Public Safety National Coordination Committee (NCC) to
advise them on spectrum policy decisions for public safety interoperable
communications. In July 2003, NCC made several recommendations to FCC for
improving communications interoperability. The NCC's charter expired on
July 25, 2003 and it has since been dissolved.
In 2002, the National Governors Association released a report that
recommended that governors and their state homeland security directors
8Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee: Sept.
1996. The FCC and the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications
and Information Administration formed the Advisory Committee in June 1995
to provide advice on the specific wireless communications requirements of
public safety agencies through the year 2010 and to make recommendations
for meeting those needs. Members were drawn from private industry, federal
agencies, and state and local public safety agencies. The FCC regulates
state and local government use of radio frequency spectrum and the NTIA
regulates federal government use of radio frequency spectrum.
(1) develop a statewide vision for interoperable communications, (2)
ensure adequate wireless spectrum to accommodate all users, (3) invest in
new communications infrastructure, (4) develop standards for technology
and equipment, and (5) partner with government and private industry.9
These associations and task forces are just a small representation of the
many organizations identified by DHS and NIST as contributors to public
safety interoperable communications efforts.
Several technical factors specifically limit interoperability of public
safety wireless communications systems. First, public safety agencies have
been assigned frequencies in new bands over time as available frequencies
become congested and as new technology made other frequencies available
for use. As a result, public safety agencies now operate over multiple
frequency bands-operating on these different bands required different
radios because technology was not available to include all bands in one
radio. Thus, the new bands provided additional capabilities but fragmented
the public safety radio frequency spectrum, making communications among
different jurisdictions difficult. Another technical factor inhibiting
interoperability is the different technologies or different applications
of the same technology by manufacturers of public safety radio equipment.
One manufacture may design equipment with proprietary technology that will
not work with equipment produced by another manufacturer.
The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the
nation-including current interoperable communications capability and the
scope and severity of any problems-has not been determined. Although
various reports have documented the lack of interoperability of first
responders' wireless communications in specific locations, complete and
current data do not exist documenting current interoperable communications
capabilities and the scope and severity of any problems at the local,
state, interstate, or federal level across the nation.
SAFECOM plans to conduct a nationwide survey to assess current
capabilities of public safety agency wireless communications.
Nature and Scope of Interoperable Communications Problems Nationwide Are
Unknown and Not Easily Identified and Catalogued
9A Governor's Guide to Emergency Management. Volume Two: Homeland Security
(Washington, D.C.: 2002).
Accumulating these data may be difficult, however, because several
problems inhibit efforts to identify and define current interoperable
communications capabilities and future requirements. Improving the
interoperability of first responder wireless communications requires a
clear assessment of the current state of public safety wireless
communications interoperability, using a set of defined requirements; an
operational definition of any problems; and a planning framework to guide
the resolution of those problems. However, defining interoperability
problems is difficult because interoperability requirements and problems
are situation specific and evolve over time.
Federal Plans to Obtain Data on the Scope and Nature of Interoperable
Communications Problems
By 2008, SAFECOM expects all public safety agencies in the United States
to have a minimum level of interoperability, as defined by a national
interoperability baseline. However, SAFECOM officials said they lack
current nationwide information on the interoperable communications
problems of first responders. Two key studies in the late 1990s sponsored
by DOJ and PSWN program provide a nationwide picture of wireless
interoperability issues among federal, state, and local police, fire, and
emergency medical service agencies at that time.10 Both studies describe
most local public safety agencies as interacting with other local agencies
on a daily or weekly basis. As a result, most local agencies had more
confidence in establishing radio links with one another than with state
agencies, with whom they less frequently interact. Local public safety
agencies interact with federal agencies least of all, with a smaller
percentage of local agencies expressing confidence in their ability to
establish radio links with federal agencies.
However, the events of September 11, 2001, have resulted in a
reexamination of the circumstances in which interoperable communications
should extend across political jurisdictions and levels of government. To
obtain a current national picture, SAFECOM established as a key objective
to assess by July 2005 the current state of interoperability across the
nation and create a nationwide baseline describing public safety
communications and interoperability. The
10Wireless Communications and Interoperability Among State and Local Law
Enforcement Agencies, January, 1998 by DOJ, and "Fire and EMS
Communications Interoperability, April, 1999" by PSWN. DOJ's study
concentrated on wireless interoperability issues within the state and
local law enforcement community, while PSWN's study assessed
communications interoperability issues within the fire and emergency
medical services communities.
baseline will be the basis for measuring future improvements made through
local, state, and federal public safety communications initiatives.
SAFECOM officials said their study will be designed to measure actual
interoperability capabilities in a sample of locations selected to
represent the national condition. According to these officials, SAFECOM
will conduct a gap analysis, which will compare the actual levels of
interoperability within a state to the various scenarios used in a
nationwide statement of requirements and determine the minimum level of
interoperability that needs to be obtained.
Establishing a national baseline for public safety wireless communications
interoperability will be difficult because the definition of who to
include as a first responder is evolving, and interoperability problems
and solutions are situation specific and change over time to reflect new
technologies and operational requirements. In a joint SAFECOM/AGILE11
program planning meeting in December 2003, participants agreed that a
national baseline is necessary to know what the nations' interoperability
status really is, to set goals, and to measure progress. However, at the
meeting, participants said they did not know how they were going to define
interoperability, how they could measure interoperability, or how to
select their sample of representative jurisdictions; this was all to be
determined at a later date. At the time of our review, SAFECOM officials
acknowledged that establishing a baseline will be difficult and said they
are working out the details of their baseline study but still expect to
complete it by July 2005.
DHS also has other work under way that may provide a tool for such
selfassessments by public safety officials. An ODP official in the Border
and Transportation Security Directorate of DHS said ODP is supporting the
development of a communications and interoperability needs assessment for
118 jurisdictions that make up the Kansas City region. The official said
the assessment will provide an inventory of communications equipment and
identify how the equipment is used. He also said the results of this
prototype effort will be placed on a CD-Rom and distributed to states and
localities to provide a tool to conduct their own self assessments.
SAFECOM officials said they will review ODP's assessment tool as part of a
coordinated effort and use this tool if it meets the interoperability
requirements of first responders.
11The Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement (AGILE)
is a key DOJ program promoting wireless interoperability for first
responders.
Interoperability Issues Change as the Definition of First Responders Expands
and Technology Evolves
Public safety officials generally recognize that interoperable
communications is the ability to talk with whom they want, when they want,
when authorized, but not the ability to talk with everyone all of the
time. However, there is no standard definition of communications
interoperability. Nor is there a "one size fits all" requirement for who
needs to talk to whom. Traditionally, first responders have been
considered to be fire, police, and emergency medical service personnel.
However, in a description of public safety challenges, a federal official
noted that the attacks of September 11, 2001, have blurred the lines
between public safety and national security. According to the Gilmore
Commission, effective preparedness for combating terrorism at the local
level requires a network that includes public health departments,
hospitals and other medical providers, and offices of emergency
management, in addition to the traditional police, fire, and emergency
medical services first responders.12 Furthermore, Congress provided an
expanded definition of first responders in the Homeland Security Act of
2002, which defined "emergency response providers" as including "Federal,
State, and local emergency public safety, law enforcement, emergency
response, emergency medical (including hospital emergency facilities), and
related personnel, agencies, and authorities."13
Technological changes also present new problems and opportunities for
achieving and maintaining effective interoperable communications.
According to one official, in the 1980s a method of voice transmission
called "trunking" became available that allowed more efficient use of
spectrum. However, three different and incompatible trunking technologies
developed, and these systems were not interoperable. This official noted
that as mobile data communications becomes more prevalent and new digital
technologies are introduced, standards become more important.
In addition, technical standards for interoperable communications are
still under development. Beginning in 1989, a partnership between industry
and the public safety user community developed what is known as Project 25
(P-25) standards. According to the PSWN program office, Project 25
12Third Annual Report to the President and the Congress of the Advisory
Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving
Weapons of Mass Destruction, December 15, 2001. The panel is generally
referred to as the Gilmore Commission, after its Chairman James S.
Gilmore, III.
13Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, S: 2 (6), 116 Stat.
2135, 2140.
standards remain the only user-defined set of standards in the United
States for public safety communications. DHS purchased radios that
incorporate the P-25 standards for each of the nation's 28 urban search
and rescue teams. PSWN believes P-25 is an important step toward achieving
interoperability, but the standards do not mandate interoperability among
all manufacturers' systems. Standards development continues today as new
technologies emerge that meet changing user needs and new policy
requirements.
Finally, new public safety mission requirements for video, imaging, and
high-speed data transfers, new and highly complex digital communications
systems, and the use of commercial wireless systems are potential sources
of new interoperability problems. Availability of new spectrum can also
encourage the development of new technologies and require further
development of technical standards. For example, the FCC recently
designated a new band of spectrum, the 4.9 Gigahertz (GHz) band, for use
and support of public safety. The FCC provided this additional spectrum to
public safety users to support new broadband applications such as
highspeed digital technologies and wireless local area networks for
incident scene management. The FCC requested in particular comments on the
implementation of technical standards for fixed and mobile operations on
the band. NPSTC has established a task force that includes work on
interoperability standards for the 4.9 GHz band.
The federal government has a long history in addressing federal, state,
and local government public safety issues-in particular interoperability
issues. Congress has also recently contributed to the development of
policies. In October 2002 the House Committee on Government Reform issued
a report entitled How Can the Federal Government Better Assist State and
local Governments in Preparing for a Biological, Chemical, or Nuclear
Attack? The Committee's first finding was that incompatible communication
systems impede intergovernmental coordination efforts. The Committee
recommended that the federal government take a leadership role in
resolving the communications interoperability problem.
In December 2003, the SAFECOM and the AGILE program within DOJ issued a
joint report in which they established a series of initiatives and goals
extending over the next 20 years. The report concludes that a continuous
and participatory effort is required to improve public safety
communications and interoperability. OMB created the SAFECOM program as a
short-term (18-24 months) E-Gov initiative. It had no designated long-term
mission. However, OMB has identified SAFECOM as
Federal Role in Interoperability Problems Continues to Evolve
the primary program responsible for coordinating federal efforts to
improve interoperability. How to institutionalize that role is still an
evolving process. In addition, the roles and responsibilities of the
various federal agencies-the FCC, DOJ, and others-involved in
communications interoperability have not been fully defined and SAFECOM's
authority to oversee and coordinate federal and state efforts is limited.
DHS, where SAFECOM now resides, has recently announced it is establishing
an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility to coordinate the federal
response to the problems of interoperability and compatibility. The exact
structure and funding for the office, which will include SAFECOM, are
still being developed.
There are areas in which the federal government can provide leadership,
such as developing national requirements and a national architecture for
public safety interoperable communications, national databases, and
common, nationwide terminology for communications. Moreover, the federal
government alone can allocate communications spectrum for public safety
use.
Establishing National Requirements and a National Architecture
One key barrier to the development of a national interoperability strategy
has been the lack of a statement of national mission requirements for
public safety-what set of communications capabilities should be built or
acquired-and a strategy to get there. A key initiative in the SAFECOM
program plan for the year 2005 is to complete a comprehensive Public
Safety Statement of Requirements. The statement is to provide functional
requirements that define how, when, and where public safety practitioners
communicate. On April 26, 2004, DHS announced the release of the first
comprehensive Statement of Requirements defining future communication
requirements and outlining future technology needed to meet these
requirements. According to DHS, the statement provides a shared vision and
an architectural framework for future interoperable public safety
communications.
DHS describes the Statement of Requirements as a living document that will
define future communications services as they change or become new
requirements for public safety agencies in carrying out their missions.
SAFECOM officials said additional versions of the statement will
incorporate whatever is needed to meet future needs but did not provide
specific details. One example of potential future development is expanded
coverage to include public safety support functions. The current statement
is incomplete because it only addresses the functional requirements for
traditional public safety first responders-Emergency Medical Services
personnel, firefighters, and law enforcement officers. The statement
recognizes the existence of but does not include in this version those
elements of the public safety community-such as transportation or public
utility workers-whose primary mission provides vital support to public
safety officials.
A national architecture has not yet been prepared to guide the creation of
interoperable communications. An explicit, commonly understood, and
agreed-to blueprint, or architecture, is required to effectively and
efficiently guide modernization efforts. For a decade, GAO has promoted
the use of architectures, recognizing them as a crucial means to a
challenging goal: agency operational structures that are optimally defined
in both business and technological environments.14 Office of Management
and Budget officials told us that OMB charged SAFECOM with developing a
national architecture, which will include local, state, and federal
government architectures. According to these officials, SAFECOM is to work
closely with state and local governments to establish a basic
understanding of what infrastructure currently exists, and to identify
public safety communication requirements. SAFECOM officials said
development of a national architecture will take time because SAFECOM must
first assist state and local governments to establish their communications
architectures. They said SAFECOM will then collect the state and local
architectures, and fit them into a national architecture that links
federal communications into the state and local infrastructure.
Standard Databases to Support Interoperable Communications Not Established
State and local officials consider a standard database to be essential to
frequency planning and coordination for interoperability frequencies and
for general public safety purposes. The Public Safety National
Communications Council (NCC), appointed by the FCC to make recommendations
for public safety use of the 700 MHz communications spectrum, recommended
that the FCC mandate Regional Planning Committee use of a standard
database to coordinate frequencies during
14An enterprise architecture can be viewed as a link between an
organization's strategic plan and the program and supporting systems
implementation investments it intends to pursue to systematically achieve
its strategic goals and outcomes. As such the architecture is basically a
blueprint, defined largely by interrelated models, that describes (in both
business and technology terms) an entity's "as is" or current environment,
its "to be" future environment, and its investment plan for transitioning
from the current to the future environment. See Information Technology:
The Federal Enterprise Architecture and Agencies Enterprise Architectures
Are Still Maturing GAO-04-798T (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2004).
license applications. In January 2001, the FCC rejected this
recommendation noting that while the NCC believed that use of this
database would ensure avoidance of channel interference between spectrum
users, mandating use of the database was premature because it had not been
fully developed and tested. The FCC directed the NCC to revisit the issue
of mandating the database once the database is developed and has begun
operation.
In its final report of July 25, 2003, the NCC noted that on July 18, 2003
the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council demonstrated to FCC
staff what it represented was an operational version of the database, now
named the Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and Database System
(CAPRAD). The NCC urged the FCC to reevaluate its position in light of the
demonstration of CAPRAD, and, if appropriate, to adopt a rule requiring
its use by Regional Planning Committees in their planning process.
Officials at the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology
Center (NLECTC)-Rocky Mountain Center15 said they are developing and
administering the CAPRAD database. Center officials told us CAPRAD is a
frequency pre-coordination database that is evolving as the user community
defines its requirements. For example, they said CAPRAD was used to
develop a draft nationwide 700 MHz frequency allocation plan that included
interoperability frequencies, frequencies allocated to states for general
state purposes, and frequencies allocated to the general public safety
community. FCC designated Regional Planning Committees16 and
15The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) Support
Office operates as part of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center- Rocky Mountain Center (NLECTC-RM). NLECTC is a program
of the National Institute of Justice, the research and development arm of
the U.S. Department of Justice. The NLECTC is hosted by the University of
Denver. The NPSTC Support Office and its work on CAPRAD is funded by the
Department of Justice AGILE program. AGILE funding also supports the FCC
designated Regional Planning Committees.
16In 1987, the FCC developed a National Plan for Public Safety Radio
Services that set national guidelines for use of the 800 MHz spectrum
while allowing regional public safety planning committees to develop
regional plans tailored to their areas own particular communications
needs. A large portion of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum,
approximately 53 percent (12.5 MHz), is designated for general use by
local, regional and state users. A regional planning process was adopted
to govern management of this public safety spectrum. It is a similar
process to that used in the 821-824 MHz and 866-869 MHz bands. Regional
Planning Committees (RPCs) are allowed maximum flexibility to meet state
and local needs, encourage innovative use of the spectrum, and accommodate
new and as yet unanticipated developments in technology equipment. They
are responsible for creating and managing regional plans.
frequency coordinators17 can then use this plan as a starting point to
develop detailed plans for their regions. Center officials said that
several RPCs have also loaded their 700 and 800 MHz regional plans into
CAPRAD for review by adjacent RPCs or officials needing information on a
regional plan. Center officials also told us that they are working on a
comparable SIEC model to include interoperability channels across all
bands.
State and local officials we visited were familiar with the database and
generally favored its use. For example, a California state official wrote
us that some California state and local officials participated in the
drafting of this NCC recommendation and believe its use will assist in
preventing interstate interference. State and local officials in the State
of Washington said that the use of the CAPRAD database should be
mandatory. The officials said CAPRAD would facilitate new spectrum
allocation and precoordination of spectrum. In addition, they said CAPRAD
holds the potential of eliminating interference between users, and is the
first universally accepted frequency coordination database. It holds the
promise of a one-stop frequency coordination database, according to a
Washington State Department of Information Services official.
Common Terminology for Interoperable Channels Not Established
Technology solutions by themselves are not sufficient to fully address
communication interoperability problems in a given local government,
state, or multi-state region. For example, the regional communications
chairs of the Florida Regional Domestic Security Task Forces have noted
that non-technical barriers are the most important and difficult to solve.
Police and fire departments often have different concepts and doctrines on
how to operate an incident command post and use interoperable
communications. Similarly, first responders, such as police and fire
departments, may use different terminology to describe the same thing.
Differences in terminology and operating procedures can lead to
communications problems even where the participating public safety
agencies share common communications equipment and spectrum.
State and local officials have drawn specific attention to problems caused
by the lack of common terminology in naming the same interoperability
frequency. In January 2001 the FCC rejected an NCC recommendation that
17FCC has certified specific associations to perform the coordination
process used to choose appropriate frequencies for public safety mobile
radio systems. This coordination is essential to ensure that the numerous
systems across the country have clear and interference free operation on
these critical radio systems.
the FCC mandate through its rules that specific names be designated for
each interoperability channel on all public safety bands. The Commission
said it would have to change its rules each time the public safety
community wished to revise a channel label and that this procedure would
be too cumbersome.
In its final report on July 25, 2003, the NCC renewed its earlier
recommendation and added a recommendation that all radios that include a
channel-selection display be required to use the standard names. The NCC
said standard names are essential to achieve interoperability because all
responders to an incident must know what channel to which they must tune
their radios. The NCC said adoption of such standard names will avoid
confusion resulting from use of different names for the same frequency by
different jurisdictions. In an earlier May 29, 2003 report, the NCC noted
multiple examples where lack of common channel names had disrupted
coordination of effective response to incidents. The NCC noted that the
problem could endanger life and property in a very large-scale incident.
In addition, the NCC noted that its recommendation could be implemented in
a short time at virtually no cost and that the recommendation was
consistent with previous FCC actions. For example, the NCC noted that the
FCC had designated channels specified for medical communications use for
the specific purpose of uniform usage.
Converting SAFECOM's Functions to a Long-Term Program
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) created SAFECOM in 2001 to unify
the federal governments' efforts to coordinate work at the federal, state,
local and tribal levels on improving interoperable communications.
According to OMB, SAFECOM is the umbrella program for all Federal
interoperability efforts and will work with state and local
interoperability initiatives. DHS is the managing partner of the SAFECOM
project with six additional agencies as partner agencies. The partner
agencies include the Departments of Defense, Energy, Interior, Justice,
Health and Human Services, and Agriculture. According to OMB, all of these
agencies have significant roles to play in public safety communications,
emergency/incident response and management, and law enforcement.
Our April 2004 report on Project SAFECOM18 compared SAFECOM's progress
against its overall objective of achieving national wireless
18Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort
Requires Stronger Collaboration, GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.: April
2004).
communications interoperability among first responders and public safety
systems at all levels of government. This broad objective could not be
fully realized within the target of 18 to 24 months. However, we also
noted that two major factors have contributed to the project's limited
progress toward this objective: (1) a lack of consistent executive
commitment and support and (2) an inadequate level of interagency
collaboration. We concluded that until these shortcomings are addressed,
the ability of SAFECOM to deliver on its promise of improved
interoperability and better response to emergencies will remain in doubt.
We recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology to complete written agreements with
other federal agencies and organizations representing state, local, and
tribal governments that define the responsibilities and resource
commitments that each of those organizations will assume. These agreements
should include specific provisions for funding the project and measuring
its performance.
In addition, key program structure and funding issues seriously limit the
ability of SAFECOM to affect the future long-term development of the
interoperability function and mission. SAFECOM's program and funding
structure were established to address the public safety wireless
communications problems as a short-term, 18-24 month project. However, DHS
recognizes 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. As a result,
DHS set a SAFECOM goal to establish a "system of systems" by 2023 that
will provide the necessary interoperability for public safety users. The
program funding structure as established does not support a long-term
program. Because SAFECOM is an E-Gov project, each year OMB instructs
federal agencies designated as a partner with SAFECOM to provide specified
amounts of funding to SAFECOM. SAFECOM negotiates an annual Memorandum of
Agreement on funding or program participation with each of these agencies;
however, in our Project SAFECOM report, we said that by the end of our
field work in 2004 SAFECOM had signed an agreement with only one agency in
fiscal year 2004.
Representatives of federal, state, and local public safety users
identified as a high priority the development of a business case with long
term sustainable funding for a national office for public safety
communications and interoperability and recommended that this office
should become a part of the annual President's budget request process.
SAFECOM officials said establishment of a budget funding line for SAFECOM
was discussed
for fiscal year 2005 budget, but the budget does not contain a funding
line for SAFECOM in fiscal year 2005 or beyond.
Multiple Federal Agencies Have Roles and Responsibilities for
Interoperability
DHS has not defined how it will convert the current short-term program and
funding structures to a permanent program office structure. When it does,
DHS must carefully define the SAFECOM mission and roles in relation to
other agencies within DHS and in other federal agencies that have missions
that may be related to the OMB assigned mission for SAFECOM. SAFECOM must
coordinate with multiple federal agencies, including ODP within DHS, AGILE
in DOJ; DOD; the FCC; the NTIA within DOC, and other agencies. For
example, the Homeland Security Act assigns ODP primary responsibility
within the executive branch for preparing the United States for acts of
terrorism, including coordinating or, as appropriate, consolidating
communications and systems of communications relating to homeland security
at all levels of government.
An ODP official said the Homeland Security Act granted authority to ODP to
serve as the primary agency for preparedness against acts of terrorism, to
specifically include communications issues. He said ODP is working with
states and local jurisdictions to institutionalize a strategic planning
process that assesses and funds their requirements. As indicated earlier,
ODP also plans to develop tools to link these assessments to detailed
interoperable communications plans. According to this official, SAFECOM,
as part of the Science and Technology Directorate, is responsible for (1)
developing standards; (2) research, development, testing, and evaluation
of public safety communications; and (3) advising ODP about available
technologies and standards.
In addition, although OMB states that SAFECOM is the umbrella program to
coordinate actions of the federal government, it does not include all
major federal efforts aimed at promoting wireless interoperability for
first responders. Specifically, the Justice Department continues to play a
strong role in interoperability after establishment of DHS. Key Justice
programs-the Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement
(AGILE) and the Interoperable Communication Technology Program
administered by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS)-did not transition to the SAFECOM program in the new Department of
Homeland Security.
AGILE is the Department of Justice program to assist state and local law
enforcement agencies to effectively and efficiently communicate with one
another across agency and jurisdictional boundaries. It is dedicated to
studying interoperability options and advising state and local law
enforcement agencies. The SAFECOM program director also said most of the
federal research and development on prototypes is being conducted within
the AGILE program.
SAFECOM and AGILE officials told us they have a close working
relationship. The SAFECOM and AGILE programs also held a joint planning
meeting in early December 2003 and developed an action plan that SAFECOM
and AGILE said they were committed to implement, given available
resources.
DHS must also coordinate with the Department of Defense (DOD) to address
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high explosive events. A
November 2003 Defense Science Board (DSB) report said DOD's role includes,
when directed, military support to civil authorities, and that DOD
assistance could be required to assist in incident response. But the Board
concluded that DOD must improve communication interoperability between
first responders and federal, state, and local agencies involved in
emergency preparedness and incident response.
SAFECOM officials also will face a complex issue when they address public
safety spectrum management and coordination. The National Governors' Guide
to Emergency Management noted that extensive coordination will be required
between the FCC and the NTIA to provide adequate spectrum and to enhance
shared local, state, and federal communications. However, the current
legal framework for domestic spectrum management is divided between the
NTIA within the Department of Commerce, responsible for federal government
spectrum use and the FCC, responsible for state, local, and other
nonfederal spectrum use. In a September 2002 report on spectrum management
and coordination, we found that FCC and NTIA's efforts to manage their
respective areas of responsibility are not guided by a national spectrum
strategy.19 The FCC and the NTIA have conducted independent spectrum
planning efforts and have recently taken steps to improve coordination,
but have not yet implemented long-standing congressional directives to
conduct joint, national spectrum planning. We recommended that the FCC and
the NTIA develop a strategy for establishing a clearly defined national
spectrum plan and submit a report to the appropriate congressional
19Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability
Needed to Improve Spectrum Management, GAO-02-906 (Washington, D.C.:
September, 2002).
committees. The FCC and the NTIA generally agreed with this
recommendation. In a separate report, we also discussed several barriers
to reforming spectrum management in the United States.20
In written comments on a draft of this report, the Department of Commerce
said it had issued two spectrum policy reports on June 24, 2004, in
response to the President's initiative, entitled Spectrum Policy for the
21st Century. The Department said the second report recommends an
interagency effort to study the spectrum use and needs of the public
safety community, a public safety demonstration program, and a
comprehensive plan to address the spectrum shortage, interference,
technology, and security issues of the public safety community. The
Department also said that the DHS would be an integral partner in
fulfilling its recommendations.21
SAFECOM's Authority to Coordinate Federal and State Efforts Is Limited
SAFECOM is involved in several federal coordination initiatives, including
efforts to coordinate federal funding, but according to its officials, it
does not have the oversight authority or pertinent information to fully
accomplish this objective.
The SAFECOM program is attempting to coordinate federal grant funding to
maximize the prospects for communication interoperability grants across
federal agencies by means of interagency guidance. We selected several
grant programs to determine how this guidance was used. We found that COPS
(with DOJ) and FEMA (within DHS) used this guidance, at least in part, in
their coordinated 2003 Interoperable Communications Equipment grants, and
ODP used the guidance in its 2004 Homeland Security and Urban Areas
Security Initiative grant programs. However, COPS and FEMA officials said
that it was difficult to incorporate SAFECOM's recommended criteria for
planning public safety communications systems into their joint guidance
because statutory language for their grant programs focuses on the
purchase of equipment without specifically addressing planning.
SAFECOM also does not have authority to require federal agencies to
coordinate their grant award information. SAFECOM is currently engaged
20Telecommunications: Comprehensive Review Of U.S. Spectrum Management
With Broad Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed, GAO-03-277 (Washington,
D.C.: January 2003).
21We did not evaluate these studies for purposes of this report.
in an effort with DOJ to create a "collaborative clearinghouse" that could
facilitate federal oversight of interoperable communications funding to
jurisdictions and allow states access to this information for planning
purposes. The database is intended to decrease duplication of funding and
evaluation efforts, de-conflict the application process, maximize
efficiency of limited federal funding, and serve as a data collection tool
for lessons learned that would be accessible to state and locals. However,
SAFECOM officials said that the challenge to implementing the coordinated
project is getting federal agency collaboration and compliance. As of
February 2004, the database only contains award information from the 2003
COPS and FEMA Interoperability Communications Equipment Grants. The
database does not contain grant award information from the Office for
Domestic Preparedness on its Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grants
or its Homeland Security grants (HSG), nor from FEMA's Emergency
Management Preparedness Grant or any other federal agency grant funds.
SAFECOM's oversight authority and responsibilities are dependant upon its
overall mission. OMB officials told us that they are currently in the
process of refocusing the mission of the SAFECOM program into three
specific parts: (1) coordination of federal activities through several
initiatives, including participation in the Federal Interagency
Coordination Council (FICC)22 and establishment of a process for federal
agencies to report and coordinate with SAFECOM on federal activities and
investments in interoperability; (2) developing standards; and (3)
developing a national architecture for addressing communications
interoperability problems. OMB officials said identification of all
current and planned federal agency communications programs affecting
federal, state, and local wireless interoperability is difficult.
According to these officials, OMB is developing a strategy to best utilize
the SAFECOM program and examining options to enforce the new coordination
and reporting process. SAFECOM officials said they are working to
formalize the new reporting and coordination process by developing written
agreements with other federal agencies and by obtaining concurrence of
major state and local associations to the SAFECOM governance structure.
22FICC is an informal council consisting of federal agencies, whose
mission is to help local, tribal, state, and federal public safety
agencies improve public safety response through more effective and
efficient interoperable wireless communications by reducing duplication in
programs and activities, identifying and promoting best practices and
coordinating federal grants, technical assistance, training, and
standards. Proposed FICC members are federal agencies within DOJ, DHS,
Defense, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Commerce.
SAFECOM officials noted that this newly refocused SAFECOM role does not
include providing technical assistance or conducting operational testing
of equipment.23 They said that their authority to conduct such activities
will come from DHS enabling directives. SAFECOM officials also said that
they have no enforcement authority to require other agencies to use the
SAFECOM grant guidance in their funding decisions or to require agencies
to provide grant program information to them for use in their database.
A New DHS Office of Interoperability and Compatibility
The Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) within DHS has been tasked
to lead the planning and implementation of the Office of Interoperability
and Compatibility (OIC). The new office is responsible for coordinating
DHS efforts to address interoperability and compatibility of first
responder equipment, to include both communications equipment and
equipment such as personal protective equipment used by police and fire
from multiple jurisdictions. The plan as approved by the Secretary states
that by November 2004 the new office will be fully established and that
action plans and a strategy will be prepared for each portfolio (type or
class of equipment). The plan presents a budget estimate for the creation
of the office through November 2004 but does not include costs to
implement each portfolio's strategy.
In addition, plans for the new office do not clarify the roles of various
federal agencies or specify what oversight authority the new office will
have over federal agency communications programs. The Science and
Technology Directorate is the manager of the new office, which is expected
to establish partnerships with all relevant offices and agencies to
effectively coordinate similar activities. These partners include
representatives from national associations of emergency response
providers, DHS and other government agencies, standards development
organizations, and industry. The DHS plan for the new office includes a
tool for relevant offices to identify areas in which they have current
interoperability-related projects and thus identify program overlap inside
and outside DHS and gaps in coverage. As of June 2004, the exact structure
and funding for the office, including SAFECOM's role within the office,
were still being developed.
23See appendix III for a discussion of SAFECOM's objectives to establish
by 2005 (1) a research, development testing, and evaluation program that
identifies and develops a longterm, sustainable technical foundation for
interoperability improvements; and (2) a program to provide technical
assistance to the public safety community.
State and Local Governments' Roles in Statewide Interoperability Planning and
Communications
In our November 6, 2003,testimony, we identified three barriers to
improving public safety wireless interoperable communications: problem
definition, establishing interoperability goals and standards, and
defining the roles of federal, state, and local governments and other
entities.24 Of all these barriers, perhaps the most fundamental has been
limited and fragmented planning and cooperation. No one first responder
group, jurisdiction, or level of government can successfully address the
challenges posed by the current state of interoperable communications.
Effectively addressing these challenges requires the partnership and
collaboration of first responder disciplines, jurisdictions, and levels of
government-local, state, federal, and tribal. In the absence of that
partnership and collaboration, we risk spending funds ineffectively-
especially for immediate, quick response solutions-and creating new
problems in our attempt to resolve existing ones. An integrated planning
process that is recognized by federal, state, and local officials as
representing their interests is necessary to achieve that partnership and
collaboration.
Although no one level of government can successfully address
interoperability communications challenges, the federal government can
play a leadership role developing requirements and providing support for
state efforts to assess their interoperable communications capability and
develop statewide plans for transitioning from today's capability to
identified required capability.
States are key players in responding to normal all-hazards emergencies and
to terrorist threats. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 notes
that awards to states are the primary mechanism for delivery of federal
preparedness assistance for these missions. State and local officials also
believe that states, with broad local and regional participation, have a
key role to play in coordinating interoperable communications supporting
these missions.25 The Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN), in its report
on the role of the state in providing interoperable communications,
agreed. According to the PSWN report, state leadership in public safety
communications is key to outreach efforts that emphasize development of
common approaches to regional and statewide interoperability. The report
24Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable Communications
for First Responders, GAO-04-231T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2003).
25Appendix IV discusses the evolving role of states and the challenges
they face in addressing communications interoperability problems.
said that state officials have a vested interest in establishing and
protecting statewide wireless infrastructures because public safety
communications often must cross more than one local jurisdictional
boundary.
However, states are not required to establish a statewide capability to
(1) integrate statewide and regional interoperability planning and (2)
prepare statewide interoperability plans that maximize use of spectrum to
meet interoperability requirements of day-to-day operations, joint task
force operations, and operations in major events. Federal, state, and
local officials are not required to coordinate federal, state, and local
interoperability spectrum resources that, if successfully addressed, have
significant potential to improve public safety wireless communications
interoperability. As a result, states may not prepare comprehensive and
integrated statewide plans that address the specific interoperability
issues present in each state across first responder disciplines and levels
of government.
State and Local Governments Well Positioned to Play Key Roles
Planning requires a structure to develop and implement plans over time.
States, with broad input from local governments, are a logical choice to
serve as a foundation for interoperability planning. As recognized by the
Federal Communications Commission, states play a central role in managing
emergency communications, and state level organizations are usually in
control at large-scale events and disasters or multiagency incidents. In
addition, the FCC noted that states are usually in the best position to
coordinate with federal government emergency agencies. Furthermore,
according to DHS officials, state and local governments own over 90
percent of the physical infrastructure for public safety communications.
Recent DHS policies have also recognized states as being in a key position
to coordinate state and local emergency response planning. The Office for
Domestic Preparedness has designated states as the appropriate source to
develop state homeland security strategies that are inclusive of local
needs, including communication needs.
According to PSWN, state leaders can also, through memorandum of
understandings (MOU), help to define interagency relationships, reach
procedural agreements, promote regular meetings of statewide or regional
interoperability committees, and encourage joint efforts to deploy
communications technology. State and local officials we talked with
generally agreed that states can coordinate communications planning and
funding support for state communications systems and coordinate
interoperability efforts of local governments. For example, several
officials
said the state can facilitate the planning process by including key
stakeholder input in the decision making process and ensuring that
communications interoperability issues are addressed. These officials also
see state roles in providing common infrastructure and developing routine
training exercises.
Several state and local agencies that we talked with emphasized that they
are taking steps to address the need for statewide communications
planning. State officials also told us that statewide interoperability is
not enough because incidents first responders face could cross state
boundaries. Thus, some states are also taking actions to address
interstate interoperability problems. For example, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio officials said that their states have
combined efforts to form the Midwest Public Safety Communications
Consortium to promote interstate interoperability. According to these
officials, they also have taken actions to form an interstate committee to
develop interoperability plans and solicit support from key players, such
as local public safety agencies.
Statewide Interoperable Communications Committees Offer Potential for
Coordinated Statewide Planning
FCC recognized a strong state interest in planning and administering
interoperability channels for public safety wireless communications when
it adopted various technical and operational rules and polices for the 700
MHz band. In these rules and policies, FCC concluded that administration
of the 2.6 MHz of interoperability channels in that band (approximately 10
percent) should occur at the state-level in a State Interoperability
Executive Committee (SIEC). FCC said that states play a central role in
managing emergency communications and that state-level organizations are
usually in control at large-scale events and disasters or multi-agency
incidents. FCC also found that states are usually in the best position to
coordinate with federal government emergency agencies. FCC said that SIEC
administrative activities could include holding licenses, resolving
licensing issues, and developing a statewide interoperability plan for the
700 MHz band. Other SIEC responsibilities could include the creation and
oversight of incident response protocols and the creation of chains of
command for incident response and reporting.
State and local officials recognize that the interoperability
responsibilities that FCC identified for SIECs in the 700 MHz band are
also applicable to interoperability channels in other frequency bands.
However, FCC did not retroactively apply the SIEC concept to
interoperability channels in the 800 MHz band or in the below 512 MHz band
nor did it apply the SIEC concept to the new 4.9 GHz band. The Commission
also did not require
states to establish a SIEC because it found that some states already have
a mechanism in place that could administer the interoperability channel,
and requiring a SIEC would be duplicative. The Commission did provide that
the administration of the 700 MHz interoperability channels defaults to
Regional Planning Committees (RPC) should a state decide not to establish
or maintain a SIEC for this purpose. Available data conflict on how many
states have established SIECs or similar bodies, but do indicate that from
12 to 15 states did not implement a SIEC.26
The Public Safety National Coordination Committee, an FCC advisory body
for the 700 MHz band, noted that SIECs are optional-there is no
requirement that the states implement such committees. NCC recommended
that FCC require all states to establish a SIEC or equivalent to provide
each state with an identified central point of contact for information on
that state's interoperability capability. NCC, however, also expressed
concerns about the extent of state control and the lack of a broad
representation of local membership in the SIECs.27 NCC recommended to FCC
that the name SIEC be changed to the Statewide Interoperability Executive
Committee to be more inclusive of all agencies in the state.
We found general support in the states that we visited for NCC's
recommendation to establish a Statewide Interoperability Executive
Committee as the central point of contact for information on a state's
interoperability capability. A state official from California told us that
California's long history of collaboration in mutual aid communications
activities was in part the basis for this NCC recommendation. According to
officials of the Florida State Technology Office and local public safety
officials, they support a central point of contact for statewide
interoperability efforts. State of Washington officials said the
26FCC data show 38 states and the District of Columbia with SIECs or
similar bodies, and 12 states with RPCs assuming the SIEC role. However,
PSWN data show 7 states with SIECs, 13 states with SIEC like committees,
15 states with statewide safety communication committees that have
responsibilities broader than SIECs, and 15 states where RPCs have assumed
SIEC responsibilities.
27NCC, which had recommended SIECs at the state level to administer
interoperability channels, concluded that some state governments may be
using their SIECs to control all aspects of interoperability channels use
rather than the administrative purposes as intended by FCC. In addition,
NCC found that some states have expanded the role of their SIECs to
include other state-level functions, such as procurement, and that, in the
absence of FCC guidance, some states had designated SIECs without an
appropriately broad range of public safety agency members.
recommendation appeared consistent with what they are doing in Washington.
Local officials in the state of Washington told us that the term
"statewide" is inclusive-it represents both the state and local
governments interests.
The states we visited or contacted were in the early stages of formulating
their SIECs, and their roles and responsibilities are still under
development.
o Recently the state of California established the California Statewide
Interoperability Executive Committee. The Office of Emergency Services
sponsors the Committee, which is responsible for setting technical and
operational standards for all existing and planned public safety
interoperability frequencies in California. Committee membership is
designed to recognize the broad diversity of local communications needs
because California has long recognized that responsibility for and command
of an incident lies with the jurisdiction where the emergency or disaster
occurs, which in the vast majority of incidents is the local government.
Thus, a majority of the Committee's 35 members are representatives of
local government, followed by the state agencies that support local
government, and the federal agencies that support state and local
government. Additionally, two California RPCs and the Association of
Public-Safety Communications Officials have representation on the
Committee. The Committee is supported by 9 to 10 working groups addressing
various aspects of interoperability governance. California has several
state communications systems and the coordination of these systems will be
addressed by a Committee working group.
o In March 2003, the state of Florida established the Florida Executive
Interoperable Technologies Committee. The Committee's membership includes
state and local government officials from each of the seven Domestic
Security regions in Florida and is chaired by the State Technology Office.
The Committee's role is still evolving. The Committee and State Technology
Office are responsible for the oversight and management of all
interoperable communications issues (voice and data). The State Technology
Office manages the interoperable radio frequency resources for the state.
Furthermore, the state has identified the need for a single, comprehensive
mutual aid plan and assigned the task of developing the plan to the
Committee. However, the Committee's role in reviewing all state and local
communications plans is still not determined.
o The Washington State Interoperability Executive Committee, formed by
state legislation enacted on July 1, 2003, is a permanent subcommittee of
the Information Services Board. The legislation specified membership for
state agencies and associations representing city government, county
government, local government fire departments, Sheriffs and Police Chiefs,
and emergency managers. Federal agencies were not included as voting
members of the Committee, which issued an interim public safety
communications plan on March 30, 2004. The interim plan, developed using a
recent inventory of state communications systems, outlines various
potential solutions and the implementation timeline. These are interim
solutions and did not reflect local governments' concerns. However, the
plan will be updated to incorporate local government survey responses. A
final plan is due by December 31, 2004. The Committee intends to
incorporate the existing mutual aid plans into the new statewide
interoperability plan.
o In Georgia, the state did not opt to form a State Interoperability
Executive Committee. Instead, the 700 MHz RPC Interoperability Committee
is responsible for managing all radio frequency bands on behalf of the
state of Georgia.
Content and Scope of Statewide Interoperability Plans Not Established
A comprehensive statewide interoperable plan can provide the guiding
framework for achieving defined goals for interoperability within a state
and for regions within and across states (such as Kansas City, Mo. and
Kansas City, Kans.). NCC recommended that all SIECs prepare an
interoperability plan that is filed with FCC and updated when substantive
changes are made or at least every three years. NCC also recommended to
FCC that SIECs, for Homeland Security reasons, should administer all
interoperability channels in a state, not merely those in the 700 MHz
band. According to NCC, each state should have a central point identified
for information on a state's interoperability capability.
None of the four states we visited had finished preparation and funding of
their state interoperability plans. Washington and Florida were preparing
statewide interoperability plans at the time we visited. Georgia officials
said they have a state interoperability plan but that it is not funded.
However, one other state we contacted, Missouri, has extended SIEC
responsibility for interoperability channels beyond the 700 MHz band.28
The Missouri SIEC has also designated standard operational and technical
guidelines as conditions for the use of these bands. SIEC requires
applicants to sign a MOU agreeing to these conditions in order to use
these
28Missouri SIEC responsibility includes FCC's designated interoperability
channels (except for certain legacy mutual aid channels) in the VHF and
UHF bands.
channels in the state of Missouri. The Missouri SIEC Chairman said the
state developed its operational and technical guidelines because FCC had
not established its own guidelines for these interoperability channels in
the VHF and UHF bands. The chairman said Missouri borders on eight other
states and expressed concern that these states will develop different
guidelines that are incompatible with the Missouri guidelines. He said FCC
was notified of Missouri's actions but has not taken action to date. In
another example, California intends to prepare a statewide
interoperability plan. California's SIEC is re-examining California's
previous stove piped programs of communications interoperability (separate
systems for law enforcement, fire, etc.) in light of the need to maintain
tactical channels within disciplines while promoting cross-discipline
interoperability.
FCC-designated frequency coordinators expressed support for a
comprehensive interoperability plan in July 2002. The Commission had
suggested that the frequency coordinators for the VHF and UHF bands
develop an interoperability plan for these bands. FCC said it envisioned
that the coordinators would jointly develop an interoperability plan for
the management and nationwide use of these interoperability channels. The
frequency coordinators in a joint response rejected FCC's overture,
stating that the actual management and operational guidelines for the VHF
and UHF frequencies should be integrated with other interoperability
frequencies in the 700 and 800 MHz bands, and with other interoperability
channels in spectrum identified by NTIA for interoperability with the
federal government. The frequency coordinators said operational and
management planning should include all of these channels to better
coordinate future assignment and use and that NCC and SIECs were better
vehicles for developing the guidelines requested by FCC.
Coordination of Federal and State Interoperable Frequencies in Statewide
Plans
In some cases, for example, responding to such major events as tornadoes
or wildfires, state and local government first responders also require
interoperable communications with federal agencies. According to OMB,
seven federal agencies have significant roles to play in public safety
communications, emergency/incident response and management, and law
enforcement. These agencies are the Departments of Homeland Security,
Defense, Energy, the Interior, Justice, Health and Human Services, and
Agriculture.
As mentioned previously, FCC designated frequency coordinators told FCC
that planning for interoperability channels should include federal
spectrum designated for interoperability with state and local governments.
We found several examples in our field work that support inclusion of
federal agencies in future state and local planning for interoperable
communications. For example, a Washington State official told us that
regional systems within the state do not have links to federal
communications systems and assets. In another example, according to an
emergency preparedness official in Seattle, a study of radio interoperable
communications in a medical center also found that federal agencies such
as the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) are not integrated into
hospital or health communications systems, and other federal agencies have
no radio infrastructure to support and participate in a health emergency
such as a bio-terrorism event. He told us that he has no idea what the
federal communications plan is in the event of a disaster; and he said he
does not know how to talk to federal health officials responding to an
incident or what the federal government needs when they arrive.
Local officials in Washington State also told us that communications and
coordination between civil and military emergency communication
organizations need improvement. These officials expressed concern that the
Department of Defense has not fully coordinated with local officials to
ensure that local jurisdictions can communicate with Defense. According to
the Washington National Guard Civil Support Team and emergency management
officials, the Guard Civil Support Team first responders can exchange
radios with other first responders in order to communicate. In addition,
the Civil Support Team can communicate on all frequency bands using a Navy
Unified Command Communications Suite. Georgia National Guard officials
said that they do not participate in the All Hazards Council planning
process to coordinate interoperable communications.
The federal government is developing a system that could improve
interoperable communications on a limited basis between state and federal
government agencies. The Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) is a radio
system that is intended to replace the existing radio systems for the DOJ,
Treasury, and DHS. IWN is an exclusive federal law enforcement
communications system that is intended to interact and interface with
state and local systems as needed but will not replace these systems.
According to DOJ officials, IWN is intended to improve federal to state/
local interoperability but will not address interoperability of state and
local systems.
However, federal interoperability with state and local wireless
communications systems is hindered because NTIA and FCC control different
frequencies in the VHF and UHF bands. To enhance interoperability, NTIA
has identified 40 federal government frequencies that can be used by state
and local public safety agencies for joint law
enforcement and incident response purposes.29 FCC, however, designated
different frequencies for interoperability in the VHF band and in the UHF
band from spectrum it controls for use by state and local public safety
agencies.
In addition, complicated FCC licensing and coordination requirements may
further limit effective use of federal frequencies by state and local
agencies. FCC officials told us in response to our draft report that FCC
rules are consistent with what NTIA and FCC agreed to regarding use of
federal spectrum by non-federal agencies generally. However, as a
condition for their use of the federal VHF and UHF frequencies, FCC
requires individual state and local public safety applicants to develop a
written agreement between each nonfederal agency and a federal sponsor and
to use this agreement to obtain an FCC license. FCC regulations permit
federal agencies to use 700 MHz band public safety frequencies under its
control if the Commission finds such use necessary, and the state/local
government licensee approves the sharing arrangement.
PSWN suggested using SIECs to perform the necessary planning and
coordination between FCC and NTIA for joint use of their separately
controlled frequencies. PSWN noted that the federal government maintains a
significant presence in many states, and that interoperable communications
must cut across all levels of government. Thus, PSWN said it is essential
that NTIA and federal entities and federal spectrum be involved in the
SIEC planning process from the beginning. NCC recommended that FCC require
the use of standard MOUs and sharing agreements where licensee authorizes
federal agencies and other authorized users to use its frequencies. FCC
noted that respondents to its notice seeking comments on NCC proposals
were divided and that requiring a formal rule could only serve to increase
administrative burden on the states, many of whom may be poised to
implement the MOUs and sharing agreements or similar documents
voluntarily. Thus, FCC decided not to require the use of MOUs but strongly
recommended that states have the relevant SIEC or other entity responsible
for the administration of the interoperability channels use MOUs.
29NTIA states that these frequencies may not be used to meet day-to-day
communications needs of nonfederal public safety agencies.
Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support Statewide Planning
Total one-time replacement of the nation's communications systems is very
unlikely, due to the costs involved. A 1998 study cited the replacement
value of the existing public safety communication infrastructure
nationwide at $18.3 billion.30 DHS officials said this estimate is much
higher when infrastructure and training costs are taken into account.
Furthermore, DHS recently estimated that reaching an accelerated goal of
communications interoperability will require a major investment of several
billion dollars within the next 5 to 10 years. As a result of these
extraordinary costs, federal funding is but one of several resources state
and local agencies must use in order to address these costs. Given these
high costs, the development of an interoperable communications plan is
vital to useful, non-duplicative spending. However, the federal funding
assistance programs to state and local governments do not fully support
regional planning for communications interoperability. Federal grants that
support interoperability have inconsistent requirements to tie funding to
interoperable communications plans. In addition, uncoordinated federal and
state level grant reviews limit the government's ability to ensure that
federal funds are used to effectively support improved regional and
statewide communications systems. Additional barriers to supporting
regional planning, such as fragmented funding structures, limitations on
time frames to develop and implement plans, and limited support for
long-term planning are discussed in appendix V.
Federal Grants Encouraged a "Regional" Approach to Planning, but Lacked
Requirements for Interoperability Communications Plans
Local, state and federal officials agree that regional communications
plans should be developed to guide decisions on how to use federal funds
for interoperable communications; however, the current funding
requirements do not support this planning process. Although recent grant
requirements have encouraged jurisdictions to take a regional approach to
planning, current federal first responder grants are inconsistent in their
requirements to tie funding to interoperable communications plans. States
and locals are not required to provide an interoperable communications
plan as a prerequisite to receiving some federal grant funds. As a result,
there is no assurance that federal funds are being used to support a
welldeveloped strategy for improving interoperability. For example, the
fiscal year 2004 HSG or UASI grants require states or selected
jurisdictions to conduct a needs assessment and submit a Homeland Security
Strategy to
30Land Mobile Radio Replacement Cost Study, Public Safety Wireless Network
Program, Fairfax, VA., June 1998.
ODP.31 However, the required strategies are high-level and broad in
nature. They do not require that project narratives or a detailed
communications plan be submitted by grantees prior to receiving grant
funds.
In another example, fiscal year 2003 funding provided by the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services Program (COPS) and FEMA for
Interoperable Communications Equipment did not require that a
communications plan be completed prior to receiving grant funds. However,
grantees were required to provide documentation that they were actively
engaged in a planning process and a multijurisdictional and
multidisciplinary project narrative was required. In addition to
variations in requirements to create communications interoperability
plans, federal grants also lack consistency in defining what "regional"
body should conduct planning.
Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also Present Challenges
to Short-and Long-Term Planning
State and local officials also said that the short grant application
deadlines for recent first responder grants limited their ability to
develop cohesive communications plans or perform a coordinated review of
local requests. Federal officials acknowledged that the limited submission
timeframes presents barriers to first responders for developing plans
prior to receiving funds. For example, guidance in several federal grant
programs-the Homeland Security Grant, UASI grant, COPs and FEMA
communication equipment grants, and Assistance to Firefighters Grant-allow
states only 30 or 60 days from the date of grant announcement to submit a
grant proposal. These time frames are sometimes driven by appropriations
language or by the timing of the appropriations enactment.
Furthermore, many grants have been awarded to state and locals for
communications interoperability that have 1 or 2 year performance periods,
and according to state and local officials, do not support longterm
solutions. For example, Assistance to Fire Fighters Grants, COPS and
FEMA's Interoperable Communications Equipment Grants, and National Urban
Search and Rescue grants all have 1-year performance periods.32
31In fiscal year 2004, this grant program's name changed from State
Homeland Security Grant to Homeland Security Grant Program. The new
program includes three different grant programs.
32In their technical comments on a draft of this report, COPS officials
said the performance period for the FY 2003 Interoperable Communications
Technology Equipment and the COPS Interoperable Communications Technology
Program have a 1 year time period but that no-cost extensions of time were
available to grantees on a case-by-case basis to accommodate unavoidable
delays.
UASI, HSG program, and Local Law Enforcement Block Grants have 2-year
performance periods.
No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure Funds Are Used
to Improve Regional or Statewide Communications Interoperability
The federal and state governments lack a coordinated grant review process
to ensure that funds allocated to local governments are used for
communication projects that complement each other and add to overall
statewide and national interoperability. Federal and state officials said
that each agency reviews its own set of applications and projects, without
coordination with other agencies. As a result, grants could be given to
bordering jurisdictions that propose conflicting interoperability
solutions. In fiscal year 2003, federal officials from COPS and FEMA
attempted to eliminate awarding funds to conflicting communication systems
within bordering jurisdictions by coordinating their review of
interoperable communications equipment grant proposals. However, COPS and
FEMA are only two of several federal sources of funds for communications
interoperability.
In an attempt to address this challenge, in 2003 SAFECOM coordinated with
other agencies to create the document Recommended Federal Grant Guidance,
Public Safety Communications and Interoperability Grants, which lays out
standard grant requirements for planning, building, and training for
interoperable communications systems. The guidance is designed to advise
federal agencies on who is eligible for the first responder interoperable
communications grants, the purposes for which grant funds can be used, and
eligibility specifications for applicants.33 The guidance recommends
standard minimum requirements, such as requirements to "...define the
objectives of what the applicant is ultimately trying to accomplish and
how the proposed project would fit into an overall effort to increase
interoperability, as well as identify potential partnerships for
agreements." Additionally, the guidance recommends, but does not require,
that applicants establish a governance group consisting of local, tribal,
state, and federal entities from relevant public safety disciplines and
purchase interoperable equipment that is compliant with phase one of
Project-25 standards. SAFECOM has also recently sponsored the formation of
the Federal Interagency Coordination Committee (FICC),
33In response to a draft report, DHS said that, in addition to outlining
the eligibility for grant dollars and the purposes for which federal
dollars can be used, the SAFECOM grant guidance provides consensus
guidelines for implementing a wireless communications system. DHS said
this guidance is useful in directing all agencies towards interoperability
goals, even if they are not specifically applying for federal funding.
which consists of a federal grant coordination working-group. Federal
officials said that the council will assist in shaping the common grant
guidance for Federal initiatives involving public safety communications.
Despite federal efforts within DHS to synthesize federal grants, various
agencies have statutory language which make it difficult to coordinate
their use. For example, both SAFECOM and COPS officials said that certain
statutory provisions underlying the grant programs presented barriers to
the coordination efforts of COPS, FEMA, and SAFECOM to consolidate the
grant application process for the 2003 Interoperable Communications
Equipment grants. COPS and FEMA coordinated their application process for
the grants and used sections of the SAFECOM grant guidance to guide their
application requirements. COPS and FEMA officials said that the combined
COPS and FEMA application process was intended to maximize the use of
funds and reduce duplication and competition between the two agencies'
Interoperability grants. Both COPS and SAFECOM officials explained that
COPS and FEMA encountered difficulty in creating a combined grant
application process because the COPS grant required a twenty-five percent
match while the FEMA grant did not have such a requirement. However, COPS
officials said FEMA added a twenty-five percent match of "in-kind"
resources to its grant requirements in order to reduce competition between
the COPS and FEMA grant programs.
The House Committee on Appropriations report for DHS's fiscal year 2004
appropriation states that the Committee is aware of numerous federal
programs addressing communications interoperability through planning,
building, upgrading, and maintaining public safety communication systems,
among other purposes. The Committee directed that all DHS grant programs
issuing grants for the above purposes incorporate the SAFECOM guidance and
coordinate with the SAFECOM program when awarding funding. To better
coordinate the government's efforts, the Committee also encouraged all
other federal programs issuing grants for the above purposes to use the
guidelines outlined by SAFECOM in their grant programs. However, SAFECOM
officials said that they have no enforcement authority to require other
agencies to use this guidance in their funding decision or to require
agencies to provide grant program information to them for use in their
database.
States are also initiating actions to address the lack of a centralized
statelevel grant review process. For example, the state of Washington is
developing a centralized grant structure to review local requests for
communications funds against a statewide interoperable communications
plan that is being developed by their SIEC. The funding process is shown
in figure 2.
Figure 2: Washington SIEC's Structure to Review Local Requests for
Communications Funds
Source: Washington State Emergency Management Division Officials.
Conclusions A fundamental barrier to successfully addressing
interoperable communications problems for public safety has been the lack
of effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental
planning. Jurisdictional boundaries, unique public safety agency missions,
and cultural differences among first responder organizations have often
fostered barriers that hinder cooperation and collaboration. No one first
responder agency, jurisdiction, or level of government can "fix" the
nation's interoperability problems, which vary across the nation and often
cross first responder agency and jurisdictional boundaries. Changes in
spectrum available to federal, state, and local public safety agencies-
primarily a federal responsibility conducted through the FCC and the
NTIA-changes in technology, and the evolving missions and responsibilities
of public safety agencies in an age of terrorism all highlight the
ever-changing environment in which interoperable communications needs and
solutions must be addressed. Interdisciplinary, intergovernmental, and
multijurisdictional partnership and collaboration are essential for
effectively addressing interoperability shortcomings.
The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the
nation-including current capabilities and the scope and severity of
problems that may exist-has not been determined. Long-term prospects for
achieving functional interoperable communications are hindered by the lack
of an institutionalized process-at the federal, state, regional, or local
levels-to systematically identify and address current shortcomings.
The federal government can offer leadership and support for state efforts
to develop and implement statewide interoperability plans for achieving
specific interoperability goals. The federal government is best positioned
to address nationwide issues, such as setting national requirements,
developing a national architecture, establishing national performance
standards, and the development of national databases and common nationwide
nomenclature for interoperability channels. Moreover, acting through the
FCC and the NTIA, the federal government alone has the authority to
address public safety spectrum allocation, including expanding or altering
current spectrum allocations. The federal government can also play a major
role through such means as technical assistance and grant guidance in
supporting state efforts to prepare comprehensive statewide
interoperability plans for developing federal, state, and local
communications systems that can communicate with one another as needed and
as authorized. However, developing and implementing effective statewide
plans that draw on the perspectives and expertise of the federal
government and local public safety agencies and jurisdictions is not a
task that can be completed in a matter of weeks.
The federal government's ability to provide consistent, focused, long-term
attention to interoperable communications needs has been hampered by the
lack of a designated agency with the authority and ability to coordinate
the wide-variety of federal efforts that exist. OMB has described SAFECOM
as the umbrella program to unify and coordinate the federal government's
interoperable communications efforts. Although SAFECOM has made progress
in developing grant guidance, issuing interoperable communications
requirements, beginning the process of assessing current interoperable
communications capability, and otherwise coordinating federal efforts, it
is dependent upon other federal agencies for funding and their willingness
to cooperate. The Department of Homeland Security has recently announced
the establishment of the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility-of
which SAFECOM would be a part-as the focal point for coordinating federal
efforts for wireless and other functional interoperability. However, the
exact nature of its roles and responsibilities are still being determined.
Moreover, this office would still face many of the challenges that SAFECOM
has faced in coordinating the
interoperability efforts of a variety of federal agencies outside of DHS,
such as the FCC and the Departments of Justice and Commerce.
With federal leadership and support and local participation and support,
states can serve as a key focus for efforts to assess and improve
interoperable communications by developing and implementing statewide
bodies to assess interoperability issues and guide efforts to remedy
identified problems through statewide interoperability plans.
Federal assistance grants to state and local governments do not fully
support statewide planning for wireless communications interoperability.
Specifically, federal grants do not fully support regional planning and
lack requirements to tie federal assistance to an approved statewide
interoperability plan. Interoperability plans for public safety
communications systems, once prepared, should guide federal funding
assistance programs to state and local governments.
Recommendations for To improve interoperable wireless communications for
first responders, we recommend that the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland
Executive Action
Security ensure that the following actions are taken:
o In coordination with the FCC and the NTIA, continue development of a
nationwide database of all interoperable public safety communications
frequencies, establish a common nomenclature for those frequencies, and
establish clear timeframes to complete both efforts;
o In consultation with state and local governments, determine the
current status of wireless public safety interoperable telecommunications
across the nation by assessing interoperability in specific locations
against interoperability requirements that can be measured, and assist
states in assessing interoperability in their states against those
requirements;
o Through DHS grant guidance encourage states to establish a single
statewide body responsible for interoperable communications and that this
body shall prepare a single comprehensive statewide interoperability plan
for federal, state, and local communication systems in all frequency
bands. The statewide interoperability plan shall be based upon the
nationwide standard frequency database and use the standard nationwide
nomenclature for interoperability channels, once they are developed; and
o At the appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that
federal grant funding for communications equipment shall be approved only
upon
Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation
certification by the statewide body responsible for interoperable
communications that such grant applications are in conformance with
statewide interoperability plans. DHS should give states adequate time to
develop these focal points and plans and to provide guidance on
development of such plans.
We further recommend that the Director, OMB, in conjunction with DHS,
review the interoperability mission and functions now performed by SAFECOM
and establish these functions as a long term program with adequate
coordination authority and funding.
We sent a draft of this report to the Departments of Commerce, Defense,
Homeland Security, and Justice, the Federal Communications Commission, and
the Office of Management and Budget. We did not receive comments from OMB
or the Department of Defense. The other agencies provided technical
comments that we have incorporated into the final report as appropriate.
In addition, we received written comments from the Department of Commerce
and the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Commerce said
in a letter dated July 12, 2004 that it issued two reports on spectrum
policy in June, 2004 (See appendix VI.) We added this information to the
report text as appropriate.
The Department of Homeland Security provided written comments on a draft
of this report in a July 8, 2004 letter, which is reprinted in Appendix
VII. With respect to our first recommendation, DHS said it is developing a
nationwide database of interoperable public safety communications
frequencies in its fiscal year 2004 program as part of its support to the
Computer Assisted Pre-coordination Resource and Database System (CAPRAD).
DHS also said it plans to work with the National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) on a common nomenclature across public
safety disciplines and jurisdictions. DHS did not mention coordination
with the FCC and the NTIA on these matters; the FCC regulates state and
local public safety wireless communications, and the NTIA regulates
federal public safety spectrum. Either or both the FCC and the NTIA may
also take action on the development of national databases and common
nomenclature. DHS also only refers to the use of this database in the 700
MHz and 4.9 GHz bands: we believe it should be used for interoperable
frequencies in all federal, state, and local public safety bands. We have
amended our conclusions and recommendation to note the importance that DHS
coordinate with the FCC and the NTIA on these matters across all
interoperable public safety communications frequencies.
With respect to our second recommendation, DHS said it is developing a
methodology to establish a national baseline of public safety
communication and interoperability capabilities with input from the public
safety community. We believe that DHS should also consult directly with
state and local governments in developing requirements and assessing
interoperability in the individual states against those requirements. We
have amended our recommendation to include appropriate language.
With respect to our third recommendation, DHS noted that it had created
coordinated grant guidance that encourages grant applicants to consider
systems requirements to ensure interoperability with systems used by other
disciplines and at other levels of government. DHS also discusses a
methodology it developed in conjunction with the state of Virginia for
development of a statewide communications system that ensures input from
local levels, and states that this methodology will be available through
the SAFECOM grant guidance for states interested in implementing a
statewide system. However, the DHS letter did not directly address our
recommendation about encouraging states to create statewide bodies for
interoperable communications that would establish statewide
interoperability plans for federal, state, and local communications
systems in all frequency bands.
With respect to our fourth recommendation, DHS discusses a "bottomsup"
approach to development of a meaningful governance structure and a
strategic plan for statewide communications and interoperability developed
with its partner, the state of Virginia. However, DHS ` comments do not
directly address our recommendations that DHS grant guidance require at
the appropriate time that federal grant funds for communications equipment
be approved on condition that such grants are in accordance with statewide
interoperability plans.
We plan to send copies of this report to relevant congressional committees
and subcommittees, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the Federal
Communications Commission and other interested parties. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report or wish to discuss it further,
please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Thomas James, Assistant Director at
(202) 512-2996. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
VIII.
William O. Jenkins, Jr. Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
To examine the availability of data on interoperable wireless
communications across the nation, we reviewed our November 6, 2003,
testimony where we said that the first challenge to addressing first
responder wireless communications interoperability issues was to clearly
identify and define the problem and where we identified the absence of
effective coordinated planning and collaboration as the fundamental
barrier in addressing interoperability issues. We held further discussions
on these problems with state and local officials about these issues during
our field work in California , Florida, Georgia, and Washington. We also
discussed these issues with state and local officials from Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio and during various public safety
conferences and follow-up meetings. On the basis of these discussions, we
developed a framework to analyze these issues. (See fig. 1.) We also held
discussions with relevant federal officials about identifying and defining
interoperable communications of first responders and about the
applicability of this framework in a proposed federal nationwide survey of
public safety wireless interoperability capabilities and requirements.
To examine potential roles that the federal government can play in
improving interoperability of first responder wireless communications, we
met with officials of key federal agencies about their roles in setting
and implementing policy on interoperable communications for first
responders. These agencies were the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense (DOD),
Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Commerce, and the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). We obtained and reviewed relevant
documentation about federal programs and projects addressing interoperable
communications. We also interviewed state and local officials to obtain
their views about the role the federal government should play in
addressing interoperability issues.
To examine potential roles that local and state governments can play in
improving interoperability of first responder wireless communications, we
interviewed state and local officials in California, Florida, Georgia, and
Washington and staff of the National Governors Association. We chose these
four states because we had information that they were active in addressing
interoperability issues and because California and Washington provided an
opportunity to examine specific interoperability issues that might be
presented by national borders with Mexico and Canada. We also met with
public safety officials at meetings of (1) the National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council; (2) the Public Safety Wireless Network program
office; and (3) the Public Safety National Coordination Council, an FCC
committee that advised the Commission on spectrum
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
policy decisions for public safety interoperable communications. We
obtained and reviewed reports, testimonies, and other documents relating
to public safety wireless communications and identified examples of state
and local government roles in organizing and providing for first responder
communications. We evaluated these examples of state and local government
roles for potential application to other state and local governments. We
also interviewed relevant federal officials about potential state and
local government roles in improving first responder wireless
communications interoperability issues.
To examine how the variety of federal grants for state and local first
responders may encourage or inhibit the assessment of interoperable
problems and the development of comprehensive plans to address these
problems, we selected key federal grant programs that fund projects
supporting state and local government first responder communications
systems and reviewed program documentation and appropriations language for
policies affecting interoperable communications. We also obtained relevant
legislation and interviewed federal, state, and local officials to obtain
their views on these issues.
To obtain information on cross-border communications issues, we visited
San Diego, California, and Olympia, Washington, and talked to appropriate
state and local officials. We also discussed these issues with federal
officials at the Department of Commerce and FCC. We obtained and reviewed
relevant documentation from the local, state, and federal officials.
Appendix II: Cross Border Spectrum Planning
Radio Frequency Spectrum Band Structure
Two issues related to radio spectrum allocation affect public safety
communications across the United States borders with Canada and Mexico (1)
the lack of coordinated cross border spectrum planning and (2) radio
interference to users of the allocated spectrum. The United States,
Canada, and Mexico are addressing these issues through various
negotiations.
Radio frequency spectrum allocation has not kept pace with technology and
demand. The process used to allocate spectrum over the years has resulted
in a problem that is still unresolved, according to the Association of
Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO). One official said past
decisions in United States spectrum policy were based on the overall
demands for spectrum and the limitations of technology at the time.
According to this official, these decisions made sense individually, but
collectively those decisions have a negative impact on the current ability
of public safety agencies to interoperate. (See fig. 3.)
Figure 3: Current Public Safety Spectrum Allocations
Source: National Task Force on Interoperability, When They Can't Talk
Lives are Lost, February 2003.
The radio frequency spectrum within the United States extends from 9 KHz
to 300 GHz and is allocated to more than 450 frequency bands. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) regulates the use of frequencies for state
and local governments and has allocated certain portions of the spectrum
for public safety agencies. Initially, almost all public safety
communications were confined to the low end of the frequency range, but as
technology advanced, higher frequencies became possible, offering a
temporary solution for congestion and crowding. The result-public safety
operates in 10 separate bands, which has added
Appendix II: Cross Border Spectrum Planning
Cross Border Planning
Cross Border Radio Interference
capabilities, but which has also caused the fragmentation that
characterizes the public safety spectrum today and make it difficult for
different agencies and jurisdictions to communicate.
According to National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), Canada and Mexico have developed spectrum use and rules
independent of that of the United States. In particular, Canada uses the
fixed and mobile bands contained in the band 138-174 MHz for all users,
including military, civilian, and government. Canada also uses a different
channeling structure than the United States and is in the process of
narrow banding portions on a different schedule than the United States.
Moreover, the majority of the Canadian population resides in the United
States/Canadian border area. Therefore, it is very difficult for the
United States to identify and coordinate frequencies for new uses in the
border area. The United States/Mexican border presents different problems
in that neither country is aware of the operations authorized by the other
country in the border area because there is no formal agreement to
exchange data or coordinate use.
According to FCC, frequency band plans are also not consistent along the
United States borders with Canada and Mexico. For example, the Canadian
band plan for 800 MHz is different than the Mexican band plan primarily
because of demographic differences in the border regions. According to
FCC, some degree of harmonized spectrum has been achieved in the 800 MHz
and 700 MHz public safety bands, but interoperability in the VHF and UHF
bands is difficult to achieve because these bands are highly encumbered
and have been operating for many years under different channel plans and
different uses. State and local officials in Washington state also said
they expect that the 700 MHz band will not be available for the
foreseeable future along the Canadian border because Canada currently
restricts use of the 700 MHz band for television broadcast purposes only.
According to these officials, Canadian authorities have not initiated a
process to relocate the television broadcasters out of the 700 MHz band.
In addition, local Washington officials said that communication barriers
result from border counties using different frequencies and equipment than
one another.
Interference among users of radio frequency spectrum has been a driving
force in the management of spectrum at the national and international
levels for many years. Interference among these users can occur when two
or more radio signals interact in a manner that disrupts or degrades the
Appendix II: Cross Border Spectrum Planning
transmission and reception of messages. Our work in California and
Washington state highlighted interference issues with United States/Mexico
and United States/Canada. For example:
o Unlicensed radio users in Mexico cause interference to United States
public safety agencies. For example, some Mexico radio users interfere
with United States public safety communication frequencies because Mexico
does not have complementary regulations governing its frequency use,
according to local California public safety officials. Furthermore, in the
162-174 MHz band, there is also a problem with interference to federal
government operations. Many of these interference cases involve
unauthorized stations in Mexico.
o According to local public safety officials in California, Mexico does
not limit the frequency power that radios can emit. Mexican taxi radio
users can emit enough power to force public safety radio repeaters in
California to open up, and taxis can use them to make their radio calls.
For example, San Diego County was forced to switch from their UHF and VHF
radio systems to a more expensive 800 MHZ system, in order to operate
without interference. In addition, Imperial County has 30 VHF frequencies
potentially available for use but can only use two of them because of
interference from Mexico.
o Interference is also an issue along the Canadian border because
spectrum
Efforts to Address Cross Border Issues
policies in the United States and Canada are not aligned. United
Statesdevised solutions will not be able to be used in the shared Canadian
area, according to local Washington State officials.
Efforts are underway by the United States to address cross border problems
with Canada and Mexico. According to an NTIA official, NTIA expects in the
long term that agreements will be made with both Canada and Mexico that
will provide equal segments in specified frequency bands that will be
available for exclusive use by each administration. This type of
arrangement will mitigate the problems associated with different uses,
different channeling plans, and different plans for future use. The
official said NTIA is now involved in negotiations with both countries to
develop this type of arrangement and that both Canada and Mexico are in
agreement with this approach. He said that the time to accomplish the
migration of existing use from the segments designated to the other
administration is the main factor that must be addressed for successful
completion of these efforts.
Appendix II: Cross Border Spectrum Planning
In the short-term, NTIA plans to hold meetings with the Canadian
government about four times a year to complete the negotiation of
segmenting certain bands, to improve coordination procedures, to identify
channels for shared use, and to identify common interference prediction
techniques. With Mexico, NTIA plans in the near term to meet with a
Mexican delegation to negotiate protocols involving the segmentation of
certain land-mobile bands. NTIA also plans to participate in meetings of
the Joint Commission,1 which meets twice a year to address interference
problems between stations of both countries.
FCC is also in the initial stages of forming an agreement with Canada on
the use of public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band, which will include
a channel(s) to be used for mutual aid and interoperability. At this time,
Mexico has not allocated the 700 MHz band for public safety. In other
bands where public safety spectrum is not harmonized, agreements typically
define shared use of spectrum, including power limitations to prevent
interference across the border.
One question of interest to the Congress is whether a single nationwide
frequency should be designated for public safety in the United States and
as it relates to the United States borders with Canada and Mexico. Both
FCC and NTIA told us that sufficient bands exist for state and local
public safety. FCC said that currently five mutual aid frequencies in the
800 MHz band are included in agreements with Canada and Mexico, with the
possibility of additional channel(s) in a future agreement with Canada in
the 700 MHz band. Similarly, an NTIA official told us there are several
interoperable frequencies in the 162 MHz to 174 MHz band and the 406-420
MHz band for state and local public safety.2
Problems Establishing a Single Public Safety Nationwide Frequency Band
1The U.S.-Mexico Joint Commission on Resolution of Radio Interference is
also known as the CMERAR in Spanish, the Joint Commission, or the Mixed
Commission. The Joint Commission's principal mission is to resolve
interference cases between U.S./Mexican users along our common borders.
The CMERAR typically meets twice a year, and the Co-Chair of the U.S.
Section is the Chief of FCCs Enforcement Bureau. Working groups meet on an
as-needed basis and deal with interference cases on a local level.
2The Department of Homeland Security in its written response to a draft of
this report noted that the actual UHF band is 406.1 MHz to 420 MHz, since
406 MHz is reserved for EPIRB signals to track downed airmen/aircraft etc.
Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of Public
Safety Wireless Communications
Statement of Public Safety Interoperable Communications Requirements
The SAFECOM program has established goals and objectives for the years
2005, 2008, and 2023 in its current work program. This program was
developed in December 2003 at a joint SAFECOM and AGILE planning meeting
with input from federal, state, and local representatives. The SAFECOM
Program Manager said that the SAFECOM Executive Committee approved the
program as developed in the December meeting. Key objectives for the year
2005 include: the completion of a statement of requirements for public
safety interoperable communications; establishment of a research,
development, test, and evaluation program for existing and emerging public
safety communications and interoperability; establishment of a technical
assistance program for public safety communications and interoperability;
and development of a process to advance standards necessary to improve
public safety communications and interoperability.
We provide descriptive material on these objectives, including why SAFECOM
believes they are needed, major benefits anticipated if successfully
completed, and key responsibilities of various parties to their
accomplishment.
One key barrier to the development of a national interoperability strategy
has been the lack of a statement of national mission requirements for
public safety-what set of communications capabilities should be built or
acquired-and a strategy to get there. A key initiative in the SAFECOM
program plan for the year 2005 is to complete a comprehensive Public
Safety Statement of Requirements. The statement is to provide functional
requirements that define how, when, and where public safety practitioners
communicate. On April 26, 2004, DHS announced the release of the first
comprehensive Statement of Requirements defining future communication
requirements and outlining future technology needed to meet these
requirements. According to DHS, the statement provides a shared vision and
an architectural framework for future interoperable public safety
communications.
DHS describes the Statement of Requirements as a living document that will
define future communications services as they change or become new
requirements for public safety agencies in carrying out their missions.
SAFECOM officials said additional versions of the statement will
incorporate whatever is needed to meet future needs, but did not provide
specific details. One example of potential future development is expanded
coverage to include public safety support functions. The current statement
is incomplete because it only addresses the functional requirements for
Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of
Public Safety Wireless Communications
traditional public safety first responders - Emergency Medical Services
personnel, firefighters, and law enforcement officers. The statement
recognizes the existence of but does not include in this version those
elements of the public safety community-such as transportation or public
utility workers-whose primary mission provides vital support to public
safety officials.
In addition, the frequent changes in SAFECOM management teams and changing
implementation strategies has resulted in major changes in how SAFECOM
intends to achieve its ultimate goals. As originally conceived while
SAFECOM was in the Treasury Department, the program would build upon
Public Safety Wireless Network's (PSWN) efforts to achieve
interoperability among state and local agencies by building an
interoperable federal communications network. The SAFECOM program
implementation strategy changed when the program was transferred to FEMA
to focus on helping first responders make short-term improvements in
interoperability using vehicles such as demonstration projects and
research. At that time, the development of an interoperable federal system
was seen as a long-term goal.
DHS describes SAFECOM's current goals as a vision that by the year 2023
"There is an integrated system-of-systems, in regular use, that allows
public safety personnel to communicate (voice, data, and video) with whom
they need on demand, in real time, as authorized:
Public safety can respond anywhere, bring their own equipment, and can
work on any network immediately when authorized.
Public safety will have the networking and spectrum resources it needs to
function properly."
SAFECOM officials said under this concept each major region of the
country-for example, New York City, Chicago, and Saint Louis and their
adjacent suburban jurisdictions-will have their own "system" which is made
up of multiple subsystems, such as police agencies, that have established
relationships. Part of the SAFECOM concept is that a centrally dispatched
Urban Search and Rescue team can respond to any of these cities/regions
and operate with the equipment that they bring with them.
However, a national architecture has not been prepared yet to guide the
creation of interoperable communications. An explicit and commonly
understood and agreed-to blueprint, or architecture, is required to
Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of
Public Safety Wireless Communications
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Program for Existing and Emerging
Public Safety Communications and Interoperability
effectively and efficiently guide modernization efforts. For a decade, we
have promoted the use of architectures, recognizing them as a crucial
means to a challenging goal: agency operational structures that are
optimally defined in both business and technological environments. Office
of Management and Budget officials told us that OMB charged SAFECOM with
developing a national architecture, which will include local, state, and
federal government architectures. According to these officials, SAFECOM is
to work closely with state and local governments to establish a basic
understanding of what infrastructure currently exists and to identify
public safety communication requirements. SAFECOM officials said the
development of a national architecture will take time because SAFECOM must
first assist state and local governments to establish their communications
architectures. They said SAFECOM will then collect the state and local
architectures, and fit them into a national architecture that links
federal communications into the state and local infrastructure.
The SAFECOM Program Plan includes an objective for 2005 to establish a
research, development and testing, and evaluation program that identifies
and develops a long-term, sustainable technical foundation. The SAFECOM
program plans provide funding and promote coordination across the federal
government to test and evaluate existing communications and bridging
technologies and to create a research and development program addressing
emerging technologies, such as software defined radio.
Public safety agencies have been addressing communications
interoperability for many years under the name "mutual aid." Under mutual
aid agreements public safety agencies have been monitoring each other's
activities and radio communications through the use of scanners or
exchanging radios. The agencies have built cross-patches into dispatcher
consoles to interconnect radio systems. They also have agreed on the
shared use of specific frequencies for first responders, such as police
forces and fire departments. For example, the state of California
sponsored the California Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Radio System that
provides a common set of channels statewide for mutual aid.
Other technology options are also becoming available to public safety
agencies from government agencies and commercial vendors. For example, the
Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) has developed and fielded
Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of
Public Safety Wireless Communications
a high technology system that includes both civilian and military
communications equipment that is capable of satellite communications and
traditional public safety VHF, UHF, and 800 MHz spectrum bands.1 According
to NRL, all bands can be linked to every other band and to normal
telephone lines, private cellular networks, and satellite links. According
to NRL, its system comes in various sizes and configurations that have
been used at the 2002 Olympic Games and Superbowl XXXVII and can meet
other Homeland Security incidents.
New commercial technologies and systems are also becoming available.
According to some state and local officials, they have to rely upon
vendors for information on these new products because they do not have a
single independent source of comprehensive information and the federal
government can play a valuable role in testing and evaluating these
technologies. For example, officials representing the Midwest Consortium
told us that the federal government could create a clearinghouse of
technical support for the state and local agencies. Therefore, rather than
using the equipment vendors for technical advice on what to purchase and
what type of systems to build, the state and local agencies could look to
the federal government for technical assistance.
But federal officials said there is no single source of data on new vendor
equipment and that their first task is to identify what equipment is
available. For example, federal laboratory officials in Boulder, Colorado,
said they recently conducted a literature search in which they identified
11 vendors that make 24 models of Project 25 portable/mobile radio
equipment, 7 vendors that make 9 models of conventional Project 25
repeater/base stations equipment, and only 1 vendor that makes Project 25
base stations using trunking technology. However, they said another center
had prepared a list of entirely different equipment.
Federal laboratory officials said that many of these technologies have not
been tested and that there is no coordinated program today to test and
evaluate vendor equipment and technologies. These officials said that
various federal agencies conduct testing - for example, the Office of Law
Enforcement Standards in the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service. They
said these agencies may also have different test objectives, for example,
the NTIA/ITS laboratory conducts data analysis evaluation, while the
1We did not review the NRL's system performance.
Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of
Public Safety Wireless Communications
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center in Rome, New
York, concentrates primarily on operational testing.
SAFECOM officials said that their role is to coordinate research,
development, test, and evaluation activities for the federal government as
part of their contribution to communications interoperability. They
acknowledged that the federal government has multiple initiatives under
way and that no cohesive plan to coordinate these initiatives exists
today. These officials said SAFECOM plans to create standardized
procedures for uniform testing procedures by the federal government.
However, they said that because the SAFECOM program has not been
authorized, they cannot create a unified research, development, test, and
evaluation program without statutory authority.
Technical Assistance for Interoperable Public Safety Communications
First responders must have the necessary technical support and training
needed to properly communicate with each other using wireless
communications on a day-to-day basis as well as in emergency situations.
First responders will be challenged to perform at their best ability,
especially during a major incident such as a terrorist attack or natural
disaster. Therefore, ongoing technical assistance and training is needed.
The SAFECOM Program Plan states that the public safety community expressed
their need for technical assistance, including support for planning,
development, implementation, and assessment of public safety
communications systems. In response, SAFECOM is developing a plan to
provide technical assistance and training to the public safety community.
The plan or work package includes (1) creating a one-stop shop, which will
consist of a Web portal and call in center and (2) providing training and
technical assistance, which will consist of a practitioner resource group,
training and assistance, national calling channels, and technical
assistance publications for the public safety community. According to
SAFECOM officials, the technical assistance work package has been approved
for funding in fiscal year 2005.
State and local government officials told us what a national technical
assistance and outreach program for the public safety community should
include. A Georgia official said that training should also be provided by
the federal government to improve wireless communications among public
safety officials. According to SAFECOM training should consist of tools
and templates to train multiple public safety agencies and personnel on
how to use interoperable communications equipment and processes. For
example, officials from the state of Georgia told us the federal
government
Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of
Public Safety Wireless Communications
should provide programs and assistance to coordinate the design and
implementation of communications systems. Local officials in the state of
Washington agreed that the federal government could offer staff assistance
or technical support to the state and local public safety officials.
According to local officials in Florida, the federal government should
require that public safety officials have communications training. These
local officials told us that the police are required to train and pass
qualifications for using their gun at least once a year; however, they use
their guns less than their communications equipment. There are no
requirements to train on using the communications equipment. Local
officials in San Diego County told us that the federal government could
use other federal entities, such as the National Accreditation for Law
Enforcement, as a model to educate and train public safety agencies. The
National Accreditation for Law Enforcement could use state agencies as
consultants to provide technical and operation advice to small localities.
First responders must plan for and train on new technologies or the
technology could have a negative impact on the effectiveness of emergency
responders. The states we visited or contacted are using gateway
technology as a short-term solution to achieving communications
interoperability. However, this technology only patches different systems
together and has to be used properly to be effective. For example, an
official in California told us some public safety officials caused an
entire system to crash at the most critical point of communications when
they used it for the first time during an emergency because they had not
been properly trained on the system. In addition, use of gateway systems
may result in too many people trying to talk, in turn, taxing the
communication systems.
State and local public safety officials we talked with told us they needed
national guidance on standards. For example, members of the Midwest
Consortium we spoke with said they needed more national guidance on
standards and technical issues and the establishment of a national entity
made up of federal, state, and local entities that set standards. However,
consortium officials emphasized that federal communications standards and
initiatives must be reasonable, balanced, and consistent with state and
local jurisdictions' funding capabilities and their communication needs
and objectives.
Standards to Improve Interoperable Public Safety Communications
Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of
Public Safety Wireless Communications
OMB has established the development of standards for first responder
interoperability at all levels of government as a SAFECOM objective.
SAFECOM is to develop these standards by working in partnership with
federal, state, local, and tribal public safety organizations. SAFECOM is
working on a plan to address the development of national standards to
improve public safety communications and interoperability. A key
initiative in the SAFECOM program plan for the year 2005 is development of
a process to advance standards needed to improve public safety
communications. This initiative will identify, test, and where necessary,
develop standards in coordination with the public safety community and
ongoing standards activities.
In our November 2003 testimony, we noted that a partnership between
industry and the public safety user community developed what is known as
Project 25 (P-25) standards. According to the PSWN program office, P-25
standards remain the only user-defined set of standards in the United
States for public safety communications. PSWN believes P-25 is an
important step toward achieving interoperability, but the standards do not
mandate interoperability among all manufacturers' systems. Federal
officials also told us significant work remains to complete the
development of the Project 25 standards and to test vendor equipment
against these standards. The SAFECOM work plan states that SAFECOM will
devote resources to accelerate the completion of the Project 25 suite of
standards and create a common radio nomenclature for first responders.
One problem that occurred in New York City on September 11, 2001, was that
incompatible radio systems prevented police and fire department personnel
from talking to one another. The DHS Secretary recently announced that DHS
has identified technical specifications for a baseline interoperable
communications system as the short-term solution to allow first responders
to communicate by voice-no matter what frequency on which they are
operating. SAFECOM officials said that the specifications the Secretary
referred to are for generic bridging technologies that interconnect first
responders' different land mobile radios. According to these officials,
the Secretary has also determined that local emergencybased communications
interoperability capabilities should be in locations of critical concern
by December 2004. These officials said that this date is the deadline for
putting an interim solution in place for interoperable radio
communications for police, fire, and emergency first responders.
Technological Near-Term Actions: Bridging Equipment
Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of
Public Safety Wireless Communications
Some states are already using the bridging equipment or audio switches
identified as a short-term solution by DHS and have identified several
nontechnical barriers to successful use of the equipment. A state official
in California told us that first responders need to plan their use of
these technologies and become trained on using the technology, or it could
have a negative impact on emergency response to an incident. This official
said, for example, that some public safety officials had not been properly
trained on using one vendor's system, causing the system to fail at a
critical point the first time they used the system in an emergency.
According to this official, this technology must be used properly to be
effective. Local officials in the State of Washington also told us that
multiple units of these systems could overload communications because too
many officials are trying to talk at the same time. A federal laboratory
official said the bridging or audio switches provide the benefits of
interoperability of disparate radio systems but have several shortfalls.
These shortfalls include a requirement that users be within coverage of
their home radio systems and that the use of bridging equipment may
require pre-incident coordination. He said there are 4 major vendors, and
about 30 vendors in total that make bridging equipment. He said testing
has been conducted on only 2 of the major vendors' equipment.
State and local officials said they want an independent source of
information on new products and that the federal government can play a
valuable role in providing that information. SAFECOM officials said they
intend to include their bridging specifications in federal grant guidance
as a condition for using federal funds to purchase bridging equipment.
However, they said that the specifications for such equipment may be
released and in use before their testing program for switches and bridging
technologies is complete. They said public safety agencies must rely on
vendor data to determine whether the untested systems meet DHS's
requirements. SAFECOM officials also recognize that significant training
on such equipment must accompany the delivery of the equipment to first
responders. The officials said COPS and ODP have developed a template for
providing technical assistance training for bridging equipment.
Technological Near-Term Actions: Technical Assistance and Independent
Assessments of Alternative Technologies
Appendix IV: Role of States Continues to Evolve
State and local governments play a large, perhaps defining, role in
resolving the communications interoperability problem. As recognized by
the Federal Communications Commission, states play a central role in
managing emergency communications, and state level organizations are
usually in control at large-scale events and disasters or multiagency
incidents. FCC also said that states are usually in the best position to
coordinate with federal government emergency agencies. According to the
National Strategy for Homeland Security,1 local officials stress that they
are the first to respond to any incident and the last to leave the scene
of an incident. According to the SAFECOM program, state and local
governments also own 90 percent of the public safety communications
infrastructure.
In our November 2003 testimony, we identified fragmented planning and
cooperation as the key barrier to improving interoperability of public
safety wireless communications systems. In the past, a stovepiped, single
jurisdiction or agency-specific systems development approach prevailed-
resulting in none or less than desired interoperable communications
systems. Public safety agencies have historically planned and acquired
communications systems for their own jurisdictions without concern for
interoperability. This meant that each state and local agency developed
communications systems to meet their own requirements, without regard to
interoperability requirements to talk to adjacent jurisdictions. For
example, a PSWN analysis of Fire and EMS communications interoperability
found a significant need for coordinated approaches, relationship
building, and information sharing. However, the PSWN program office found
that public safety agencies have traditionally developed or updated their
radio systems independently to meet specific mission needs.
The PSWN program also concluded that state leaders can, through
memorandums of understanding (MOU), help to define interagency
relationships, reach procedural agreements, promote regular meetings of
statewide or regional interoperability committees, and encourage joint
efforts to deploy communications technology. State and local officials
that we talked with generally agree that states can coordinate
communications planning and funding support for state communications
systems and coordinate local governments' interoperability efforts. For
example, several officials said the state can facilitate the planning
process by
1National Strategy for Homeland Security, White House Office of Homeland
Security.
Appendix IV: Role of States Continues to Evolve
including key stakeholder input in the decision making process and ensure
that communications interoperability issues are addressed. However,
officials also see state roles in providing common infrastructure and
developing routine training exercises.
Several states have or are taking executive and legislative actions that
coordinate and facilitate efforts to address problems of interoperable
communications within their states. For example, as we indicated
previously, states we visited have or are in the process of establishing
SIECs to enhance communications interoperability planning, including the
development of interoperability plans and administration of
interoperability spectrum. California in 2003 also established the Public
Safety Radio Strategic Planning Committee (PSRSPC) to develop and
implement a statewide integrated public safety communications system for
state government agencies that facilitates interoperability and other
shared uses of public safety spectrum with local and federal agencies. In
Florida, the governor issued an executive order in 2001 to establish seven
Regional Domestic Security Task Forces that make up the entire state. Each
of the regional task forces has a committee on interoperable
communications under Florida's State Working Group. The Florida
legislature supported that effort by establishing the task forces in law
and formally designating the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the
Division of Emergency Management as the lead agencies. The Task Forces
consist of agencies from Fire/Rescue, Emergency Management, and public
health and hospitals, as well as law enforcement. In addition, it includes
partnerships with education/schools, business, and private industry.
In addition, planning on a regional basis is key to interoperable
communications systems development. The Public Safety Wireless Network
report also notes that although in the past public safety agencies have
addressed interoperability on an individual basis, more recently, local,
state, and federal agencies have come to realize that they cannot do it
alone. The report also notes that officials at all levels of government
are now taking action to improve coordination and facilitate
multijurisdictional interoperability. We talked with officials from
several state and local agencies about their efforts to address
interoperability issues on a regional basis. For example:
o In Georgia and Washington, state and local emergency consequence
planning continues to be structured around the all-hazards planning model
and are broken down into regions. The regions are made up of one or more
counties that include cities, towns, and tribal nations within the
regional geographical boundaries. This regional configuration was
Appendix IV: Role of States Continues to Evolve
implemented to develop regional interoperability plans, distribute federal
grant funds, develop emergency responder equipment priority lists, plan
and execute training exercises, create regionally based mutual aid plans,
and develop volunteer infrastructure to support citizens' involvement in
homeland security initiatives.
o The King County Regional Communications Board system in Washington
State is a multijurisdictional coordination body. Communication decisions
are made by the group and not made by individual jurisdictions. This
regional cooperation is informal and not legislated or mandated.
o The San Diego County Regional Communications System was established
in 1994 to provide an interoperable wireless network available to all
public safety agencies.
State officials also told us that statewide interoperability is not enough
because incident first responders face could cross boundaries. Thus, some
states are also taking actions to address interstate interoperability
problems. For example, state officials from Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Michigan, and Ohio said their states have combined efforts to form the
Midwest Public Safety Communications Consortium to promote interstate
interoperability. These officials told us that the governors of their five
member states plan to sign an MOU with each other to signify that each
state is willing to be interoperable with the other states and provide
communication assistance and resources to the other states, to the extent
that it does not harm their own state. According to these officials, they
also have taken actions to form an interstate committee to develop
interoperability plans and solicit support from key players such as local
public safety agencies. The benefits of the consortium are increased
interoperability on a larger regional basis, an exchange of technical
information, greater power over vendor manipulation because of increased
purchasing power, an exchange of pricing and technical information, and
lessons learned from their collective experiences.
Although efforts are underway to address communications interoperability
issues, state and local public safety officials face challenges in
addressing communications interoperability. According to state and local
public safety officials, some of the key challenges they are confronted
with today include (1) multiple statewide communication systems, (2) turf
or control issues, and (3) lack of communications training for public
safety officials.
Challenges in Addressing Communications Interoperability
Appendix IV: Role of States Continues to Evolve
Federal officials told us that states have multiple state communications
systems that make communications interoperability planning more difficult.
The states we visited have multiple statewide communications systems. For
example, in the state of Washington, the departments of Transportation,
Corrections, and Health use communication systems operating in the 800 MHz
frequency band, while the National Guard and Emergency Management Division
operate communications systems with the spectrum reserved for federal
agencies. The remainder of the state agencies operates in the 150 MHz
frequency band. Similarly, Florida has several statewide systems such as
State Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS) and Forestry systems that are
not compatible. Because the forestry system operates on a different
frequency band than SLERS, it does not allow users to communicate with law
enforcement except through console patches. The SLERS was originally
designed primarily for 8 state law enforcement entities. Membership now
includes 17 law enforcement entities in 15 state agencies.
Some local jurisdictions also have multiple communications systems. For
example, San Diego and Imperial Counties have developed and implemented a
radio system referred to as the Regional Communications System (RCS).
RCS's primary mission is to provide an interoperable wireless network
available to all public safety and public service agencies within the
counties, regardless of jurisdiction or level of government. However,
according to local public safety officials in California, political,
funding, and technology limitations such as incompatible communications
equipment have prevented full participation in the system by the city of
San Diego and other jurisdictions in the counties. According to a local
government official in California, however, RCS and the city have
collaborated on planning the transition from their current systems to a
P-25 compatible system, which he said will provide seamless
interoperability for all public safety agencies operating in the Southern
California region.
According to PSWN, efforts to develop and implement regional or shared
systems are hindered by perceptions that management control of radio
system development and operations will be lost. As a result, coordination
and partnership efforts do not evolve, and "stop gap" measures are
implemented to address specific interoperability requirements.
Interoperable communications is meaningless unless first responders
overcome turf issues and learn to cooperate in any given incident,
according to Midwest Public Safety Communications Consortium members. The
Consortium members said that the technical part of building
interoperability is easy, compared with the political and
Appendix IV: Role of States Continues to Evolve
operational issues. As a result, the planning process for addressing
political and operational issues is vital.
In the state of Washington, a potential obstacle to effective coordination
may lie in the historical relationship between state and local
governments. The state has 39 counties and 268 towns and counties.
According to a Century Foundation report, local and regional governments
in Washington have a long tradition of home rule and independent action,
which makes it difficult for state officials to coordinate the activities
of the units of local government. Washington state and local officials
said that the political power in the state is decentralized, and the local
city and county governments may resist state-driven mandates. Things get
done on a consensus basis at the local level.
According to local officials in Washington, that type of relationship does
not exist between the state and local jurisdictions or the federal
agencies and local jurisdictions. Regionally based planning is problematic
due to resistance by locally elected officials, lack of trust between
officials in different jurisdictions or disciplines, and competition over
resources, according to a Century Foundation report. For example, one of
the concerns of the Washington SIEC planning group was that the state
could not force locals to participate or adhere to the development of a
statewide communications plan, they could only invite locals to
participate.
Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support Interoperability
Planning
First Responder Federal Funding Is Structured to Support Short-Term Rather
Than Long-Term Communication Needs
Federal grant funds can be used to facilitate and encourage coordinated
regional planning. However, there are currently several challenges to the
ability to use these funds to support the long-term coordinated regional
planning that we have identified as being essential to improving
interoperable communications. First, federal funds are structured to
address short-term needs for the development of interoperability projects
rather than long-term planning needs for communications interoperability.
Second, federal grants have inconsistent requirements to plan regionally.
Third, the first responders grant structure is fragmented, which can
complicate coordination and integration of services and planning at the
state and local levels, and has presented additional barriers to federal
efforts to coordinate communications funds. Fourth, uncoordinated federal
and state level grant reviews limit the government's ability to ensure
that funds are used to improve regional and statewide communications
interoperability.
A study conducted in 1998 estimated the current replacement value of the
existing public safety LMR infrastructure nationwide at $18.3 billion.1
According to a PSWN report, DHS officials have said that this estimate is
much higher when infrastructure and training costs are taken into account.
In addition, reaching an accelerated goal for improving communications
interoperability will require a major investment of several billion
dollars within the next 5 to 10 years. The estimated cost of an LMR system
for a state or local jurisdiction can range from tens of thousands to
hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the size and type of system
being implemented. According to PSWN, these cost estimates account only
for the procurement of the equipment and infrastructure and do not include
ongoing operation and maintenance costs. According to another Public
Safety Wireless network (PSWN) funding report, the extraordinary
investment in LMR systems makes obtaining the necessary funding to finance
the replacement or upgrade of LMR systems one of the greatest challenges
facing public safety agencies. This is especially true because public
safety communications systems typically reach the end of their useful life
cycle in 8 to 10 years. In addition, the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) and Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) have established a new migration plan that will require that all
federal and state and local public safety
1Land Mobile Radio Replacement Cost Study, Public Safety Wireless Network
Program, Fairfax, VA., June 1998.
Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
Interoperability Planning
agencies replace current LMR equipment with narrowband (12.5 kHz)
equipment by 2008 and 2018, respectively. Federal funding is but one of
several resources state and local agencies must utilize in order to
address these financial challenges.
State and local public safety officials say that they do not have reliable
federal funding support for the planning costs associated with the
longterm development of interoperable communications. State and locals
officials from states that we visited identified the lack of a sustained
funding source for communications as a major barrier. Local officials
emphasized that public safety agencies need a re-occurring source of funds
for communications because interoperability barriers cannot be fixed with
a one-time grant.2 For example, local public safety officials from
Washington state asserted that, once the granted project is complete,
locals still have intense fiscal pressures to face in the support and
operation of the communication systems. As a result, state and local
agencies need to provide assurances that they can sustain the projects
that the grants have developed. However, they emphasized that further
federal support is needed to help with these costs. Officials from Georgia
and California also expressed the need for federal support in addressing
ongoing costs and suggested creating a dedicated source of funds similar
to the interstate highway program or 911 tax to assist states with
implementing the long-term solutions.
We have identified several federal grants that can be used to address
first responder communications (See table 1.) Among these grants, in
fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated funds for two programs
specifically dedicated to improving first responder interoperable
communications. However, since 2003, the funding for these grant programs
has changed significantly. In fiscal year 2003, the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) received approximately $154 million to provide grants for
2SAFECOM has identified several investment areas that must be taken into
account in the life-cycle of a public safety communication system, in
their recent grant guidance. These include: planning for public safety
communication systems; building communication systems; upgrading/enhancing
communication systems and equipment; replacing communication systems and
equipment; maintaining communication systems and equipment; training
public safety staff on issues related to emergency response
communications; and managing public safety communications projects.
Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
Interoperability Planning
interoperable communications equipment3. In fiscal year 2004 FEMA's
lineitem budget for this program was cut and was not explicitly picked up
anywhere else in DHS. The COPS program was awarded only $85 million as the
sole source for the interoperable communications equipment grant for
fiscal year 2004. In addition, the President's fiscal year 2005 budget
proposal allocates no funds for the Interoperable Communications Equipment
grant program to the DHS and suggests reductions in other funding sources
that state and locals are eligible to use for communications
interoperability. For more details on changes to these funding sources,
see table 1.
3In technical comments to a draft of this report, COPS officials said of
this $154 million, Congress directed that $5 million of COPS
appropriations be earmarked for NIST and $3 million for NIJ/AGILE.
Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
Interoperability Planning
Table 1: Changes to Funding Sources for Communications Interoperability
Appropriated for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004
Dollars in millions
Federal agency, department Grant name/ description administering the grant
FY 2003 FY 2004
FEMA Interoperable Communications Equipment Granta
FEMA, DHS $80 COPS Interoperable Office of Community Oriented $75 $85
Communications Technology Grant
Policing Services, DOJ Homeland Security Grant Office for Domestic Preparedness,
$2,066 $1,700
Programb
DHS Urban Areas Security Initiative Office for Domestic Preparedness, $596 $725
Grant
DHS Assistance to Fire-fighters Office for Domestic $750 $750
Grant
Preparedness,cDHS
Emergency Management FEMA, DHS $165 $180 Performance Grants
National Urban Search and Rescue Response System FEMA, DHS $60 $60 Local Law
Enforcement Block Bureau of Justice Assistance, DOJ $400 $225
Grants
Edward Byrne Memorial State Bureau of Justice Assistance, DOJ $151 $159
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Discretionary Grants
Source: GAO analysis of congressional appropriations, the president's
fiscal year 2005 budget proposal, DHS, DOJ, and Catalogue of Federal
Domestic Assistance data.
Notes: The fiscal year 2003 FEMA and COPS Interoperable Communications
Equipment grants were grants specifically targeted toward improving first
responder communication equipment to increase interoperability.
aIn fiscal year 2004, this grant program's name changed from State
Homeland Security Grant to Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). The new
grant program includes three different grant programs.
bUntil fiscal year 2004, this program was administered by FEMA.
cThe president's fiscal year 2005 Budget Proposal funds this program under
the Office for Domestic Preparedness.
Local, state, and federal officials agree that regional communications
plans should be developed to guide decisions on how to use federal funds
for interoperable communications. However, the officials emphasize that
federal grant conditions and requirements do not support this planning
process. While there are several grants to assist first responders in
Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
Interoperability Planning
preparing for emergency response, state and local public safety officials
from the states that we visited said that these grants do not provide
adequate support for dedicated staff resources for communications planning
or allow adequate time for state and locals to plan. Officials emphasized
that most public safety organizations that are tasked with addressing the
planning functions for the operational, technical, and coordination needs
of communications systems, such as Regional Planning Committees, State
Interoperability Executive Committees, and system managers rely on
volunteer efforts of first responders, who also have full-time duties in
their regular jobs.
With new spectrum policies for narrow banding, local first responders are
skeptical that they will have the staff resources to meet potentially
significant additional workloads in these new challenges. For example,
managers of a regional communication system serving multiple counties in
Washington state documented this concern in a 2003 filing to the FCC. The
filing stated,
"The success of the regional planning approach can no longer be left to
the volunteer efforts of the engaged public entities, particularly for
something as complicated and intense as the re-banding proposed in the
Supplemental Filing. All local governments are stretched to the maximum in
our combined situation of economic challenges and security uncertainty.
This has a limiting effect on the ability of the skilled personnel who
normally engage in the regional planning efforts to continue engagement at
the high levels that would be necessary to deal with a re-banding effort.
This is even more the case in the complex border areas where numerous
technical, procedural and perhaps political issues need to be resolved to
make the effort a success. Region 43 strongly supports the need for a
national pool of experts and funding to work with the RPCs as they
undertake the rebanding in their Regions. These need to be people and
resources that can do the hard work of inventorying systems, understanding
spectrum relationships, evaluating the unique terrain and topography of
the area and helping establish technically and operationally competent
migration strategies that work for the unique situations of each Region...
But Committees on their own can't do this work effectively, and left to
their own resources, we will see staggered and inconsistent results across
the country."
Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
Interoperability Planning
Federal Grants Encouraged a "Regional" Approach to Planning, but Lacked
Requirements for Interoperability Communications Plans
As we mentioned previously, creating communications interoperability
requires a coordinated regional approach. Recent grant requirements have
encouraged jurisdictions to take a regional approach to planning, which
has resulted in more local efforts to plan using a multidisciplinary and
multi-jurisdictional approach rather than the stove-piped planning that
formerly existed. For example, grant criteria used in the fiscal year 2003
COPS and FEMA Interoperable Communications Equipment grants encouraged
multi-jurisdictional and multidisciplinary approaches, which resulted in
grants being given to applicants that developed regional and
multidisciplinary partnerships. For example, officials from Florida that
received the COPS grant award for $6 million told us that as a result of
this encouraged regional approach, they applied for the grant using a
consortium of nine counties that formed a plan for interoperability and
will use the funds on a multiregional basis to increase interoperability
within and among their jurisdictions. State and local officials that we
spoke with said that the federal government needs to do more to encourage
regional communications planning and that this requirement should be made
a condition of receiving grants.
In our November 6 testimony, we also identified coordinated planning for
communications interoperability as a pre-requisite to effectively
addressing communication issues. However, current federal first responder
grants are inconsistent in their requirements to tie funding to
interoperable communications plans. States and locals are not required to
provide an interoperable communications plan as a pre-requisite to
receiving some federal grant funds. As a result, there is no assurance
that federal funds are being used to support a well-developed strategy for
improving interoperability. For example:
o The fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) requires
states to conduct a needs assessment and submit a State Homeland Security
Strategy to Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP); however, the required
strategy is high-level and broad in nature. It does not require that
project narratives or a detailed communications plan be submitted by
grantees prior to receiving grant funds.
o The Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grant requires a Needs
Assessment and Urban Area Strategy to be developed by grantees, but also
does not require project narratives or detailed plans.
o The COPS and FEMA Interoperable Communications Equipment grants did
not require that a communications plan be completed prior to receiving
grant funds. However, grantees were required to provide
Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
Interoperability Planning
documentation that they were actively engaged in a planning process and a
multijurisdictional and multidisciplinary project narrative was required
for submission. If applicants intended to use the funds to support a
project that was previously developed, they were required to submit the
plan for review.
An ODP program official acknowledged that requirements to develop a
detailed communications needs assessment are missing and that ODP is
currently developing an assessment tool. The official said that grantees
could use this tool to assess their specific communication needs and
conduct a gap analysis. The analysis would be used by the jurisdictions to
develop an interoperable communications plan that would support the State
and Urban Area Homeland Security strategies.
State and local public safety officials that we spoke with reported that
because of the lack of federal requirements to submit plans for
interoperable communications; some federal grant funds are being spent on
individual projects without a plan to guide these expenditures. States
that we visited received federal funds that could be used for
communications, but did not have statewide communications plans to guide
decisions on local requests for federal funds. To combat this concern, the
state of Washington Emergency Management Division said that it is holding
back on allocating its obligated funds until its State Executive
Interoperability Committee has developed a statewide communications plan
that can be used to guide decisions on local request for communication
funds.
In addition to variations in requirements to create communications
interoperability plans, federal grants lack consistency in defining what
"regional" body should conduct planning. Regions are defined differently
by different federal agencies. The COPS office, which provided grant funds
for interoperable communications equipment, defined eligible regions as
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA's).4 The Office for Domestic
Preparedness' (ODP) Urban Areas Security Initiative's provided grants to
"urban area" regions, which were defined-in some cases-as a subset of a
MSA. On the other hand, FEMA awarded its grants for interoperable
communications equipment based upon a jurisdictional nomination from the
state governor. Furthermore, FCC has defined regions for
4In the application guidance, the Metropolitan Statistical Areas were
defined as a core area containing a large population nucleus, together
with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social
integration with that core.
Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support Interoperability
Planning
Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also Present Challenges
to Shortand Long-Term Planning
communications planning based upon other characteristics. However, all
four of the agencies encourage state and locals to conduct "regional"
planning for communications.
In addition to resources for planning, first responders emphasized that
the limited time provided to first responders to conduct planning for
communications interoperability before submission of grants presents a
barrier. State and local officials from the Office of Emergency Management
Services expressed concern about their inability to develop effective
plans within the current grant timeframes. State officials from
California's Office of Emergency Management said that the short turn
around timeframe on the ODP Homeland Security and UASI grants limited
their ability to perform a high-level grant review or assist with local
planning. ODP required that grantees submit a proposal within 30 days of
the announcement. As a result, state officials said that they were allowed
only enough time to review whether local grant proposals matched an
itemized equipment list provided by ODP and could not perform an
evaluation of local grant proposals or provide assistance to the locals in
planning for and writing their grants. A representative from a county
Office of Emergency Services in California expressed the same sentiment.
He said that grants are coming with such short timeframes that localities
are operating with a total lack of information before submitting the
grants. He stressed that states and localities need time to study what
they need in order to get something worthwhile. Officials from the other
three states that we visited-Florida, Georgia, and Washington-also
articulated similar concerns.
Similar to state and local officials, federal officials expressed concerns
about first responders' ability to plan for long-term regional
communication systems within the current 30 or 60 day submission time
frames allotted for the grants. Officials from SAFECOM said that in order
to alleviate the previous stove pipe communications planning of agencies,
regional planning should be a pre-requisite to receiving federal funds.
However, they emphasized that if planning were required as a condition for
receiving grants, states would have to be given enough lead time to
prepare a successful plan. The officials said that the current time frames
placed on grants does not allow states or jurisdictions enough time to
effectively create a communications plan that would make the most
efficient use of federal funds. Adequate lead time may be a 1 or 2 year
planning period. In addition, states should be given a planning model to
demonstrate how to successfully plan for communications-including
Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
Interoperability Planning
creating a governance structure as the first step. SAFECOM officials said
that they are trying to develop this type of model in the Commonwealth of
Virginia. ODP is also developing a similar model in Kansas City, Missouri.
COPS officials administering the fiscal year 2003 Interoperable
Communications Technology grant also said that requiring that a
communications plan be developed prior to receiving grants would be a
positive thing, if the grantees were given an appropriate amount of time
to develop a plan before submission-perhaps several months. They noted
that they did not require that grantees have a communications plan
developed prior to receiving federal funds because the grantees only had
30 days from the grant announcement to submit their proposals. The
Homeland Security Grant, UASI grant, Assistance to Firefighters grants
also allow states only 30 or 60 days to submit a grant proposal.
Demonstration grants also have been awarded to state and locals for
communications interoperability that have 1 or 2 year performance periods
and do not support long-term solutions. For example, Assistance to
Firefighters Grant, COPS and FEMA's Interoperable Communications Equipment
grants, and National Urban Search and Rescue Response System grants all
have 1-year performance periods.5 UASI, HSGP, and Local Law Enforcement
Block Grants have 2-year performance periods.
5 n their technical comments on a draft of this report, COPS officials
said the performance period for the FY 2003 Interoperable Communications
Technology Equipment and the COPS Interoperable Communications Technology
Program have a one year time period but that no-cost extensions of time
were available to grantees on a case-by-case basis to accommodate
unavoidable delays.
Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
Interoperability Planning
Fragmented First Responder Grant Structure Complicates and Limits Coordination
at the Federal, State, and Local Levels
In our 2003 testimony,6 we pointed out that the federal first responder
grant programs' structure was fragmented, which can complicate
coordination and integration of services and planning at the state and
local levels. We also highlighted the variation in grant requirements for
first responders grants. For example, DHS's Assistance to Firefighters
grant had a maintenance of effort requirement while the Fire Training
Systems grant had no similar requirement.
In this report, we find that fragmentation exists within Communications
Interoperability grants that presents challenges to federal efforts to
coordinate and streamline the funding process. Multiple agencies provide
communication interoperability funding and have different guidelines and
appropriations language that define how the funds can be used. A list of
interoperable communications grant sources from 2003 through 2004 within
DHS and DOJ and their eligible uses are listed in table 2.
6See U.S. General Accounting Office, Reforming Federal Grants to Better
Meet Outstanding Needs, GAO-03-1146T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 3, 2003).
Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
Interoperability Planning
Table 2: Federal Interoperable Communications Grant Funding Sources and Their
Eligible Uses
Federal agency, Equipment
department
Grant name/ administering acquisition Planning Training Exercises
description the grant
FEMA Interoperable X
Communications FEMA, DHS
Equipment Granta
Office of
COPS Interoperable Community X
Communications Oriented
Technology Grant Policing
Services, DOJ
Office for
bHomeland Security Domestic X X X X
Grant Program Preparedness,
DHS
Urban Areas Office for
Security Domestic X X X X
Initiative Grant Preparedness,
DHS
Assistance to Fire- fighters Grant cOffice for Domestic X X
Preparedness,
DHS
Emergency Management Performance FEMA, DHS X X X X
Grants
National Urban Search and Rescue FEMA, DHS X X X
Response System
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Bureau of Justice Assistance, X X X
DOJ
Edward Byrne Memorial State and Bureau of Justice Assistance, X X
Local DOJ
Law Enforcement Assistance
Discretionary Grants
Source: GAO analysis of DHS and DOJ data.
aThe Homeland Security Grant and all other grants listed, with the
exception of the FEMA and COPS "Interoperable Communications Equipment
grants," provide funding for various emergency preparedness activities,
which may include improving interoperable communications.
bIn fiscal year 2004, this grant program's name changed from State
Homeland Security Grant to Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). The new
grant program includes three different grant programs.
cUntil fiscal year 2004, this program was administered by the FEMA.
Despite federal efforts within DHS to synthesize federal grants, various
agencies have statutory language that make it difficult to coordinate
their use. For example, both SAFECOM and COPS officials said that certain
statutory provisions underlying the grant programs presented barriers to
the coordination efforts of COPS, FEMA, and SAFECOM to consolidate the
grant application process for the 2003 Interoperable Communications
Equipment grants. COPS and FEMA coordinated their application process for
the grants and used sections of the SAFECOM grant guidance to guide their
application requirements. According to COPS and FEMA officials, the
combined COPS and FEMA application process was intended to maximize the
use of funds and reduce duplication and competition between the two
agencies' Interoperability grants. Both COPS and SAFECOM officials
explained that COPS and FEMA encountered difficulty in creating a
Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
Interoperability Planning
combined grant application process because the COPS grant required a
twenty-five percent match while the FEMA grant did not have such a
requirement. However, COPS officials said FEMA added a twenty-five percent
match of "in-kind" resources to its grant requirements in order to reduce
competition between the COPS and FEMA grant programs.
In addition to matching requirements, the underlying statutory language
for COPS and FEMA interoperable communications grants made it difficult to
incorporate some of the SAFECOM grant guidance recommendations. For
example, SAFECOM grant guidance recommended that applicants conduct
planning for developing public safety communications and specified
eligible planning activities. However, the underlying statutory language
for the COPS and FEMA grants focuses on the purchase of equipment without
specifically addressing planning. COPS and FEMA officials said that they
were able to justify allowing certain planning activities directly related
to the purchase of equipment, but could not require that funds be used to
develop a communications system. SAFECOM grant guidance also recommended
addressing maintenance and other life-cycle costs of communications
equipment; however, the statutory language underlying COPS and FEMA
interoperable communications equipment grants focuses on funding the
purchase of equipment rather than maintenance and other related costs.
Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
Interoperability Planning
No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure Funds Are Used
to Improve Regional or Statewide Communications Interoperability
Federal officials that we spoke with agreed that, generally, there is no
high-level review of communications interoperability across the federal
government to ensure that the full range of granted projects compliment
each other and add to overall statewide and national interoperability.
Each agency reviews its own set of applications and projects. As a result,
grants can be given to bordering jurisdictions that propose conflicting
interoperability solutions. For fiscal year 2003, federal officials from
COPS and FEMA attempted to eliminate awarding funds to conflicting
communication systems within bordering jurisdictions by selecting
different applicant pools and coordinating their review of grant
proposals. The COPS office selected the largest MSAs from each state and
territory as well as the 50 largest MSA's regardless of state, to apply
for COPS funds.7 FEMA requested that the governor of each state nominate
one lead jurisdiction to submit a grant proposal, taking into account the
state's demographics and the location of critical infrastructure. In
addition to selecting applicants from different jurisdictions, COPS and
FEMA engaged in a process to ensure that projects from neighboring
jurisdictions did not conflict with or duplicate each other. The
collaboration that occurred between COPS and FEMA to review the 2003
Interoperable Communications Equipment grant proposals was a step forward,
however, these agencies constitute only two of several federal agencies
that provide funds for communications interoperability.
A coordinated high-level review of key federal grant programs that award
funds for communication purposes does not exist. In response to this
challenge, SAFECOM has recently sponsored the formation of the Federal
Interagency Coordination Committee (FICC), which includes a federal grant
coordination working group. The FICC is an informal council consisting of
federal agencies, whose mission is to help local, tribal, state and
federal public safety agencies improve public safety response through more
effective and efficient interoperable wireless communications by reducing
duplication in programs and activities, identifying and promoting best
practices and coordinating federal grants, technical assistance,
7The COPS Application Guidance states that after eliminating duplicate
MSAs from the two categories, their methodology resulted in the
identification of 74 candidates that could apply for the grant. A lead
jurisdiction was designated within the MSA to promote multijurisdictional,
interoperable partnerships with neighboring localities. In the application
guidance a Metropolitan Statistical Areas was defined as a core area
containing a large population nucleus, together with adjacent communities
having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core.
Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
Interoperability Planning
training, and standards.8 Federal officials said that FICC will assist in
shaping the common grant guidance for federal initiatives involving public
safety communications. As of April 23, 2004, officials said that FICC has
held two meetings.
State governments that we visited also did not have a coordinated or
centralized grant review process to ensure that communications grant funds
in the programs that we reviewed were being used to support projects that
were complimentary and not duplicative. Florida State Technology Office
(STO) officials, who are members of Florida's Domestic Security Oversight
Board (DSOB), said that the DSOB was concerned that there was no overall
centralized review of grant applications for federal funding and no
central review of federal funds passing through the state to local
governments.9 For example, STO has the statutory authority to review plans
for new or expanded communication systems. However, STO officials said
that some local communications plans are not reviewed by the state because
there is no requirement that locals must submit their plan to STO for
review before grant approval.10 Florida is now developing a funding
working group under the DSOB to review funding requests for communication
interoperability.
Officials that we spoke with in California also acknowledged that there
has been no centralized grant review process for funds that can be used
for communications interoperability. Officials from the grants
administration division within the Office of Emergency Services said that
they do not have a centralized review of grant funds in California because
several state and local agencies receive funds directly to their agencies
or jurisdictions from the federal government.
Local officials were concerned that this lack of a coordinated review of
grants used across the state for communications interoperability can
8Proposed FICC members are federal agencies within the DOJ, DHS, Defense,
Agriculture, and Commerce.
9The Domestic Security Oversight Board prepares Domestic Security Funding
Recommendations-including recommendations for funding interoperable
communications-to the governor and state and legislature. Decisions on the
used of federal and state homeland security funds are based upon the
recommendations of the oversight board.
10STO officials said that the one exception to this rule is their review
of Emergency Medical Services grants, which requires a state-level review
before approval for federal or state funds.
Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
Interoperability Planning
No Comprehensive Grant Database Exists that Can Be Used to Facilitate Federal
Oversight and Coordination of Funding to Jurisdictions
result in grants being awarded to bordering jurisdictions or localities
that propose conflicting interoperability solutions and, therefore,
compound existing barriers to regional or statewide interoperability. As a
result, the state of Washington has set up a structure to facilitate
centralized grant review of federal and state funding to ensure that they
promote regional interoperability. Officials intend to use a statewide
communications plan being developed by their State Interoperability
Executive Committee (SIEC) to review local funding proposals.
Currently, there is no database that can be used as a tool for
coordinating federal or state oversight of funding for interoperable
communications systems. SAFECOM is currently engaged in an effort with DOJ
to create a "collaborative clearinghouse" that could facilitate federal
oversight of interoperable communications funding to neighboring
jurisdictions and allow states access to this information for planning
purposes. The database is intended to decrease duplication of funding and
evaluation efforts, de-conflict the application process, maximize
efficiency of limited federal funding, and serve as a data collection tool
for lessons learned that would be accessible to state and locals.
According to federal officials, this database is operational; however, its
use is limited in its ability to coordinate federal oversight of grant
funds for several reasons. First, the database does not contain
information from the majority of relevant federal agencies and SAFECOM has
no enforcement authority to require that all federal agencies provide
information to the database or use it guide decisions in their grant
approval process.
In addition, SAFECOM officials said that it is unclear how to obtain the
needed information from formula grants on the use of federal funds for
communications. The State Homeland Security grant issued by ODP is a large
grant provided to states that can be used for communications
interoperability, among other things. However, federal officials said that
once these funds enter the states, there is no reporting obligation on the
use of the funds by jurisdiction-this information is lost. According to
these officials, formula grants that go directly to the jurisdictions,
like the ODP UASI grants, have the potential to be tracked and used within
the database if ODP provides application and award information for the
database. The officials said that, as a result of limitations that may
exist in obtaining the relevant information from formula grants, the
database would likely only include information from discretionary grants,
earmarks, or grants provided directly to the local jurisdictions.
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Commerce
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Commerce
Appendix VII: Comments from the
Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts William O. Jenkins (202) 512-8777 Thomas James (202)
512-2996
Staff In addition to the above, Leo Barbour, Karen Burke, Katherine Davis,
Sally Gilley, Robert Hadley, Latesha Love, Gary Malavenda, and Shirley
PerryAcknowledgments made contributions to this report.
GAO Related Products
Information Technology: The Federal Enterprise Architecture and Agencies
Enterprise Architectures Are Still Maturing. GAO-04-798T. Washington,
D.C.: May 19, 2004.
Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort Requires
Stronger Collaboration. GAO-04-494. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004.
Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable Communications
for First Responders. GAO 04-231T. Washington, D.C.: November 6, 2003.
Reforming Federal Grants to Better Meet Outstanding Needs. GAO-03-1146T.
Washington, D.C.: September 3, 2003.
Telecommunications: Comprehensive Review Of U.S. Spectrum Management With
Broad Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed. GAO-03-277. Washington, D.C.:
January 31, 2003.
Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability Needed
to Improve Spectrum Management. GAO-02-906. Washington, D.C.: September
26, 2002.
Bibliography
Congressional Research Service. FY 2005 Budget Request for First Responder
Preparedness: Issues and Analysis. By Shawn Reese. Washington, D.C.:
February 12, 2004.
Congressional Research Service. DHS: First Responder Grants: A Summary.
Washington, D.C.: October 2003.
Congressional Research Service. First Responder Initiative: Policy Issues
and Options. By Ben Canada. Washington, D.C.: Updated August 28, 2003.
Congressional Research Service. FY2003: Appropriations for First Responder
Awareness. By Ben Canada. Washington, D.C.: Updated June 2, 2003.
Congressional Research Service. Terrorism Preparedness: Catalog of
Selected Federal Assistance Programs. By Ben Canada. Washington, D.C.:
April 2003.
Congressional Research Service. Analysis of Selected Aspects of Terrorism
Preparedness Assistance Programs. By Ben Canada. Washington, D.C.: Updated
March, 13, 2003.
Gilmore Commission. Third Annual Report to the President and the Congress
of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for
Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Washington, D.C.: 2001.
National Governors Association. A Governor's Guide to Emergency
Management. Volume Two: Homeland Security. Washington, D.C.: 2002.
National Task Force on Interoperability. Why Can't We Talk? Working
Together to Bridge the Communications Gap to Save Lives. Washington, D.C.:
2003.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Information Material-`How To' Guide for
Funding State and Local Public Safety Wireless Networks. Fairfax,
Virginia: 2003.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Federal Interoperability Assistance
Support-Funding Strategy Best Practices Report. Fairfax, Virginia: 2002.
Bibliography
Public Safety Wireless Network. The Report Card on Funding Mechanisms for
Public Safety Radio Communications. Fairfax, Virginia: 2001.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Fire and Emergency Management Services
(EMS) Communications Interoperability. Fairfax, Virginia: 1999.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Land Mobile Radio Replacement Cost Study.
Fairfax, Virginia: 1998.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Report on Funding Strategies for Public
Safety Radio Communications. As prepared by Booz.PAllen & Hamilton.
Fairfax, Virginia: 1998.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Report on Funding Mechanisms for Public
Safety Radio Communications. Prepared by Booz .PAllen & Hamilton. Fairfax,
Virginia: 1997.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless
Advisory Committee. Fairfax, Virginia: 1996.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Public Safety Coordination and
Preparedness Guide. Fairfax, Virginia.
Public Safety Wireless Network. The Role of the Federal Government in
Public Safety Wireless Interoperability. Fairfax, Virginia.
Public Safety Wireless Network. The Role of the Local Public Safety
Community Government in Public Safety Wireless Interoperability. Fairfax,
Virginia.
Public Safety Wireless Network. The Role of the States in Public Safety
Wireless Interoperability. Fairfax, Virginia.
U.S. Department of Justice. Wireless Communications and Interoperability
Among State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies.
Washington, D.C.: 1998.
GAO's Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Relations Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***