Testimony Before the Subcommittee on 

Technology, Information Policy, 

Intergovernmental Relations and the 

Census, House of Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST 

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Leadership Needed 

to Facilitate Interoperable 

Communications Between 

First Responders 

Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr. 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues 

GAO-04-1057T 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-1057T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact William O. 

Jenkins, Jr. at (202) 512-8777 or 

jenkinsjrw@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-1057T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Technology, 

Information Policy, Intergovernmental 

Relations and the Census, House of 

Representatives 

September 2004

HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Leadership Needed to Facilitate 

Interoperable Communications Between 

First Responsders 

Lives of first responders and those 

whom they are trying to assist can 

be lost when first responders 

cannot communicate effectively as 

needed. This testimony addresses 

issues of determining the status of 

interoperable wireless 

communications across the nation, 

the potential roles that federal, 

state, and local governments can 

play in improving these 

communications, and the need to 

structure grant programs so that 

they better support public sector 

efforts to improve these 

communications. 

In a recent report on interoperable 

communications, we recommended 

that the Secretary of DHS (1) 

continue to develop a nationwide 

database and common terminology 

for public safety interoperability 

communications channels; (2) help 

states 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) require 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. 

The current wireless interoperable communications capabilities of first 

responders nationwide have 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 Budget (OMB) 

has established the Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications 

Program, SAFECOM, within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as 

the focal point for coordinating federal efforts to improve interoperable 

communication. 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 have yet to be finalized. 

The federal government can take a leadership role and provide support for 

developing (1) a national database of interoperable communication 

frequencies, (2) a common nomenclature for those frequencies, (3) a 

national architecture that identifies communications requirements and 

technical standards, and (4) statewide interoperable communications plans. 

SAFECOM has limited authority and ability to oversee and coordinate 

federal and state efforts as it is dependent upon other agencies for funding 

and their willingness to cooperate. 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. 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. 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. 

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 different requirements to 

tie funding to interoperable communications plans. In addition, 

uncoordinated federal and state level reviews limit the government’s ability 

to ensure that federal funds are used to effectively support improved 

regional and statewide communications systems. 
Page 1 GAO-04-1057T 

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 a recent 

report, we addressed the importance of determining the status of 

interoperable wireless communications across the nation and defining the 

potential roles that federal, state, and local governments can play in 

improving these communications.2

 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 longstanding and widely recognized problem in many areas across the country. 

Lives of first responders and those whom they are trying to assist can be 

lost when first responders cannot communicate effectively as needed. 

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, we (1) discuss the current 

status of interoperable wireless communication between first responders 

across the nation, (2) identify areas in which the federal government can 

take a leadership role, (3) highlight the critical role that state and local 

governments can play in the emergency communications planning 

process, and (4) discuss the need to structure grant programs so that they 

better support long-term, ongoing, and sustainable public sector efforts to 

improve security. 

 1

Our work addressed issues of public safety wireless communications interoperability—

i.e., communications that use radio frequency waves 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. Government Accountability 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-04-1057T 

In doing our work, we met with federal, state, and local officials,3 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 

August 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

• 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 (OMB) has designated the Wireless Public Safety Interoperable 

Communications Program (SAFECOM), within the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), 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 government can provide the leadership, long-term 

commitment, and focus to help state and local governments meet 

interoperability goals. For example, the federal government can provide 

the leadership and support for developing (1) a national database of 

interoperable communications frequencies, (2) a common nomenclature 

for those frequencies, (3) a national architecture that identifies 

communications requirements and technical standards, and (4) statewide 

interoperable communications plans. 

• DHS has recently created the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility 

to coordinate the federal response to the problems of interoperability in 

several functions, including wireless communications. DHS expects the 

office to be fully established by November 2004. As of August 2004, the 

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

within the office, were still being developed. 

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

as focal points for statewide planning to improve interoperable 

 3

To examine potential roles that state and local governments can play in improving 

interoperability of first responder wireless communications, we interviewed state and local 

officials in California, Florida, Georgia, and Washington. 

Summary 
Page 3 GAO-04-1057T 

communications. 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 

implementation of these plans. 

• 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. 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. 

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. 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 a 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 and implementing 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. 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-04-1057T 

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. 

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, 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 
Page 5 GAO-04-1057T 

percent of the existing public safety communications infrastructure. This 

intricate public safety communications infrastructure incorporates a wide 

variety of technologies, equipment types, and spectrum bands.4

 In addition 

to the difficulty that this complex environment poses for federal, state, and 

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

emergency management technicians, are volunteers with elected 

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

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

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

communication systems development approach prevailed—resulting in 

none or less than desired interoperable communications systems. Public 

safety agencies have historically planned and acquired communications 

systems for their own jurisdictions without concern for interoperability. 

This meant that each state and local agency developed communications 

systems to meet their own requirements, without regard to interoperability 

requirements to talk to adjacent jurisdictions. 

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

safety spectrum issues, including communications interoperability issues.5

A variety of federal departments and agencies have been involved in 

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

DHS, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC), and the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (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 

 4

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

Specific frequencies have been allocated to the public safety community. 

5

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 6 GAO-04-1057T 

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

initiatives, 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 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 

Current Status of 

Wireless 

Communications 

Interoperability 

Nationwide Is 

Unknown 
Page 7 GAO-04-1057T 

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 

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 whom 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. 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. 

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)6

 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. 

 6

DOJ 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 8 GAO-04-1057T 

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. In providing the additional spectrum, the FCC 

requested comments on the implementation of technical standards for 

fixed and mobile operations on the band. 

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 

Federal Leadership 

Could Facilitate 

Interoperable 

Wireless 

Communications 

National Requirements and 

a National Architecture 

Are Needed 
Page 9 GAO-04-1057T 

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 architecture, is required to effectively and 

efficiently guide modernization efforts. SAFECOM officials said they are 

responsible for development of a national communications architecture 

and that 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) was appointed 

by the FCC to make recommendations for public safety use of the 700 MHz 

communications spectrum. The NCC recommended that the FCC mandate 

Standard Databases and 

Common Nomenclature 

Have Not Been Established 
Page 10 GAO-04-1057T 

(1) Regional Planning Committee7 use of a standard database to 

coordinate frequencies during license applications and (2) designation of 

specific names 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 specific purpose of uniform usage. 

In 2001, 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.8

 In addition, the roles and responsibilities of various federal 

 7

In 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. 

8

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

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

April 16, 2004). 

SAFECOM’s Functions Are 

Critical for a Long-Term 

Program 
Page 11 GAO-04-1057T 

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 August 

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, the Advanced Generation of Interoperability 

for Law Enforcement (AGILE)9

 program and the Office for Community 

 9

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

communicate effectively and efficiently with one another across agency and jurisdictional 

boundaries. DOJ’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has announced it is bringing the 

AGILE program to a close and initiating a new program called Communications 

Technology, or CommTech. 

Multiple Federal Agencies 

Have Roles And 

Responsibilities For 

Interoperability 
Page 12 GAO-04-1057T 

Oriented Policing Services (COPS)10 in DOJ, the Department of Defense, 

the FCC, NTIA within the Department of Commerce, and other agencies. 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 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. NTIA 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 efforts to manage their respective 

areas of responsibility were not guided by a national spectrum strategy, 

and the agencies had not implemented long-standing congressional 

directives to conduct joint, national spectrum planning.11 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.12 On June 24, 2004, the Department of 

 10Congress 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. 

11U.S. General Accounting Office, Telecommunications: Better Coordination and 

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

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

12U.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 13 GAO-04-1057T 

Commerce released two reports entitled Spectrum Policy for the 21st 

Century—The President’s Spectrum Policy Initiative, the second of 

which contained recommendations for assessing and managing public 

safety spectrum.13

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 

Council (FICC)14 and establishment of a process for federal agencies to 

report and coordinate with SAFECOM on federal activities and 

 13U.S. Department of Commerce, Spectrum Policy For the 21st Century—The President’s 

Spectrum Policy Initiative: Report 1, Recommendations Of The Federal Government 

Spectrum Task Force and Report 2, Recommendations From State and Local 

Governments And Private Sector Responders (Washington, D.C.: June 2004). 

14FICC 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 14 GAO-04-1057T 

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 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 would 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 implementation of 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. 

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 

State and Local 

Governments Can 

Play a Central Role 
Page 15 GAO-04-1057T 

in preparation and implementation of these statewide interoperable plans 

are essential but are also not required. Without planning, coordination, and 

applicable standards, the communications systems developed between 

and among locations and levels of government might not be interoperable. 

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.15

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. 

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 

 15See The Role of The States in Public Safety Wireless Interoperability, PSWN (2002). 
Page 16 GAO-04-1057T 

response purposes.16 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. 

DHS recently estimated that reaching an accelerated goal of 

communications interoperability will require a major investment of several 

billion dollars within the next 5 to 10 years. As a result of these 

extraordinary costs, federal funding is but one of several resources state 

and local agencies must use in order to address these costs. 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 different 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 differ in their requirements to tie 

funding to interoperable communications plans. State and local 

jurisdictions 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 Grants and Urban Areas Security Initiative 

(UASI) grants require new grantees to conduct a needs assessment and 

submit a Homeland Security Strategy to ODP, and continuation grantees to 

allocate funds according to their existing Homeland Security Strategies. 

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

 16NTIA states that these frequencies may not be used to meet day-to-day communications 

needs of non-federal public safety agencies. 

Federal Grant 

Structure Does Not 

Support Statewide 

Planning 

States and Local 

Governments Are Not 

Required to Provide 

Interoperable 

Communications Plans 
Page 17 GAO-04-1057T 

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 

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 

present barriers to first responders for developing plans prior to receiving 

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

Security Grants, UASI grants, COPS and FEMA interoperable 

communication equipment grants, and Assistance to Firefighters Grants—

allow states only 30 or 60 days from the date of grant announcement to 

submit a grant proposal. These time frames are sometimes driven by 

appropriations language or by the timing of the appropriations enactment. 

Furthermore, many grants have been awarded to state and locals for 

communications interoperability that have 1 or 2 year performance 

periods, and according to state and local officials, do not support longterm solutions. For example, Assistance to Fire Fighters Grants, COPS/ 

FEMA’s interoperable communications equipment grants, and National 

Urban Search and Rescue grants all have 1-year performance periods.17

UASI, the Homeland Security Grants program, and DOJ’s Local Law 

Enforcement Block Grants have 2-year performance periods. 

 17COPS officials said that although the performance period for the FY 2003 Interoperable 

Communications Technology Equipment and the COPS Interoperable Communications 

Technology Program was one year, 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 
Page 18 GAO-04-1057T 

The federal and state governments lack a coordinated grant review 

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

communication projects that complement each other and add to overall 

statewide and national interoperability. Federal and state officials said that 

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

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

bordering jurisdictions that propose conflicting interoperability solutions. 

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

eliminate awarding funds to conflicting communication systems within 

bordering jurisdictions by coordinating their review of interoperable 

communications equipment grant proposals. However, COPS and FEMA 

are only two of several federal sources of funds for communications 

interoperability. 

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

with other agencies to create the document, Recommended Federal Grant 

Guidance, Public Safety Communications and Interoperability Grants, 

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

training for interoperable communications systems. The guidance is 

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

responder interoperable communications grants, the purposes for which 

grant funds can be used, and eligibility specifications for applicants.18 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. 

A fundamental barrier to successfully addressing interoperable 

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

collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning. 

 18DHS 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. 

No Coordinated Federal or 

State Grant Review Exists 

to Ensure Funds are Used 

to Improve Regional or 

Statewide 

Communications 

Interoperability 

Conclusions 
Page 19 GAO-04-1057T 

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 and effective federal leadership provided. 

Interdisciplinary, intergovernmental, and multi-jurisdictional partnership 

and collaboration are essential for effectively addressing interoperability 

shortcomings. 

In our July 2004 report,19 we made recommendations to DHS and OMB to 

improve the assessment and coordination of interoperable 

communications efforts. We recommended that the Secretary of DHS: 

• in coordination with the FCC and NTIA, 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 be approved only upon 

certification by the statewide body responsible for interoperable 

communications that grant applications for equipment purchases conform 

with statewide interoperability plans. 

 19U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and 

Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable 

Communications, GAO-04-740 (Washington, D.C.: July 2004). 

Recommendations 
Page 20 GAO-04-1057T 

We also recommended 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 authority and funding. 

In commenting on our July 2004 report, the Department of Homeland 

Security discussed actions the department is taking that are generally 

consistent with the intent of our recommendations but did 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. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may 

have at this time. 

For future contacts regarding this testimony, please call William O. 

Jenkins, Jr., Homeland Security and Justice Issues, at (202) 512-8777. 

Other individuals who made key contributions to this testimony include 

Katherine Davis, Sally Gilley, Robert Hadley, Latesha Love, Gary 

Malavenda, and Thomas James. 

GAO Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

(440349) 
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. 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

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

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

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

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

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

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

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

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

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

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

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER