First Responders: Much Work Remains to Improve Communications	 
Interoperability (02-APR-07, GAO-07-301).			 
                                                                 
As the first to respond to natural disasters, domestic terrorism,
and other emergencies, public safety agencies rely on timely	 
communications across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions. It 
is vital to the safety and effectiveness of first responders that
their electronic communications systems enable them to		 
communicate with whomever they need to, when they need to, and	 
when they are authorized to do so. GAO was asked to determine,	 
among other things, (1) the extent to which Department of	 
Homeland Security (DHS) funding and technical assistance has	 
helped to improve interoperable communications in selected states
and (2) the progress that has been made in the development and	 
implementation of interoperable communications standards. To	 
address these objectives, GAO reviewed grant information,	 
documentation of selected states' and localities'		 
interoperability projects, and standards documents.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-301 					        
    ACCNO:   A67625						        
  TITLE:     First Responders: Much Work Remains to Improve	      
Communications Interoperability 				 
     DATE:   04/02/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Emergency communication systems			 
	     Emergency preparedness				 
	     Federal aid to localities				 
	     Federal aid to states				 
	     Federal procurement				 
	     First responders					 
	     Grants to states					 
	     Homeland security					 
	     Interoperability					 
	     National policies					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Standards						 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Systems compatibility				 
	     Technical assistance				 
	     Program implementation				 
	     DHS Urban Area Security Initiative 		 
	     SAFECOM						 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-301

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Background

          * [3]Land Mobile Radio System Technology
          * [4]Lack of Interoperable Communications Has Long Hindered Emerg
          * [5]Programs Aimed at Improving Interoperable Communications
          * [6]Project 25 Was Established to Address First Responder Intero

     * [7]DHS Assistance Has Helped on Specific Interoperability Proje

          * [8]DHS Funding Has Helped Make Improvements on Specific Interop
          * [9]A Lack of Statewide Plans Has Contributed to Limited Strateg
          * [10]The Lack of a National Plan Has Also Contributed to Limited
          * [11]Technical Assistance Has Been Helpful, but Exercises Curtail

     * [12]SAFECOM Program Has Made Limited Progress in Assisting All L

          * [13]SAFECOM Was Established to Improve Interoperable Communicati
          * [14]SAFECOM Has Not Taken Action to Address Interoperability wit
          * [15]SAFECOM Tools and Assistance Have Had Limited Impact on Stat
          * [16]Lack of Program Plan and Performance Measures Has Contribute

     * [17]Recent Progress Has Been Made in Developing Interoperability

          * [18]Until Recently, Progress in Developing Interoperability Stan
          * [19]Implementation of Systems Based on Incomplete Project 25 Sta
          * [20]Efforts Are Under Way to Mitigate Project 25 Problems

     * [21]Conclusions
     * [22]Recommendations for Executive Action
     * [23]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * [24]Florida

          * [25]Governance
          * [26]State Approach
          * [27]Local Approach

     * [28]Kentucky

          * [29]Governance
          * [30]State Approach
          * [31]Local Approach

     * [32]New York

          * [33]Governance
          * [34]State Approach
          * [35]Local Approach

     * [36]Oregon

          * [37]Governance
          * [38]State Approach
          * [39]Local Approach

     * [40]GAO Contact
     * [41]Staff Acknowledgments
     * [42]GAO's Mission
     * [43]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [44]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [45]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [46]Congressional Relations
     * [47]Public Affairs

Report to Congressional Requesters

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

April 2007

FIRST RESPONDERS

Much Work Remains to Improve Communications Interoperability

GAO-07-301

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2
Background 5
DHS Assistance Has Helped on Specific Interoperability Projects, but a
More Strategic Approach Is Needed 16
SAFECOM Program Has Made Limited Progress in Assisting All Levels of
Government to Achieve Interoperability 25
Recent Progress Has Been Made in Developing Interoperability Standards,
but Early Implementation Has Had Unsatisfactory Results 33
Conclusions 41
Recommendations for Executive Action 42
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 43
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 47
Appendix II First Responder Communications Systems within Selected States
50
Florida 50
Kentucky 53
New York 56
Oregon 59
Appendix III Comments from the Department of Commerce 63
Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 64
Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 69

Tables

Table 1: Description of SAFECOM Guidance and Tools 12
Table 2: Office of Grants and Training Guidance and Technical Assistance
14
Table 3: Examples of Uses of DHS Funding for Interoperable Communications
19
Table 4: Status of Project 25 Interfaces 35
Table 5: Sample Project 25 Radio Purchases 39
Table 6: Development Schedule for Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program
40

Figures

Figure 1: Basic Components of a Land Mobile Radio Communication System 6
Figure 2: Public Safety Agency Radio Frequency Bands and Their Location on
the Radio Spectrum 7
Figure 3: Use of SAFECOM Tools, Guidance, and Assistance, by Location 31
Figure 4: Project 25 Interfaces 36
Figure 5: Illustration of Florida's Interoperability Network 51
Figure 6: Console-to-Console Bridge Solution 54
Figure 7: The New York Statewide Wireless Network 57
Figure 8: Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network System Overview 61

Abbreviations

COPS Community Oriented Policing Services
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
GHz gigahertz
ICTAP Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program
IP Internet Protocol
IWN Integrated Wireless Network kHz kilohertz
MHz megahertz
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
OEC Office of Emergency Communications
TIA Telecommunications Industry Association
TICP Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan
UASI Urban Area Security Initiative
UHF ultra high frequency
VHF very high frequency
VoIP Voice over Internet Protocol

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

April 2, 2007

The Honorable William Lacy Clay
Chairman
Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
House of Representatives

The Honorable Dennis J. Kucinich
Chairman
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
House of Representatives

Emergency "first responders"--personnel such as firefighters, police
officers, and ambulance services who are the first to arrive at the scene
of an emergency--are supported by a variety of public safety agencies,
including 911 call center staff and other local, state, and federal
authorities. Timely communications, often via wireless radios, are vital
to the effectiveness and safety of first responders and their supporting
agencies, as well as the safety of the public at large. Communications
interoperability--also referred to as compatibility or
connectivity--refers to the capability of different electronic
communications systems to readily connect with each other and thus enable
timely communications. Emergency "first responders"--personnel such as
firefighters, police officers, and ambulance services who are the first to
arrive at the scene of an emergency--are supported by a variety of public
safety agencies, including 911 call center staff and other local, state,
and federal authorities. Timely communications, often via wireless radios,
are vital to the effectiveness and safety of first responders and their
supporting agencies, as well as the safety of the public at large.
Communications interoperability--also referred to as compatibility or
connectivity--refers to the capability of different electronic
communications systems to readily connect with each other and thus enable
timely communications.

Facilitating interoperability has been a policy concern of public safety
officials for many years. Toward that end, two major Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) efforts under way to improve interoperable public
safety communications are: (1) grant funding and technical assistance
provided by the Office of Grants and Training to high-risk regions at the
state and local level for on-site support as they work to improve their
interoperability and (2) the SAFECOM program, intended to strengthen
interoperable public safety communications at all levels of government.
The program is intended to provide research, development, testing and
evaluation, guidance, tools, and templates on communications-related
issues. In addition, DHS supports Project 25, a joint initiative by
government and commercial organizations to develop a set of national
standards for vendors to use when designing radio communications equipment
for first responders. Facilitating interoperability has been a policy
concern of public safety officials for many years. Toward that end, two
major Department of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts under way to improve
interoperable public safety communications are: (1) grant funding and
technical assistance provided by the Office of Grants and Training to
high-risk regions at the state and local level for on-site support as they
work to improve their interoperability and (2) the SAFECOM program,
intended to strengthen interoperable public safety communications at all
levels of government. The program is intended to provide research,
development, testing and evaluation, guidance, tools, and templates on
communications-related issues. In addition, DHS supports Project 25, a
joint initiative by government and commercial organizations to develop a
set of national standards for vendors to use when designing radio
communications equipment for first responders.

You asked us to assess the extent to which DHS has made progress in
improving interoperable communications for first responders. Specifically,
our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which DHS funding and
technical assistance have helped to improve interoperable communications
in selected states, (2) the progress the SAFECOM program has made in
improving interoperable communications, and (3) the progress that has been
made in the development and implementation of interoperable communications
standards.

To address our objectives, we conducted case studies of four states
(Florida, Kentucky, New York, and Oregon) and 11 selected localities
within those states. We used a number of factors to select states,
including those that had received relatively large amounts of DHS funding,
as well as those that routinely face natural disasters. The localities we
selected included (1) large, high-risk urban areas, referred to as Urban
Area Security Initiative (UASI) regions, which received the most funding
from DHS within our selected states, (2) the non-UASI counties that
received the largest amount of DHS funding within these states, and (3)
the counties and cities where the state capitals are located.^1 To assess
each state's use of DHS grants and technical assistance to improve
interoperability and to identify common issues among states, we analyzed
documentation obtained from state and local officials, such as grant
allocation information and communications interoperability plans. To
determine the progress SAFECOM has made in improving interoperable
communications, we analyzed program management documentation (such as
program goals, initiatives, and performance measures) and interviewed
state and local officials regarding their use of SAFECOM tools and
guidance. To determine the status of the development and implementation of
interoperable communications standards, we obtained and analyzed
documentation from DHS, the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), and the four states. We performed our work from April 2006 to
February 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Further details of our objectives, scope, and methodology are
provided in appendix I.

Results in Brief

According to DHS, $2.15 billion in grant funding was awarded to states and
localities from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005 for
communications interoperability enhancements. This funding, along with
technical assistance, has helped to make improvements on a variety of
specific interoperability projects. However, in the states we reviewed,
strategic planning has generally not been used to guide investments and
provide assistance to improve communications interoperability on a broader
level. Specifically, not all states had plans in place to guide their
investments toward long-term interoperability gains; no national plan was
in place to coordinate investments across states; and while UASI officials
stated that the technical assistance offered to them had been helpful, DHS
curtailed full-scale exercises, limiting their value in measuring
progress. Further, although DHS has required states to implement statewide
plans by the end of 2007, no process has been established for ensuring
that states' grant requests are consistent with their statewide plans.
Until DHS takes a more strategic approach to improving interoperable
communications--such as including in its decision making an assessment of
how grant requests align with statewide communications plans--and until
more rigorous exercises are conducted, progress by states and localities
in improving interoperability is likely to be impeded.

^1We were unable to meet with local officials from Florida's state capital
region.

The SAFECOM program has made limited progress in improving communications
interoperability at all levels of government; however, the program has not
addressed interoperability with federal agencies, a critical element to
interoperable communications required by the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.^2 The SAFECOM program has focused on
helping states and localities improve interoperable communications by
developing tools and guidance for their use. However, based on our review
of four states and selected localities, SAFECOM's progress in achieving
its goals of helping these states and localities improve interoperable
communications has been limited. Officials from the states and localities
we reviewed often found that the tools and planning assistance provided by
the program were not helpful, or they were unaware of what assistance the
program had to offer. The program's limited effectiveness can be linked to
poor program management practices, including the lack of a plan for
improving interoperability across all levels of government and inadequate
performance measures that would provide feedback to better attune tools
and assistance with public safety needs. Until SAFECOM adopts these key
management practices, its progress is likely to remain limited.

^2Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. No.
108-458, section 7303, 118 Stat. 3638, 3843-44, Dec. 17, 2004.

Until recently, little progress had been made in developing Project 25
standards--a suite of national standards that are intended to enable
interoperability among the communications products of different vendors.
Although one of the eight major subsets of standards was defined in the
project's first 4 years (from 1989 to 1993), from 1993 through 2005, no
additional standards were completed that could be used by a vendor to
develop elements of a Project 25 system. To its credit, over the past 2
years, the private-sector coordinating body responsible for Project 25 has
defined specifications for three additional subsets of standards. However,
ambiguities in the published standards have led to incompatibilities among
products made by different vendors, and no compliance testing has been
conducted to ensure vendors' products are interoperable. Nevertheless, DHS
has strongly encouraged state and local agencies to use grant funding to
purchase Project 25 radios, which are substantially more expensive than
non-Project 25 radios. As a result, states and local agencies have
purchased fewer, more expensive radios, which still may not be
interoperable and thus may provide them with minimal additional benefits.
Until DHS modifies its grant guidance to provide more flexibility in
purchasing communications equipment, states and localities are likely to
continue to purchase expensive equipment that provides them with minimal
additional benefits.

We are making recommendations to DHS to enhance the effectiveness of the
department's efforts to improve interoperable communications, including
assessing how states' grant requests support their statewide
communications plans as a factor in the grant allocation process,
implementing a program plan and establishing performance measures to
assess the effectiveness and usefulness of SAFECOM tools, and modifying
guidance to states and localities regarding acquisition of communications
equipment to allow a more flexible approach until completed subsets of
standards have been fully defined, and products have been certified
compliant.

We received written comments from the Deputy Secretary of Commerce and the
director of the DHS liaison office for GAO and the Office of the Inspector
General. Letters from these agencies are reprinted in appendixes III and
IV. Commerce provided updated information and technical comments, which we
have incorporated, where appropriate.

In its response to our five recommendations, DHS agreed with two, stated
that it would defer commenting on two, and disagreed with one
recommendation.

DHS agreed with the intent of our recommendation that it develop and
implement a program plan and stated that it is currently working to
develop such a plan. DHS also agreed with our recommendation to develop
quantifiable performance measures for the program.

DHS disagreed with our recommendation on modifying grant guidance to
provide more flexibility in purchasing communications equipment until
standards for completed interfaces have been fully defined, stating that
the recommendation would require SAFECOM to amend its interoperability
grant guidance until after the entire Project 25 suite of standards is
complete, and would undermine the final remaining negotiations between the
public safety community and equipment manufacturers. We agree that not all
interfaces need to be fully defined before agencies can begin acquiring
Project 25 products; thus we have clarified the recommendation to reflect
this. However, we are not recommending that the public safety community be
prohibited from acquiring Project 25 equipment, and thus we do not believe
negotiations with equipment manufacturers would be undermined.

DHS also provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate.

Background

Public safety agencies include the nation's first responders (such as
firefighters, police officers, and ambulance services), 911 call center
staff, and a number of local, state, federal, and regional authorities.
Communications, often through wireless land mobile radios, are vital to
these agencies' effectiveness and to the safety of their members and the
public. Wireless technology requires radio frequency capacity in order to
function, and existing wireless technology is designed to work within
specified frequency ranges.

Interoperability in the context of public safety communications systems
refers to the ability of first responders to communicate with whomever
they need to (including personnel from a variety of agencies and
jurisdictions), when they need to, and when they are authorized to do so.
It is important to note that the goal of being able to communicate when
necessary and authorized is not the same as being able to communicate with
any other individual at any time--a capability that could overwhelm the
communications infrastructure and would likely impede effective
communication and response time.

Different first responder groups each have different professional
practices, public safety missions, emergency response procedures,
communication protocols, and radio frequencies. These differences have
created a variety of obstacles to effective interoperable communications
among first responders. Thus, facilitating interoperable communications
has been a policy concern of public safety officials for many years.

Land Mobile Radio System Technology

Land mobile radio systems are the primary means of communications among
public safety personnel. These systems typically consist of handheld
portable radios, mobile radios, base stations, and repeaters. Handheld
portable radios are typically carried by public safety personnel and tend
to have a limited transmission range. Mobile radios are often located in
vehicles and use the vehicle's power supply and a larger antenna,
providing a greater transmission range than handheld portable radios. Base
station radios are located in fixed positions, such as public service
access points or dispatch centers, and tend to have the most powerful
transmitters. A network is required to connect the different base stations
to the same communications system. Repeaters are used to increase the
effective communications range of handheld portable radios, mobile radios,
and base station radios by retransmitting received radio signals. Figure 1
below illustrates the basic components of a land mobile radio system.

Figure 1: Basic Components of a Land Mobile Radio Communication System

The transmissions between the elements of a land mobile radio system
consist of electromagnetic waves that propagate along designated
frequencies of the radio spectrum. Each communications link uniquely
occupies a specific frequency or set of frequencies for as long as
information is being transmitted. The radio spectrum is a fixed, limited
resource that is shared among government and nongovernment entities for
many uses in addition to public safety communications, such as television
broadcasting, AM/FM radio, and aeronautical radio navigation. Most public
safety agencies use their allocated frequencies for voice communications
but are increasingly using their portion of the spectrum to support more
advanced technologies, such as data, imagery, and video transmissions. The
specific frequency bands allocated to public safety agencies are shown in
figure 2.

Figure 2: Public Safety Agency Radio Frequency Bands and Their Location on
the Radio Spectrum

Major frequency ranges that are used for public safety communications
include the very high frequency (VHF) range and the ultra high frequency
(UHF) range. VHF signals travel farther than UHF signals and thus are
useful in suburban and rural areas. However, they generally cannot
penetrate building walls very well. In contrast, UHF signals are more
appropriate for denser urban areas as they penetrate buildings more
easily, and it is less critical that the signals be able to propagate for
long distances. The frequencies used by federal agencies are managed by
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, while the
Federal Communications Commission manages state and local government
frequencies.

Radio systems are classified as either conventional or "trunked."
Conventional radio systems have dedicated frequencies--also referred to as
channels--assigned to individual groups of users. When a user makes a
call, other members of the group cannot use the channel until the call is
over. In contrast, trunked systems allocate pools of channels for use by
multiple individuals. When a call is made by a user on a trunked system,
an available channel is automatically selected from the pool of channels,
leaving the remaining channels available for others. While trunked systems
are more complex and require more infrastructure than conventional
systems, they allow for more efficient use of communication channels,
reducing congestion.

Lack of Interoperable Communications Has Long Hindered Emergency Response

In order to effectively respond to emergencies such as natural disasters
and domestic terrorism, public safety agencies need the ability to
communicate with their counterparts in other disciplines and
jurisdictions. However, the wireless communications systems used by many
police officers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and other
public safety agencies do not provide such capability. For example,
emergency agencies responding to events such as the bombing of the federal
building in Oklahoma City and the attacks of September 11, 2001,
experienced difficulties in trying to communicate with each other. The
9/11 Commission concluded that communications interoperability problems
contributed to the large number of firefighter fatalities that occurred at
the World Trade Center.^3

Historically, first responder communications interoperability has been
significantly hampered by different and incompatible radio systems.
Different technologies and configurations, including proprietary designs,
by different manufacturers have limited the interoperability of public
safety wireless communications systems. These systems have also operated
on different frequencies of the radio spectrum. In particular, public
safety agencies have been assigned frequencies in new bands over time as
available frequencies became congested, and as new technologies made
higher frequencies available for use. Existing radios are unable to
transmit and receive in all of the public safety frequencies, often making
communications between first responders from different jurisdictions
difficult. Additionally, as we have previously reported,^4 there is a need
for better frequency planning and coordination. Further, public safety
agencies have historically planned and acquired communications systems
without concern for interoperability, often resulting in multiple,
technically incompatible systems in operation throughout any given local
jurisdiction.

^1We were unable to meet with local officials from Florida's state capital
region.

^2 [56]GAO-04-740 .

^3National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The
9/11 Commission Report (Washington, D.C: 2004), 322-3.

A variety of technical approaches have been adopted to help improve
interoperable communications, including the following:

           o Swapping radios: Agencies maintain a cache of extra radios that
           they can distribute during an emergency to other first responders
           whose radios are not interoperable with their own. The advantage
           of this solution is that it does not require that all existing
           radios be replaced, an important consideration when funds to buy
           new equipment are limited. However, this approach requires
           significant logistical support and careful management to implement
           successfully.
           o Patching: Two or more incompatible radio systems are connected
           to a central switchboard-like system that translates a signal sent
           from one connected system so that it can be received by any of the
           other connected systems. The principal advantage of this solution
           is that agencies can continue to use existing systems that would
           otherwise be incompatible. A major disadvantage is that patching
           requires twice as much spectrum because a patched transmission
           occupies separate channels on each connected system.
           o Shared channels or mutual aid channels: Agencies agree to set
           aside a specific channel or channels for connecting to other
           incompatible systems. This approach provides direct interoperable
           communications and only occupies one channel per conversation.
           However, it can cause congestion since these channels require
           dedicated frequencies and thus have limited capacity.
           o Shared systems: The use of a single or common radio
           system--typically a trunked system--to provide service to most
           agencies within a region. Shared systems are the most robust form
           of interoperability and do not require dedicated channels. While
           this approach produces optimal performance, it can be very
           expensive, because it generally requires purchasing all new radios
           and transmission equipment.

           Technologies that can help implement shared systems include the
           following:

           o Internet Protocol based systems: Using the Voice over Internet
           Protocol,^5 advanced communications systems can offer the
           flexibility to transmit voice conversations over a data network
           such as the Internet or a private network.
           o Software-defined radios: These are intended to allow
           interoperability among agencies using different frequency bands,
           different operational modes (digital or analog), proprietary
           systems from different manufacturers, or different modulations
           (such as AM or FM). However, software-defined radios are still
           being developed and are not yet available for use by public safety
           agencies.

           However, interoperability cannot be achieved solely by
           implementing technical solutions. Coordination among different
           agencies and governmental entities is also critical. Response to
           an emergency may involve all levels of government and many
           different disciplines, such as law enforcement organizations, fire
           departments, emergency medical services, transportation, natural
           resources, and public utility sectors. Each of these agencies is
           likely to have its own policies, procedures, and communications
           protocols when responding to an incident. A simplistic example is
           the word "fire," which to a firefighter means that something is
           burning but to a police officer is a command to shoot a weapon.
           Resolving such cultural and procedural differences can be
           challenging.

           Further, the extent to which interoperable communications are
           needed among different agencies, disciplines, and levels of
           government (federal, state, local, and tribal) varies based on the
           size, significance, and duration of an emergency event. Increasing
           degrees of interoperability may be needed for (1) routine
           day-to-day coordination between a few agencies in a local area,
           (2) extended operations involving agencies from multiple
           jurisdictions working on a larger problem (such as the 2002 sniper
           attacks in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area), and (3) a
           major, large-scale event that requires response from a range of
           local, state, and federal agencies and disciplines (such as major
           wildfires, hurricanes, or the terrorist attacks of September 11,
           2001).

           In 2004,^6 we reported that a fundamental barrier to successfully
           addressing interoperable communications problems for public safety
           was the lack of effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and
           intergovernmental planning. We recommended that DHS take a number
           of actions to address this barrier, such as determining the
           current status of interoperable communications across the nation
           and encouraging states to establish comprehensive statewide
           interoperability plans and certify the alignment of their grant
           applications with their statewide plans. DHS has taken steps to
           address these recommendations. For example, it recently completed
           a national survey of first responders to determine the current
           status of their interoperability capabilities, and it has required
           states to develop statewide communications plans by the end of
           2007.
			  
			  Programs Aimed at Improving Interoperable Communications

           SAFECOM is a DHS program intended to strengthen interoperable
           public safety communications at all levels of government. The
           program provides research, development, testing and evaluation,
           guidance, tools, and templates on communications-related issues.
           We previously reported^7 that changes in leadership delayed
           progress during the initial years of the SAFECOM program and that
           the program suffered from a lack of leadership and focus.

           Since 2004, SAFECOM has spent $20.4 million developing several
           tools and providing assistance to help guide states and localities
           as they work to improve the interoperability of their
           communication systems. Table 1 outlines several tools and guidance
           that SAFECOM had developed as of July 2006. The program continues
           to develop additional tools.

^4For more information on the need for better frequency planning and
coordination, see GAO, Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and
Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder
Interoperable Communications, [48]GAO-04-740 (Washington, D.C.: July 20,
2004).

^5Voice over Internet Protocol, also called VoIP, is the routing of voice
conversations over the Internet or any other Internet Protocol network.

^6 [49]GAO-04-740 .

^7GAO, Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort
Requires Stronger Collaboration, [50]GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
16, 2004).

Table 1: Description of SAFECOM Guidance and Tools

Source: GAO based on DHS data.

We previously recommended that in order to enhance the ability of SAFECOM
to improve communications among emergency personnel from federal, state,
local, and tribal agencies, SAFECOM officials should complete written
agreements with the project's identified stakeholders (including federal
agencies and organizations representing state and local governments) that
define the responsibilities and resource commitments that each of those
organizations will assume and include specific provisions that measure
program performance.^8 Since we made our recommendation, SAFECOM program
officials have established a governance charter for the program, which
outlines the roles, relationships, and operating guidelines for
participating stakeholders.

^8 [51]GAO-04-494 .

The Office of Grants and Training, which is scheduled to become part of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is a separate entity within DHS
that is responsible for, among other things, providing grants and
technical assistance to states and localities to help them improve their
interoperable communications. Grants and Training provides funding to
states and requires that at least 80 percent of grant funding provided to
states through the Homeland Security Grant Program be passed to
localities. Grants and Training also provides additional funding to
address the unique planning, equipment, training, and exercise needs of
UASI areas.^9

DHS uses a partly risk-based approach to allocate grant funds. State
agencies submit proposals to DHS which form the basis for its risk-based
decisions. During the most recent grant allocation process in 2006 for the
Homeland Security Grant Program, each state and territory received a
portion of its grant funding through a base allocation. The remainder of
funds was allocated based on an analysis of risk and need. In fiscal year
2006, the UASI funds were allocated based on risk and effectiveness. DHS
estimated the relative risk of successful terrorist attacks on selected
urban areas, considering threat, vulnerability, and consequences for both
asset-based and geographic factors. On the basis of this analysis, it
ranked the UASI areas and identified 35 urban areas as eligible to apply
for UASI funding. In addition, the 11 urban areas that received funding
previously, but were not identified as UASI areas in 2006, have been
extended eligibility for funding for one additional year. DHS also used a
peer review process to assess the effectiveness of each of the 35 urban
areas' proposed investments using the grant funds.

Grants and Training has also established a monitoring program in which
preparedness officers validate that grant funds are being administered
legally and in accordance with the guidance provided to grantees.
Preparedness officers work with the states to help address areas of
concern, needs, and priorities. The monitoring program is also intended to
provide a general assessment of where states and localities are in
protecting their citizens. In addition, in efforts to control the use of
awards, DHS officials have developed an Approved Equipment List that
provides information on allowable equipment expenditures.

^9Each year the number of urban areas designated as a UASI area changes.
In 2005, DHS designated 43 UASI areas, and in 2006 DHS reduced the number
of UASI areas to 35 (11 areas that had previously participated in the
program but did not fall within in the top 35 urban areas in the 2006 risk
analysis were eligible to apply for UASI funding for one additional grant
cycle to help sustain ongoing projects). In 2007, 45 areas were designated
as UASI areas.

Further, Grants and Training established the Interoperable Communications
Technical Assistance Program, which has provided guidance and technical
assistance to the UASI areas. While the program focuses mostly on
providing guidance and assistance to these specific areas, assistance is
also provided to non-UASI areas. Table 2 provides a list of the assistance
and guidance offered by Grants and Training.

Table 2: Office of Grants and Training Guidance and Technical Assistance

Source: GAO based on DHS data.

Another grant program focused on interoperable communications is the
Department of Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
Interoperable Communications Grant program. The program awards technology
grants to law enforcement agencies for interoperable communications and
information sharing. While the program used to have a larger role in
providing grant funding to states and localities, its scope and budget was
significantly reduced in 2006 in an effort to eliminate overlap with DHS's
grant program.

More recently, the 2007 DHS Appropriations Act^10 transferred many SAFECOM
program responsibilities to a new Office of Emergency Communications
(OEC). This new office, which is not yet operational, is to take over the
Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program from Grants and
Training and the Integrated Wireless Network project, which is intended to
create a consolidated federal wireless communications service for federal
public safety agencies. This new office is tasked with improving overall
emergency communications for first responders, as well as improving
interoperability. In addition to the OEC, the Office for Interoperability
and Compatibility within the Science and Technology Directorate will
continue to house the remaining elements of SAFECOM related to research,
development, testing and evaluation, and standards.

Project 25 Was Established to Address First Responder Interoperability Standards

In 1989, the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, the
National Association of State Telecommunications Directors, and selected
federal agencies established Project 25 to develop open standards for
vendors to use when designing land mobile radio communications equipment.
Project 25 has the following four primary objectives:

           o enable effective inter- and intra-agency communications,
           o improve radio spectrum efficiency,
           o focus equipment and capabilities on public safety needs, and
           o leverage an open architecture to promote competition across land
           mobile radio vendors.

           Project 25 standards are intended to be a suite of national
           standards, based upon public safety user requirements, which
           define operable and interoperable communications equipment for
           first responders. When complete, this suite of standards is
           intended to allow for specifications to be written for interfaces
           between the various components of a land mobile radio system. The
           Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, the
           National Association of State Telecommunications Directors, and
           federal agency representatives, work with the Telecommunications
           Industry Association (TIA)--an American National Standards
           Institute-accredited^11 standards development organization--to
           develop and maintain the standards.
			  
			  DHS Assistance Has Helped on Specific Interoperability Projects,
			  but a More Strategic Approach Is Needed

           According to DHS, $2.15 billion in grant funding was awarded to
           states and localities from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year
           2005 for communications interoperability enhancements. This
           funding, along with technical assistance, has helped to make
           improvements on a variety of specific interoperability projects.
           However, in the states we reviewed, strategic planning has
           generally not been used to guide investments and provide
           assistance to improve communications interoperability on a broader
           level. Specifically, not all states had plans in place to guide
           their investments toward long-term interoperability gains; no
           national plan was in place to coordinate investments across
           states; and while UASI officials stated that the technical
           assistance offered to them had been helpful, DHS curtailed
           full-scale exercises, limiting their value in measuring progress.
           Further, although DHS has required states to implement statewide
           plans by the end of 2007, no process has been established for
           ensuring that states' grant requests are consistent with their
           statewide plans. Until DHS takes a more strategic approach to
           improving interoperable communications--such as including in its
           decision making an assessment of how grant requests align with
           statewide communications plans--and until more rigorous exercises
           are conducted, progress by states and localities in improving
           interoperability is likely to be impeded.
			  
			  DHS Funding Has Helped Make Improvements on Specific
			  Interoperability Projects in Selected States

           One of the main purposes of the DHS grants program is to provide
           financial assistance to states and localities to help them fund
           projects to develop and implement interoperable communications
           systems. In addition, as previously mentioned, the Interoperable
           Communications Technical Assistance Program is intended to provide
           on-site assistance to UASI areas to, among other things, assist
           with developing tactical interoperability plans, planning
           exercises, assessing communication gaps, and designing
           interoperable systems.

           The four states we reviewed received assistance from DHS, which
           helped make improvements on specific interoperability projects.

           o Florida: Florida has spent $36.5 million in DHS funds to develop
           a system called the Florida Interoperability Network, which
           establishes network connections between federal, state, and local
           dispatch centers across Florida and provides mutual aid channels
           throughout the state. As a result, the level of interoperability
           across the state has improved significantly. First responders in
           64 of Florida's 67 counties are now able to have their
           communications patched to each other as needed via the network.
           Previously, they had no such infrastructure for achieving
           interoperability. However, officials from localities in Florida
           raised questions about the long-term sustainability of the
           network. Each connected jurisdiction must pay the ongoing costs of
           their connection to the Florida Interoperability Network, and
           smaller jurisdictions are likely to find this unaffordable.
           Further, Florida officials remarked that training across the state
           is still incomplete. Additionally, in the Miami UASI region, a
           majority of the Urban Area Security Initiative funding for
           interoperable communications has been used to acquire
           communications equipment, such as radios, and interoperability
           solutions, such as devices that interconnect first responders on
           disparate radios, to make improvements in Miami City and in
           Miami-Dade County. However, limited UASI funding had been
           dedicated to making interoperability improvements in other
           localities in the Miami UASI, such as Monroe and Broward Counties.
           o Kentucky: Kentucky used a portion of its DHS funding to expand
           the use of mutual aid interoperability radio channels that allow
           agencies on different communication systems throughout Kentucky to
           tune to a dedicated, shared frequency to communicate. Prior to
           this initiative, first responders operating on different
           frequencies were unable to communicate. Currently, approximately
           34 percent of applicable agencies have signed a memorandum of
           understanding to commit to using the mutual aid channels in
           accordance to standardized procedures. However, mutual aid
           channels have limited capacity, and Kentucky has yet to implement
           a long-term solution for a statewide voice communications system
           that will allow federal, state, and local first responders to
           communicate directly as needed. Kentucky has also used DHS funding
           to implement a statewide wireless data communications system. The
           system provides functionality such as statewide records
           management, real-time crime coverage and data collection, and
           instant messaging. First responders use mobile data terminals to
           communicate with each other and, in many cases, retrieve
           information from agency databases. Kentucky's mobile data network
           currently has coverage across approximately 95 percent of the
           state's primary and secondary road systems. Such capabilities were
           not available to Kentucky's first responders prior to this
           initiative. In the Louisville UASI, local officials have utilized
           DHS funding to implement patching mechanisms to connect different
           communication systems throughout the region. However, according to
           officials, communications channels are frequently congested
           because of the amount of patching that needs to be done to connect
           responders.
           o New York: In New York, DHS funding is generally being utilized
           by localities to address local interoperability issues within
           their counties and with neighboring counties. For example, Albany
           County is acquiring a new interoperable system that connects first
           responders on many disparate systems within Albany County and
           neighboring counties. Prior to this system, there was no single
           voice system or network that would allow incident commanders and
           first responders to be able to communicate directly. However, the
           local solutions do not always incorporate state and federal
           systems. For example, the state is using state funds to develop
           and implement a separate and incompatible statewide network called
           the Statewide Wireless Network, which localities are not required
           to join. Albany County, for example, has no immediate plans to
           connect their new system to the statewide system because of
           uncertainties about the expense and the expected benefits for the
           county. In the New York City UASI, local officials have used a
           portion of DHS funding to implement a citywide mobile wireless
           network. This system is intended to provide first responders
           throughout the city with high-speed data access to support large
           file transfers, including accessing federal and state anticrime
           and antiterrorism databases, fingerprints, mug shots, city maps,
           and full-motion streaming video.
           o Oregon: Oregon, in accordance with DHS guidance, has dedicated
           most of its DHS funding to local projects that improve
           interoperability in specific regions. For example, Jackson and
           Josephine Counties are jointly implementing an interoperable
           communications system. Previously, first responders in these two
           neighboring counties relied on indirect means for establishing
           interoperable communications, such as radio channels, patching
           mechanisms, and a mobile command vehicle equipped with a cache of
           radios in different frequencies and a patching device that could
           be deployed as needed. However, this new system does not include
           federal or state first responders. In addition, limited DHS
           funding has been utilized for developing plans for the development
           of the Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network. This system is
           intended to replace state agencies' deteriorating systems with a
           new system. It is also intended to connect local agencies that
           continue to use their existing systems to other local agencies
           that they do not already have interoperability with. To date, the
           development of this system has not been initiated. In the Portland
           UASI, DHS funding was used to install repeaters in Columbia County
           to enhance interoperability with the other four counties in the
           urban area. However, while it has improved the interoperability,
           not all Columbia County first responders are able to utilize this
           solution. Therefore, the UASI funding was also used to purchase a
           supply of reserve radios--referred to as a cache--that can be
           shared.

           Table 3 shows the amount of DHS funding states and localities have
           received and examples of what the money has been used for.

^10Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No.
109-295, Title VI, Subtitle D, section 671, 120 Stat. 1355, 1433-35, Oct.
4, 2006 (enacting new section 1801 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6
U.S.C. 571).

^11The American National Standards Institute coordinates and oversees the
development and use of voluntary standards in the United States and
participates in accrediting programs that assess conformance to standards.

Table 3: Examples of Uses of DHS Funding for Interoperable Communications

Source: GAO analysis of DHS, state, and locality data.

Note: These amounts include DHS funding from fiscal year 2003 through
fiscal year 2005, as the complete 2006 figures were not available at the
time of our review.

^aAllocations of DHS grant funding to interoperable communications are
determined by each state and reported by each state to DHS.

^bDHS's grant funding figures for interoperable communications includes
funding from each of the relevant grant programs within the Office of
Grants and Training, including the State Homeland Security Program and the
UASI program.

^cThe $74.9 million includes all other DHS funding that was awarded to New
York, including the Buffalo UASI, with the exception of the $70.6 million
that was awarded to the New York City UASI.

^dFor fiscal year 2003, New York did not designate separate Interoperable
Communications funding for the state and urban area.

^eFrom 2003 through 2005, Louisville was a designated UASI area. In 2006
DHS reduced the number of UASI areas; as a result, Louisville is no longer
a designated UASI area. However, it received funding from the UASI program
in 2006 to help it sustain ongoing projects.

^fFor fiscal year 2003, Kentucky did not designate separate Interoperable
Communications funding for the state and urban area.

^gThe $44 million includes all other DHS funding that was awarded to
Florida, including the Tampa and Jacksonville UASI areas, with the
exception of the $11.7 million that was awarded to the Miami UASI.

A Lack of Statewide Plans Has Contributed to Limited Strategic Use of DHS
Funding

According to SAFECOM guidance, interoperability cannot be solved by any
one entity alone and, therefore, an effective and interoperable
communications system requires a clear and compelling statewide strategy
focused on increasing public safety effectiveness and coordination across
all related organizations. A statewide interoperability plan is essential
for outlining such a strategy. Such a plan should establish long-term
objectives but also include short-term solutions that help incrementally
achieve sustainable solutions to the long-term objectives. Thus,
establishing long-term plans helps ensure that near-term solutions are
consistent with the end goal.

The narrow and specific use of DHS funding in the states we reviewed can
be traced in part to the lack of statewide plans; interoperability
investments by individual localities have not been coordinated toward
achieving a broader goal for the state. For example, Kentucky, which has
received grant funding totaling approximately $50 million since fiscal
year 2003 according to DHS, has not yet developed a statewide
communications plan, although in January 2007, officials stated that they
had begun developing a plan. While Kentucky has recently begun working to
assess how best to address statewide needs, to date, grant reviewers at
the state level who are in charge of disbursing DHS grant money to
localities have had limited means for determining whether funding requests
for equipment and training were compatible with statewide interoperability
goals. For example, evaluators were required to assess aspects of request
proposals such as whether they fully addressed the measurable objectives
expected for a new wireless communication system and whether they
addressed how the applicant agency would communicate with other public
safety and/or public service organizations at the local, state, and
federal levels. However, the available criteria do not provide the
evaluators with an overall statewide strategy that the evaluators could
use to assess whether the localities' proposal is aligned to it. As a
result, the equipment and activities that localities have purchased have
tended to address short-term voice communication solutions for local
interoperability problems while long-term, statewide solutions have not
been addressed. However, as previously stated, Kentucky has developed a
data communications network to supplement gaps in its voice
communications.

Similarly, New York does not yet have a statewide communications plan and,
therefore, does not utilize DHS grant funding in support of such a plan.
While state officials recommend that localities invest in interoperable
communications, they provide no additional guidance to localities to
ensure that local investments are consistent with statewide goals. As a
result, localities have generally used the funding to address local
interoperability issues within their counties and neighboring counties,
with little regard for state and federal systems. For example, while New
York is currently in the process of deploying the Statewide Wireless
Network for $2 billion, localities are not required to participate, and
local interest in the statewide system has been limited. As a result,
localities are continuing to develop their own interoperability solutions
that do not incorporate the network. Among localities we reviewed,
Onondaga County is implementing its own $33 million interoperable
communications system independently of the network, and Albany County,
likewise, is currently developing a $1.7 million interoperability system
that does not incorporate the Statewide Wireless Network. Officials stated
that once the network's pilot period is complete they will decide whether
to participate in the network.

In accordance with a previous recommendation, DHS has required grant
recipients to develop and adopt a statewide communications plan by the end
of 2007. Additionally, the 2007 DHS Appropriations Act states that DHS may
restrict funding to a state if it does not submit a statewide
interoperable communication plan.^12 However, despite our other previous
recommendation that DHS should require that states certify that grant
applications be consistent with statewide plans,^13 no process has yet
been established for ensuring that states' grant requests are consistent
with their statewide plans and long-term objectives for improving
interoperability. Grants and Training officials are considering
instituting such a process but they do not have specific plans to do so.

Because of the lack of coordination, state and local governments are
investing significant resources, including DHS grant funds, in developing
independent interoperability solutions that do not always support each
others' needs. Until the DHS-mandated statewide communications plans are
in place, and processes have been established for ensuring that each
state's grant request is consistent with its statewide plan and
longer-term interoperability goals, progress by states and localities in
improving interoperability is likely to be impeded.

^12Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No.
109-295, Title VI, Subtitle D, section 671, 120 Stat. 1355, 1438 Oct. 4,
2006 (enacting new section 1804 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6
U.S.C. 574).

^13 [52]GAO-04-740 .

The Lack of a National Plan Has Also Contributed to Limited Strategic Use of DHS
Funding

In addition to statewide plans, an overarching national plan is critical
to coordinating interoperability spending, especially where federal first
responders are involved. According to the Public Safety Wireless Advisory
Committee,^14 improving interoperable communications across the nation
will require a national plan that includes all levels of government and
defines operational policies and procedures and the proper use of national
communications resources. In responding to large-scale events--such as
wildfires, hurricanes, or terrorist attacks--state and local government
first responders require interoperable communications with federal
agencies.

To date, however, interoperability investments have tended to be isolated
and piecemeal, in part because they have not been guided by a
comprehensive national plan. For example, officials stated that Oregon and
its bordering states--Washington, California, and Idaho--are each working
independently to try to implement and meet federal communication
requirements and improve interoperability.

In a large-scale emergency, where first responders may need to coordinate
with agencies from other states and a variety of federal agencies, the
lack of national-level planning can result in substantial interoperability
problems. During Hurricane Katrina, for example, Florida first responders
spent half a day trying to contact their counterparts in Louisiana and
Mississippi in an effort to share communications equipment. If these
states coordinated prior to the catastrophe, it is likely that less time
and energy would have been wasted.

The lack of a national strategy has also left state officials uncertain
about whether they are taking appropriate steps to plan for
interoperability. For example, Oregon officials indicated they are
uncertain whether the approach they are taking is the best way to solve
their interoperability problems.

The 2007 DHS Appropriations Act^15 requires DHS to develop a National
Emergency Communications Plan by March 2008. Among other things, the plan
is to identify necessary emergency communications capabilities for first
responders and government officials, identify obstacles to interoperable
communications, provide both short-term and long-term solutions to those
obstacles, and establish goals and time frames for the deployment of
emergency communications systems based on new and existing equipment
across the United States.

^14The committee was established by the Federal Communications Commission
and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to
evaluate the wireless communications needs of federal, state, and local
public safety agencies.

^15Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No.
109-295, Title VI, Subtitle D, section 671, 120 Stat. 1355, 1435-36, Oct.
4, 2006 (enacting new section 1802 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6
U.S.C. 572).

Technical Assistance Has Been Helpful, but Exercises Curtailed by DHS Have Had
Limited Strategic Value

According to state and local officials, the Interoperable Communications
Technical Assistance Program has been beneficial to each of the four UASI
areas we visited. For example, according to Miami officials, the program
provided extensive support in the development of the tactical
interoperable communications plan for the Miami area. Technical assistance
representatives held meetings with each of the Miami area public safety
agencies to compile a regional communications equipment inventory.
Similarly, according to Louisville officials, the Interoperable
Communications Technical Assistance Program held a 2-day workshop on
developing the tactical interoperable communications plan for the
Louisville area. Officials stated that this workshop represented the first
time that all relevant communications officials and emergency responders
were involved in a collaborative effort.

Guidance for the 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program required each of the
high-risk UASI areas to plan and conduct a full-scale exercise to validate
the effectiveness of their tactical interoperable communications plans.
Full-scale exercises are the most complex type of exercises, involving
multiple agencies and jurisdictions in testing plans, policies, and
procedures. They are intended to be conducted in a real-time, stressful
environment that closely mirrors real events. DHS required the exercises
as a way to measure the progress each UASI has made in improving
interoperability and developed "scorecards" to capture the results of the
exercise.

However, while DHS provided extensive assistance to the urban areas in
developing their tactical interoperability communications plans, it
curtailed the exercises that were intended to validate the robustness and
completeness of each plan. Due to the complexity of these exercises, the
UASI areas were originally allotted 12 months to plan and execute robust,
full-scale exercises; DHS subsequently reduced this to 5 months. DHS
officials indicated that they accelerated the deadline so that they could
use the results as inputs into the interoperability scorecards that they
published in January 2007. To compensate for the reduced time frame, DHS
reduced the requirements of the full-scale exercise, advising the UASI
areas to limit the scope and size of their activities.

In reducing the scope of their exercises, the UASI areas had to reduce the
extent to which they tested the robustness and effectiveness of their
interoperability plans. For example, of the four UASI areas we visited,
Portland, Miami, and New York City each reduced the scope of their
exercise so they could meet DHS's accelerated deadline. For example,
Portland had to significantly reduce the number of participants from each
of the counties participating in the exercise. According to Portland
officials, their exercise was not realistic for responding to a real-world
incident. Likewise, New York City officials stated that they would have
executed a higher quality exercise if DHS had not reduced the time frame.
Moreover, according to the 2007 grant guidance, the UASI areas are not
required to conduct any additional exercises to further validate their
plans.

Without robust exercises to validate tactical interoperability
communications plans, the UASI areas can only have limited confidence in
the plans' effectiveness, and thus the value of DHS's efforts may continue
to be limited. Similarly, the constraints placed on the exercises means
that DHS's scorecards of each of the UASI areas are based on questionable
data.

SAFECOM Program Has Made Limited Progress in Assisting All Levels of Government
to Achieve Interoperability

Although initiated in 2001, the SAFECOM program has made limited progress
in improving communications interoperability at all levels of government.
The program has not addressed state and local interoperability with
federal agencies, a critical element to interoperable communications that
is required by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004. Further, while the program has focused on helping states and
localities improve interoperable communications by developing tools and
guidance for their use, SAFECOM's progress in this area has been limited
in the selected states. Specifically, officials from selected states and
localities often found that the tools and planning assistance provided by
the program were not helpful, or they were unaware of what assistance the
program had to offer. The program's limited effectiveness can be linked to
poor program management practices, including the lack of a plan for
improving interoperability across all levels of government and inadequate
performance measures that would provide feedback to better attune tools
and assistance with first responder needs. Until SAFECOM adopts these key
management practices, its progress is likely to remain limited.

SAFECOM Was Established to Improve Interoperable Communications at All Levels of
Government

When SAFECOM was established in 2001, as one of the Office of Management
and Budget's 25 electronic government initiatives^16 under the management
of the Department of the Treasury, its goals were to (1) achieve
federal-to-federal interoperability throughout the nation, (2) achieve
federal to state/local interoperability, and (3) achieve state/local
interoperability throughout the nation. Like the other e-government
initiatives, the program was expected to achieve its goals within 18 to 24
months. As we reported in 2004, these are challenging tasks that will take
many years to fully accomplish, and the program had made very limited
progress at the time of our review.^17

Since 2001, the management and goals of the program have changed several
times. Most recently, in 2003, the SAFECOM program was transferred to the
Office of Interoperability and Compatibility within the Directorate of
Science and Technology in DHS. Its goals included increasing interoperable
communications capacity of local, tribal, and state public safety
agencies, and increasing the number of states that have initiated or
completed statewide plans.^18 Program officials now estimate that a
minimum level of interoperability will not occur until 2008, and it is
unknown when full interoperability will occur.

In addition, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
required DHS to establish a program to enhance public safety interoperable
communications at all levels of government, including federal, as well as
state and local governments.^19 SAFECOM has been designated as the program
responsible for carrying out this requirement.

^16The 25 e-government initiatives were established by the Office of
Management and Budget to simplify and unify agency work processes and
information flows, provide one-stop services to citizens, and enable
information to be collected on line once and reused, rather than being
collected many times.

^17 [53]GAO-04-494 .

^18The program also had a goal of increasing the development and adoption
of standards. Standards development is discussed in a separate section
below.

^19Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. No.
108-458, section 7303, 118 Stat. 3638, 3843-44, Dec. 17, 2004.

SAFECOM Has Not Taken Action to Address Interoperability with Federal First
Responders

While SAFECOM is required to improve interoperable communications at all
levels of government, the objectives that the program has been working
toward do not include improving interoperability between federal agencies
and state and local agencies. For example, when conducting their baseline
national survey of first responders to determine the current level of
interoperability, program officials included state and local officials,
but not federal officials. The survey included an extensive list of
questions in which respondents were asked to rate interoperability (1)
with other disciplines, (2) with other jurisdictions, and (3) between
state and local governments. Respondents were also asked at the end of the
survey to list federal agencies they interoperate with; however, no effort
was made to gauge the level of interoperability with the federal
government, as had been done for other disciplines and jurisdictions and
between state and local governments.

As a result, SAFECOM has not addressed a variety of problems involving
interoperability between federal and state and local agencies. According
to first responders, these difficulties arise when trying to establish
interoperable communication between federal and state and local agencies:

           o Uncoordinated interoperability investments. The Departments of
           Justice, Homeland Security, and Treasury are developing the
           Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) to create a consolidated federal
           wireless communications service for federal public safety and law
           enforcement agencies. The level of interoperability that state and
           local first responders will have with federal first responders on
           this network is unknown.
           o Frequency incompatibilities. The National Telecommunications and
           Information Administration, which manages frequencies used by
           federal agencies, and the Federal Communications Commission, which
           manages frequencies used by state and local governments, have
           established conflicting time frames for when federal agencies and
           state and local agencies need to implement narrowband systems.^20
           Further, according to an Associate Chief of DHS's Office of Border
           Patrol, when federal communications networks are configured to
           narrowband, federal agencies could have difficulty interoperating
           with local wideband systems unless special radios are procured
           that can operate both on the wideband and narrowband systems.
           o Use of encryption. Federal agencies, such as the Federal Bureau
           of Investigation (FBI), use encryption^21 to secure their radio
           communications. Encryption can be vitally important in preserving
           the safety and security of their officers. However, they have not
           developed procedures for sharing the keys to decrypt the
           communication with state or local first responders in order to be
           able to communicate with them.
           o Unclear coordination procedures. There is uncertainty within the
           first responder community regarding the allowable level of
           coordination and collaboration between federal agencies and state
           and local agencies. For example, while the National
           Telecommunications and Information Administration eliminated its
           requirement that state and local officials obtain written
           permission to use federal frequencies in May 2006, FBI officials
           that we interviewed were unaware that they were allowed to share
           their frequencies without written permission.

           In lieu of having communications systems that enable direct
           interoperability between federal first responders and state and
           local first responders, first responders have resorted to
           alternative means of communicating. For example, state or local
           agencies may loan radios to federal first responders or physically
           pair a federal first responder with a state or local responder so
           they can share information and relay it back to their agencies.
           While approaches such as these may be effective in certain
           situations, they reflect a general lack of planning for
           communications interoperability. In many cases, using
           "work-arounds" such as these could reduce the efficiency and
           effectiveness of the overall public safety response to an
           incident.

           SAFECOM officials stated that the program's focus has been on
           state and local agencies because they consider them to be a higher
           priority. Further, while they stated that it would be possible for
           federal agencies to make use of some of the planning tools being
           developed primarily for state and local agencies, SAFECOM has not
           developed any tools that directly address interoperability with
           federal agencies. However, interoperability with federal first
           responders remains an important element in achieving nationwide
           interoperability and is part of SAFECOM's tasking under the
           Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Until a
           federal coordinating entity such as SAFECOM makes a concerted
           effort to promote federal interoperability with other governmental
           entities, overall progress in improving communications
           interoperability will remain limited.
			  
			  SAFECOM Tools and Assistance Have Had Limited Impact on State and
			  Local Agencies

           In addition to supporting development of the Project 25 suite of
           interoperability standards (discussed in a later section of this
           report), SAFECOM's activities have focused primarily on providing
           planning tools to state and local governments. However, based on
           our review of four states and selected localities, SAFECOM's
           progress in achieving its goals of helping these states and
           localities improve interoperable communications has been limited.

           Several state and local officials did not find the tools and
           guidance useful. For example, of the 10 locations^22 we visited
           that were aware of the tools and guidance, 6 had not used the
           programs' Statement of Requirements or its Public Safety
           Architecture Framework. Additionally, 3 of the 4 states we
           reviewed had not used its Statewide Communication Interoperability
           Planning Methodology to develop a statewide communication plan.
           Further, officials from 4 of the 15 jurisdictions we reviewed were
           unaware that the SAFECOM program existed or that it provided
           interoperability guidance.

           SAFECOM's Interoperability Continuum was the most widely used and
           recognized of its tools. Seven of the 15 states and localities we
           visited indicated that they used the continuum to assess their
           interoperability status and plan improvements. Another initiative
           that had a significant impact was the Regional Communications
           Interoperability Pilot. Officials from Kentucky--one of the two
           states that participated in the pilot--indicated that the pilot
           was very helpful in facilitating communications planning by
           identifying relevant stakeholders and bringing those stakeholders
           together for extended discussions about interoperability. And in
           Nevada, this program resulted in documentation of suggested
           near-term and long-term goals for improving interoperability.

           However, the SAFECOM tools that were not widely used represent a
           significant investment of resources by DHS. For example, program
           officials said that they spent $9.2 million developing the
           Statement of Requirements and $2.7 million developing the Public
           Safety Architecture Framework.

           State and local officials provided the following reasons for the
           limited utilization of SAFECOM tools:

           o The tools and guidance are too abstract and do not provide
           practical implementation guidance on specific issues. For
           instance, the Statement of Requirements focuses on functional
           requirements based on textbook definitions of a variety of
           interoperable communication subjects, such as public safety
           communication needs, public safety roles and functions, and the
           levels of operability and interoperability for each major public
           safety discipline. SAFECOM officials indicated that the Statement
           of Requirements was meant to be a forward-looking document
           unconstrained by the limitations of current technology. However,
           states and localities must work to improve interoperability with
           technology that is currently available, and the Statement of
           Requirements does not describe specific technologies,
           infrastructure, or business models that state and local agencies
           can refer to when making key decisions regarding improvements to
           their communication systems. Additionally, neither the Statement
           of Requirements nor the Public Safety Architecture Framework
           identifies specific actions a state or local agency can take to
           make improvements.
           o The documents are lengthy and hard to use as reference tools.
           For example, the two published volumes of the Public Safety
           Architecture Framework are approximately 270 pages combined and
           contain complex information about topics such as the elements and
           subelements of communication systems and their relationships to
           each other and to the environment. Officials indicated that they
           do not have the time to examine and analyze long reports that they
           believed contained limited useful information. According to
           SAFECOM officials, they plan to address this concern by publishing
           a third volume to guide public safety agency officials through the
           process of developing a communications system architecture.
           However, even with additional guidance, the framework will remain
           lengthy and complex.
           o Awareness of SAFECOM and its tools has not reached all state and
           local agencies. Program officials indicated that they take steps
           to try to reach out to the broad first responder community, such
           as by publishing articles in major police and fire periodicals,
           presenting at events covering communications interoperability, and
           publishing a quarterly newsletter on interoperability issues
           called Interoperability Today. However, despite these efforts,
           several localities that we visited were completely unfamiliar with
           the program and/or the assistance it provides.

           Figure 3 identifies which of SAFECOM's tools, guidance, or other
           assistance were used by officials at the locations we visited.

^20Narrowband refers to the method of gaining more channels (and hence
more capacity) by splitting channels into channels that are narrower in
bandwidth.

^21Encryption is the process of transforming ordinary data (commonly
referred to as plaintext) into code form (ciphertext) using a special
value known as a key and a mathematical process called an algorithm.
Cryptographic algorithms are designed to produce ciphertext that is
unintelligible to unauthorized users. Decryption of ciphertext is possible
by using the proper key.

^22We visited 15 locations. However, Franklin County, Kentucky, did not
indicate which tools they use, and 4 localities were unfamiliar with the
SAFECOM's Statement of Requirements and its Public Safety Architecture
Framework.

Figure 3: Use of SAFECOM Tools, Guidance, and Assistance, by Location

Note: We visited 15 locations; however, Franklin County, Kentucky, did not
indicate which tools they use.

Recently, SAFECOM has focused more on specific implementation issues,
creating tools such as a writing guide for developing memorandums of
understanding that could be used to establish agreements on the sharing of
communication systems across agencies and jurisdictions. Officials have
also developed a guide for writing standard operating procedures, which
could be used to prepare written guidelines for incident response. Because
these tools were still new, we did not receive assessments of them from
state and local officials.

Lack of Program Plan and Performance Measures Has Contributed to SAFECOM's
Limited Impact

One factor contributing to the limited impact that SAFECOM has had on
improving communications interoperability is that its activities have not
been guided by a program plan. A program plan is a critical tool to ensure
a program meets its goals and responsibilities. Such a tool is used to
align planned activities with program goals and objectives, as well as
define how progress in meeting the goals will be measured, compared, and
validated. For example, a program plan could be a useful tool for ensuring
that key program goals--such as promoting interoperability across all
levels of government including federal responders--are being addressed. In
addition, a program plan would provide the structure to help plan tools
and guidance that would address the greatest needs. Further, a program
plan could be used to delineate performance measures, which are essential
to determining the effectiveness of a program and for identifying the
areas of a program that need additional attention.

Rather than using a program plan to guide their activities, SAFECOM
officials stated that they develop tools and guidance based on a list of
suggestions obtained from first responders. The SAFECOM Executive
Committee--a steering group comprised of public safety officials from
across the country--prioritizes the list of suggestions, but this
prioritization has not been used to develop a plan. Instead, program
officials have made ad hoc decisions regarding which suggestions to
implement based on executive committee input, as well as the difficulty of
implementation. While this approach incorporates a degree of
prioritization from first responders, it does not provide the structure
and traceability of a program plan.

Program officials have established six performance measures^23 to assess
progress, including the percentage of fire, emergency medical services,
and law enforcement organizations that have established informal
interoperability agreements with other public safety organizations; the
percentage of public safety agencies that report using interoperability to
some degree in their operations; the percentage of states that have
completed statewide interoperability plans; the percentage of grant
programs for public safety communications that include SAFECOM guidance;
and the amount of reduction in the cycle time for national
interoperability standards development. However, several key aspects of
the program are not being measured. For example, one of the program's
goals is to increase the development and adoption of standards. However,
the only associated performance measure is reduction in the cycle time for
national interoperability standards development--not the extent to which
adoption of standards has increased or whether interoperability is being
facilitated. Also, in assessing the growth of interoperable communications
capacity at local, tribal, and state public safety agencies, SAFECOM's
measures--the percentage of states that have established informal
interoperability agreements with other public safety organizations and the
percentage of public safety agencies that report using interoperability to
some degree in their operations --addresses only two of the five areas
that SAFECOM has defined as key to improving interoperability (it does not
assess improvements made in governance, technology, or training).
Moreover, none of the program's measures assess the extent to which the
first responder community finds the tools and assistance helpful or the
effectiveness of program outreach initiatives. Consequently, measures of
the effectiveness of the program and areas for improvement are not being
collected and are not driving improvements in the program, contributing to
its limited impact. According to SAFECOM officials, by mid-2007, they plan
to establish a measure to assess customer satisfaction.

^23SAFECOM officials have recently added a sixth performance measure that
is intended to measure "percent of federal agencies aligning to the
SAFECOM program," however the measure does not reflect federal agency
alignment to the SAFECOM program. Instead, it attempts to measure federal
agencies' compliance with Project 25 standards.

Until DHS develops and implements a program plan that includes goals
focusing on improving interoperability among all levels of government,
establishes performances measures that determine if key aspects of the
SAFECOM program are being achieved, and assesses the extent to which the
first responder community finds the tools and assistance helpful, the
impact of its efforts to improve interoperable communications among
federal, state, and local agencies will likely remain limited.

Recent Progress Has Been Made in Developing Interoperability Standards, but
Early Implementation Has Had Unsatisfactory Results

Until recently, little progress had been made in developing Project 25
standards--a suite of national standards that are intended to enable
interoperability among the communications products of different vendors.
Although one of the eight major subsets of standards was defined in the
project's first 4 years (from 1989 to 1993), from 1993 through 2005, no
additional standards were completed that could be used by a vendor to
develop elements of a Project 25 compliant system. To its credit, over the
past 2 years, the private-sector coordinating body responsible for Project
25 has defined specifications for three additional subsets of standards.
However, ambiguities in the published standards have led to
incompatibilities among products made by different vendors, and no
compliance testing has been conducted to ensure vendors' products are
interoperable. Nevertheless, DHS has strongly encouraged state and local
agencies to use grant funding to purchase Project 25 radios, which are
substantially more expensive than non-Project 25 radios. As a result,
states and local agencies have purchased fewer, more expensive radios,
which still may not be interoperable and thus may provide them with
minimal additional benefits. Until DHS modifies its grant guidance to
provide more flexibility in purchasing communications equipment, states
and localities that purchase Project 25 equipment cannot be assured that
their investments are likely to result in meaningful gains in
interoperability.

Until Recently, Progress in Developing Interoperability Standards Had Been Slow

Initial development of Project 25 began over 15 years ago. It took 4
years, from 1989 to 1993, to develop the standards that comprised the
first of eight interfaces, known as the common air interface. The common
air interface is one of the most critical elements of Project 25, and,
therefore, efforts to develop standards for this interface were initiated
first. However, from 1993 through 2005, no additional standards were
developed that could be used by a vendor to develop additional elements of
a Project 25 compliant system.

Concerned about the slow development of Project 25 standards, the
conference committee on the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 2005,^24 encouraged NIST and the Department of Justice to work with
SAFECOM to consider the issuance of interim standards for interoperable
communication systems. According to NIST officials, they, along with their
federal partners, have established a process for developing interim
standards and plan to institute it if progress in the development of
Project 25 standards is not sufficiently accelerated. Industry
representatives and public safety practitioners responded to these events
by increasing the pace and scope of their standards development
activities. As a result of their efforts, in the past 2 years, significant
progress has been made in defining three additional critical interfaces:
the fixed station subsystem interface, the console subsystem interface,
and the inter-RF subsystem interface. NIST officials indicated that the
focus has been on these interfaces because they will add significant
functionality to the overall set of Project 25 standards.

Table 4 shows the progress that has been made on each of the eight Project
25 interfaces as of August 2006. Figure 4 shows the relationships among
these interfaces.

^24H.R. Rep. No. 108-792, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. (2004) at 755.

Table 4: Status of Project 25 Interfaces

Source: GAO analysis of NIST and TIA data.

^aThis information is based on NIST's working knowledge of Project 25
product lines. NIST has not performed a worldwide inventory of Project 25
products.

Figure 4: Project 25 Interfaces

Implementation of Systems Based on Incomplete Project 25 Standards Has Been
Problematic

There are a number of obstacles hindering effective implementation of
first responder communications systems based on Project 25 standards:

           o Standards are incomplete or not well-defined: NIST officials
           have stated that key standards that have been defined for several
           of the eight interfaces have not been adequately specified,
           allowing vendors to develop products based on inconsistent
           interpretations. For example, Project 25 manufacturers have
           determined that the specifications for the conventional and
           trunked mode operations of the common air interface--which is
           considered to be the most mature of the eight interfaces--were
           vague and led to inconsistent interpretations. More specifically,
           between 2003 and 2005, NIST conducted interoperability tests on
           the conventional operations mode of six different manufacturers'
           radios and found that none of them passed all aspects of the
           tests. In addition, according to NIST officials, in 2005, a
           manufacturer conducted interoperability tests on the trunked
           operations mode of three manufacturers' radios and also found that
           none of them passed the tests. More recently, in 2006, a
           manufacturer conducting interoperability tests found improvements
           in the consistency of other manufacturers' interpretations.
           However, according to NIST officials, ambiguities still need to be
           resolved in this interface. Additionally, many options available
           on radios are not specified in the standards, allowing vendors to
           address these capabilities with unique or proprietary
           technologies, which can cause interoperability problems. As a
           result, while recent tests have shown improvements, vendors have
           developed incompatible, proprietary products rather than
           interoperable, standards-based products.
           o Lack of compliance testing has limited product interoperability:
           According to NIST officials, formal peer-review testing is
           necessary to ensure compliance with standards and interoperability
           among products. We have previously reported^25 that independent
           testing and evaluation of commercial products and accreditation of
           the laboratories that perform the test and evaluations can give
           agencies increased assurance that the products will perform as
           vendors claim. However, since 1995, Project 25 radios have been
           marketed to and purchased by federal, state, and local agencies
           without any formal compliance testing to validate vendors' claims
           of compliance with the Project 25 standards. As a result, recent
           testing has shown that products labeled "Project 25 compliant" do
           not necessarily interoperate.
           o State and local agencies do not know how to select Project 25
           products: With no formal compliance testing for Project 25
           products, state and local agencies have limited means to determine
           if the products they purchase are compliant with the standards.
           Therefore, in absence of any other information, agencies have
           relied on information provided by vendors. Further, vendor
           products have many different levels of functionality, and agency
           officials may not understand their specific needs well enough to
           purchase equipment tailored to their specific requirements that
           does not include costly functionality that they do not need.
           However, comparative information about product functionality and
           typical first responder requirements is not currently in a
           centralized location, making it difficult for officials to be able
           to judge which products are most appropriate for their agency's
           needs. For example, according to one manufacturer, public works
           agencies and schools would likely need radios with less
           functionality, while firefighters would likely need a midrange
           radio with more features, and a command center or federal law
           enforcement agency might need the most expensive radios with the
           greatest number of features. Because of the complexity of product
           options, agencies may not always be making well-informed decisions
           on the purchase of radios.
           o Complete Project 25 systems can be prohibitively expensive:
           Project 25 radios are significantly more expensive than
           conventional analog radios, and while state and local agencies are
           paying two to three times more for Project 25 radios, they are not
           always able to take advantage of the intended interoperability
           benefits because they cannot afford to procure complete systems.
           Project 25 radios for first responders can range in price from
           about $1,000 to about $5,000. Most Project 25 radios used by first
           responders cost around $2,500. According to officials, a
           conventional analog radio suitable for first responder work
           generally costs about two to three times less than Project 25
           radios. Benefits of using Project 25 radios, such as
           interoperability among multiple vendors' equipment, cannot be
           fully realized until a complete Project 25 system (base stations,
           repeaters, and radios) is implemented. Fully replacing an existing
           radio system with a Project 25 system is very expensive. For
           example, Arlington County, Virginia--a relatively small county--is
           acquiring and implementing a full Project 25 environment for $16.8
           million. Many localities do not have the funding to make such a
           large investment.

           Nevertheless, since 2003, DHS has strongly encouraged state and
           local agencies to use grant funding from the agency to purchase
           Project 25 compliant equipment. DHS grant guidance--which was
           developed by SAFECOM--states that all new voice system purchases
           should be compatible with the Project 25 suite of standards to
           ensure that equipment or systems are capable of interoperating
           with other public safety land mobile equipment or systems. If a
           grant applicant is interested in purchasing non-Project 25
           compliant equipment, the applicant must demonstrate in its
           application that the system or equipment being proposed will lead
           to enhanced interoperability.

           While states and localities have purchased Project 25 radios at
           the direction of DHS, there is little indication that these radios
           have enhanced interoperability. Most jurisdictions we visited were
           not using the Project 25 capabilities, such as interoperating with
           different vendors' radios, since they had not fully replaced their
           existing radio communications infrastructure with a complete
           Project 25 system. Specifically, of the 11 localities we visited,
           8 were buying Project 25 radios and, of these, 7 were not using
           the Project 25 capabilities of the radios. Thus, as a result of
           the DHS requirement to buy Project 25 equipment, agencies have
           purchased fewer, more expensive radios with little or no
           additional benefit to date. Table 5 shows a sample of spending by
           localities on Project 25 radios and their use of the Project 25
           capabilities.

           Table 5: Sample Project 25 Radio Purchases

           Source: GAO analysis of localities' data.

           Note: This table represents Project 25 radio purchases for which
           data was available and, therefore, may not include all Project 25
           radio purchases by these localities.
			  
			  Efforts Are Under Way to Mitigate Project 25 Problems

           To address the lack of well-defined standards, users and
           manufacturers have been revising the standards for the
           conventional and trunked mode operations of the common air
           interface to clarify ambiguities. To address the issue of a lack
           of formal compliance testing, SAFECOM, NIST, and the Project 25
           steering committee, began developing a peer compliance assessment
           program for Project 25 products in April 2005. This compliance
           assessment program is to use various vendors' approved
           laboratories^26 to test Project 25 systems through a set of
           agreed-upon tests that will validate that the systems from various
           vendors can successfully interoperate and meet conformance and
           performance requirements. According to NIST, the vendors will be
           expected to conduct the tests in compliance with a handbook on
           general testing procedures and requirements, which NIST is
           preparing to publish. The assessment program is to be implemented
           in three phases, as described in table 6.

^25GAO, Information Assurance: National Partnership Offers Benefits, but
Faces Considerable Challenges, [54]GAO-06-392 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24,
2006).

^26NIST is developing a process for determining manufacturers'
laboratories as being "approved."

Table 6: Development Schedule for Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program

Source: GAO analysis of NIST data.

Additionally, SAFECOM has issued guidance to supplement the 2007 DHS grant
guidance stating that, beginning in fiscal year 2007, grant recipients
purchasing Project 25 equipment must obtain documented evidence from the
manufacturer that the equipment has been tested and passed all available
compliance assessment test procedures for performance, conformance, and
interoperability. The guidance also specifies the aspects of Project 25
equipment that are available for testing and that should be tested before
a public safety agency acquires the equipment. However, as of January
2007, only limited aspects of the common air interface had been defined
fully enough to conduct interoperability tests. Further, NIST's testing
procedures handbook was not yet complete and thus vendors were unable to
conduct testing. According to NIST officials, it has not been determined
when the full set of conformance, performance, and interoperability tests
for the common air interface will be available.

NIST and SAFECOM are also working on ways to help agencies make informed
decisions when purchasing Project 25 radios to help them acquire features
that are Project 25 compliant. Specifically, NIST and SAFECOM have
developed a decision tree to help guide officials in selecting the
appropriate Project 25 capabilities. NIST has also helped to develop a new
process for posting test results online so that potential buyers can have
ready access to this information.

While efforts are under way to address several of these issues, others
remain. Specifically, DHS continues to strongly encourage state and local
agencies to purchase Project 25 compliant equipment even though compliance
testing is not yet available. Without flexibility to address their needs
with equipment that is the most effective, economical, and meets defined
interoperability requirements aligned with a statewide plan, states and
localities that purchase Project 25 equipment cannot be assured that their
investments are likely to result in meaningful gains in interoperability.

Conclusions

DHS grants, along with its technical assistance, have helped to make
improvements on a variety of specific interoperability projects. However,
in selected states, strategic planning has generally not been used to
guide investments or provide assistance to improve communications
interoperability across all levels of government. Specifically, not all
states had plans in place to guide their investments toward long-term
interoperability gains; no national plan was in place to coordinate
investments across states; and while UASI officials stated that the
technical assistance offered to them had been helpful, DHS curtailed
full-scale exercises, limiting their value in measuring progress. Until
DHS takes a more strategic approach to improving interoperable
communications, such as including in its decision making an assessment of
how grant requests align with statewide communications plans, and conducts
a thorough assessment to identify strategies to mitigate obstacles between
federal agencies and state and local agencies, states and localities are
likely to make limited progress in improving interoperability.
Additionally, until DHS plans another round of full-scale exercises that
provide UASI areas with sufficient planning time, the robustness and
effectiveness of UASI plans will be limited.

The SAFECOM program has had a limited impact on improving communications
interoperability among federal, state, and local agencies. The program's
limited effectiveness can be linked to poor program management practices,
such as the lack of a plan for improving interoperability across all
levels of government, and inadequate performance measures to fully gauge
the effectiveness of its tools and assistance. The recent establishment of
the OEC creates an opportunity for DHS to improve program management
practices among formerly separate component organizations, including
SAFECOM. Without a program plan for SAFECOM and other OEC interoperability
programs that specifically addresses improvements to interoperable
communications from federal to state and local agencies, and includes
measures to assess the usefulness of its efforts, the effectiveness of the
program is likely to remain limited.

While development of a comprehensive suite of standards such as Project 25
is critical to achieving interoperability among different manufacturers'
products, such a suite is not yet fully developed. Further, ambiguities in
published standards have led to incompatibilities among products made by
different vendors and, to date, no compliance testing has been conducted
to ensure that vendors' products interoperate. Nevertheless, DHS has
strongly encouraged state and local agencies to use grant funding to
purchase Project 25 compliant equipment. Until DHS modifies its grant
guidance to give states and localities the flexibility to address their
communications equipment needs effectively, economically, and in a way
that meets interoperability requirements as defined in their statewide
plans, states and local agencies are likely to continue to purchase
expensive equipment that provides them with minimal additional benefits.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To better ensure that progress is made in improving interoperable
communications among federal, state, and local first responders, we
recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following five
actions:

           o assess how states' grant requests support their statewide
           communications plans and include the assessment as a factor in
           making DHS grant allocation decisions;
           o plan for new full-scale exercises for UASI areas that provides
           local officials with sufficient time to develop and implement
           exercises to validate the robustness and effectiveness of their
           tactical interoperable communications plans;
           o develop and implement a program plan for SAFECOM and other OEC
           interoperability programs that includes goals focused on improving
           interoperability among all levels of government;
           o include in the program plan for SAFECOM and other OEC
           interoperability programs quantifiable performance measures that
           can be used to determine the extent to which each of the goals
           have been accomplished and that can be used to assess the
           effectiveness and usefulness of SAFECOM tools, assistance, and
           outreach, and make improvements based on the feedback; and
           o modify grant guidance to provide more flexibility in purchasing
           communications equipment until standards for completed interfaces
           have been fully defined and products have been certified
           compliant.
			  
			  Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

           We received written comments from the Deputy Secretary of Commerce
           and the Director of the DHS liaison office for GAO and the Office
           of the Inspector General. Letters from these agencies are
           reprinted in appendixes III and IV. Commerce provided updated
           information and technical comments to help ensure the information
           in the report is accurately perceived. We have incorporated these
           comments as appropriate.

           In its response to our five recommendations, DHS agreed with two,
           stated that it would defer commenting on two, and disagreed with
           one recommendation.

           Regarding our recommendation that DHS develop and implement a
           program plan for SAFECOM and other Office of Emergency
           Communications (OEC) interoperability programs that includes goals
           focused on improving interoperability among all levels of
           government, the Director indicated that DHS agrees with the intent
           of the recommendation and stated that the department is currently
           working to develop a program plan.

           However, DHS raised concern about the perceived implication that
           no action had been taken. It stated that SAFECOM has always had
           goals for improving interoperability among local, state, tribal,
           and federal emergency response agencies. Our review showed that
           while the program has had broad goals that include federal, as
           well as state and local agencies, its specific program goals and
           activities have not focused on improving interoperable
           communications between federal and other agencies. For example,
           one of the program's goals is to increase interoperable
           communications capacity of local, tribal, and state public safety
           agencies, not federal agencies. Thus, it will be important for DHS
           to develop and implement a program plan that includes goals
           focusing on improving interoperability among all levels of
           government.

           DHS agreed with our recommendation to include quantifiable
           performance measures in the program plan for SAFECOM and other OEC
           interoperability programs. DHS indicated that it intends to
           establish such measures by the third quarter of 2007.

           DHS stated that it is deferring comments on two recommendations:
           (1) assess how states' grant requests support their statewide
           communications plans and (2) plan for a new full-scale exercise
           for UASI areas to validate their interoperable communications
           plans.

           DHS disagreed with our recommendation that it modify grant
           guidance to provide more flexibility in purchasing communications
           equipment until standards for completed interfaces have been fully
           defined and products have been certified compliant with all
           aspects of the standards. The Director stated that the
           recommendation would require SAFECOM to amend its interoperability
           grant guidance until after the entire Project 25 suite of
           standards is complete and could undermine remaining negotiations
           between the public safety community and equipment manufacturers.
           We agree that development of a comprehensive suite of standards
           such as Project 25 is critical to achieving interoperability among
           different manufacturers' products. We also agree that not all
           interfaces need to be fully defined before agencies can begin
           acquiring Project 25 products; thus we have clarified the
           recommendation to reflect this. However, we are not recommending
           that the public safety community be prohibited from acquiring
           Project 25 equipment, and thus we do not believe negotiations with
           equipment manufacturers would be undermined. Until critical
           interfaces are better defined and products have been certified
           compliant, DHS should allow state and local agencies the
           flexibility to purchase whatever products they can obtain that
           offer the best value and performance for their needs.

           DHS also stated that it estimates that the Project 25 standards
           will be complete within the next 18 to 24 months, and stated that
           fiscal year 2007 grant funding will be spent by local public
           safety agencies not in fiscal year 2007 but in subsequent years.
           We have modified the discussion of this issue in the report to
           reflect this information. However, as previously stated, much
           additional work remains to be accomplished.

           Additionally, DHS stated that our report should include other
           major programs that focus on interoperability among federal
           responders, such as the newly created Office of Emergency
           Communications within DHS, the Integrated Wireless Network, the
           Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program, and the
           Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications. However, our
           report does discuss the first three of these. The primary purpose
           of the Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications is to
           serve as a coordinating body to address technical and operational
           activities within the federal wireless community; it has limited
           applicability to state and local interoperability.

           Finally, DHS raised concern with our view that SAFECOM had
           mistakenly made local, tribal, and state emergency responders its
           highest priority. DHS stated that when SAFECOM was established as
           one of the electronic government initiatives, it was placed within
           the government-to-government portfolio. According to DHS, state
           and local government agencies are the primary customers of this
           portfolio. However, according to OMB, the goal of the
           government-to-government portfolio is to forge new partnerships
           among all levels of government, not just state and local.
           Additionally, as we have previously stated, when SAFECOM was
           initially established, one of its major goals was to achieve
           federal to state/local interoperability. However, it is no longer
           a goal for SAFECOM. DHS also stated that since 90 percent of the
           public safety infrastructure is owned, operated, and maintained by
           local jurisdictions, state and local interoperability is a higher
           priority. However, our review has shown that in major incidents
           such as a terrorist attack, a major hurricane, or wildland fire,
           federal, state, and local first responders will need to
           interoperate in order to respond effectively to the incident.
           Therefore, interoperability with federal first responders should
           be included as a key element in the department's strategy for
           improving interoperable communications throughout the nation.

           DHS also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated
           as appropriate.

           We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of
           Homeland Security and Commerce and other interested congressional
           committees and subcommittees. We also will make copies available
           to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available
           at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov .

           Should you or your staff have any questions on matters discussed
           in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6240 or by e-mail
           at [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of
           Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the
           last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
           listed in appendix V.

           Linda D. Koontz
			  Director, Information Management Issues

           Keith A. Rhodes
			  Chief Technologist
			  Director, Center for Technology
           and Engineering

           William O. Jenkins, Jr.
			  Director, Homeland Security and Justice
           Issues
			  
			  Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology		  
			  
			  Our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which the
           Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding and technical
           assistance have helped to improve interoperable communications in
           selected states, (2) the progress the SAFECOM program has made in
           improving interoperable communications, and (3) the progress that
           has been made in the development and implementation of
           interoperable communications standards.

           To determine the extent to which DHS funding and technical
           assistance helped to improve interoperable communication in these
           states, we reviewed documentation and interviewed state and local
           officials from selected states.

           We selected four states as case studies, using the following
           criteria:

           o All of the states must have received at least an average amount
           of funding from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005.
           o One of the states must have received over $100 million of grant
           funding for interoperable communications from DHS.
           o One of the states must have received assistance from SAFECOM in
           applying the Statewide Communications Interoperability Planning
           Methodology.
           o One of the states must have had an Urban Area Security
           Initiative (UASI) area involved in DHS's RapidCom program.
           o One of the states must border another country.
           o At least one of the states must be one of the top 10 states that
           regularly faces wildland fires.
           o At least one of the states must be one of the top states that
           regularly faces other large natural disasters, such as hurricanes
           or earthquakes.

           We selected localities from each state to visit, which included
           (1) the UASI region which received the most funding from DHS, (2)
           the non-UASI county that received the largest amount of DHS
           funding, and (3) the county and city where the state capital is
           located.^1 From each of these states and localities, we obtained
           and reviewed documentation such as grant funding amounts, Tactical
           Interoperability Communication Plans, exercise reports, and
           communication system documentation. We also met with
           interoperability committee members and first responders.
           Additionally, we obtained and analyzed documentation from, and met
           with DHS officials who are responsible for monitoring the use of
           DHS funds in each of these states.

           To determine the progress SAFECOM has made in improving
           interoperable communications, we reviewed SAFECOM documentation
           such as its Statewide Communication Interoperability Planning
           Methodology, Public Safety Architecture Framework, and Statement
           of Requirements. We also analyzed program management documentation
           (such as program goals, initiatives, and performance measures),
           interviewed SAFECOM officials to discuss the progress of the
           program, and interviewed state and local officials to determine
           their use of SAFECOM tools and guidance. To obtain Federal Bureau
           of Investigation (FBI) information, we relied on interviews
           conducted by another GAO team.

           To determine progress in developing and implementing interoperable
           communications standards, we obtained and reviewed documentation
           from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
           officials on standards development such as status updates and
           recent testimonies. Additionally, we reviewed documentation from
           states and localities to determine the extent to which they are
           implementing Project 25 products and spending on Project 25
           products. We also met with officials from NIST and representatives
           from communications equipment manufactures.

           Because our objectives were focused on DHS efforts to improve
           interoperable communications, we neither assessed programs in
           other agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission or
           the National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
           nor reviewed issues related to spectrum allocation.^2

           We performed our work in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area;
           Tallahassee, Fort Myer, and Miami, Florida; Louisville, Frankfort,
           and Mount Sterling, Kentucky; Albany, Syracuse, and Brooklyn, New
           York; and Beaverton, Salem, and Medford, Oregon, from April 2006
           to February 2007, in accordance with generally accepted government
           auditing standards.
			  
			  Appendix II: First Responder Communications Systems within
			  Selected States

           There is wide variation in the frequencies (i.e., very high
           frequency (VHF) and ultra high frequency (UHF)) and radio
           technologies (i.e., digital, analog, conventional, and trunked)
           that are used among federal, state, and local agencies within each
           of the four states we reviewed. A summary of communications
           systems and interoperability initiatives in each of these four
           states follows.
			  
			  Florida

           There are over 150 radio systems in use within the state of
           Florida. To improve interoperability among these systems, Florida
           officials have developed several centralized solutions that are
           used throughout the state at all levels of government. Localities
           maintain their existing communications systems, relying on
           Florida's statewide systems only when they need to interoperate
           with another agency or jurisdiction. According to DHS, Florida has
           received approximately $55.7^1 million in DHS funding from fiscal
           year 2003 through fiscal year 2005 to improve interoperable
           communications.
			  
			  Governance

           Florida's centralized approach entails making funding decisions
           through a body (the Domestic Security Oversight Council) supported
           by a hierarchy of communications-related committees that includes
           local representation from each of the seven regions in the state.
           According to state officials, for the statewide interoperability
           solutions, Florida does not allocate DHS funding to local
           agencies; it takes on the responsibility of centrally purchasing
           equipment to ensure that all agencies and jurisdictions have
           equipment that is compatible. UASI grants are awarded directly to
           the UASI areas; therefore, Florida does not centrally manage those
           funds.
			  
			  State Approach

           To improve the interoperability among the 150 disparate
           communications systems throughout the state, Florida officials
           have developed the following several statewide solutions:

           o In 2003, the Domestic Security Oversight Council and its
           supporting communication committees determined that it would not
           be economically feasible to replace all existing systems in the
           state with one new system. It therefore decided to develop a
           "backbone" system that could connect with each of the existing
           systems. This system, referred to as the Florida Interoperability
           Network, establishes network connections between federal, state,
           and local dispatch centers across the state (see fig. 5). It
           enables dispatchers to connect first responders on disparate radio
           systems and frequencies to allow them to directly communicate with
           one another. Existing independent systems are maintained.
           According to state officials, as of January 2007, first responders
           in 64 of Florida's 67 counties are able to have their
           communications patched to each other as needed via the network.


^1DHS's grant funding figures for interoperable communications includes
funding from each of the relevant grant programs within the Office of
Grants and Training, including the State Homeland Security Program and the
UASI program.

Figure 5: Illustration of Florida's Interoperability Network

Legend

IP=Internet Protocol

           o As part of the Florida Interoperability Network, Florida
           officials are also working to establish additional mutual aid
           channels that are intended to provide radio service to first
           responders outside the range of their agency's local system or
           when they need to communicate with users not on their local
           systems. These channels are intended to expand geographic coverage
           to ensure that, wherever they go, Florida's first responders have
           radio communication capability. To this end, officials are adding
           428 tower sites to the existing 93 sites across the state.
           o Florida also acquired and implemented a radio communications
           system to serve law enforcement units of state agencies and to
           serve local public safety agencies through a mutual aid channel.
           The Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System provides state law
           enforcement officers with a shared digital, trunked radio system
           that serves over 6,500 users with 14,000 radios in patrol cars,
           boats, motorcycles, and aircraft.
           o Florida's first federally funded project was the Emergency
           Deployable Interoperable Communications Systems. These are mobile
           systems that can be deployed to a specific response area to patch
           together disparate communications systems. According to state
           officials, these systems are generally used in one of the
           following situations: (1) to tie different radio systems together
           in an area that is not connected to the Florida Interoperability
           Network, (2) to connect different radio systems together if the
           network becomes inoperable, or (3) to tie disparate radios
           together when assisting in an out-of-state incident, such as
           Hurricane Katrina. Nine of these systems were purchased and
           deployed throughout the state.
           o Florida has seven Mutual Aid Radio Communications units in the
           state, and officials are building an additional unit. The units
           are stand-alone mobile interoperable communications networks.
           Unlike Emergency Deployable Interoperable Communications Systems,
           Mutual Aid Radio Communications units include a cache of radios
           that can be distributed to first responders, a tower, and a mobile
           repeater system, so no patching needs to be done. These units are
           used when the local communications systems become inoperable, such
           as when a hurricane destroys the local communications
           infrastructure. The units provide temporary infrastructure for a
           response area to maintain communication during an incident.
			  
			  Local Approach

           Florida localities vary in their approaches and the level of
           interoperability within their regions. They utilize the statewide
           solutions to supplement their existing systems. For example, the
           35 to 40 different radio systems throughout the Miami UASI area
           have limited direct interoperability. The Miami region relies on
           patching mechanisms, including the Florida Interoperability
           Network, to provide interoperable communications when needed. In
           contrast, according to officials, government agencies within Lee
           County, with the exception of the school board, utilize the same
           communications systems and, therefore, are all directly
           interoperable. The level of interoperability with surrounding
           counties varies. When they need to communicate with neighboring
           jurisdictions or state first responders, they utilize the
           interoperability network.
			  
			  Kentucky

           While Kentucky first responders coordinate interoperability
           primarily by sharing frequencies and establishing patches, the
           state is establishing mutual aid channels to better enable
           responders on different frequencies to communicate through
           patches. According to DHS, from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal
           year 2005, Kentucky received $50 million from DHS for
           interoperable communications.
			  
			  Governance

           Kentucky's governance structure for interoperable communications
           is organized centrally at the state level through the Kentucky
           Wireless Interoperability Executive Committee. To ensure that the
           committee has an awareness of initiatives across the state, all
           state agencies and local government entities must present project
           plans for primary wireless public safety voice or data
           communications systems for review and recommendation by the
           committee, even if no state or federal funding is used for the
           system. While the committee only has the authority to decline or
           approve projects funded with state or federal dollars, a large
           majority of local projects are financed through state or federal
           funding.
			  
			  State Approach

           Kentucky's strategy to improve interoperable communications in the
           near term is to utilize statewide mutual aid channels that allow
           agencies on different communication systems to tune into a
           dedicated frequency shared among one or more public safety
           agencies. Kentucky also plans to implement communications bridges
           to patch different systems together.

           The mutual aid approach requires the deployment of three channels,
           one for each frequency band that Kentucky public safety agencies
           currently use. Currently, approximately 34 percent of applicable
           agencies have signed a memorandum of understanding to commit to
           using the mutual aid channels. Other agencies that have not yet
           signed a memorandum are also utilizing the channels.

           Kentucky officials are also in the process of implementing a
           console-to-console bridge solution that will allow dispatchers to
           patch users on one frequency to users on another frequency (see
           fig. 6). For example, a first responder using a lower frequency
           who needs to talk to a first responder using a higher frequency
           would contact the Kentucky State Police dispatch center to request
           a patch. The dispatcher would then use a patching mechanism to
           patch the two channels so that the responders could talk directly
           to each other. The solution is operational in two of the three
           frequency bands and is nearing completion in the third.

Figure 6: Console-to-Console Bridge Solution

To supplement voice communications interoperability, Kentucky has
implemented a wireless data communications interoperability solution as
well. This solution provides functionality such as records management,
real-time crime coverage, real-time data collection, and instant
messaging. The system consists of approximately 165 base stations
throughout the state to supply continuous wireless coverage in most
regions. First responders use mobile data terminals to communicate with
each other and, in many cases, retrieve information from their agency's
database. Kentucky's mobile data network currently has coverage across
approximately 95 percent of the state's primary and secondary road
systems.

In the long term, the state officials intend to build a statewide public
safety communications and interoperability infrastructure. They are in the
process of completing a statewide baseline communications study as an
initial step in the planning phase. No further specific initiatives and
milestones have yet been identified for this project.

Local Approach

Interoperability is typically coordinated at the city and county levels.
In the jurisdictions we visited, interoperability solutions included
planning in advance to program other frequencies into radios, establishing
patches through disparate communication systems through a dispatch center,
and swapping radios.

           o In Louisville, Kentucky, both UHF and VHF systems are in use
           and, when necessary, connected through patching mechanisms. Many
           responders carry both a UHF and VHF radio in their vehicles. For
           major incidents, a mobile vehicle with a repeater system can be
           deployed to connect first responders. In addition, since 2000,
           Louisville has been utilizing a wireless data communications
           interoperability solution that includes 550 first responders in
           the Louisville metropolitan area.
           o All local agencies within Franklin County use VHF systems; first
           responders program each others' channels into their radios.
           Frankfort and Franklin County use mutual aid channels when needed.
           First responders have difficulty connecting to the Kentucky State
           Police, as that agency recently switched to a digital, trunked
           communications system. Currently, to connect to the state police,
           Frankfort and Franklin police contact a dispatch center and
           request a patch to Kentucky State Police.
           o Montgomery County agencies use both UHF and VHF systems. First
           responders within the county and in neighboring counties typically
           program each others' channels into their radios. Communication
           with state agencies varies, for example, fire and EMS agencies in
           Montgomery County cannot communicate with their state counterparts
           at present, whereas local police can communicate with the state
           police through mutual aid channels, or in instances in which they
           have interoperable radios.
			  
			  New York

           New York is currently in the process of implementing a statewide
           system that will connect all state agencies and offer connection
           services to local agencies. This initiative is being funded by the
           state. Localities continue to develop and maintain their own
           communication systems and interoperability solutions. According to
           DHS, from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005, New York
           State has received $145.5 million in grant funding for
           interoperable communications.
			  
			  Governance

           New York has established a Statewide Interoperability Executive
           Committee that is currently working to establish a state
           interoperability plan. In addition, there are several different
           groups throughout New York that are involved with interoperability
           at the state and local level. According to state officials, the
           governance structure limits the state's ability to mandate
           requirements to local governments; therefore, individual counties
           and cities determine their own interoperability requirements and
           have their own governance structure in place for interoperable
           communications. The state, however, determines priority
           investments and the localities must spend grant money on these
           priority investments. Interoperable communications was a priority
           investment for both grants for fiscal year 2006.
			  
			  State Approach

           The state is currently in the process of deploying a Statewide
           Wireless Network intended to provide an integrated mobile radio
           communications network that links all state agencies and would be
           available to connect participating local agencies (see figure 7).
           It will be a digital, trunked radio system with both voice and
           data capabilities and will be used in day-to-day operations, as
           well as large scale emergency situations. The network is to
           interconnect radio sites across the state through a "backbone
           network" based on Internet Protocol (IP). The network is to
           operate on the 700 and 800 MHz frequencies, as well as VHF
           frequencies in geographically challenging terrain, such as the
           Adirondack and Catskill Mountains. Users operating on other
           frequencies and with less advanced technology can be connected to
           the network through a gateway.

Figure 7: The New York Statewide Wireless Network

State agencies are required to be a part of the Statewide Wireless
Network, but local agencies may join on a volunteer basis. As previously
mentioned, according to state officials, they are limited in their ability
to require local agencies to utilize the network. Local agencies will have
the following three different interoperability options:

           o Full system partnership: the state will provide the base
           infrastructure such as radio towers, and the agency will purchase
           IP-addressable, digital, trunked radios, as well as any additional
           repeaters to operate on the network.
           o Interface/gateway partnership: allows local agencies to maintain
           their own separate network and provides a connecting gateway
           between a local agency's dispatch console and the network.

           o Shared communication system infrastructure: states and
           localities both use the same towers for their separate systems,
           but there is no mechanism for patching communications between the
           state and local systems.

           New York is implementing the Statewide Wireless Network in several
           phases and expects full implementation to be completed in
           September 2010.

           Even though joining this state network is free, localities need to
           buy digital, trunked, and IP-addressable radios to participate
           directly, and additional infrastructure such as repeaters to get
           complete coverage in urban areas and buildings.
			  
			  Local Approach

           Throughout the state of New York, many different communications
           systems exist. Each area has developed its own methods aimed at
           improving interoperability. Additionally, localities generally do
           not include the Statewide Wireless Network as part of their local
           approach to improving interoperable communications. As of December
           2006, one agency in New York City and only 7 of the 62 counties in
           New York have partnered with the network to be full system users.
           Twenty-five counties have agreed to connect through a gateway.

           o In the New York City UASI area, the police department maintains
           six channels for citywide interoperability. Any agency can use
           these channels by signing a memorandum of understanding and
           ensuring that they meet the necessary technical requirements.
           Additional interoperability strategies used by the New York City
           UASI include using a federal interoperability channel and
           utilizing and deploying mobile patching devices to connect
           disparate systems at an incident site. In addition, New York City
           is working to develop the City-wide Mobile Wireless Network, which
           is intended to provide police and fire first responders with
           high-speed data access to support large file transfers, including
           federal and state anticrime and antiterrorism databases,
           fingerprints, and maps. Further, the city has implemented a
           regional wide-area interoperability system that is New York City's
           primary interoperability network for first responders in the city.
           It is currently being expanded to include first responders in
           Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties, and parts of New
           Jersey.
           o Agencies in Albany County typically interoperate by programming
           the frequencies of other agencies into their radios, including
           agencies in neighboring counties. The county also has a patching
           mechanism that can connect different radio networks during an
           emergency. To improve its interoperability and connect the county
           to neighboring counties, Albany County is currently in the process
           of developing a countywide system. This system will use gateways
           to connect existing systems that operate on different frequency
           bands and allow all public safety responders within the county to
           communicate with any other responder in Albany County regardless
           of the radio system or technology used. Albany is also currently
           developing a fiber optic system that will connect all 12 Public
           Safety Access Points in the county.
           o Onondaga County relies on dispatchers to connect first
           responders. All dispatching for Onondaga County is centralized at
           the county's 911 call center. To improve its interoperability,
           Onondaga County is currently working to implement a countywide
           digital system that will connect all county agencies.
			  
			  Oregon

           Oregon is currently in the process of planning a statewide system
           to connect all state agencies and provide a means for local
           agencies to be patched to users on the statewide system.
           Localities continue to develop and maintain their own
           communication systems and interoperability solutions. According to
           DHS, Oregon has received $53.4 million from fiscal year 2003
           through fiscal year 2005 in grant funding to improve interoperable
           communications.
			  
			  Governance

           Oregon has a State Interoperability Executive Council to centrally
           manage Oregon's interoperable communications. This body is
           composed of state and local representatives. This committee
           requires that each county prepare a communications plan.
           Additionally, the committee is in the process of developing a
           statewide interoperable communications plan that incorporates all
           the county plans.
			  
			  State Approach

           Most state agencies are currently using VHF and UHF analog,
           conventional radio systems, which are in some cases 30 years old
           and in need of major repairs and upgrades. Oregon state agencies
           experience significant coverage gaps in their existing
           communications systems due to a lack of transmission towers.
           Additionally, these state systems are not always interoperable
           with federal or local systems.

           In the absence of shared radio systems among federal, state, and
           local first responder agencies, Oregon's state agencies use
           various alternative approaches to establish interoperable
           communications with agencies they work with on a regular basis,
           such as using a dispatcher or patching devices to establish
           connections between disparate radio systems, and lending radios to
           first responders from other agencies.

           Due to the deteriorating status of the Oregon's state agencies'
           communication systems, State Interoperability Executive Council
           officials have been working with contractors to develop a concept
           for a new state system. The Oregon Wireless Interoperability
           Network is to be a Project 25, trunked, digital radio network that
           will rely on an IP interface to interoperate with state agencies'
           subsystems. Plans for the interoperability network are to allow
           the majority of state agencies to operate on a unified trunked
           system while supporting conventional operations where and when
           required. These officials plan to issue a contract to a vendor by
           October 2007 and implement the first phase of the network by
           October 2009.

           The Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network is intended to be the
           primary system for state agencies; local agencies will be expected
           to maintain their existing systems as their primary systems and
           use the network as their secondary system. A patching mechanism
           would be established to allow local agencies to be connected to
           state agencies, as well as allow them to be connected to other
           local agencies that they do not already have interoperability.
           Figure 8 is a depiction of the interoperability network concept as
           currently envisioned.

Figure 8: Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network System Overview

Local Approach

Local agencies use a wide range of radio frequencies and communication
technologies and have various strategies and solutions to improving
interoperability. In particular, Marion County uses analog UHF and VHF
systems; and trunked, as well as conventional radios. Officials stated
that they have limited interoperability with state and federal agencies
and that they, therefore, maintain a cache of 30 radios available to
share, when needed. Additionally, they can use a mobile command unit that
can be deployed to any area and contains another cache of radios.

In the Portland UASI, four of the five counties use 800 MHz, analog,
trunked radio systems that provide direct interoperability among those
four counties. The fifth county is on a separate VHF system. They have
installed equipment to improve the interoperability with this fifth
county. Additionally, to provide interoperability with the fifth county
and other agencies outside the UASI area, the officials use mechanisms
such as a mobile trailer to patch calls and loan radios from its cache of
radios.

Jackson County agencies generally use conventional, VHF, analog radio
systems. Officials indicated that although two of the cities within the
county are digitally capable, their first responders use the analog mode
due to the fact that many of their neighboring jurisdictions do not have
digital radios. In order to interoperate with jurisdictions on different
systems, they use common radio channels, patching mechanisms, as well as a
mobile command vehicle that is equipped with a cache of radios in
different frequencies and a patching device. In addition, Jackson County
and Josephine County are developing a communications system that connects
the two counties.

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Linda Koontz, (202) 512-6240, [email protected]

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, John de Ferrari, Assistant
Director; Neil Doherty; Richard Hung; Tom Mills; Shannin O'Neill; Karen
Talley; Amos Tevelow; and Jayne Wilson made major contributions to this
report.

(310756)

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 GAO Reports and Testimony

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

Order by Mail or Phone

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

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

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

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Congressional Relations

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

Public Affairs

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

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-301 .

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Linda Koontz at (202) 512-6240 or
[email protected].

Highlights of [64]GAO-07-301 , a report to congressional requesters

April 2007

FIRST RESPONDERS

Much Work Remains to Improve Communications Interoperability

[65]transparent illustrator graphic

As the first to respond to natural disasters, domestic terrorism, and
other emergencies, public safety agencies rely on timely communications
across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions. It is vital to the safety
and effectiveness of first responders that their electronic communications
systems enable them to communicate with whomever they need to, when they
need to, and when they are authorized to do so. GAO was asked to
determine, among other things, (1) the extent to which Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) funding and technical assistance has helped to
improve interoperable communications in selected states and (2) the
progress that has been made in the development and implementation of
interoperable communications standards. To address these objectives, GAO
reviewed grant information, documentation of selected states' and
localities' interoperability projects, and standards documents.

[66]What GAO Recommends

GAO is making recommendations to DHS, which include assessing how states'
grant requests support statewide communications plans and modifying its
guidance on acquiring interoperable equipment. DHS disagreed with the
latter recommendation, but GAO believes that it is important to provide
more flexibility until completed subsets of standards have been fully
defined. DHS agreed or deferred comment on all others.

According to DHS, $2.15 billion in grant funding was awarded to states and
localities from 2003 through 2005 for communications interoperability
enhancements. This funding, along with technical assistance, has helped to
make improvements on a variety of specific interoperability projects.
However, states that GAO reviewed (see table below) had generally not used
strategic plans to guide investments toward broadly improving
interoperability. Further, no national plan was in place to coordinate
investments across states. To its credit, DHS has required states to
implement a statewide plan by the end of 2007, and DHS has recently been
required to implement a National Emergency Communications Plan. However,
no process has been established for ensuring that states' grant requests
are consistent with their statewide plans. Until DHS takes a more
strategic approach to improving interoperable communications--such as
including in its decision making an assessment of how grant requests align
with statewide communications plans--progress by states and localities in
improving interoperability is likely to be impeded.

Until recently, the private-sector coordinating body responsible for
developing Project 25 standards--a suite of national standards intended to
enable interoperability among the communications products of different
vendors--has made little progress. Although one of the eight major subsets
of standards was defined in the project's first 4 years (from 1989 to
1993), from 1993 through 2005, no additional standards were completed that
could be used to develop Project 25 products. Specifications for three
additional subsets of standards were defined over the past 2 years.
However, ambiguities in the published standards have led to
incompatibilities among products made by different vendors, and no
compliance testing has been conducted to determine if these products are
interoperable. Nevertheless, DHS has strongly encouraged state and local
agencies to use grant funding to purchase Project 25 radios, which are
substantially more expensive than non-Project 25 radios. As a result,
states and local agencies have purchased fewer, more expensive radios that
still may not be interoperable and thus may provide few added benefits.
Until DHS modifies its grant guidance to provide more flexibility in
purchasing communications equipment, states and localities are likely to
continue to purchase expensive equipment that provides them with minimal
additional benefits.

DHS Grant Funding to Improve Interoperability in Selected States

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

References

Visible links
  48. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-740
  49. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-740
  50. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-494
  51. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-494
  52. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-740
  53. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-494
  54. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-392
  56. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-740
  64. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-301
*** End of document. ***