United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

FIRST RESPONDERS

Much Work Remains 

to Improve 

Communications 

Interoperability 

April 2007 

 

GAO-07-301 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

April 2007

FIRST RESPONDERS

Much Work Remains to Improve 

Highlights of GAO-07-301, a report to Communications Interoperability 

congressional requesters 

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 

State Grants from 2003 through 2005

New York $145.5 million

Kentucky $50 million

Oregon $53.4 million

Florida $55.7 million

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data. 

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.

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 koontzl@gao.gov. 

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. 
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

Page i GAO-07-301 First Responders
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

Page ii GAO-07-301 First Responders
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. 

Page iii GAO-07-301 First Responders
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 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 

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. 

Page 1 GAO-07-301 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. 

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 

Results in Brief 

 1

We were unable to meet with local officials from Florida’s state capital region. 

Page 2 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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. 

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. 

 2

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-458, section 

7303, 118 Stat. 3638, 3843-44, Dec. 17, 2004. 

Page 3 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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. 

Page 4 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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.

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. 

Background 

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. 

Page 5 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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

Sources: GAO and DHS.

Mobile radio user

Base 

station Transmitter 

tower

Portable radio user Repeater

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 

Page 6 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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 

Sources: GAO and DHS.

30kHz 3MHz 30MHz 300MHz 3GHz 30GHz

VLF LF MF HF VHF UHF SHF EHF

25-50 148-174 220-222

138-144

450-470

406-420

794-806

764-776

851-869

Spectrum bands allocated to public safety (in MHz)

806-824

4,940-4,990

kHz: kilohertz

MHz: megahertz

GHz: gigahertz

VLF: very low frequency

LF: low frequency

MF: medium frequency

HF: high frequency

VHF: very high frequency

UHF: ultra high frequency

SHF: super high frequency

EHF: extremely high frequency

Frequency 

bands

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. 

Page 7 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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 

 3

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission 

Report (Washington, D.C: 2004), 322-3.

Page 8 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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. 

A variety of technical approaches have been adopted to help improve 

interoperable communications, including the following: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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 

 4

For 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, GAO-04-740 

(Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004). 

Page 9 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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: 

• 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. 

• 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 

 5

Voice over Internet Protocol, also called VoIP, is the routing of voice conversations over 

the Internet or any other Internet Protocol network. 

Page 10 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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. 

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 reported7

 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.

Programs Aimed at 

Improving Interoperable 

Communications 

 6

GAO-04-740. 

7

GAO, Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort 

Requires Stronger Collaboration, GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2004). 

Page 11 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Table 1: Description of SAFECOM Guidance and Tools

Guidance or tool Description 

Statement of Requirements This document is intended to define and identify the range of future requirements for 

voice and data communications to enable interoperability. It provides 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. 

Public Safety Architecture Framework This framework is intended to provide a methodology to plan and develop the migration 

from current public safety architectures to the interoperable systems outlined in the 

Statement of Requirements. 

Interoperability Continuum The Interoperability Continuum provides a graphical depiction of five critical success 

factors for achieving interoperability that SAFECOM developed based on feedback from 

first responders. This tool is intended to provide a framework that emergency response 

agencies can use to baseline their planning and implementation of interoperability 

solutions. 

RapidCom RapidCom provided assistance to 10 high-threat urban areas, including New York City,

Miami, and Los Angeles, to help improve incident-level communications interoperability 

capabilities in those locations. RapidCom was intended to help incident commanders 

communicate with each other and their command centers in a timely manner by helping 

them to establish objectives, identify solutions, and take steps toward implementation. 

Regional Communications Interoperability 

Pilot projects 

SAFECOM officials worked with public safety officials at all levels of government in 

Nevada and Kentucky to help them develop both short-term and long-term goals aimed

at improving interoperability within their states. 

Statewide Communication Interoperability 

Planning Methodology 

The methodology describes a step-by-step process for developing a locally driven 

statewide strategic plan for enhancing communications interoperability. 

Grant Guidance SAFECOM’s grant guidance is intended to provide consistent criteria for agencies to use 

when purchasing equipment with federal funds. 

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

GAO-04-494. 

Page 12 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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 assetbased 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 

 9

Each 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. 

Page 13 GAO-07-301 First Responders
awards, DHS officials have developed an Approved Equipment List that 

provides information on allowable equipment expenditures. 

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

Guidance or technical assistance Description

Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan

(TICP) guidance 

Each UASI area receiving DHS funds must develop a plan to achieve tactical 

interoperable communications across its separate jurisdictions. The TICP guidance 

provides an outline of key elements that should be covered in the plan, such as a 

governance structure and interoperability equipment in the region. 

TICP exercise guidance Each UASI area receiving DHS funds must validate the effectiveness of their 

communication plan by conducting a full-scale exercise. ICTAP provided supporting 

material, such as an evaluator handbook. 

Interoperable Communications Technical 

Assistance Program (ICTAP) 

An ICTAP technical assistance team works on-site with the UASI areas’ 

communications representatives to identify gaps in existing communications

infrastructure and to translate operational requirements into technical requirements 

that can be used to design an interoperable system. 

UASI scorecard Grants and Training, in consultation with SAFECOM and the Wireless Management 

Office, has developed scorecards that assess the maturity of tactical interoperable 

communications capabilities in the UASI areas. The goal of the scorecard effort is to 

provide an assessment of each urban/metropolitan area and to provide 

recommendations on how to best improve tactical interoperable communications. 

DHS released the scorecards to the UASI areas in January 2007. 

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. 

Page 14 GAO-07-301 First Responders
More recently, the 2007 DHS Appropriations Act10 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: 

• enable effective inter- and intra-agency communications, 

• improve radio spectrum efficiency, 

• focus equipment and capabilities on public safety needs, and 

• 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 

 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). 

Page 15 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Industry Association (TIA)—an American National Standards Instituteaccredited11 standards development organization—to develop and 

maintain the standards. 

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. 

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. 

DHS Assistance Has 

Helped on Specific 

Interoperability 

Projects, but a More 

Strategic Approach Is 

Needed 

DHS Funding Has Helped 

Make Improvements on 

Specific Interoperability 

Projects in Selected States 

 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.

Page 16 GAO-07-301 First Responders
The four states we reviewed received assistance from DHS, which helped

make improvements on specific interoperability projects. 

• 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. 

• 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 

Page 17 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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. 

• 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 fullmotion streaming video.

• 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, 

Page 18 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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.

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

Location Examples of purchases 

Total DHS grantsa

 for 

interoperable 

communications from fiscal 

years 2003 to 2005

b

A communication vehicle with equipment to enable interoperable 

communications at the scene of an incident such as extra radios and 

patching devices. 

Studies of initial interoperability projects for Onondaga County. 

State of New York 

Emergency Services Interoperability Radio System project, which provides

interoperability among the county and surrounding counties, as well as 

radios and a patching system for Albany County. 

$74.9 millionc

New York City UASI Portions of the citywide-Mobile Wireless Network, communications 

enhancements for the New York City Fire Department Operations Center,

and local area network installation for the police department. 

$70.6 milliond

Installation of infrastructure across the state to facilitate the use of 

interoperability radio channels.

Computer-aided dispatch consolidation efforts and upgrades to dispatch 

infrastructure for Montgomery County. 

Kentucky 

Development of a mobile data system for Franklin County. 

$39.5 million

Louisville UASI Mobile radios, training costs, accessories for radio equipment, and 

equipment used for patching communications. 

$10.5 millione f

Development of plans for the Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network, 

radios, mobile data terminals, and devices that interconnect first responders 

on disparate systems. 

Hospital communication upgrades, base station equipment, and radios. 

Development of a system that connects Jackson County to Josephine 

County. 

Oregon 

Developing a communications plan for Marion County. 

$45.9 million

Portland UASI Radios, communication equipment for emergency operations center, mobile 

data terminals, and repeaters.

$7.5 million

Page 19 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Location Examples of purchases 

Total DHS grantsa

 for 

interoperable 

communications from fiscal 

years 2003 to 2005

b

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. 

Florida 

Emergency Deployable Interoperable Communications Systems, which are

mobile systems that can be deployed to a specific response area to patch 

multiple disparate communications systems together. 

Mutual Aid Radio Communications units, which are stand-alone mobile 

interoperable communications networks and self-contain the infrastructure 

to set up a communications system in the absence of an operable system.

$44 milliong

Miami UASI Radios, back-up radio system, cache of radios, a mobile emergency 

operations center, and devices that interconnect first responders on

disparate radio systems. 

$11.7 million

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.

a

Allocations of DHS grant funding to interoperable communications are determined by each state and 

reported by each state to DHS. 

b

DHS’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. 

c

The $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. 

d

For fiscal year 2003, New York did not designate separate Interoperable Communications funding for 

the state and urban area. 

e

From 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. 

f

For fiscal year 2003, Kentucky did not designate separate Interoperable Communications funding for 

the state and urban area. 

g

The $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, 

Page 20 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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 

Page 21 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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). 

13GAO-04-740. 

Page 22 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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.

The Lack of a National 

Plan Has Also Contributed 

to Limited Strategic Use of 

DHS Funding 

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 Act15 requires DHS to develop a National 

Emergency Communications Plan by March 2008. Among other things, the 

 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). 

Page 23 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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. 

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, 

Page 24 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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. 

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 Program 

Has Made Limited 

Progress in Assisting 

All Levels of 

Government to 

Achieve 

Interoperability 

Page 25 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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 initiatives16 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. 

17GAO-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. 

Page 26 GAO-07-301 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. 

SAFECOM Has Not Taken 

Action to Address 

Interoperability with 

Federal First Responders 

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: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

 20Narrowband refers to the method of gaining more channels (and hence more capacity) by

splitting channels into channels that are narrower in bandwidth. 

Page 27 GAO-07-301 First Responders
• Use of encryption. Federal agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), use encryption21 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. 

• 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 

 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. 

Page 28 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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. 

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 locations22 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 nearterm and long-term goals for improving interoperability. 

SAFECOM Tools and 

Assistance Have Had 

Limited Impact on State 

and Local Agencies 

 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. 

Page 29 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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 

Page 30 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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. 

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

Source: GAO analysis of SAFECOM data.

Florida

Lee County, FL

Miami UASI, FL

Kentucky

Montgomery County, KY 

Louisville UASI, KY

New York

Albany County, NY

Onondaga County, NY

NYC UASI, NY

Oregon

Marion County, OR

Jackson County, OR

Portland UASI, OR

Tools Applicable to All Regions

Statement of Requirements X X X X

Public Safety Architecture Framework X X

Interoperability Continuum X X XX XX X

Statewide Communication

Interoperability Planning Methodology 

X X

RapidCom X X

Tools applicable to all regions

Tools applicable to UASI areas

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. 

Page 31 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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 measures23 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 

 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. 

Page 32 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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. 

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. 

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

Recent Progress Has 

Been Made in 

Developing 

Interoperability 

Standards, but Early 

Implementation Has 

Had Unsatisfactory 

Results 

Page 33 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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.

Page 34 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Table 4: Status of Project 25 Interfaces 

Interface Description Status

NIST 

projection for

product 

availabilitya

Common air 

interface 

Defines the wireless access between mobile 

and portable radios and between the portable

and mobile radios and the fixed or base station 

radios. 

This interface is considered the most mature of the 

eight interfaces; however, parts of it are currently 

being revised to clarify ambiguities. A full set of 

product compliance tests is not yet available. 

Currently 

available. 

Subscriber 

data peripheral

interface 

Characterizes the signaling for data transfer 

that must take place between radios and the 

data devices connected to the radios. 

The interface is being redeveloped to align with 

other interfaces. In addition, there are no tests 

currently in place for this interface to test product 

compliance. 

Limited 

availability of 

products that 

contain 

proprietary 

components. 

Fixed station 

subsystem 

interface 

Describes the signaling and messages 

between the radio frequency subsystem and 

the fixed/base station subsystem and between 

the console subsystem and the fixed/base 

station subsystem. 

The initial version of standards has been developed 

for this interface; however, more work remains 

before this interface will be completed, such as 

developing compliance testing standards. 

2007 

Console 

subsystem 

interface 

Defines the signaling between the radio 

frequency subsystem and the console 

subsystem. 

The initial version of the standards is in the final 

stages of completion and is expected to be

published in early 2007. Compliance testing 

standards are under development. 

2007-2008 

Network 

management 

interface 

Allows administrators to control and monitor 

the network fault management and network

performance management. 

The interface is being redeveloped to align with 

other interfaces. In addition, there are no standards 

currently in place for this interface to test products 

for compliance.

To be 

determined. 

Data network 

interface 

Describes the radio frequency subsystem’s 

connections to computers, data networks, 

external data sources, etc. 

The interface is being redeveloped to align with 

other interfaces. In addition, there are no standards 

currently in place for this interface to test products 

for Project 25 compliance. 

Limited 

availability of 

products that 

contain 

proprietary 

components. 

Telephone 

interconnect 

interface 

Allows users to connect through the public 

switched telephone network using their radios 

rather than cellular phones. 

Standards have been developed for the interface; 

however, work remains before this interface will be

completed, such as developing compliance testing 

standards. 

To be 

determined. 

Inter-RF 

subsystem 

interface 

Allows users in one system to communicate 

with users in another system.

The initial version of this standard was published in

mid 2006. Compliance testing standards are under 

development. 

2007 

Source: GAO analysis of NIST and TIA data. 

a

This information is based on NIST’s working knowledge of Project 25 product lines. NIST has not 

performed a worldwide inventory of Project 25 products. 

Page 35 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Figure 4: Project 25 Interfaces 

Fixed base 

station

Sources: GAO analysis of TIA and NIST data.

Common air

interface RF subsystem 

(RFSS)

Mobile and portable 

radios

Terminal/workstation

RF subsystem

(RFSS)

Public switched 

telephone network

Subscriber data

peripheral interface

Data network 

interface

Telephone 

interconnect 

interface

Inter-RF

subsystem interface

Network 

management

Network 

management 

interface

Terminal/workstation

Data network

Project 25 interfaces

Fixed 

station 

interface

Console interface

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: 

• 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 

Page 36 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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. 

• 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 reported25 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.

• 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

 25GAO, Information Assurance: National Partnership Offers Benefits, but Faces 

Considerable Challenges, GAO-06-392 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24, 2006). 

Page 37 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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. 

• 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. 

Page 38 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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 

Locality 

Number of 

Project 25 

radios 

purchased

Amount spent on 

Project 25 radios 

Average 

Price per 

radio

Using Project 25 

capabilities

Lee County, 

Florida 2,056 $4,305,850 $2,094 No

Albany 

County, New 

York 91 $120,879 $1,328 No

Louisville, 

Kentucky 52 $234,099 $4,502 Yes

Jackson 

County, 

Oregon 169 $571,338 $3,380 No

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. 

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 

laboratories26 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. 

Efforts Are Under Way to 

Mitigate Project 25 

Problems 

 26NIST is developing a process for determining manufacturers’ laboratories as being 

“approved.” 

Page 39 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Table 6: Development Schedule for Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program 

Stage Description Status

Stage I NIST is to develop a formal laboratory approval process for 

manufacturers to conduct compliance testing and a process 

handbook. 

Conduct initial common air interface testing. 

NIST and its partners will develop an automated test software 

suite to facilitate Project 25 performance testing, which will be

made available for use by test laboratories and manufacturers. 

Subscriber units and base stations will also be evaluated for

performance. 

NIST is working to finalize the formal laboratory approval 

process, and the process handbook. Parts of the trunked 

interoperability test standard for the common air interface 

are complete. Informal testing is expected to begin by 

March 2007. Formal testing is expected to being by mid2007. 

The automated test software suite to facilitate Project 25 

common air interface performance testing is expected to 

be available by early 2007. 

Other aspects of the trunked mode for the common air 

interface are being revised and, therefore, these aspects 

will not be tested until such revisions are made. 

Stage II Test procedures will be developed and executed that will 

demonstrate the interoperability of Project 25 radios in both 

trunked and conventional modes of operation.

Development and completion of remaining test 

procedures for the common air interface are contingent 

upon completion of revisions to parts of this interface. 

The conventional mode interoperability test standard is 

expected to be available in mid-2007. 

Stage III Development of test procedures for the other critical Project 25 

interfaces. 

Conformance test procedures are currently being 

developed for the inter-RF subsystem interface and the 

fixed station subsystem interface. 

Performance test procedures are currently being 

developed for the inter-RF subsystem interface and the 

console subsystem interface.

In addition, the interoperability test standards for the interRF subsystem interface are in the initial stages of 

development. 

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. 

Page 40 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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. 

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 fullscale 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. 

Conclusions 

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 

Page 41 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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. 

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: 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

• assess how states’ grant requests support their statewide communications 

plans and include the assessment as a factor in making DHS grant 

allocation decisions; 

• 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; 

• 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; 

Page 42 GAO-07-301 First Responders
• 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 

• 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. 

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. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 43 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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 

Page 44 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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-togovernment 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. 

Page 45 GAO-07-301 First Responders
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 

koontzl@gao.gov. 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 

Page 46 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

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: 

• All of the states must have received at least an average amount of funding 

from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005. 

• One of the states must have received over $100 million of grant funding for

interoperable communications from DHS. 

• One of the states must have received assistance from SAFECOM in 

applying the Statewide Communications Interoperability Planning 

Methodology. 

• One of the states must have had an Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) 

area involved in DHS’s RapidCom program. 

• One of the states must border another country. 

• At least one of the states must be one of the top 10 states that regularly 

faces wildland fires. 

• 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 

 1

We were unable to meet with local officials from Florida’s state capital region. 

Page 47 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

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 

 2

GAO-04-740. 

Page 48 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Beaverton, Salem, and Medford, Oregon, from April 2006 to February 2007, 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Page 49 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix II: First Responder 

Comm

States 

unications Systems within Selected 

Page 50 GAO-07-301

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. 

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 $55.71

 million in 

DHS funding from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005 to improve 

interoperable communications. 

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. 

To improve the interoperability among the 150 disparate communications 

systems throughout the state, Florida officials have developed the 

following several statewide solutions: 

Florida 

Governance 

State Approach 

• 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 

 1

DHS’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.

First Responders
Appendix II: First Responder 

Communications Systems within Selected 

States 

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. 

Figure 5: Illustration of Florida’s Interoperability Network 

Source: GAO analysis based on Florida data.

Dispatch center Dispatch center

State and local agencies connect to the network 

through patching at the dispatch centers.

Local

first responders

450 MHz

Vendor B

State

first responders

800 MHz

Vendor A

Local

first responders

150 MHz

Vendor C

Dispatch center

IP network

IP network

 Legend 

 IP=Internet Protocol 

Page 51 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix II: First Responder 

Communications Systems within Selected 

States 

• 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. 

• 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.

• 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. 

• 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. 

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 

Local Approach 

Page 52 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix II: First Responder 

Communications Systems within Selected 

States 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

Governance 

State Approach 

Page 53 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix II: First Responder 

Communications Systems within Selected 

States 

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 

Source: GAO analysis based on Kentucky data.

Consoles

connected using 

public switched 

telephone network

Kentucky State Police 

dispatch center

Kentucky State Police 

personnel

150 MHz

Mutual aid channel

450 MHz

Mutual aid channel

800 MHz

Mutual aid channel

State 

agency

Local 

agency 1

Local 

agency 2

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 

Page 54 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix II: First Responder 

Communications Systems within Selected 

States 

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. 

• 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. 

• 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.

• 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. 

Page 55 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix II: First Responder 

Communications Systems within Selected 

States 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Governance 

State Approach 

Page 56 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix II: First Responder 

Communications Systems within Selected 

States 

Figure 7: The New York Statewide Wireless Network 

Source: GAO analysis based on New York data.

State agency

Gateway

IP network

State

first responders

800/700 MHz

Vendor A

State

first responders

800/700 MHz

Vendor B

Local

first responders

800/700 MHz

Vendor C

Local

first responders

450 MHz

Vendor D IP network

 State agencies connect directly to 

 the network.

 Local agencies can connect directly 

 to the network or through a gateway.

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: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• Shared communication system infrastructure: states and localities both

use the same towers for their separate systems, but there is no mechanism 

Page 57 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix II: First Responder 

Communications Systems within Selected 

States 

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. 

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. 

Local Approach 

• 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. 

• 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. 

Page 58 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix II: First Responder 

Communications Systems within Selected 

States 

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. 

• 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 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. 

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. 

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 

Oregon 

Governance 

State Approach 

Page 59 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix II: First Responder 

Communications Systems within Selected 

States 

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. 

Page 60 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix II: First Responder 

Communications Systems within Selected 

States 

Figure 8: Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network System Overview 

Source: GAO analysis based on Oregon data.

Gateway Gateway

IP network

State

first responders

700 MHz

Vendor A

Local

first responders

450 MHz

Vendor C

Local

first responders

150 MHz

Vendor D

State

first responders

VHF

Vendor B

IP network

 State agencies connect directly to the network.

 Local agencies can connect to the network through a gateway.

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. 

Page 61 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix II: First Responder 

Communications Systems within Selected 

States 

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. 

Page 62 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix III: Comments from the Department Appendix III: Comments from the of Commerce 

Department of Commerce 

Page 63 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department Appendix IV of Homeland Security : Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security 

Page 64 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 65 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 66 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 67 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 68 GAO-07-301 First Responders
Appendix V: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 69 GAO-07-301

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact Linda Koontz, (202) 512-6240, koontzl@gao.gov 

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. 

First Responders

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(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. 

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.” 

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 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER