Testimony Before the Subcommittee on 

National Security, Emerging Threats, and 

International Relations 

Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST 

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Leadership and 

Intergovernmental 

Cooperation Required to 

Achieve First Responder 

Interoperable 

Communications 

Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr. 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues 

GAO-04-963T 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-963T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact William Jenkins 

at (202) 512-8777 or jenkinsw@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-963T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on National 

Security, Emerging Threats, and 

International Relations, 

Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives 

July 2004

HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Leadership and 

Intergovernmental Cooperation Required 

to Achieve First Responder Interoperable 

Communications 

In a November 6, 2003, testimony, GAO said that no one group or level of 

government could “fix” the nation’s interoperable communications 

problems. Success would require effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary 

and intergovernmental planning. 

The present extent and scope nationwide of public safety wireless 

communication systems’ ability to talk among themselves as necessary and 

authorized has not been determined. Data on current conditions compared 

to needs are necessary to develop plans for improvement and measure 

progress over time. However, the nationwide data needed to do this are not 

currently available. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intends to 

obtain this information by the year 2005 by means of a nationwide survey. 

However, at the time of our review, DHS had not yet developed its detailed 

plans for conducting this survey and reporting its results. 

The federal government can take a leadership role in support of efforts to 

improve interoperability by developing national requirements and a national 

architecture, developing nationwide databases, and providing technical and 

financial support for state and local efforts to improve interoperability. In 

2001, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established the federal 

government’s Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications 

Program, SAFECOM, to unify efforts to achieve national wireless 

communications interoperability. However, SAFECOM’s authority and 

ability to oversee and coordinate federal and state efforts has been limited 

by its dependence upon other agencies for funding and their willingness to 

cooperate. OMB is currently examining alternative methods to implement 

SAFECOM’s mission. In addition, DHS, where SAFECOM now resides, has 

recently announced it is establishing an Office for Interoperability and 

Compatibility to coordinate the federal response to the problems of 

interoperability in several functions, including wireless communications. 

The exact structure and funding for this office, which will include 

SAFECOM, are still being developed. 

State and local governments can play a large role in developing and 

implementing plans to improve public safety agencies’ interoperable 

communications. State and local governments own most of the physical 

infrastructure of public safety communications systems, and states play a 

central role in managing emergency communications. The Federal 

Communications Commission recognized the central role of states in 

concluding that states should manage the public safety interoperability 

channels in the 700 MHz communications spectrum. States, with broad input 

from local governments, are a logical choice to serve as a foundation for 

interoperability planning because incidents of any level of severity originate 

at the local level with states as the primary source of support. However, 

states are not required to develop interoperability plans, and there is no clear

guidance on what should be included in such plans. 

Lives of first responders and those 

whom they are trying to assist can 

be lost when first responders 

cannot communicate effectively as 

needed. This report addresses 

issues of determining the status of 

interoperable wireless 

communications across the nation, 

and the potential roles that federal 

state, local governments can play in 

improving these communications. 

GAO recommends that the 

Secretary of DHS (1) continue to 

develop a nationwide database of 

and common terminology for 

public safety interoperability 

communications channels; 

(2) assess interoperability in 

specific locations against defined 

requirements; (3) through federal 

grant awards encourage state 

action to establish and support a 

statewide body to develop and 

implement detailed improvement 

plans; and (4) encourage that grant 

applications be in compliance with 

statewide interoperability plans, 

once they are developed. GAO also 

recommends that the Director of 

OMB work with DHS to review 

SAFECOM’s functions and 

establish a long-term program with 

appropriate authority and funding 

to coordinate interoperability 

efforts across the federal 

government. 

DHS generally agreed with our first 

two recommendations but did not 

specifically address the other 

recommendations to DHS. OMB 

had no comments. 
Page 1 GAO-04-963T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the critical issue 

of wireless interoperable communications for first responders.1

 In 

testimony last November before this subcommittee, we pointed out that 

the inability of first responders—police officers, fire fighters, emergency 

medical service personnel, public health officials, and others—to 

communicate effectively over wireless systems with one another as 

needed during an emergency is a long-standing and widely recognized 

problem in many areas across the country.2

 Reports have shown that when 

first responders cannot communicate effectively as needed, it can literally 

cost lives of both emergency responders and those they are trying to 

assist. Thus, effective communications between and among wireless 

communications systems used by federal, state, and local public safety 

agencies is generally accepted as not only desirable but essential for the 

protection of life and property. Public safety officials generally recognize 

that effective “interoperable” communications is the ability to talk with 

whom they want, when they want, when authorized, but not the ability to 

talk with everyone all of the time. The effective interoperability of wireless 

systems permits a rapid and coordinated response to an emergency 

incident, whether that incident is a “routine” spill from an overturned 

tanker truck or railcar, a natural disaster, or a terrorist attack. 

In this statement and in the report we are releasing today,3

 we examine 

(1) issues in determining the current interoperable communications 

capabilities of first responders nationwide, including the scope and 

severity of interoperable wireless communications problems across the 

nation; (2) the potential roles that federal, state, and local governments 

can play in improving these communications, and (3) how the variety of 

federal grants for state and local first responders may encourage or inhibit 

 1

Our work addressed issues of public safety wireless communications interoperability—

communications that use radio frequency waves, such as cellular telephones and other 

types of wireless radios—instead of telephone wires for transmitting voice and data. We 

did not address interoperability problems that may be found in other homeland security 

functions, such as fire equipment, chem-bio equipment, and information technology. 

2

U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving 

Interoperable Communications for First Responders, GAO 04-231T (Washington, D.C.: 

November 6, 2003). 

3

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and 

Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable 

Communications, GAO-04-740 (Washington, D.C.: July 2004). 
Page 2 GAO-04-963T 

the assessment of interoperable problems and the development of 

comprehensive plans to address those problems. 

In doing our work, we met with federal, state, and local officials, obtained 

and reviewed appropriate documentation, attended several meetings of 

public safety communications officials, and met with staff of the National 

Governors Association. We conducted our work from July 2003 through 

June 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

• The fundamental barrier to effectively addressing wireless interoperability 

problems for public safety has been the lack of effective, collaborative, 

interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental cooperation and planning. 

• Interoperable communications needs are a function of effective incident 

command planning and operations structure that defines, for different 

circumstances and types of events, who is in charge and what types of 

information—voice, data, or both—would need to be communicated to 

whom under what circumstances. 

• The current wireless interoperable communications capabilities of first 

responders nationwide has not been determined. To assess these 

capabilities a set of requirements is needed that can be used to assess 

“what is” compared to “what should be.” The Office of Management and 

Budget has designated SAFECOM, within the Department of Homeland 

Security, as the focal point for coordinating federal efforts to improve 

interoperable communications. In April 2004, SAFECOM issued a 

document designed to serve as a set of baseline requirements and is 

working to develop a baseline of current capabilities by July 2005. This is a 

difficult task, and the details of SAFECOM’s baseline study are still being 

worked out. 

• The federal, state, and local governments all have important roles in 

assessing interoperability needs, identifying gaps in meeting those needs, 

and developing comprehensive plans for closing those gaps. 

Summary 

Defining the Problem: 

Assessing Current 

Capabilities 

Federal Leadership and 

Intergovernmental 

Cooperation Is Needed 
Page 3 GAO-04-963T 

• The federal government can provide the leadership, long-term 

commitment, and focus to help state and local governments meet these 

goals. For example, the federal government can provide the leadership and 

support for developing (1) a national architecture that identifies 

communications requirements and technical standards, (2) a national 

database of interoperable communications frequencies, (3) a common 

nomenclature for those frequencies, and (4) statewide interoperable 

communications plans. 

• SAFECOM’s ability to provide federal leadership and coordination is 

hampered by its dependence upon other federal agencies for funding and 

cooperation. SAFECOM is to negotiate an annual memorandum of 

understanding on funding or program participation with each federal 

agency that OMB has designated as a partner with SAFECOM. 

• DHS has recently created the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility, 

which it expects to be fully established by November 2004. As of June 

2004, the exact structure and funding for the office, including SAFECOM’s 

role within the office, were still being developed. 

• With broad input from local governments and first responders, states can 

serve as focal points for statewide planning to improve interoperable 

communications. The Federal Communications Commission has 

recognized the important role of states by providing them authority to 

administer the interoperability channels within the 700 MHz band of 

communications spectrum. 

• Some states are working to develop statewide plans. However, states are 

not required to establish a statewide capability to (1) integrate statewide 

and regional interoperability planning or (2) prepare statewide 

interoperability plans that maximize use of spectrum to meet the range of 

interoperability needs within the state. Nor is there is any guidance for 

states on what such plans should include. 

• The fragmented federal grant structure for first responders does not 

support statewide interoperability planning. SAFECOM has developed 

grant guidance for interoperability, but cannot require that consistent 

guidance be incorporated in all federal first responder grants. 

• The structure of some federal grants does not support long-term planning 

efforts because, for example, they did not require a communications plan 

prior to receiving grant funds and required a 1- or 2-year performance 

period. 

Federal Grant Structure 

Does Not Support 

Statewide Planning 
Page 4 GAO-04-963T 

• The federal and state governments lack a coordinated grant review 

process to ensure that funds allocated to local governments are used for 

communication projects that complement each other and add to overall 

statewide and national interoperability capacity. 

We recommend that the Secretary of DHS: 

• in coordination with the FCC and the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration, set target dates for completing the 

development of a nationwide interoperable frequency database and 

common nomenclature for those frequencies; 

• establish national interoperable communications requirements and assist 

states in assessing current capacities against those requirements; 

• use DHS grant guidance to encourage states to establish a single statewide 

body to assess and develop statewide plans for improving interoperable 

communications; and 

• at the appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that all state 

or local grant applications for equipment purchases conform with 

statewide interoperable communications plans. 

We also recommend that the Director of OMB, in conjunction with DHS, 

review the interoperability mission and functions now assigned to 

SAFECOM and establish those functions as a long-term program with 

adequate coordination authority and funding. 

DHS generally agreed with the first two recommendations, but did not 

directly address the third and fourth recommendations. OMB had no 

comments on our draft report or recommendations. 

Interoperable communications is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a 

necessary means for achieving an important goal—the ability to respond 

effectively to and mitigate incidents that require the coordinated actions of 

first responders, such as multi-vehicle accidents, natural disasters, or 

terrorist attacks. Public safety officials have pointed out that needed 

interoperable communications capabilities are based on whether 

communications are needed for (1) “mutual-aid responses” or routine dayto-day coordination between two local agencies; (2) extended task force 

operations involving members of different agencies coming together to 

work on a common problem, such as the 2002 sniper attacks in the 

Recommendations 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-04-963T 

Washington, D.C. metropolitan area; or (3) a major event that requires 

response from a variety of local, state, and federal agencies, such as major 

wildfires, hurricanes, or the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. A 

California State official with long experience in public safety 

communications breaks the major event category into three separate types 

of events: (1) planned events, such as the Olympics, for which plans can be 

made in advance; (2) recurring events, such as major wildfires and other 

weather events, that can be expected every year and for which 

contingency plans can be prepared based on past experience; and 

(3) unplanned events, such as the September 11th attacks, that can rapidly 

overwhelm the ability of local forces to handle the problem. 

Interoperable communications are but one component, although a key 

one, of an effective incident command planning and operations structure. 

As shown in figure 1, determining the most appropriate means of 

achieving interoperable communications must flow from an 

comprehensive incident command and operations plan that includes 

developing an operational definition of who is in charge for different types 

of events and what types of information would need to be communicated 

(voice, data, or both) to whom under what circumstances. Other steps 

include: 

• defining the range of interoperable communications capabilities needed 

for specific types of events; 

• assessing the current capabilities to meet these communications needs; 

• identifying the gap between current capabilities and defined requirements; 

• assessing alternative means of achieving defined interoperable 

communications requirements; and 

• developing a comprehensive plan—including, for example, mutual aid 

agreements, technology and equipment specifications, and training—for 

closing the gap between current capabilities and identified requirements. 

Interoperable communications requirements are not static, but change 

over time with changing circumstances (e.g., new threats) and technology 

(e.g., new equipment), and additional available broadcast spectrum. 

Consequently, both a short- and long-term “feedback loop” that 

incorporates regular assessments of current capabilities and needed 

changes is important. 
Page 6 GAO-04-963T 

FIGURE 1: A Planning Process for Interoperable Communications 

In addition, the first responder community is extensive and extremely 

diverse in size and the types of equipment in their communications 

systems. According to SAFECOM officials,4

 there are over 2.5 million 

public safety first responders within more than 50,000 public safety 

organizations in the United States. Local and state agencies own over 

90 percent of the existing public safety communications infrastructure. 

This intricate public safety communications infrastructure incorporates a 

wide variety of technologies, equipment types, and spectrum bands.5

 In 

 4

The Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program (SAFECOM) was 

established in 2001 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to focus on 

communications interoperability issues. 

5

Spectrum bands are the useable radio frequencies in the electromagnetic distribution. 

Specific frequencies have been allocated to the public safety community. 
Page 7 GAO-04-963T 

addition to the difficulty that this complex environment poses for federal, 

state, and local coordination, 85 percent of fire personnel, and nearly as 

many emergency management technicians, are volunteers with elected 

leadership. Many of these agencies are small and do not have technical 

expertise; only the largest of the agencies have engineers and technicians. 

In the past, a stovepiped, single jurisdiction, or agency-specific 

communication systems development approach prevailed—resulting in 

none or less than desired interoperable communications systems. Public 

safety agencies have historically planned and acquired communications 

systems for their own jurisdictions without concern for interoperability. 

This meant that each state and local agency developed communications 

systems to meet their own requirements, without regard to interoperability 

requirements to talk to adjacent jurisdictions. 

For over 15 years, the federal government has been concerned with public 

safety spectrum issues, including communications interoperability issues.6

A variety of federal departments and agencies have been involved in 

efforts to define the problem and to identify potential solutions, such as 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice 

(DOJ), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National 

Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) within the 

Department of Commerce (DOC), among others. Today, a combination of 

federal agencies, programs, and associations are involved in coordinating 

emergency communications. 

DHS has several agencies and programs involved with addressing first 

responder interoperable communication barriers, including the SAFECOM 

program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the 

Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). As one of its 24 E-Gov 

initiatives, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2001 created 

SAFECOM to unify the federal government’s efforts to help coordinate the 

work at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels to establish reliable 

public safety communications and achieve national wireless 

 6

The radiofrequency spectrum is the medium that enables wireless communications of all 

kinds. Although the radio spectrum spans the range from 3 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz, 

90 percent of its use is concentrated in the 1 percent of frequencies that lie below 

3.1 gigahertz, because these frequencies have properties that make this portion of the 

spectrum well suited for many important wireless technologies. Radio waves are a form of 

electromagnetic radiation that propagate in space as the result of particle oscillations. The 

number of oscillations per second is called “frequency,” which is measured in units of 

hertz. The term “kilohertz” refers to thousands of hertz and “gigahertz” to billions of hertz. 
Page 8 GAO-04-963T 

communications interoperability. The SAFECOM program was brought 

into DHS in early 2003. In June 2003, SAFECOM partnered with the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National 

Institute of Justice (NIJ) to hold a summit that brought together over 

60 entities involved with communications interoperability policy setting or 

programs. 

Several technical factors specifically limit interoperability of public safety 

wireless communications systems. First, public safety agencies have been 

assigned frequencies in new bands over time as available frequencies 

become congested and as new technology made other frequencies 

available for use. As a result, public safety agencies now operate over 

multiple frequency bands—operating on these different bands required 

different radios because technology was not available to include all bands 

in one radio. Thus, the new bands provided additional capabilities but 

fragmented the public safety radio frequency spectrum, making 

communications among different jurisdictions difficult. Another technical 

factor inhibiting interoperability is the different technologies or different 

applications of the same technology by manufacturers of public safety 

radio equipment. One manufacturer may design equipment with 

proprietary technology that will not work with equipment produced by 

another manufacturer. 

The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the 

nation—including the current interoperable communications capabilities 

of first responders and the scope and severity of the problems that may 

exist—has not been determined. Although various reports have 

documented the lack of interoperability of public safety first responders 

wireless communications in specific locations, complete and current data 

do not exist documenting the scope and severity of the problem at the 

local, state, interstate, or federal levels across the nation. Accumulating 

this data may be difficult, however, because several problems inhibit 

efforts to identify and define current interoperable communications 

capabilities and future requirements. 

First, current capabilities must be measured against a set of requirements 

for interoperable communications, and these requirements vary according 

to the characteristics of specific incidents at specific locations. Who needs 

to talk to whom, when they need to talk, and what set of communications 

capabilities should be built or acquired to satisfy these requirements 

depends upon whether interoperable communications are needed for dayto-day mutual aid, task force operations that occur when members of 

Nature and Scope of 

Interoperable 

Communication 

Problems Nationwide 

Are Unknown 
Page 9 GAO-04-963T 

different agencies come together to work on a common problem such as 

the National Capitol Region sniper investigation, or major events such as a 

terrorist attack. Requirements for interoperable communications also may 

change with the expanding definition of first responders—from the 

traditional police, fire, and emergency medical providers to include such 

professions as health care providers and other professions—and the 

evolution of new technology. 

Establishing a national baseline for public safety wireless communications 

interoperability will be difficult because the definition of who to include as 

a first responder is evolving, and interoperability problems and solutions 

are situation specific and change over time to reflect new technologies and 

operational requirements. In a joint SAFECOM/AGILE7

 program planning 

meeting in December 2003, participants agreed that a national baseline is 

necessary to know what the nation’s interoperability status really is, to set 

goals, and to measure progress. However, at the meeting, participants said 

they did not know how they were going to define interoperability, how 

they could measure interoperability, or how to select their sample of 

representative jurisdictions; this was all to be determined at a later date. 

SAFECOM has embarked on an effort to establish a national baseline of 

interoperable communications capabilities by July 2005, but SAFECOM is 

still working out the details of the study that would be used to develop the 

baseline. At the time of our review, SAFECOM officials acknowledged that 

establishing a baseline will be difficult and said they are working out the 

details of their baseline study but still expect to complete it by July 2005. 

DHS also has other work under way that may provide a tool for such selfassessments by public safety officials. An ODP official in the Border and 

Transportation Security Directorate of DHS said ODP is supporting the 

development of a communications and interoperability needs assessment 

for 118 jurisdictions that make up the Kansas City region. The official said 

the assessment will provide an inventory of communications equipment 

and identify how the equipment is used. He also said the results of this 

prototype effort will be placed on a CD-Rom and distributed to states and 

localities to provide a tool to conduct their own self assessments. 

SAFECOM officials said they will review ODP’s assessment tool as part of 

a coordinated effort and use this tool if it meets the interoperability 

requirements of first responders. 

 7

The Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement (AGILE) is a key DOJ 

program promoting wireless interoperability for first responders. 
Page 10 GAO-04-963T 

Second, technical standards for interoperable communications are still 

under development. Beginning in 1989, a partnership between industry and 

the public safety user community developed what is known as Project 25 

(P- 25) standards. According to the Public Safety Wireless Network 

(PSWN)8

 program office, Project 25 standards remain the only userdefined set of standards in the United States for public safety 

communications. DHS purchased radios that incorporate the P-25 

standards for each of the nation’s 28 urban search and rescue teams. 

PSWN believes P-25 is an important step toward achieving 

interoperability, but the standards do not mandate interoperability among 

all manufacturers’ systems. Standards development continues today as 

new technologies emerge that meet changing user needs and new policy 

requirements. 

Third, new public safety mission requirements for video, imaging, and 

high-speed data transfers, new and highly complex digital communications 

systems, and the use of commercial wireless systems are potential sources 

of new interoperability problems. Availability of new spectrum can also 

encourage the development of new technologies and require further 

development of technical standards. For example, the FCC recently 

designated a new band of spectrum, the 4.9 Gigahertz (GHz) band, for use 

and support of public safety. The FCC provided this additional spectrum 

to public safety users to support new broadband applications such as highspeed digital technologies and wireless local area networks for incident 

scene management. The FCC requested in particular comments on the 

implementation of technical standards for fixed and mobile operations on 

the band. NPSTC has established a task force that includes work on 

interoperability standards for the 4.9 GHz band. 

 8

The Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury formed PSWN to promote 

effective public safety communications and to foster interoperability among local, state, 

federal, and tribal communications systems. PSWN was incorporated into DHS as part of 

the SAFECOM project in 2003. 
Page 11 GAO-04-963T 

The federal government, states, and local governments have important 

roles to play in assessing interoperability needs, identifying gaps in 

meeting those needs, and developing comprehensive plans for closing 

those gaps. The federal government can provide the leadership, long-term 

commitment, and focus to help state and local governments meet these 

goals. For example, currently national requirements for interoperable 

communications are incomplete and no national architecture exists, there 

is no standard database to coordinate frequencies, and no common 

nomenclature or terminology exists for interoperability channels. States 

alone cannot develop the requirements or a national architecture, compile 

the nationwide frequency database, or develop a common nationwide 

nomenclature. Moreover, the federal government alone can allocate 

communications spectrum for public safety use. 

One key barrier to the development of a national interoperability strategy 

has been the lack of a statement of national mission requirements for 

public safety—what set of communications capabilities should be built or 

acquired—and a strategy to get there. A key initiative in the SAFECOM 

program plan for the year 2005 is to complete a comprehensive Public 

Safety Statement of Requirements. The Statement is to provide functional 

requirements that define how, when, and where public safety practitioners 

communicate. On April 26, 2004, DHS announced the release of the first 

comprehensive Statement of Requirements defining future communication 

requirements and outlining future technology needed to meet these 

requirements. According to DHS, the Statement provides a shared vision 

and an architectural framework for future interoperable public safety 

communications. DHS describes the Statement of Requirements as a living 

document that will define future communications services as they change 

or become new requirements for public safety agencies in carrying out 

their missions. SAFECOM officials said additional versions of the 

Statement will incorporate whatever is needed to meet future needs but 

did not provide specific details. 

A national architecture has not yet been prepared to guide the creation of 

interoperable communications. An explicit, commonly understood, and 

agreed-to blueprint, or enterprise architecture, is required to effectively 

and efficiently guide modernization efforts. For a decade, GAO has 

promoted the use of enterprise architectures, recognizing them as a 

crucial means to a challenging goal—agency operational structures that 

Federal Leadership 

and 

Intergovernmental 

Cooperation Is 

Needed 

Need to Establish National 

Requirements and a 

National Architecture 
Page 12 GAO-04-963T 

are optimally defined in both business and technological environments.9

SAFECOM officials said development of a national architecture will take 

time because SAFECOM must first assist state and local governments to 

establish their communications architectures. They said SAFECOM will 

then collect the state and local architectures and fit them into a national 

architecture that links federal communications into the state and local 

infrastructure. 

Technology solutions by themselves are not sufficient to fully address 

communication interoperability problems in a given local government, 

state, or multi-state region. State and local officials consider a standard 

database of interoperable communications frequencies to be essential to 

frequency planning and coordination for interoperability frequencies and 

for general public safety purposes. Police and fire departments often have 

different concepts and doctrines on how to operate an incident command 

post and use interoperable communications. Similarly, first responders, 

such as police and fire departments, may use different terminology to 

describe the same thing. Differences in terminology and operating 

procedures can lead to communications problems even where the 

participating public safety agencies share common communications 

equipment and spectrum. State and local officials have drawn specific 

attention to problems caused by the lack of common terminology in 

naming the same interoperability frequency. 

The Public Safety National Communications Council (NCC), appointed by 

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was to make 

recommendations for public safety use of the 700 MHz communications 

spectrum. The NCC recommended that the FCC mandate (1) Regional 

 9

An enterprise architecture can be viewed as a link between an organization’s strategic plan 

and the program and supporting systems implementation investments it intends to pursue 

to systematically achieve its strategic goals and outcomes. As such the architecture is 

basically a blueprint, defined largely by interrelated models, that describes (in both 

business and technology terms) an entity’s “as is” or current environment, its “to be” future 

environment, and its investment plan for transitioning from the current to the future 

environment. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: The Federal 

Enterprise Architecture and Agencies Enterprise Architectures Are Still Maturing, 

GAO-04-798T (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2004). 

Standard Databases and 

Common Nomenclature 

Not Yet Established 
Page 13 GAO-04-963T 

Planning Committee10 use of a standard database to coordinate frequencies 

during license applications and (2) specific names be designated for each 

interoperability channel on all pubic safety bands. The NCC said that both 

were essential to achieve interoperability because public safety officials 

needed to know what interoperability channels were available and what 

they were called. In January 2001, the FCC rejected both 

recommendations. It said that the first recommendation was premature 

because the database had not been fully developed and tested. The FCC 

directed the NCC to revisit the issue of mandating the database once the 

database was developed and had begun operation. The FCC rejected the 

common nomenclature recommendation because it said that it would have 

to change the rules each time the public safety community wished to 

revise a channel label. In its final report of July 25, 2003, the NCC renewed 

both recommendations. It noted that the FCC had received a 

demonstration of a newly developed and purportedly operational 

database, the Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and Database 

System (CAPRAD), and that its recommendations were consistent with 

previous FCC actions, such as the FCC’s designating medical 

communications channels for the specifc purpose of uniform useage. 

In 2001, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established 

SAFECOM to unify the federal government’s efforts to help coordinate 

work at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels in order to provide 

reliable public safety communications and achieve national wireless 

communications interoperability. However, SAFECOM was established as 

an OMB E-Gov initiative with a goal of improving interoperable 

communications within 18-24 months—a timeline too short for addressing 

the complex, long-term nature of the interoperability problem.11 In 

 10In 1987, the FCC developed a National Plan for Public Safety Radio Services that set 

national guidelines for use of the 800 MHz spectrum while allowing regional public safety 

planning committees to develop regional plans tailored to their areas own particular 

communications needs. A large portion of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum, 

approximately 53 percent (12.5 MHz), is designated for general use by local, regional, and 

state users. A regional planning process was adopted to govern management of this public 

safety spectrum. It is a process similar to that used in the 821-824 MHz and 866-869 MHz 

bands. Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) are allowed maximum flexibility to meet 

state and local needs, encourage innovative use of the spectrum, and accommodate new 

and as yet unanticipated developments in technology equipment. They are responsible for 

creating and managing regional plans. 

11U.S. General Accounting Office, Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency 

Communications Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration, GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.: 

April 16, 2004). 

Converting SAFECOM’s 

Functions To A Long-Term 

Program 
Page 14 GAO-04-963T 

addition, the roles and responsibilities of various federal agencies within 

and outside DHS involved in communications interoperability have not 

been fully defined, and SAFECOM’s authority to oversee and coordinate 

federal and state efforts has been limited in part because it has been 

dependent upon other federal agencies for cooperation and funding and 

has operated without signed memorandums of understanding negotiated 

with various agencies. 

DHS, where SAFECOM now resides, announced in May 2004 that it had 

created an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility within the Science 

and Technology Directorate, to coordinate the federal response to the 

problems of wireless and other functional interoperability and 

compatibility. The new office is responsible for coordinating DHS efforts 

to address interoperability and compatibility of first responder equipment, 

to include both communications equipment and equipment such as 

personal protective equipment used by police and fire from multiple 

jurisdictions. The plan as approved by the Secretary of DHS states that by 

November 2004 the new office will be fully established and that action 

plans and a strategy will be prepared for each portfolio (type or class of 

equipment). The plan presents a budget estimate for creation of the office 

through November 2004 but does not include costs to implement each 

portfolio’s strategy. The plans for the new office do not clarify the roles of 

various federal agencies or specify what oversight authority the new office 

will have over federal agency communications programs. As of June 2004, 

the exact structure and funding for the office, including SAFECOM’s role 

within the office, were still being developed. 

DHS has not defined how it will convert the current short-term program 

and funding structures to a permanent program office structure. When it 

does, DHS must carefully define the SAFECOM mission and roles in 

relation to other agencies within DHS and in other federal agencies that 

have missions that may be related to the OMB-assigned mission for 

SAFECOM. SAFECOM must coordinate with multiple federal agencies, 

including ODP within DHS, AGILE and the Office for Community Oriented 

Policing Services (COPS)12 in DOJ, the Department of Defense, the FCC, 

the National Telecommunications and Information Administration within 

 12Congress authorized COPS within DOJ to administer the Interoperable Communications 

Technology Program in 2003. The program awarded 14 grants totaling more than 

$66 million to first responders for interoperable communications and provides technical 

assistance to grantees. 

Multiple Federal Agencies 

Have Roles And 

Responsibilities For 

Interoperability 
Page 15 GAO-04-963T 

the Department of Commerce, and other agencies. For example, AGILE is 

the DOJ program to assist state and local law enforcement agencies to 

effectively and efficiently communicate with one another across agency 

and jurisdictional boundaries. The Homeland Security Act assigns the DHS 

Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) primary responsibility within the 

executive branch for preparing the United States for acts of terrorism, 

including coordinating or, as appropriate, consolidating communications 

and systems of communications relating to homeland security at all levels 

of government. An ODP official said the Homeland Security Act granted 

authority to ODP to serve as the primary agency for preparedness against 

acts of terrorism, to specifically include communications issues. He said 

ODP is working with states and local jurisdictions to institutionalize a 

strategic planning process that assesses and funds their requirements. 

ODP also plans to develop tools to link these assessments to detailed 

interoperable communications plans. 

SAFECOM officials also will face a complex issue when they address 

public safety spectrum management and coordination. The National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) within the 

Department of Commerce is responsible for federal government spectrum 

use and the FCC is responsible for state, local, and other nonfederal 

spectrum use. The National Governors’ Guide to Emergency Management 

noted that extensive coordination will be required between the FCC and 

the NTIA to provide adequate spectrum and to enhance shared local, state, 

and federal communications. In September 2002, GAO reported that FCC 

and NTIA’s efforts to manage their respective areas of responsibility were 

not guided by a national spectrum strategy and had not implemented longstanding congressional directives to conduct joint, national spectrum 

planning.13 The FCC and the NTIA generally agreed with our 

recommendation that they develop a strategy for establishing a clearly 

defined national spectrum plan and submit a report to the appropriate 

congressional committees. In a separate report, we also discussed several 

barriers to reforming spectrum management in the United States.14 On 

June 24, 2004, the Department of Commerce released two reports entitled 

 13U.S. General Accounting Office, Telecommunications: Better Coordination and 

Enhanced Accountability Needed to Improve Spectrum Management, GAO-02-906

(Washington, D.C.: Sept., 2002). 

14U.S. General Accounting Office, Telecommunications: Comprehensive Review Of U.S. 

Spectrum Management With Broad Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed, GAO-03-277

(Washington,D.C.: Jan., 2003). 
Page 16 GAO-04-963T 

Spectrum Policy for the 21st Century, the second of which contained 

recommendations for assessing and managing public safety spectrum. 

SAFECOM has limited authority to coordinate federal efforts to assess and 

improve interoperable communications. Although SAFECOM has 

developed guidance for use in federal first responder grants, SAFECOM 

does not have authority to require federal agencies to coordinate their 

grant award information. SAFECOM is currently engaged in an effort with 

DOJ to create a “collaborative clearinghouse” that could facilitate federal 

oversight of interoperable communications funding to jurisdictions and 

allow states access to this information for planning purposes. The 

database is intended to decrease duplication of funding and evaluation 

efforts, de-conflict the application process, maximize efficiency of limited 

federal funding, and serve as a data collection tool for lessons learned that 

would be accessible to state and locals. However, SAFECOM officials said 

that the challenge to implementing the coordinated project is getting 

federal agency collaboration and compliance. As of February 2004, the 

database contained award information from the 2003 COPS and FEMA 

interoperability communications equipment grants, but no others within or 

outside DHS. 

SAFECOM’s oversight authority and responsibilities are dependant upon 

its overall mission. OMB officials told us that they are currently in the 

process of refocusing the mission of the SAFECOM program into three 

specific parts: (1) coordination of federal activities through several 

initiatives, including participation in the Federal Interagency Coordination 

Council15 and establishment of a process for federal agencies to report and 

coordinate with SAFECOM on federal activities and investments in 

interoperability; (2) developing standards; and (3) developing a national 

architecture for addressing communications interoperability problems. 

They said identification of all current and planned federal agency 

communications programs affecting federal, state, and local wireless 

interoperability is difficult. According to these officials, OMB is developing 

 15FICC is an informal council consisting of federal agencies, whose mission is to help local, 

tribal, state, and federal public safety agencies improve public safety response through 

more effective and efficient interoperable wireless communications by reducing 

duplication in programs and activities, identifying and promoting best practices and 

coordinating federal grants, technical assistance, training, and standards. Proposed FICC 

members are federal agencies within DOJ, DHS, Defense, Agriculture, Health and Human 

Services, and Commerce. 

SAFECOM’s Authority To 

Coordinate Federal And 

State Efforts Is Limited 
Page 17 GAO-04-963T 

a strategy to best utilize the SAFECOM program and examining options to 

enforce the new coordination and reporting process. SAFECOM officials 

said they are working to formalize the new reporting and coordination 

process by developing written agreements with other federal agencies and 

by obtaining concurrence of major state and local associations to the 

SAFECOM governance structure. SAFECOM officials noted that this newly 

refocused SAFECOM role does not include providing technical assistance 

or conducting operational testing of equipment. They said that their 

authority to conduct such activities will come from DHS enabling 

directives. SAFECOM officials also said that they have no enforcement 

authority to require other agencies to use the SAFECOM grant guidance in 

their funding decisions or to require agencies to provide grant program 

information to them for use in their database. 

States, with broad input from local governments, can serve as focal points 

for statewide planning to improve interoperable communications. The 

FCC has recognized the important role of states. In its rules and 

procedures, the FCC concluded that because states play a central role in 

managing emergency communications and are usually in control at large 

scale-events and disasters, states should administer the interoperability 

channels within the 700 MHz band of communications spectrum. States 

can play a key role in improving interoperable communications by 

establishing a management structure that includes local participation and 

input to analyze and identify interoperability gaps between “what is” and 

“what should be,” developing comprehensive local, state, and regional 

plans to address such gaps, and funding these plans. The states we visited 

or contacted—California, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Washington and a 

five state Midwest consortium—were in various stages of formulating 

these management structures. However, states are not required to 

establish a statewide management structure or to develop interoperability 

plans, and there is no clear guidance on what should be included in such 

plans. In addition, no requirement exists that interoperability of federal 

communications systems be coordinated with state and local government 

communications systems. The use of a standard database on 

communications frequencies by public safety agencies within the state and 

common terminology for these frequencies in preparation and 

implementation of these statewide interoperable plans are essential but 

are also not required. Without planning, coordination, and applicable 

standards—in other words, without a commonly understood and accepted 

blueprint or national architecture—the communications systems 

developed between and among locations and levels of government may 

not be interoperable. 

State and Local 

Governments Can Play a 

Central Role 
Page 18 GAO-04-963T 

States are key players in responding to normal all-hazards emergencies 

and to terrorist threats. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 notes 

that awards to states are the primary mechanism for delivery of federal 

preparedness assistance for these missions. State and local officials also 

believe that states, with broad local and regional participation, have a key 

role to play in coordinating interoperable communications supporting 

these missions. The Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN), in its report 

on the role of the state in providing interoperable communications, 

agreed. According to the PSWN report, state leadership in public safety 

communications is key to outreach efforts that emphasize development of 

common approaches to regional and statewide interoperability. The report 

said that state officials have a vested interest in establishing and 

protecting statewide wireless infrastructures because public safety 

communications often must cross more than one local jurisdictional 

boundary.16

However, states are not required to establish a statewide capability to 

(1) integrate statewide and regional interoperability planning and 

(2) prepare statewide interoperability plans that maximize use of spectrum 

to meet interoperability requirements of day-to-day operations, joint task 

force operations, and operations in major events. Federal, state, and local 

officials are not required to coordinate federal, state, and local 

interoperability spectrum resources that, if successfully addressed, have 

significant potential to improve public safety wireless communications 

interoperability. As a result, states may not prepare comprehensive and 

integrated statewide plans that address the specific interoperability issues 

present in each state across first responder disciplines and levels of 

government. 

Several state and local agencies that we talked with emphasized that they 

are taking steps to address the need for statewide communications 

planning. State officials also told us that statewide interoperability is not 

enough because incidents first responders face could cross state 

boundaries. Thus, some states are also taking actions to address interstate 

interoperability problems. For example, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, 

Michigan, and Ohio officials said that their states have combined efforts to 

form the Midwest Public Safety Communications Consortium to promote 

interstate interoperability. According to these officials, they also have 

taken actions to form an interstate committee to develop interoperability 

 16See The Role of The States in Public Safety Wireless Interoperability, PSWN (2002). 
Page 19 GAO-04-963T 

plans and solicit support from key players, such as local public safety 

agencies. 

FCC recognized a strong state interest in planning and administering 

interoperability channels for public safety wireless communications when 

it adopted various technical and operational rules and polices for the 

700 MHz band. In these rules and policies, FCC concluded that 

administration of the 2.6 MHz of interoperability channels in that band 

(approximately 10 percent) should occur at the state-level in a State 

Interoperability Executive Committee (SIEC). FCC said that states play a 

central role in managing emergency communications and that state-level 

organizations are usually in control at large-scale events and disasters or 

multi-agency incidents. FCC also found that states are usually in the best 

position to coordinate with federal government emergency agencies. FCC 

said that SIEC administrative activities could include holding licenses, 

resolving licensing issues, and developing a statewide interoperability plan 

for the 700 MHz band. Other SIEC responsibilities could include the 

creation and oversight of incident response protocols and the creation of 

chains of command for incident response and reporting. Available data 

indicate that 12 to 15 states did not create SIECs17 but have relied on 

Regional Planning Committees or similar planning bodies. 

A comprehensive statewide interoperable plan can provide the guiding 

framework for achieving defined goals for interoperability within a state 

and for regions within and across states (such as Kansas City, Mo and 

Kansas City, Kans.). NCC recommended that all SIECs prepare an 

interoperability plan that is filed with FCC and updated when substantive 

changes are made or at least every three years. NCC also recommended to 

FCC that SIECs, for Homeland Security reasons, should administer all 

interoperability channels in a state, not merely those in the 700 MHz band. 

According to NCC, each state should have a central point identified for 

information on a state’s interoperability capability. 

 17FCC data show 38 states and the District of Columbia with SIECs or similar bodies and 

12 states with Regional Planning Committees (RPC) assuming the SIEC role. However, 

PSWN data show 7 states with SIECs, 13 states with SIEC like committees, 15 states with 

statewide safety communication committees that have responsibilities broader than SIECs, 

and 15 states where RPCs have assumed SIEC responsibilities. 

Statewide Interoperable 

Communications 

Committees Offer 

Potential for Coordinated 

Statewide Planning 

Content and Scope of 

Statewide Interoperability 

Plans Not Established 
Page 20 GAO-04-963T 

None of the four states we visited had finished preparation and funding of 

their state interoperability plans. Washington and Florida were preparing 

statewide interoperability plans at the time we visited. Georgia officials 

said they have a state interoperability plan but that it is not funded. 

However, one other state we contacted, Missouri, has extended SIEC 

responsibility for interoperability channels beyond the 700 MHz band.18

The Missouri SIEC has also designated standard operational and technical 

guidelines as conditions for the use of these bands. SIEC requires 

applicants to sign a MOU agreeing to these conditions in order to use these 

channels in the state of Missouri. The Missouri SIEC Chairman said the 

state developed its operational and technical guidelines because FCC had 

not established its own guidelines for these interoperability channels in 

the VHF and UHF bands. The chairman said Missouri borders on eight 

other states and expressed concern that these states will develop different 

guidelines that are incompatible with the Missouri guidelines. He said FCC 

was notified of Missouri’s actions but has not taken action to date. In 

another example, California intends to prepare a statewide interoperability 

plan. California’s SIEC is re-examining California’s previous stove piped 

programs of communications interoperability (separate systems for law 

enforcement, fire, etc.) in light of the need to maintain tactical channels 

within disciplines while promoting cross-discipline interoperability. 

FCC designated frequency coordinators19 told FCC that planning for 

interoperability channels should include federal spectrum designated for 

interoperability with state and local governments. We found several 

examples in our field work that support inclusion of federal agencies in 

future state and local planning for interoperable communications. For 

example, a Washington State official told us that regional systems within 

the state do not have links to federal communications systems and assets. 

In another example, according to an emergency preparedness official in 

Seattle, a study of radio interoperable communications in a medical center 

also found that federal agencies such as FBI are not integrated into 

hospital or health communications systems, and other federal agencies 

 18Missouri SIEC responsibility includes FCC’s designated interoperability channels (except 

for certain legacy mutual aid channels) in the VHF and UHF bands. 

19FCC has certified specific associations to perform the coordination process used to 

choose appropriate frequencies for public safety mobile radio systems. This coordination is 

essential to ensure that the numerous systems across the country have clear and 

interference free operation on these critical radio systems. 

Coordination of Federal 

and State Interoperable 

Frequencies in Statewide 

Plans 
Page 21 GAO-04-963T 

have no radio infrastructure to support and participate in a health 

emergency such as a bio-terrorism event. He told us that he has no idea 

what the federal communications plan is in the event of a disaster; he said 

he does not know how to talk to federal health officials responding to an 

incident or what the federal government needs when they arrive. 

The federal government is developing a system that could improve 

interoperable communications on a limited basis between state and 

federal government agencies. The Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) is a 

radio system that is intended to replace the existing radio systems for the 

DOJ, Treasury, and DHS. IWN is an exclusive federal law enforcement 

communications system that is intended to interact and interface with 

state and local systems as needed but will not replace these systems. 

According to DOJ officials, IWN is intended to improve federal to state/ 

local interoperability but will not address interoperability of state and 

local systems. 

However, federal interoperability with state and local wireless 

communications systems is hindered because NTIA and FCC control 

different frequencies in the VHF and UHF bands. To enhance 

interoperability, NTIA has identified 40 federal government frequencies 

that can be used by state and local public safety agencies for joint law 

enforcement and incident response purposes.20 FCC, however, designated 

different frequencies for interoperability in the VHF band and in the UHF 

band from spectrum it controls for use by state and local public safety 

agencies. 

Total one-time replacement of the nation’s communications systems is 

very unlikely, due to the costs involved. A 1998 study cited the 

replacement value of the existing public safety communication 

infrastructure nationwide at $18.3 billion.21 DHS officials said this estimate 

is much higher when infrastructure and training costs are taken into 

account. Furthermore, DHS recently estimated that reaching an 

accelerated goal of communications interoperability will require a major 

investment of several billion dollars within the next 5 to 10 years. As a 

result of these extraordinary costs, federal funding is but one of several 

 20NTIA states that these frequencies may not be used to meet day-to-day communications 

needs of non-federal public safety agencies. 

21Land Mobile Radio Replacement Cost Study, PSWN (June 1998). 

Federal Grant 

Structure Does Not 

Support Statewide 

Planning 
Page 22 GAO-04-963T 

resources state and local agencies must use in order to address these 

costs. Furthermore, given the high costs, the development of an 

interoperable communications plan is vital to useful, non-duplicative 

spending. However, the federal funding assistance programs to state and 

local governments do not fully support regional planning for 

communications interoperability. Federal grants that support 

interoperability have inconsistent requirements to tie funding to 

interoperable communications plans. In addition, uncoordinated federal 

and state level grant reviews limit the government’s ability to ensure that 

federal funds are used to effectively support improved regional and 

statewide communications systems. 

Local, state and federal officials agree that regional communications plans 

should be developed to guide decisions on how to use federal funds for 

interoperable communications; however, the current funding requirements 

do not support this planning process. Although recent grant requirements 

have encouraged jurisdictions to take a regional approach to planning, 

current federal first responder grants are inconsistent in their 

requirements to tie funding to interoperable communications plans. States 

and locals are not required to provide an interoperable communications 

plan as a prerequisite to receiving some federal grant funds. As a result, 

there is no assurance that federal funds are being used to support a welldeveloped strategy for improving interoperability. For example, the fiscal 

year 2004 Homeland Security Grant (HSG) and Urban Areas Security 

Initiative (UASI) grants require states or selected jurisdictions to conduct 

a needs assessment and submit a Homeland Security Strategy to ODP.22

However, the required strategies are high-level and broad in nature. They 

do not require that project narratives or a detailed communications plan 

be submitted by grantees prior to receiving grant funds. 

In another example, fiscal year 2003 funding provided by COPS and FEMA 

for the Interoperable Communications Equipment Grants did not require 

that a communications plan be completed prior to receiving grant funds. 

However, grantees were required to provide documentation that they were 

actively engaged in a planning process and a multi-jurisdictional and 

multidisciplinary project narrative was required. In addition to variations 

in requirements to create communications interoperability plans, federal 

 22In fiscal year 2004, this grant program’s name changed from State Homeland Security 

Grant to Homeland Security Grant Program. The new program includes three different 

grant programs. 
Page 23 GAO-04-963T 

grants also lack consistency in defining what “regional” body should 

conduct planning. 

State and local officials also said that the short grant application deadlines 

for recent first responder grants limited their ability to develop cohesive 

communications plans or perform a coordinated review of local requests. 

Federal officials acknowledged that the limited submission timeframes 

presents barriers to first responders for developing plans prior to receiving 

funds. For example, several federal grant programs—the Homeland 

Security Grant, UASI grant, COPs and FEMA communication equipment 

grants, Assistance to Firefighters Grant—allow states only 30 or 60 days 

from the date of grant announcement to submit a grant proposal. These 

time frames are sometimes driven by appropriations language or by the 

timing of the appropriations enactment. Furthermore, many grants have 

been awarded to state and locals for communications interoperability that 

have 1- or 2-year performance periods, and according to state and local 

officials, do not support long-term solutions. For example, Assistance to 

Fire Fighters Grants, COPS/ FEMA’s Interoperable Communications 

Equipment Grants, and National Urban Search and Rescue grants all have 

1-year performance periods.23 UASI, HSG program, and Local Law 

Enforcement Block Grants have 2-year performance periods. 

The federal and state governments lack a coordinated grant review 

process to ensure that funds allocated to local governments are used for 

communication projects that complement each other and add to overall 

statewide and national interoperability. Federal and state officials said that 

each agency reviews its own set of applications and projects, without 

coordination with other agencies. As a result, grants could be given to 

bordering jurisdictions that propose conflicting interoperability solutions. 

In fiscal year 2003, federal officials from COPS and FEMA attempted to 

eliminate awarding funds to conflicting communication systems within 

bordering jurisdictions by coordinating their review of interoperable 

communications equipment grant proposals. However, COPS and FEMA 

 23In their technical comments on a draft of this report, COPS officials said the performance 

period for the FY 2003 Interoperable Communications Technology Equipment and the 

COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Program have a one year time period but 

that no-cost extensions of time were available to grantees on a case-by-case basis to 

accommodate unavoidable delays. 

Grant Submissions and 

Performance Period Time 

Frames Also Present 

Challenges to Short- and 

Long-Term Planning 

No Coordinated Federal or 

State Grant Review Exists 

to Ensure Funds are Used 

to Improve Regional or 

Statewide 

Communications 

Interoperability 
Page 24 GAO-04-963T 

are only two of several federal sources of funds for communications 

interoperability. 

In an attempt to address this challenge, in 2003 SAFECOM coordinated 

with other agencies to create the document Recommended Federal Grant 

Guidance, Public Safety Communications and Interoperability Grants, 

which lays out standard grant requirements for planning, building, and 

training for interoperable communications systems. The guidance is 

designed to advise federal agencies on who is eligible for the first 

responder interoperable communications grants, the purposes for which 

grant funds can be used, and eligibility specifications for applicants.24 The 

guidance recommends standard minimum requirements, such as 

requirements to “...define the objectives of what the applicant is ultimately 

trying to accomplish and how the proposed project would fit into an 

overall effort to increase interoperability, as well as identify potential 

partnerships for agreements.” Additionally, the guidance recommends, but 

does not require, that applicants establish a governance group consisting 

of local, tribal, state, and federal entities from relevant public safety 

disciplines and purchase interoperable equipment that is compliant with 

phase one of Project-25 standards. 

The House Committee on Appropriations report for the DHS FY 2004 

appropriation states that the Committee is aware of numerous federal 

programs addressing communications interoperability through planning, 

building, upgrading, and maintaining public safety communication 

systems, among other purposes. The Committee directed that all DHS 

grant programs issuing grants for the above purposes incorporate the 

SAFECOM guidance and coordinate with the SAFECOM program when 

awarding funding. To better coordinate the government’s efforts, the 

Committee also encouraged all other federal programs issuing grants for 

the above purposes to use the guidelines outlined by SAFECOM in their 

grant programs. However, SAFECOM officials said that they have no 

enforcement authority to require other agencies to use this guidance in 

their funding decisions or to require agencies to provide grant program 

information to them for use in their database. 

 24DHS officials said that, in addition to outlining the eligibility for grant dollars and the 

purposes for which federal dollars can be used, the SAFECOM grant guidance provides 

consensus guidelines for implementing a wireless communications system. DHS said this 

guidance is useful in directing all agencies towards interoperability goals, even if they are 

not specifically applying for federal funding. 
Page 25 GAO-04-963T 

A fundamental barrier to successfully addressing interoperable 

communications problems for public safety has been the lack of effective, 

collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning. 

Jurisdictional boundaries and unique public safety agency missions have 

often fostered barriers that hinder cooperation and collaboration. No one 

first responder agency, jurisdiction, or level of government can “fix” the 

nation’s interoperability problems, which vary across the nation and often 

cross first responder agency and jurisdictional boundaries. Changes in 

spectrum available to federal, state and local public safety agencies—

primarily a federal responsibility conducted through the FCC and NTIA—

changes in technology, and the evolving missions and responsibilities of 

public safety agencies in an age of terrorism all highlight the ever-changing 

environment in which interoperable communications needs and solutions 

must be addressed. Interdisciplinary, intergovernmental, and multijurisdictional partnership and collaboration are essential for effectively 

addressing interoperability shortcomings. 

We are making recommendations to DHS and OMB to improve the 

assessment and coordination of interoperable communications efforts. We 

recommend that the Secretary of DHS: 

• in coordination with the FCC and National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration, continue to develop a nationwide database of 

public safety frequency channels and a standard nationwide nomenclature 

for these channels, with clear target dates for completing both efforts; 

• establish requirements for interoperable communications and assist states 

in assessing interoperability in their states against those requirements; 

• through DHS grant guidance encourage states to establish a single, 

statewide body to assess interoperability and develop a comprehensive 

statewide interoperability plan for federal, state, and local 

communications systems in all frequency bands; and 

• at the appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that federal 

grant funding for communications equipment shall be approved only upon 

certification by the statewide body responsible for interoperable 

communications that grant applications for equipment purchases conform 

with statewide interoperability plans. 

We also recommend that the Director of OMB, in conjunction with DHS, 

review the interoperability mission and functions now assigned to 

Conclusions 

Recommendations 
Page 26 GAO-04-963T 

SAFECOM and establish those functions as a long-term program with 

adequate authority and funding. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Homeland 

Security discusses actions the department is taking that are generally 

consistent with the intent of our recommendations but do not directly 

address specific steps detailed in our recommendations with respect to 

establishment of statewide bodies responsible for interoperable 

communications within the state, the development of comprehensive 

statewide interoperability plans and tying federal funds for 

communications equipment directly to those statewide interoperable 

plans. OMB did not provide written comments on the draft report. 

This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the 

Subcommittee my have at this time. 

(440336) 
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. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

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

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548