U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director

continued...

January 1998

Discussed in this Research in

Brief: A 1997 survey designed

to provide quantitative data from

State and local law enforcement

agencies nationwide on their

current and planned use of

communications equipment

and services and their experience

with interoperability.

Key issues: Routine police work

requires effective coordination and

communication with other police

agencies, fire departments, and

emergency medical services to

mount a well-coordinated response.

Interoperability, the ability of agencies to communicate across jurisdictions, often depends on wireless

radio communications systems.

This study, based on a mail-in

questionnaire, examines telecommunications systems; knowledge

and training about their use;

and interoperability experience,

requirements, and shortfalls.

Key findings:

• Interoperability is common, with

82 percent of agencies having at

least one channel dedicated solely for

use with other organizations. Though

most agencies are confident of their

ability to handle routine situations,

many law enforcement agencies experience serious obstacles, particularly

when trying to communicate with

agencies beyond their local network

or operating in different frequency

bands.

• Limitations in funding and frequency incompatibility were identified as the biggest interoperability

problems.

• Thirty-five percent think State or

Federal mandates are needed to ensure interoperability, but the majority believe local planning best meets

Routine police work requires effective

coordination and communication with

other police agencies, fire departments,

emergency medical services, and public

service organizations. High-profile incidents—such as bombings, plane crashes,

and natural disasters—test the ability of

public safety and public service organizations to mount a well-coordinated

response. Interoperability, the ability of

different agencies to communicate across

jurisdictions with each other, often

Wireless Communications and

Interoperability Among State and

Local Law Enforcement Agencies

by Mary J. Taylor, Robert C. Epper, and Thomas K. Tolman

depends on wireless radio communication

systems.

This 1997 NIJ-sponsored study, conducted by the National Law Enforcement

and Corrections Technology Center, focuses on interoperability issues in the law

enforcement community. It is based on a

survey of the interoperability experiences

and needs of law enforcement agencies

across the Nation.1

 (See “Methodology” for

a discussion of the sampling and analysis

S Methodology

tarting in February 1997, 10-page

questionnaires were mailed to all agencies

that employ more than 100 sworn officers

and to a stratified random sample of smaller

agencies across the country. By the end of

the data collection phase in July 1997, a

total of 1,334 agencies had responded to

the questionnaire, an overall response rate

of 48 percent. Agencies were categorized by

size (six size categories based on the number

of sworn officers) and type (local police,

sheriff’s departments, special police, and

State police) for analyses. State agencies

were not included in the analyses by size.

All data in this report are based on the

respondent sample. A bias analysis was

conducted, as were analyses based on

weighted data to correct for underrepresented

or overrepresented groups. The sample

is broadly representative of the Nation,

although respondents were more likely to

have problems caused by outdated equipment and to be less confident in their ability

to handle interoperability situations.
2

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Issues and Findings

continued...

their needs. Many agencies indicated that funding assistance would

make mandates more acceptable.

• Discrepancies in State and local

perceptions about the existence of

formal State interoperability plans

suggest a need for more dialogue

between State and local law enforcement agencies.

• Most agencies have conventional

analog systems and operate in high

VHF bands, but information from

agencies planning to replace/upgrade their systems within 10 years,

46 percent of the total, indicated

that the number of agencies operating in 800 MHz will about double,

as will those using digital systems.

The use of trunked systems is also

expected to increase.

• Most radio spectrum is used for

voice transmissions but the number

of agencies devoting channels to

data-only transmissions is increasing.

Plans for use of new technologies

and mobile/portable computers will

increase the need for additional

spectrum. The use of laptops

(projected to double in the next

10 years) is currently replacing

mobile data terminals in larger

agencies.

• Dead spots and outdated

equipment are the most common

problems with radio systems.

More than half of the agencies

that complained of outdated

equipment (older than 10 years)

had plans to replace/upgrade their

radio systems.

• Channel congestion, a serious

problem for almost half the agencies, is much less of a problem for

agencies with trunked systems.

Large and State agencies indicated

the greatest need and requested

the greatest number of additional

channels.

• The use of voice and data security measures is increasing in all

agencies, although large and State

agencies currently are the most

likely to use security measures.

Target Audience: Local, State, and

Federal policymakers and law enforcement communications officials.

techniques used.) The full report provides detailed information about telecommunications equipment and

infrastructure, knowledge and training,

interoperability experience and requirements, and interoperability shortfalls.

In September 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and

the National Telecommunications and

Information Administration (NTIA) received a report from the Public Safety

Wireless Advisory Committee

(PSWAC)2 that concluded, “Unless immediate measures are taken to alleviate spectrum shortfalls and promote

interoperability, Public Safety agencies will not be able to adequately discharge their obligation to protect life

and property in a safe, efficient, and

cost-effective manner.” 3 As an initial

response to PSWAC recommendations,

the FCC is considering an allocation of

24 megahertz (MHz), essentially doubling the spectrum currently available.4 [Editor’s note 2/23/98. The

FCC approved this allocation on

January 6, 1998.]

Integral to both interagency and intraagency communications are agencycontrolled and -operated wireless

communications systems; the efficiency of these systems ultimately

depends on radio frequency availability and compatibility. Radio spectrum

is a limited resource that will become

increasingly valuable as public and

private use increases and applications

proliferate. Allocation of spectrum

represents a substantial resource investment for the country. This study

resulted from the belief that careful research and public debate should inform decisions of such magnitude. The

purpose of this research was to explore

issues identified by the Public Safety

Wireless Advisory Committee, provide

quantitative data from State and local

law enforcement agencies across the

Nation, and quantify the nature and extent of current use and anticipated needs

for wireless communications, particularly as they relate to interoperability.

Findings

This study confirms and quantifies

much of what is already “known” about

law enforcement agencies’ use of telecommunications equipment for routine

operations and for interoperability, although there are a few surprises. The

findings are organized into four categories: telecommunications equipment and infrastructure, knowledge

of interoperability standards, interoperability experience and requirements, and interoperability shortfalls.

Telecommunications

equipment and infrastructure

Mobile radios, whether handheld or

vehicle-mounted, are basic law enforcement communications equipment.

State agencies and sheriff ’s departments are more likely to use citizens

band and amateur radios, but agencies

of all sizes and types use cellular

phones and pagers. The sharing of frequencies and/or infrastructure (e.g.,

transmitters and repeaters) is very

common, and most agencies that share

radio systems remain involved in making decisions related to their system.

Land mobile radio (LMR) technology. Most agencies have conventional

analog systems and operate in high

VHF bands, but information from

agencies that were planning to replace

or upgrade their systems within 10

years, 46 percent of the total, indicated several trends: (1) the number of

agencies operating in 800 MHz5

 will

more than double, growing from 23 to

51 percent; (2) the number of agencies
3

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 1: Radio Spectrum Band Diagram

using digital systems will increase

from 13 to 25 percent; and (3) the

number using trunked systems will increase from 24 to 27 percent. Large

agencies are most likely to use

trunking—the technology that allows

more efficient use of spectrum by automatically routing users to an open

channel. Agencies with trunked systems (24 percent) reported fewer serious problems with channel congestion

than did agencies with conventional

systems. Agencies with older equipment were less likely to have trunked

systems and more likely to indicate

problems with channel congestion.

Radio frequency preferences.

Most law enforcement agencies (73

percent) currently operate at the high

end of the very high frequency (VHF)

band (see exhibit 1 for radio spectrum

allocations for public safety), although

many of them expect to move to 800

MHz when they upgrade or replace

their systems within 10 years.6

 There

were no significant differences between agencies with 800 MHz systems

and those operating in other bands

with respect to their confidence in the

ability of their radios to handle routine

day-to-day local interoperability situations. However, there was a difference

in confidence in their ability to establish radio links with State and Federal

organizations and in their ability to

handle mutual aid or task force

operations. (Agencies with 800 MHz

systems were more confident.)

LMR problems. Agencies identified

dead spots and outdated equipment as

the most common and serious problems with their radio systems (see exhibit 2). Thirty-seven percent of

respondents indicated serious problems due to topography/terrain; agenLow

VHF

25–50

MHz

High

VHF

150–174

MHz

Low UHF

T-Band

450–470

MHz

Proposed

746–806

MHz

800

MHz

806–869

MHz

cies with mountains or many highrise

buildings were the most likely to have

problems with dead spots.

Problems with land mobile radio systems do not necessarily translate into

problems with interoperability, but

given that “limitations in funding” was

rated as the most severe obstacle to

interoperability (see “Interoperability

shortfalls” on page 8), the problem of

outdated equipment was selected for

1 234

Not Enough Talk Groups

Equipment Size/Weight

Battery Problems

Static

Fading

Not Enough Channels

Frequency Interference

Not Enough Equipment

Terrain/Topography

Outdated Equipment

Dead Spots

Rating (1 = not a problem to 5 = major problem)

LMR Problems

5

Exhibit 2: Problems With Land Mobile Radio Systems
4

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

more detailed analysis. The process for

systematically replacing aging equipment appears to have somewhat

stalled: 43 percent of the agencies

reported serious problems due to outdated equipment, compared to 35 percent that reported having only minor

problems. Most of the agencies having

problems with old equipment reported

that they plan to replace or upgrade

within 10 years.

Voice and data channels. Channel

congestion is a significant problem for

many agencies, especially for large

agencies and for State police, although

the problem is alleviated somewhat by

trunking. Ninety-one percent of respondents have channels dedicated to voiceonly transmissions, 27 percent have

some channels dedicated to data-only

transmissions, and 19 percent use alternate voice and data channels. As a result

of the increasing use of wireless data

technology (related to use of mobile

data terminals [MDTs] and laptops),

the estimated need for additional dataonly channels shows the greatest rate of

increase, even though the greatest overall need is for more voice-only channels.

The study further analyzed the data

from agencies that indicated they did not

have enough channels. Agencies’ current and preferred uses of voice-only and

data-only channels were analyzed to

determine the extent of problems with

channel congestion. More than half

(53 percent) of all respondents indicated

they needed additional voice-only channels, and 30 percent indicated they

needed additional data-only channels.

(Exhibit 3 offers a comparison of agencies with sufficient voice-only channels

and agencies with insufficient voiceonly channels and the estimated voiceonly channel needs, by agency size and

type.) Agencies that said they needed

more channels (53 percent of the respondents) were asked to estimate the number of additional channels needed; they

reported a need for an overall average of

5.1 additional voice channels per agency

(a 40-percent increase) and 4.9 data channels (a 70-percent increase).

A comparison of agencies that were

satisfied with their current number of

channels and those that said they

needed additional channels showed

considerable agreement across agencies

in the number of channels considered

optimal for routine operations, including

interoperability situations. A similar

pattern was not evident for data-only

channels, perhaps because agencies

are just beginning to dedicate channels

for data transmission and are less clear

Exhibit 3: Voice-Only Channel Analysis

Note: The first bar in each size/type category represents those agencies that reported having

enough voice-only channels. The second bar in each size/type category represents

agencies that reported having insufficient channels.

about how many data channels will be

optimal. Agencies are also planning to

increase their use of wireless data applications and have yet to determine how

those new applications will translate into

a need for additional spectrum.

Agencies that reported plans to

replace or upgrade their land mobile

radio systems (46 percent of all

respondents) estimated they would

need an average of 13.7 voice-only

channels and 4.9 data-only channels

in their next system. State agencies

and agencies with 500 or more sworn

officers indicated the greatest need

for additional channels, but overall,

those that planned to replace or upgrade were not expecting big differences in the total number of channels

Agency Size and Type

No. of Voice-Only Channels

0

10

20

30

40

50

Additional Channels Needed

Current

1–9

10–24

25–4950–99

100–499

500+

Sheriff

Local

State

Special

(Size based on number of sworn officers)
5

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

0 20 40 60 80 100

Text

Database

Images

Fingerprints

Video

Percentage of Agencies

Type of Data

Currently Use

Plan to Use Within 2 Years

Exhibit 4: Current and Planned Use of Wireless Data Applications

in their next system, perhaps because

many of them planned to upgrade to

trunked systems that use the available

frequencies more efficiently.

Wireless data transmissions. According to the results of this study,

the number of law enforcement agencies that will be using free text (e.g.,

reports and queries) and database

information on MDTs and laptops

will double in the next 2 years. Although few agencies now use wireless

transmission of still images, fingerprints, or videos, many agencies plan

to use them within 2 years, if budgets

permit (see exhibit 4). The use of

MDTs and laptops is widespread and

increases with agency size. The use

of MDTs is increasing in smaller

agencies but leveling off or declining

in large agencies; however, agency

plans for the use of laptop computers

show dramatic increases across the

board.

Advanced technology. Commercially available advanced wireless

technology services are also viewed as

highly desirable. Most law enforcement agencies already use cellular

phones and more plan to begin using

them within the next 5 years. About 40

percent of all agencies expect to use

global positioning system (GPS) services within 5 years. The use of other

advanced technology services remains

low, though a significant number of

agencies indicated an interest in cellular digital packet data (28 percent) and

personal communications systems (26

percent). If budgets allow, planned use

of advanced technology will triple.

Security measures. Most agencies

said they never use voice or data security (e.g., scrambling devices, digital

encryption, or digital voice processing). This study revealed a discrepancy between the number of agencies

that say security measures are essential to their operations and the number

that use them on a regular basis. However, there appears to be a growing

awareness of the need, as well as an

increasing use of voice and data security measures. Large agencies and

State police agencies are the most

likely to use security measures of all

kinds, with digital encryption being

the most common form of security protection for both voice and data.7

Knowledge of interoperability

standards

As agency size increases, so does familiarity with initiatives related to

interoperability in wireless communications, such as the FCC Frequency

Application Process, Project 25

Interoperability Standards (see exhibit

5) and/or National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC)

guidelines.8 Agencies of all sizes and

types rated manufacturers as the primary source of information when planning the purchase of communication

technologies. Other government agencies were ranked as the second most

important source.

Seventy percent of respondents said

consideration of interoperability issues

and interoperability standards was important to their agency when planning

for the purchase of their next land mobile radio system. About a third (36

percent) of respondents indicated they

were very likely to adopt Project 25

Interoperability Standards for their

next land mobile radio system, another

third (33 percent) were somewhat

likely (middle rating of 3 on a 5-point

scale), and 19 percent were very unlikely (12 percent did not answer the

question). As exhibit 5 shows, the likelihood of adopting Project 25 Standards was not dependent on agency

familiarity with the standards.
6

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

1–9

10–2425–4950–99

100–499

500+

Sheriff

Local

State

Special

Agency Size and Type

Rating (1 = lowest to 5 = highest)

1

2

3

4

5

Likelihood

Familiarity

Importance

(Size based on number of sworn officers)

Exhibit 5: Comparisons of Importance Ratings of Interoperability Standards,

Likelihood of Adopting Project 25 Standards, and Agency Familiarity With

Project 25 Standards

Exhibit 6: Percentage of Agencies Experiencing Daily or Weekly

Interoperability Events With Federal, State, and Local Organizations

1–9

10–2425–4950–99

100–499

500+

Sheriff

Local

State

Special

Agency Size and Type

Agencies

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

State

Federal

Local

(Size based on number of sworn officers)

Interoperability experience

and requirements

Interoperability is extremely common

for law enforcement agencies of all

sizes and types, with 93 percent indicating they interoperate on a daily or

weekly basis with local organizations,

and 63 percent indicating they

interoperate with State-level organizations daily or weekly (only 15 percent

interoperate with Federal organizations

daily or weekly). (See exhibit 6.)

Eighty-two percent of respondents have

at least one radio channel solely dedicated to communicating with other organizations. Most (59 percent) use plain

English, but 37 percent use a code system for communications between agencies (7 percent said using a code

resulted in interoperability problems).

About half of the local and special police agencies participate in joint training activities with other organizations

that involve actual use of communications equipment, compared to twothirds of sheriff’s departments and

State agencies. Agencies that participate in such hands-on practice are significantly more confident in their

preparation and in their agency’s overall ability to handle interoperability

situations.

System abilities compared to

agencies’ abilities. An agency’s

overall ability to establish radio communications links includes factors that

go beyond the technical capabilities of

radio equipment (e.g., people and

training). Using reported confidence

ratings, agencies’ ability as a whole

and their radio systems’ ability to establish links at different levels were

compared. The results are summarized

in exhibit 7. Seventy-four percent of

respondents expressed a high level of

confidence in their agency’s ability to
7

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

1–9

10–2425–4950–99

100–499

500+

Sheriff

Local

State

Special

Agency Size and Type

Confidence (1 = poor to 5 = excellent)

1

2

3

4

5

State Link

Federal Link

Local Link

Agency Ability

(Size based on number of sworn officers)

Exhibit 7: Confidence Levels in Agency Ability Compared to Radio System

Ability to Establish Links

Exhibit 8: Ratings of Agency Ability Compared to System Ability to Handle

Different Types of Interoperability Situations

1–9

10–2425–4950–99

100–499

500+

Sheriff

Local

State

Special

Agency Size and Type

Confidence (1 = poor to 5 = excellent)

1

2

3

4

5

Mutual Aid

Task Force

Day-to-Day

Agency Ability

(Size based on number of sworn officers)

establish radio links at the local level,

compared to 50 percent that expressed

confidence in their ability to establish

links with State organizations, and 15

percent with Federal organizations.

(See exhibit 7.) More agencies expressed confidence in the ability of

their radio system to handle day-to-day

interoperability (57 percent) than to

handle mutual aid (33 percent) or task

force (32 percent) situations. (See exhibit 8.) Almost half (43 percent) were

very confident in their agency’s overall

ability to handle interoperability situations, but 22 percent rated their

agency’s overall ability to establish

communications links as poor.

Use of formal interoperability

agreements. Interactions with Federal

organizations are relatively uncommon

for most local agencies but considerably

more common for State agencies and

larger agencies. Local agencies are the

least likely to use written interoperability

agreements, and smaller agencies are

consistently less likely to use written

agreements than larger agencies. State

agencies interact with the greatest number of Federal, State, and local organizations and are most likely to use formal

agreements. Most agencies use high

band VHF for interoperating with other

organizations, although larger agencies

are more likely to use 800 MHz systems

than smaller agencies.

Local versus State-level

interoperability planning. Sheriff’s

departments, local police, and special

police indicated a preference for local,

regional, or multijurisdictional

interoperability planning, while State

agencies preferred State-level planning. Only one-quarter of the responding State agencies indicated their State

had a formal State interoperability plan,

but a few local agencies in almost every
8

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 9: Obstacles to Interoperability

Commercial

Different Modes

Institutional

Coverage

Planning

Different Bands

Limitations in Funding

Rating (1 = not a problem to 5 = major problem)

Obstacle

1 2345

State indicated they thought there was

a State plan. The discrepancy between

State and local perceptions suggests a

need for more dialogue and better information dissemination.

Interoperability shortfalls

As part of the survey, agencies were

asked to rate obstacles to interoperability. Agencies of all sizes and types

rated “limitations in funding” and

“different bands” as the two biggest

obstacles to interoperability. A comparison of the average ratings gives an

indication of the extent to which each

of the obstacles identified by the

PSWAC Interoperability Subcommittee has been experienced by State and

local law enforcement agencies (see

exhibit 9).

Overall, 69 percent of respondents

rated limitations in funding as a severe

problem (88 percent of State agencies,

78 percent of special police, 70 percent of sheriff’s departments, and 67

percent of local police). Agencies that

rated limitations in funding as a serious problem also rated both their radio

system’s ability and their agency’s

ability to handle different types of

interoperability situations significantly

lower than did agencies that believed

themselves to be adequately funded.

Underfunded agencies were significantly more likely to identify outdated

equipment as a serious problem, but

they were no more or less likely to be

planning to replace or upgrade their

radio systems, to share frequencies

and/or infrastructure with other organizations, or to have a channel solely

dedicated to communicating with other

organizations. They were just as likely

as their better funded colleagues to

participate in joint training activities

that involved the use of communications equipment.

State agencies (68 percent) and special

police (60 percent) were the most likely

to experience severe interoperability

problems because of different frequency bands, although a large number

of local police (51 percent) and sheriff’s

departments (47 percent) also indicated

severe problems. Generally, larger

agencies experienced more problems

because of different frequency bands

than smaller agencies. Larger agencies

were also more likely to have 800 MHz

systems. To work around frequency incompatibilities, agencies have developed a variety of “low tech” methods,

which include using walkie-talkies and

scanners, posting representatives in

dispatch centers to relay information,

and issuing mobile radios to other agencies. Nearly half of the respondents

(47 percent) reported being able to

patch across channels if necessary.

Three out of ten agencies indicated

severe obstacles to interoperability

because of a lack of adequate planning. Differences in coverage areas,

human and institutional limitations

(such as agency concerns about maintaining communications links and reluctance to allow agency personnel to

join other systems), and different communication modes (analog versus

digital) have an adverse effect on

approximately one in four agencies.

Limitations in commercial services

(e.g., telephones, fax machines, and

cellular phones) were viewed as a

minor problem.

When agencies were asked if they

thought there should be “date certain”

timelines to ensure implementation of

interoperability standards, they were

slightly more likely to say “yes” (35

percent) than “no” (28 percent). However, it is difficult to draw a firm conclusion because 37 percent of them did

not answer the question (it was the last

item on the questionnaire). Written
9

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

responses suggested linking Federal or

State dollars to mandates, but many

agencies noted that an external requirement could help them free up the funds

needed to update their equipment. One

respondent wrote in, “The only way we

will update our system is if it is mandated. If not, the council will not spend

the money.” Another respondent wrote,

“no money, no mandate.” Many of the

written responses raised issues related

to cost and local control.

All sizes and types of agencies expect

their agency’s overall ability to handle

interoperability situations to improve

over the next 5 years. This generally

optimistic outlook may be related to the

fact that more than half of them plan to

replace or upgrade their radio systems

within the next 10 years, and many

plan to adopt new technologies that can

improve interoperability by increasing

efficiency and effectiveness.

Discussion and conclusions

This study confirms and quantifies

much of what was already “known”

or suspected. It may also hold a few

surprises for some readers. The data

support the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) conclusion

that many agencies are experiencing

serious problems with interoperability.

The data also support contentions that

there is a need for additional spectrum, and that larger agencies and

State agencies have greater needs for

additional spectrum than smaller

agencies. The actual number of additional channels that agencies say they

need is not large, and requests for additional channels appear to be reasonable when one compares the total

number being requested to the number

of channels now being used by agencies of different sizes that say they already have sufficient channels.

There is widespread use of channels

dedicated solely to communicating

with other organizations (i.e., to

interoperability) and a high level of

confidence in interoperability with

other local organizations. Written comments revealed a variety of “solutions”

that have been patched together by

agencies. The creativity that has gone

into solving local interoperability

problems may be one of the factors

involved in the decline in confidence

when agencies rate their ability to

interoperate with State agencies and

the still further decline when they are

asked to rate their ability to interoperate with Federal agencies. The question becomes “whose problem is it?”

Specific obstacles to interoperability

have been rated and ranked by the

number and extent of agencies that experience them as a problem. Each community and each law enforcement

agency is working with a unique combination of interrelated factors. As a result, the data presented here may allow

them to assess their own experience

against the national profile, but decisions must still be made locally. The

finding that most agencies prefer local

(rather than State or national) planning

for interoperability appears to contradict the PSWAC conclusion that a common, nationwide mutual aid plan and

incident command system is necessary

for interoperability.9

Some of the problems agencies are

experiencing with their radio systems

are undoubtedly related to the issues

they identified as obstacles to

interoperability. Limitations in funding

contribute to problems with outdated

equipment, insufficient equipment,

channel congestion, and insufficient

infrastructure to compensate for dead

spots. But funding cannot solve all of

the problems agencies are experiencing. Topography/terrain may make

it difficult or impossible to totally

eliminate dead spots, particularly in

mountainous regions and areas with

many highrise buildings.

The general knowledge level among

smaller agencies should be a concern

for State and national policymakers, as

should the resentment smaller agencies feel toward the influence exerted

by large agencies and their perceived

loss of control over their local budgeting. On the other hand, these data support the observation that external

mandates can serve as either a threat

or opportunity, depending on the

agency. Even though the FCC has

made a special effort to move allocation decisions for some of the 800

MHz spectrum to the State and local

level (using the NPSPAC guidelines

and process), agencies with 800 MHz

systems were no more likely to give favorable ratings to the FCC application

process than were their colleagues operating under the existing process.

Policy implications

Attorney General Janet Reno, in her

recent address to the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP),

referred to radio spectrum as a “precious commodity” subject to “fierce

competition” and “among the most

pressing issues faced at every level of

law enforcement.” She encouraged

IACP to begin thinking about the cost

of upgrading and how to pay for it.10

Law enforcement agencies are concerned about the cost of communications equipment and are already

working to systematically replace

aging equipment, but a disproportionate number of agencies are still working with old equipment. Because of

the rapidly changing nature of radio
10

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

technology, some agencies, especially

larger agencies for which a complete

overhaul of their communications system is a major investment, may be

holding off until the bugs get worked

out of the technology.

Most of the agencies that complained

of outdated equipment already have

plans to replace or upgrade their systems within the next 10 years. At a

time when technology is changing rapidly, 10 years can be a long time. This

study found an average equipment

lifecycle of about 8 to 15 years (depending on the size of the agency and

the cost of the system to be replaced).

Agencies are generally willing to adopt

Project 25 Interoperability Standards

when they upgrade but would clearly

appreciate Federal or State funds to

help defray or absorb the costs. The

policy question is whether to allow the

replacement process to happen naturally as a result of agency need and

market forces, or to use incentives and

sanctions to speed the process.

The extent to which channel congestion is a threat to an agency’s effectiveness and ability to carry out its

mandate is ultimately a local determination, although this study suggests

that many communities would have to

depend on marginal communications

equipment should a disaster strike.

Agencies are making plans to increase

the use of available spectrum by expanding the use of wireless data applications and accessing commercially

available services, such as cellular

voice, global positioning system, cellular digital packet data, specialized

mobile radio, and satellite systems.

Even if funding were unlimited, spectrum is not. New technologies (e.g.,

trunking) can increase efficiency in the

use of spectrum, but the demand for

advanced technology services and the

increasing use of mobile computers by

agencies of all sizes and types will

require additional spectrum. An FCC

decision to allocate additional spectrum for public safety is consistent

with the needs identified in this study.

Wise decisions about the actual

amount of additional spectrum needed

will require further analysis of both

quantitative data and political realities. The allocation of additional public safety spectrum, narrow-banding,

increased use of trunking across all

bands, digital technology, and other

innovations may make it possible to

absorb continued expansion of applications with limited spectrum.

The fragmentation of public safety

spectrum is a complex problem. The

migration to 800 MHz and the allocation of adjoining spectrum for public

safety could greatly facilitate

interoperability, and the national negotiation and adoption of interoperability

standards may serve as an impetus to

hasten the shift to higher frequencies.

On the other hand, this study also

identified problems related to the shift

to greater use of 800 MHz by the

larger agencies—a shift that facilitates

interoperability for those that are on

the system but may isolate them from

smaller colleagues and neighbors that

are not using 800 MHz. Also, the

needs of some agencies are best served

by operating in VHF or ultra high frequency (UHF) bands.

This study found surprisingly little

support for national interoperability

planning, and it revealed some of the

reasons the vast majority of agencies

prefer local planning. Agencies

interoperate primarily with other local

organizations. They have more confidence in their ability to handle all

kinds of interoperability events with

the organizations they interact with on

a regular basis. The data suggest that

interoperability problems may be more

of a State and/or Federal issue than a

local issue—it was in the interactions

with these more distant colleagues that

agencies expressed the least confidence in their ability to establish radio

communications links.

Agencies that participate in joint

training activities that involve use of

communications equipment have more

confidence in their ability to respond

to interoperability situations. Written

comments confirmed that critical incidents often spur communities into action and release funds for upgrading

wireless communications systems. The

cost of communications equipment

appears to be contributing to the increasing use of regional communications centers that cross jurisdictions

and facilitate interoperability.

The intent of this study was to provide

data that could be used by policymakers

at all levels, by agencies of all sizes and

types. Aggregate data such as those

presented by this study are useful for

developing a broadbrush portrait of

nationwide practice and even for assessing national trends. A national

portrait can provide important information for comparisons, and data such

as those presented here can inform the

decisionmaking process, but ultimately

local decisionmakers must weigh many

factors and assess the value of the data

for the decisions they have to make.
11

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Notes

1. A follow-on study, due to be completed in

1998, is currently underway to collect similar

information from the fire, emergency medical,

and emergency management communities.

2. The Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee was established to advise the FCC and

NTIA on public safety needs and concerns related to spectrum allocations.

3. Irving, Larry, Final Report of the Public

Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC)

to the Federal Communications Commission

and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, September 11, 1996,

page 2.

4. Clark, John F., “Public Safety Communications in the Years Ahead: A Time of Crisis and

Opportunity,” Remarks to the annual business

meeting of the Major Cities Chiefs of Police,

Orlando, Florida, October 25, 1997.

5. The term “800 MHz” is used throughout this

report as shorthand for all public safety frequencies between 806 and 869 MHz.

6. Of the 46 percent of surveyed agencies who

plan to replace/upgrade their systems in the

next 10 years, 61 percent (28 percent of all

agencies surveyed) expect to purchase 800

MHz systems.

7. Agencies that use laptops and/or MDTs are

significantly more likely to view security measures as essential and use such measures on a

daily or weekly basis compared to agencies that

do not use MDTs or laptops.

8. For more information about the FCC

Frequency Application Process or NPSPAC

Guidelines, contact: Joy Alford, Federal Communications Commission, Public Safety and

Private Wireless Division, 2025 M Street N.W.,

Room 8010, Washington, DC 20554

(202–418–0680 or e-mail jalford@fcc.gov).

For information about the Project 25

Interoperability Standards, contact: Ali

Shunami, APCO International, 2040 South

Ridgewood Avenue, South Daytona, FL

32119–8437 (800–272–6911 or e-mail

apco@apcoind.org).

9. This conclusion is based on the statements

made in the final PSWAC report. Although

there is no nationwide plan or incident command system, there are radio channels that

have been dedicated nationwide for mutual aid.

10. Reno, Janet. October 27, 1997. Remarks on

Public Safety Radio Communications excerpted

from her address to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Orlando, Florida, October 27, 1997.

Glossary

Analog Modulation Technique—

Process whereby a message signal,

which is the analog of some physical

quantity, is impressed on a carrier

signal for transmission through a

channel (e.g., FM).

Cellular Digital Packet Data

(CDPD)—an open transmission

control protocol /Internet protocol

(TCP/IP) standard for cellular data

communications.

Conventional Radio System—

Nontrunked, similar to telephone

party line in that the user determines

availability by listening for an open

channel.

Digital Modulation Technique—

Technique for placing a digital data

sequence on a carrier signal for

subsequent transmission through a

channel.

Global Positioning System—

Based on 24 satellites orbiting earth

at 11,000 miles.

Interoperability Standards—

Established protocols that provide

common interface between different

communication systems.

Mobile Data Terminal (MDT)—

Small computer-like system, usually installed in a patrol car, which allows the

officer to receive and transmit a limited

range of information between the officer

and communications center.

NPSPAC Guidelines—National

Public Safety Planning Advisory

Committee’s nationwide public safety

plan for the 821–824 MHz and 866–

869 MHz bands.

Project 25 Standards—A joint

government/industry effort to develop

technical standards for the next

generation of public safety radios, both

voice and data.

Spectrum—The usable radio frequencies in the electromagnetic distribution. Specific frequencies have been

allocated to the public safety community. They include:

Low VHF 25–50 MHz

High VHF 150–174 MHz

Low UHF 450–470 MHz

UHF TV Sharing 470–512 MHz

800 MHz 806–869 MHz

Talk Group—A subgroup of radio

users who share a common functional

responsibility and usually only coordinate actions among themselves and

therefore do not require radio interface with other subgroups.

Trunked Radio System—A system that integrates multiple channel

pairs into a single system. When a

user wants to transmit a message, the

trunked system automatically selects

a currently unused channel pair and

assigns it to the user, decreasing the

probability of having to wait for a free

channel for a given channel loading.
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

This project was conducted by the

National Law Enforcement and

Corrections Technology Center–

Rocky Mountain Region (NLECTC–

RM) and supported under award

number 95–IJ–CX–004 to the

University of Denver, by the National

Institute of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Funding was provided by the

Joint Program Steering Group. The

Joint Program Steering Group was

established by the U.S. Departments

of Justice and Defense to oversee the

development of law enforcement

technologies of benefit to both agencies. The principal researchers were

Mary Taylor, Ph.D., Sr. Research

Analyst, Denver Research Institute,

University of Denver; Robert C.

Epper, Deputy Director, Technology

Programs, NLECTC–RM; and Thomas Tolman, Manager, Communications Technology, NLECTC–RM.

The full report (NCJ 168961) and

this Research in Brief are available

online through the Justice Information web site (http://www.ncjrs.org)

or the NIJ web site (http://www.

ojp.usdoj.gov/nij). For copies of these

documents contact the National

Criminal Justice Reference Service

(NCJRS), 800–851–3420, P.O. Box

6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000.

NCJ 168945

The National Institute of Justice is a

component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau

of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for

Victims of Crime.