EMERGENCY 

COMMUNICATIONS

Increased Regional 

Collaboration Could 

Enhance Capabilities 

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2018

GAO-18-379

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-379, a report to 

congressional requesters

April 2018

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS 

Increased Regional Collaboration Could Enhance 

Capabilities 

What GAO Found

Selected first responders and public safety officials identified various challenges 

related to emergency communications. These challenges include attaining the

interoperability of communication systems, obtaining funding, ensuring ongoing 

training, and increasing the emphasis on communications during emergency 

response exercises. For example, some stakeholders told GAO about 

challenges related to equipment that is not interoperable, and others said first 

responders need training after investments are made in new interoperable 

communications equipment.

To help address these challenges and as required by the Post-Katrina

Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Post-Katrina Act), the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) has provided technical assistance, such as training, 

and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grants. It has also 

established regional emergency communications coordination working groups, 

which bring together stakeholders from different levels of government and the 

private sector within FEMA’s 10 regions. 

While emergency communications challenges persist, stakeholders told GAO 

that DHS’s technical assistance generally meets their needs and that FEMA 

grants have helped them enhance emergency communications capabilities. In 

particular, stakeholders found training for specific communications positions was 

useful. Houston-area officials said this training was critical in preparing first 

responders for Hurricane Harvey. Some stakeholders told GAO that FEMA 

grants helped them address needs that would otherwise go unfunded, including 

interoperable communications networks and equipment. 

GAO found that the regional working groups have enhanced emergency 

communications capabilities through building relationships and sharing

information. Within the respective regions, group members have:

• assisted each other during disasters and emergencies, 

• developed technical solutions to enhance interoperability, and 

• addressed policy concerns, such as the use of interoperable radio channels 

during emergencies.

However, most regional group leaders told GAO that more collaboration across 

the groups was needed. GAO’s prior work has also found that including all 

relevant participants can enhance collaborative efforts. Further, DHS’s strategic 

plan for emergency communications established a vision of collaboration among 

stakeholders across the nation. While FEMA has encouraged collaboration 

among regional working-group leaders, cross-regional efforts have been limited 

and do not involve all group members. Developing and implementing an 

appropriate ongoing mechanism for collaboration could enhance emergency 

communications capabilities, such as by helping group members address 

common challenges. Without ways for all members of these groups to

collaborate across regions, members may be missing opportunities to share 

information and leverage the knowledge and experiences of their counterparts 

throughout the nation.

View GAO-18-379. For more information, 

contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or 

GoldsteinM@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

During emergencies, reliable 

communications are critical. Disasters, 

such as 2017’s hurricanes, continue to 

test the nation’s emergency 

communications capabilities. As 

disasters can cross jurisdictional 

boundaries, collaboration within and 

across regions is very important.

GAO was asked to review 

implementation of the Post-Katrina 

Act’s provisions related to disaster 

preparedness, response, and recovery. 

This report examines: (1) challenges 

related to emergency communications 

that selected stakeholders have 

experienced; (2) their views on DHS’s

emergency communications

assistance; and (3) the regional 

working groups established by the 

Post-Katrina Act and their effect on 

emergency communications 

capabilities. GAO reviewed DHS’s

reports and grant data for fiscal years

2011–2016 and conducted case 

studies of three cities—Houston, Los 

Angeles, and Boston—selected based 

on the number of declared disasters,

DHS grant funding, and geographic 

diversity. GAO interviewed DHS 

officials; leaders of all 10 regional 

working groups and other 

stakeholders, including public safety 

officials in the case study cities; and 

others chosen for their expertise. 

What GAO Recommends

FEMA should work with regional 

working-group members to reach 

consensus and implement an ongoing 

mechanism, such as a national-level 

working group, to encourage 

nationwide collaboration across

regions. DHS concurred with this 

recommendation.
Page i GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

Letter 1

Background 4

Selected Stakeholders Cited Ongoing Interoperability, Funding, 

and Training Challenges 8

Stakeholders Indicated DHS’s Technical Assistance and Grants 

Have Enhanced Emergency Communications in Their Regions 15

RECCWGs Have Enhanced Capabilities in Several Ways, but 

Collaboration across Regions Is Limited 21

Conclusions 28

Recommendation for Executive Action 29

Agency Comments 29

Appendix I Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 32

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 34

Table

Table 1: Approximate Amounts of Department of Homeland 

Security’s (DHS) Funding for Emergency Communications 

Provided by Three Main Grant Programs (Fiscal Years 

2011–2016), as Reported by Recipients 19

Figures

Figure 1: Hypothetical Example of Emergency Communications 

Interoperability 5

Figure 2: Member States and Territories That Compose Each 

Regional Emergency Communications Coordination 

Working Group. 7

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

Abbreviations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOD Department of Defense 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FirstNet First Responder Network Authority

LMR land mobile radio

OEC Office of Emergency Communications 

Post Katrina Act Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act

of 2006

RECCWG regional emergency communications

coordination working group

WPS Wireless Priority Service

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

April 26, 2018

Congressional Requesters

For first responders in emergency situations, reliable communications are 

critical for a rapid and sufficient response. Hurricane Katrina exposed 

gaps in how federal, state, and local entities responded to the 

catastrophic storm, gaps that include revealing that the equipment the 

first responders used for emergency communications were often not 

operable and interoperable.1 Congress passed the Post-Katrina 

Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Post-Katrina Act) to 

improve the federal government’s preparation for and response to natural 

and manmade disasters.2 Among the more than 300 reforms in the PostKatrina Act, two of the provisions relate to emergency communications 

during disaster response and recovery. These provisions required

• that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provide assistance 

to support the rapid establishment of interoperable emergency 

communications in urban areas and other areas deemed to be 

consistently at a high level of risk from disasters; and

• the establishment of regional emergency communications 

coordination working groups (RECCWG) in each of the 10 Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regions.

While DHS has provided assistance in the form of technical assistance 

and funding and Congress has established the RECCWGs (commonly 

pronounced rec-wigs), natural disasters such as hurricanes Harvey, Irma, 

and Maria in 2017 continued to test the nation’s emergency 

communications capabilities. These types of events can cross 

jurisdictional borders, highlighting the critical need for collaboration of first 

responders and public safety officials both within and across regions.

 1

Emergency communications interoperability refers to the ability of first responders—such 

as police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical-services personnel—as well as 

public safety officials (i.e., emergency preparedness and management officials) to use 

their radios and other equipment to communicate with each other across agencies and 

jurisdictions when needed and as authorized. 

2

The Post-Katrina Act was enacted as Title VI of the Department of Homeland Security 

Appropriations Act of 2007, Pub. L. No.109-295, 120 Stat. 1355, 1394 (2006). The PostKatrina Act’s provisions became effective upon enactment, October 4, 2006, with the 

exception of certain organizational changes related to the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, most of which took effect on March 31, 2007.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

You asked us to evaluate how the implementation of the Post-Katrina 

Act’s provisions has affected disaster preparedness, response, and 

recovery in general. In this report, we examined:

• the challenges selected stakeholders have experienced related to 

emergency communications;

• the emergency communications assistance—technical assistance and 

funding—provided by DHS and selected stakeholders’ views on these 

efforts; and

• the RECCWGs established by the Post-Katrina Act and their effect on 

emergency communications capabilities.

To address these objectives, we reviewed RECCWG annual reports from 

2011 to 2016, the most recent years available. We also reviewed relevant 

reports and documentation from DHS—such as reports on national 

preparedness and on specific emergency incidents and technical 

assistance offerings—as well as other documents we identified through a 

literature search. We analyzed FEMA data on preparedness grant funding 

from fiscal years 2011 to 2016.3 After reviewing relevant documentation 

and discussing the data with FEMA staff, we determined that the data 

were sufficiently reliable to describe the approximate total amounts of 

funding for each grant program that had been provided to support 

emergency communications.

In addition, we interviewed DHS officials from FEMA and the Office of 

Emergency Communications (OEC). We selected 41 emergency 

communications stakeholders and through interviews or written 

responses, obtained their perspectives on the general topics covered in 

our review—challenges relating to emergency communications, DHS 

technical assistance and grants, and the RECCWGs. These stakeholders 

included 20 RECCWG leaders (representing all 10 FEMA regions)4

 3

Specifically, we reviewed data from FEMA’s Grants Reporting Tool, which contains data 

from nine preparedness grant programs, as reported by states in their Biannual Strategy 

Implementation Reports. We selected the period 2011-2016 in order to report on several 

years of the most recent data, given the evolving nature of emergency communications, 

and to align with the time period for which we analyzed activities of the RECCWGs.

4

We obtained responses from two leaders in every region. Each RECCWG is led by a 

chair and a co-chair. In some cases, the FEMA regional emergency communications 

coordinators responded to our questions on behalf of the groups’ chairs. In addition, at the 

request of the groups, in two cases we interviewed former co-chairs because the current 

co-chairs were new to their positions.
Page 3 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

representatives of 2 public safety associations and 2 tribal emergencymanagement organizations; and 17 other public safety officials and first 

responders with knowledge of emergency communications. We selected 

these individuals based on their involvement with the RECCWGs, as part 

of our case studies (described below), or because of their emergency 

communications experience. We conducted case studies of emergency 

communications in Houston, Boston, and Los Angeles. We selected 

these urban areas to include variation in geographic location, in the types 

of declared disasters and emergencies experienced from 2011 to 2016, 

and in the amounts of DHS grant funding for emergency communications 

received from fiscal years 2011 to 2016. For each case study we 

reviewed documents about emergency communications in that urban 

area, such as reports about emergency events or articles identified in our 

literature search, and interviewed multiple stakeholders, including the 

relevant statewide interoperability coordinator and FEMA regional 

emergency communications coordinator, a city or county emergency 

manager, at least one first responder with knowledge of emergency 

communications, and other selected public safety officials.5 While the 

results from our case studies and interviews are not generalizable, they 

provide illustrative examples of challenges related to emergency 

communications, views on DHS-provided technical assistance and 

funding, and how the RECCWGs have enhanced emergency 

communications capabilities. We compared the collaborative efforts of the 

RECCWGs’ and FEMA’s efforts to facilitate such collaboration with the 

National Emergency Communications Plan,6 as well as practices for 

enhancing interagency collaboration that we identified in prior work7 and 

federal standards for internal control. 8

We conducted this performance audit from December 2016 to April 2018 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

 5

The statewide interoperability coordinator is responsible for implementing a statewide 

strategic vision for emergency communications’ interoperability, and FEMA’s regional 

emergency-communications coordinator is responsible for providing emergency 

communications assistance on an as-needed basis and coordinating FEMA’s tactical 

communications support during a disaster or emergency.

6

DHS, National Emergency Communications Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2014).

7

GAO, Managing For Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).

8

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2014).
Page 4 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Effective communications are vital to first responders’ ability to respond to 

emergencies and ensure the safety of both their personnel and the public. 

In particular, first responders use communications systems to gather 

information, coordinate a response, and request additional resources and 

assistance from neighboring jurisdictions and the federal government.

First responders use different communications systems, such as land 

mobile radio (LMR) and commercial wireless services.

• LMR: These systems are the primary means for first responders to 

gather and share information while conducting their daily operations 

and to coordinate their emergency response efforts. LMR systems are 

intended to provide secure, reliable voice communications in a variety 

of environments, scenarios, and emergencies.9 Across the nation, 

there are thousands of separate LMR systems. They operate by 

transmitting voice communications through radio waves at specific 

frequencies and channels within the radio frequency portion of the 

electromagnetic spectrum.10

• Commercial wireless services: For data transmissions (such as 

location information, images, and video) public safety entities often 

pay for commercial wireless services.11 Some jurisdictions also use 

commercial wireless services for voice communications.

 9

For additional information on LMR see GAO, Emergency Communications: Improved 

Procurement of Land Mobile Radios Could Enhance Interoperability and Cut Costs, 

GAO-17-12, (Washington D.C.: Oct. 5, 2016).

10The electromagnetic spectrum covers the full range of all possible frequencies of 

electromagnetic radiation, including frequency ranges such as radio, microwave, infrared, 

visible, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays.

11We have previously reported that commercial networks do not always support the 

reliability and other requirements that public safety officials need. See GAO, Public-Safety 

Broadband Network: FirstNet Should Strengthen Internal Controls and Evaluate Lessons 

Learned, GAO-15-407 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2015); GAO, Emergency 

Communications: Various Challenges Likely to Slow Implementation of a Public Safety 

Broadband Network, and GAO-12-343 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 22, 2012).

Background
Page 5 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

These systems must work together, or be interoperable, to ensure 

effective communication. Emergency communications interoperability 

refers to the ability of first responders and public safety officials to use 

their radios and other equipment to communicate with each other across 

agencies and jurisdictions when needed and as authorized, as shown in 

our hypothetical example of response to a fire in figure 1.

Figure 1: Hypothetical Example of Emergency Communications Interoperability

First responders may use designated radio frequencies—known as 

interoperability channels—to help communicate among different 

jurisdictions. Certain interoperability channels have been designated for 

federal agencies to communicate with non-federal agencies, and others 

have been designated for use at the state and local levels.

OEC, created within DHS in 2007, has taken a number of steps aimed at 

supporting and promoting the ability of public safety officials to 

communicate in emergencies and work toward operable and 

interoperable emergency communications nationwide. OEC develops 

policy and guidance supporting emergency communications across all 

levels of government and various types of technologies. OEC also 

provides technical assistance—including training, tools, and online and 
Page 6 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

on-site assistance for federal, state, local, and tribal first responders. Also 

as required by the Post-Katrina Act, OEC developed the National 

Emergency Communications Plan in 2008 and worked with federal, state, 

local, and tribal jurisdictions to update it in 2014 to reflect an evolving 

communications environment. The long-term vision of the plan—which 

OEC views as the nation’s current strategic plan for emergency 

communications—is to enable the nation’s emergency response 

community to communicate and share information across levels of 

government, jurisdictions, disciplines, and organizations for all threats and 

hazards, as needed and when authorized.

FEMA is responsible for coordinating government-wide disaster response 

efforts, including on-the-ground emergency communications support and 

some technical assistance. Additionally, FEMA provides a range of grant 

assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial entities, including 

preparedness grants that can be used for emergency communications. 

FEMA provides assistance to the RECCWGs, which report to their 

respective FEMA regional administrator. A chair and co-chair serve as the 

leaders for each RECCWG and provide direction in determining activities 

and priorities.12 These groups are comprised of federal, state, and local 

officials, and coordinate with private sector stakeholders. For example, 

members include representatives from local fire departments, state and 

local police departments, tribal officials, telecommunications companies, 

and federal agencies.13 Figure 2 shows the member states and territories 

that compose each group.

 12According to FEMA officials, the chair of each group is generally the FEMA regional 

administrator. The co-chair is chosen from the group’s membership. 

13RECCWG members include employees of the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and many other 

federal agencies. 
Page 7 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

Figure 2: Member States and Territories That Compose Each Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Working 

Group.

The Post-Katrina Act established the RECCWGs and requires each 

group:

• to assess local emergency communications systems to meet goals of 

the National Emergency Communications Plan,

• to ensure a coordination process for multijurisdictional and multiagency emergency communications networks through the expanded 

use of mutual aid agreements for emergency-management and 

public-safety communications, and

• to coordinate support services and networks designed to address 

immediate needs in responding to disasters, acts of terrorism and 

other manmade disasters.14

 146 U.S.C.§ 575(d).
Page 8 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

According to FEMA officials, these groups are run by their members and 

determine their own activities. FEMA plays a role in facilitating the groups 

and provides some administrative support. Each group reports annually 

on the status of the region’s operable and interoperable emergencycommunications initiatives. In these reports, the groups describe how 

they fulfill their responsibilities and identify areas for improvement. FEMA 

compiles the reports into a RECCWG annual report with an executive 

summary and distributes it to the heads of OEC, the Federal 

Communications Commission, and the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration, as well as to the groups themselves, which 

may further distribute the final report as they see fit.15

We identified several prevalent challenges to emergency communications 

based on our analysis of RECCWG annual reports, case studies, and 

interviews with emergency communications stakeholders. These 

challenges included achieving the interoperability of communication 

systems, obtaining funding, ensuring ongoing training, and increasing the 

emphasis on communications during emergency response exercises. As 

discussed in more detail later, DHS technical assistance and grant 

programs as well as coordination efforts of the RECCWGs have focused 

on addressing these ongoing challenges.

We identified ongoing technical and non-technical challenges in achieving 

interoperability of emergency communications systems. In the 2016 

RECCWG annual report, most of these groups (7 of 10) cited 

interoperability as a challenge to emergency communications in their 

regions.16 We have reported over the years that interoperability issues 

can affect mission operation and put first responders and the public at risk 

when responding officials cannot communicate with one another.17

 15When we discuss the RECCWG annual reports, we are referring to the final compiled 

report.

16DHS, FEMA, 2016 Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Working Group 

Annual Report, (Washington D.C.: June 2017)

17For example, see: GAO, Emergency Communications: Actions Needed to Better 

Coordinate Federal Efforts in the National Capital Region, GAO-16-249, (Washington 

D.C.: March, 2016); and GAO, Border Security: Additional Efforts Needed to Address 

Persistent Challenges in Achieving Radio Interoperability, GAO-15-201 (Washington, 

D.C.; Mar. 23, 2015).

Selected 

Stakeholders Cited 

Ongoing 

Interoperability, 

Funding, and Training 

Challenges

Interoperability Challenges
Page 9 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

Interoperability challenges can exist due to technical issues such as 

equipment’s incompatibility. As mentioned previously, first responders 

primarily rely on LMR to communicate and coordinate during 

emergencies. Although LMR systems have similar components, such as 

handheld portable radios and mobile radios mounted in vehicles, systems 

that operate on different radio frequency bands are not always 

interoperable, making it difficult for different jurisdictions to communicate 

with each other without technical solutions such as multi-band radios and 

interoperable gateways.18 Within Los Angeles County, local stakeholders 

told us that many jurisdictions use LMR systems that operate on different 

radio frequency bands across the area’s 88 cities and 56 law enforcement 

agencies. When an emergency involves first responders from a variety of 

jurisdictions, communication among them can be challenging. For 

example, one stakeholder told us about an incident in September 2015 

where a carjacking turned into a car chase through multiple jurisdictions 

before the suspect barricaded himself with hostages in a restaurant. The 

restaurant was surrounded by multiple law enforcement entities and none 

of them could immediately communicate with each other since their LMR 

systems operated on different radio frequency bands. According to this 

stakeholder, this interoperability challenge was dangerous because the 

officers could not share information such as a description of the 

suspect.19

Interoperability challenges can also exist because of a reliance on 

commercial wireless providers for voice and data emergency 

communications. In such cases, if the commercial network is overloaded 

or damaged, first responders could be unable to communicate within their 

own agency. This situation could also result in interoperability challenges 

when an agency’s first responders cannot communicate with other 

jurisdictions. According to a 2017 OEC report,20 reliance on commercial 

 18Multi-band radios can operate on more than one radio frequency band, with the goal of 

allowing emergency responders to communicate with partner agencies regardless of the 

radio frequency band on which they operate. Interoperable gateways use “bridging” or 

network approaches to enhance interoperability, by using radio network bridges or 

“gateways” that provide a direct interface between separate radio networks.

19According to the official, the Los Angeles region currently uses a patchwork of 40 aging 

radio networks to communicate, and there is an effort under way to create a new LMR 

system. The official said the system is expected to be fully operational in 2020 and will 

help address this type of interoperability challenge.

20DHS, Office of Emergency Communications, Interoperable Communications Capabilities 

Analysis Program, After Action Report/Improvement Plan, New Orleans, Louisiana, Mardi 

Gras, (Washington D.C.: March 2017)

Technical Challenges
Page 10 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

providers for first responders’ voice and data access can be problematic 

for a variety of reasons—including that they must share these networks 

with the public. According to the report, recent events around the country 

have demonstrated that regional and city commercial networks are 

sometimes overwhelmed and compromised by both routine events and 

large gatherings of people. For instance, the report stated that during the 

2017 Mardi Gras celebrations in New Orleans, first responders’ wireless 

voice and data connections were impaired while responding to an 

accident along the parade route, possibly because of the spike in cellular 

usage by the public.21 Additionally, two stakeholders from the same 

region told us that a state in their region does not have a statewide LMR 

system and relies on commercial wireless service for emergency 

communications; such reliance could cause interoperability challenges in 

the event of an emergency.

The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) is working to establish a 

nationwide dedicated network for public safety use that is intended to 

foster greater interoperability, support important data transmissions, and 

meet public safety officials’ reliability needs.22 FirstNet is working with five 

jurisdictions designated as “early builder projects” of the public-safety 

broadband network that are deploying local and regional public-safety 

broadband networks similar to what FirstNet must do on a national 

scale.23

Interoperability challenges can also result from non-technical or human 

factors such as a lack of coordination or not properly using interoperability 

 21According to OEC officials, OEC has contracts to provide Wireless Priority Services 

(WPS) on all major telecommunications providers. WPS is a priority telecommunications 

service that improves the connection capabilities for authorized public safety and national 

security and emergency preparedness cell phone users. In the event of congestion in the 

wireless network, an emergency call using WPS will be given priority in the call queue for 

the next available channel. OEC officials noted that during the 2017 Mardi Gras 

celebrations it is unclear if the first responders knew of these services or used them.

22Unlike current LMR systems, the devices operating on FirstNet’s network are expected 

to be interoperable among first responders using the network, since they are using the 

same radio frequency band nationwide and will be required to be built to the same open, 

non-proprietary, commercially available standards. For additional information on FirstNet’s 

activities see: GAO, Public-Safety Broadband Network: FirstNet Has Made Progress 

Establishing the Network, but Should Address Stakeholder Concerns and Workforce 

Planning, GAO-17-569 (Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2017). 

23These projects are located in California, Colorado, New Jersey, New Mexico, and 

Texas. For additional information on them, see: GAO-15-407.

Non-Technical Challenges
Page 11 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

channels. Additionally, as we reported in 2016, 23 states’ responses to 

our survey indicated that they have experienced interoperability difficulties 

when communicating or attempting to communicate with federal partners 

during disasters.24 For example, following Hurricane Harvey, stakeholders 

with the City of Houston and Harris County reported interoperability 

challenges when they were unable to communicate with members of 

FEMA’s Urban Search & Rescue teams deployed to the area. However, 

according to stakeholders we interviewed, they were initially unaware 

these teams were operating in the area because the teams did not share 

information—including the LMR channels on which they were operating—

with local first responders. According to a stakeholder from the State of 

Texas this was a communications coordination challenge. Stakeholders 

from the City of Houston, Harris County, and the State of Texas told us 

that having this information would have been useful to help coordinate 

emergency response. FEMA officials told us that they were aware of this 

issue, which they noted was an isolated incident, and have emphasized 

to these teams the importance of sharing this information in the future.

We also found that at least one stakeholder in each of our case study 

locations identified challenges due to first responders not using 

interoperable LMR channels properly. Additionally, a report about the 

response to the Boston Marathon bombings stated that first responders 

underutilized dedicated channels or had difficulty accessing them, a 

situation that limited coordination.25 Two stakeholders in Boston told us 

that officials in the city develop a comprehensive communications plan for 

major events to help allow all levels of government to better 

communicate, but one of these stakeholders said there is a continued 

need for training on using interoperability channels. As discussed later, 

DHS offers technical assistance and grants to improve interoperability.

Based on RECCWG annual reports, our case studies, and interviews with 

stakeholders, we identified: (1) an ongoing need for training and (2) the 

lack of a communications component in emergency response exercises 

 24GAO-16-681. Respondents noted in written comments that the interoperability issues 

included a lack of understanding by federal responders about the local radio systems, 

federal responders not using the statewide system, and federal radios not configured to 

the interoperable channels or talk groups, which allow the users to easily share 

communications and information.

25Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency et al, After Action Report for the 

Response to the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombings (December 2014).

Challenges with Training 

and Exercises
Page 12 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

as both challenges to emergency communications. Stakeholders in each 

of our three case study locations told us there is an ongoing need for 

training and practice in using emergency communications equipment. 

Additionally, this issue was raised in a recent RECCWG annual report 

and a report about the response to the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. 

Stakeholders in two of our case study locations, Los Angeles and Boston, 

told us that first responders continue to need training after investments 

are made in new interoperable communications equipment, posing an 

ongoing need for training. In addition, stakeholders from all three of our 

case study locations told us that first responders need training on the 

proper use of interoperability channels. For example, this gap in training 

was the case during the response to the Boston Marathon bombing when 

responders used their everyday channels rather than interoperable 

channels. If all responders are not operating on the same channels, there 

is the possibility of missing critical information. Additionally, with staff 

turnover and position changes, four stakeholders told us there is a 

constant need to educate first responders and other personnel. For 

example, officials from one department told us that emergency 

communications training is always a challenge with their approximately 

10,000 personnel. Other stakeholders also told us that public safety 

officials must know how to properly use new technologies and that 

evolving technology requires additional training. OEC officials said that 

their training and technical assistance has evolved to address new and 

emerging technologies such as broadband. For example, OEC’s current 

technical assistance catalog contains new or revised offerings on topics 

related to Next Generation 911 such as the technical and procedural 

challenges associated with integrating digital communications into these 

911 systems.26 OEC officials told us they work with various emergency 

communications stakeholders, such as state and local agencies, to stay 

informed about training needs.

Exercises—which can be planned and carried out at the federal, state, or 

local level—are important in preparing for emergencies because they can 

expose challenges, which can then be addressed before an actual 

emergency, according to stakeholders we interviewed. According to OEC 

officials, these exercises are intended to simulate large-scale disasters or 

emergencies and bring participants (including first responders, state and 

federal officials, hospital personnel, etc.) together to test equipment and 

 26Next Generation 911 uses Internet protocol-based technology to deliver and process 

voice calls and data. Under these systems, 911 call centers will be able to accommodate 

emergency communications from the range of technologies in use today.
Page 13 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

actual response procedures. According to DHS’s Interoperability 

Continuum, implementing effective exercise programs to practice 

communications interoperability is essential for ensuring that the 

technology works and that first responders are able to effectively 

communicate.27 One stakeholder in Houston told us that planned events 

prior to Hurricane Harvey revealed that many first responders in the area 

were not comfortable using interoperability channels because they did not 

typically operate on these channels or did not need to use radios for their 

daily work. After planned events (such as the 2017 Super Bowl), they 

gained experience and familiarity, and were able to use these 

interoperability channels without incident during the response to 

Hurricane Harvey, according to this stakeholder.

According to RECCWG annual reports in 2015 and 2016, major 

emergency-response exercises often do not include a large 

communications component, which can limit the preparedness of state 

and local public safety officials. Additionally, the 2016 RECCWG annual 

report states that in a large-scale disaster, compromised or insufficient 

communications can have dramatic effects on response efforts.28 All 10 

RECCWGs agreed on the need to test communications during 

emergency response exercises, and two of these groups cited this need 

as a specific priority for the upcoming year. FEMA officials told us they 

are working to build scenarios into exercises that will also help to test 

communications. Three stakeholders told us that during large-scale 

events, there is still too often an assumption that emergency 

communications systems will remain operational in the event of an 

emergency. The stakeholders said exercises are more beneficial and 

realistic when communications personnel are included in exercise 

planning and the exercises include a communications component. OEC 

officials told us that communications are frequently either omitted from or 

only notionally included in exercises and assessments, and because of 

this situation, OEC offers training on planning exercises. As discussed 

later, DHS offers technical assistance to help address the above 

challenges related to training and exercises.

 27DHS’s Interoperability Continuum is a tool designed to assist emergency response 

agencies and policy makers to plan and implement interoperable data and voice 

communications. 

28DHS, FEMA, 2016 Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Working Group 

Annual Report (Washington D.C.; June 2017).
Page 14 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

Based on RECCWG annual reports and interviews with emergency 

communication stakeholders we identified challenges in obtaining funding 

for acquiring and maintaining interoperable equipment and systems, as 

well as for travel and training. For example, a recent RECCWG annual 

report noted that determining funding sources to address interoperability 

needs was a challenge.29 This report raised concerns that two federal 

grant programs that jurisdictions previously used to address 

interoperability needs are no longer funded.30 Stakeholders told us that 

DHS grant programs have been important for emergency 

communications projects in their regions. They also noted that within a 

jurisdiction many projects compete for a limited amount of funding. For 

example, one stakeholder explained that even after his jurisdiction used a 

DHS grant to purchase a new LMR system, the jurisdiction must continue 

to seek funding to upgrade and maintain the system. Further, one recent 

RECCWG annual report identified funding limitations as causing many 

states and agencies to make trade-offs among capabilities essential for 

operable and interoperable communications—such as deciding whether 

to upgrade equipment or systems. As existing communications systems 

and equipment continue to age or become obsolete, these trade-offs put 

the agencies at an increasing risk of not being able to effectively 

exchange communications during an event response, according to this 

recent RECCWG annual report.

Additionally, leaders from all 10 RECCWGs also told us funding was 

currently a challenge to emergency communications in their region.31 For 

example, half (10 of 20) of these group cited limited funding to upgrade or 

replace equipment as a challenge in their region. According to a leader in 

one region that identified funding as a major challenge, many entities 

within the region need funding for this purpose. They noted that efforts to 

 29DHS, FEMA, 2015 Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Working Group 

Annual Report (Washington D.C.; August 2016).

30The Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program was funded by Congress 

in fiscal years 2008 to 2010. The purpose of this grant program is to provide governance, 

planning, training and exercises, and equipment funding to state, territories, tribal, and 

local governments to carry out initiatives to improve interoperable emergency 

communications. The Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grants Program was a 

one-time transfer program where funds were awarded by September 30, 2007. The 

purpose of this program was to assist public safety agencies in the acquisition of, 

deployment of, or training for the use of interoperable communications systems.

31As noted earlier, we refer to the chairs, co-chairs, or their designees as the leaders of 

these groups.

Funding Challenges
Page 15 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

find alternative funding sources have not been successful and that as 

emergency communications technology evolves it will grow increasingly 

difficult for first responders to keep pace with the changes. Likewise, 

representatives from one public safety association told us that 

maintaining interoperable communications is a challenge due to the 

expense of new radios and software. As a result, they noted that 

jurisdictions, particularly those in less populated areas, might decide to 

purchase less costly equipment that is not interoperable. Such purchases 

can result in emergency communications challenges. The leader of one 

RECCWG told us that due to consistent budget shortfalls over the past 

several years, one state in the region has deferred maintenance of 

communications infrastructure. This deferral is expected to create more 

expensive problems in the future.

Leaders from 5 of the 10 RECCWGs told us they have also experienced 

funding challenges related to travel or training. For example, one regional 

group leader told us that funding is a challenge because funding shortfalls 

prevent personnel from attending courses that would increase their 

knowledge of equipment and new technologies. Another regional group 

leader told us that funding is a challenge in that travel money is very 

limited. Given the large geographic area covered by this RECCWG, it is 

expensive for group members to travel to meetings, inhibiting participation 

and information sharing at RECCWG meetings.

Technical assistance, including guidance and training, is one of OEC’s 

main responsibilities, and while FEMA does provide certain technical 

assistance, it is not the agency’s primary responsibility. These OEC and 

FEMA efforts are intended help address emergency communications 

challenges, including those discussed above.

Stakeholders 

Indicated DHS’s 

Technical Assistance 

and Grants Have 

Enhanced 

Emergency 

Communications in 

Their Regions

Technical Assistance
Page 16 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

• OEC offers various types of technical assistance, such as workshops 

and assessments to help participants strengthen their 

communications plans and governance structures, as well as a 

seminar to help participants incorporate communications into 

emergency response exercises. According to OEC officials, they have 

delivered more than 2,000 technical-assistance-training courses and 

workshops since OEC was created in 2007. In addition, OEC has 

developed other resources, such as a toolkit for managing emergency 

communications at planned events such as the Super Bowl.32

According to OEC officials, they have a technical assistance budget of 

approximately $9 million per year, and OEC delivers this assistance at 

no cost to the requesting state or territory. OEC also has 11 subject 

matter experts located across the country who help jurisdictions with 

their communications programs and resources. These individuals 

seek to build partnerships across different levels of government and 

the private sector and are involved with their respective RECCWGs.

• FEMA offers training related to emergency communications, such as 

various courses on emergency management topics.33 FEMA also has 

10 regional emergency communications coordinators who are

responsible for providing assistance on an as-needed basis to their 

respective regions and coordinating FEMA’s tactical communications 

support during a disaster or emergency. These coordinators also 

support the RECCWGs.

• OEC and FEMA jointly provide training to first responders and other 

public safety officials to prepare them to act as communications unit 

leaders. 34 OEC also provides training for other specialized 

communications support roles. The communications unit is part of a 

standardized organizational emergency response structure called the 

Incident Command System.35 When a disaster or emergency occurs, 

the communications unit is responsible for managing the operational 

 32This toolkit addresses designated National Special Security Events.

33FEMA provides these courses through its Emergency Management Institute.

34OEC first offered the communications unit-leader-training course in 2007 and has since 

developed courses for other communications unit positions. Since 2009, OEC has 

collaborated with FEMA to provide the communications unit leader training through 

FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute.

35The Incident Command System is a management system designed to enable effective 

and efficient domestic incident management by integrating a combination of facilities, 

equipment, personnel, procedures, and communications operating within a common 

organizational structure. 
Page 17 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

and technical aspects of communications. For example, one of the 

unit leader’s tasks includes developing a plan to coordinate the radio 

frequencies used by first responders, to help ensure interoperability. 

The unit may also include a communications technician who provides 

the technical skills to implement the required equipment and systems. 

OEC trained more than 8,000 individuals between 2007 and August 

2017 to serve in communications unit positions, according to OEC 

information.

While stakeholders continue to face a range of emergency 

communications challenges, they are generally satisfied with DHS’s 

technical assistance to help address them. Specifically, nearly all the 

stakeholders we contacted (36 of 41) were generally satisfied with 

technical assistance from OEC, FEMA, or both.36 In addition, in 2016 we 

reported that all states had received OEC technical assistance and that 

almost all were satisfied with the support they received from OEC.37

When asked about the general topic of DHS technical assistance, more 

than half (25 of 41) of stakeholders we interviewed said that training for

communications unit positions was useful in advancing emergency 

communications capabilities in their jurisdictions. OEC and FEMA also 

employ a “train-the-trainer” approach for the communications unit-leader 

course. Houston-area stakeholders told us that over 1,000 local 

personnel across the state had received communications unit training and 

that the area now has a large number of local trainers. Five stakeholders 

we interviewed for our Houston case study praised this training and said it 

was critical in preparing communications personnel to respond to 

Hurricane Harvey. Specifically, one stakeholder who served as a 

communications unit leader during Hurricane Harvey told us that this 

training prepared him to develop an effective interoperable radio 

communications plan for the storm. This individual also said that first 

responders who came to assist from outside the region often brought their 

own communications unit leaders with them, and because this training is 

 36As discussed previously, the Post-Katrina Act required DHS to provide technical 

guidance and training—which we refer to as technical assistance—to support 

interoperable communications in urban and other high-risk areas. However, OEC and 

FEMA provide technical assistance nationwide, so we asked all stakeholders we 

contacted about their experiences with technical assistance from OEC and FEMA. Not all 

stakeholders we contacted had experience with both OEC and FEMA technical 

assistance, and a few did not have recent experience with either.

37See GAO-16-681. We conducted a survey of statewide interoperability coordinators in 

all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 5 territories and 52 coordinators responded. 
Page 18 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

consistent nationwide, the outside groups knew how the response effort 

would be organized and whom to call about which radio frequencies to 

use. However, a stakeholder from the Los Angeles area told us that while 

having the communications unit train itself was useful, it was insufficient 

without opportunities to practice the skills in real-life situations, a 

challenge that other stakeholders also noted in a recent RECCWG annual 

report. Based on feedback from state and local personnel, OEC is 

assisting states with establishing policies and procedures for their 

communications unit resources, including a process to demonstrate skills 

required for these specialized positions.

While stakeholders are generally satisfied with technical assistance, 

many (19 of 41) stakeholders said their jurisdictions would still benefit 

from additional technical assistance, aligning with a challenge we 

identified earlier regarding the need for training. Four stakeholders told us 

that OEC adapted technical assistance offerings to the needs of their 

jurisdictions. OEC officials told us that they customize technical 

assistance as needed—for example, when providing communicationsplanning support to a local jurisdiction, OEC will collect local agencies’

policies and facilitate a discussion with stakeholders to determine the best 

overall approach. A stakeholder in Texas said that OEC’s technical 

assistance—including communications-focused exercises and support 

with developing a statewide interoperability plan—had helped to advance 

capabilities in the state. Another stakeholder told us that FEMA’s training 

has been critical in helping tribal nations build emergency-management 

programs, including providing an introduction to emergency 

communications. When asked about their experiences with technical 

assistance, six stakeholders specifically told us they had benefited from 

OEC’s support with communications planning or coordination for special 

events, such as the Super Bowl. Each state or territory can request up to 

five offerings per year from OEC’s technical assistance catalog, and OEC 

officials told us that, given their available resources, they can generally 

fulfill about 60–70 percent of requests each year.38

DHS administers several grant programs to help address emergency 

communications challenges. Three programs provided the majority of 

DHS’s grant funding aimed at improving emergency communications from 

 38The statewide interoperability coordinator or other designated official receives requests 

for OEC technical assistance from public safety stakeholders within their state or territory 

and submit requests to OEC.

Grant Funding
Page 19 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

fiscal year 2011 to 2016, based on our analysis of data from FEMA’s 

Grants Reporting Tool. FEMA administers these three grant programs, 

which are intended to support a wide range of emergency response 

capabilities, one of which is operational communications.

• Urban Area Security Initiative: Assists high-threat, high-density urban 

areas in efforts to build and sustain the capabilities necessary to 

prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from acts 

of terrorism. This assistance can include building, sustaining, and 

enhancing emergency preparedness activities, including emergency 

communications interoperability.

• State Homeland Security Program: Assists state, local, tribal, and 

territorial preparedness activities that address high-priority 

preparedness gaps across all emergency preparedness capabilities—

including communications to prevent, protect against, respond to, and 

recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events.

• Emergency Management Performance Grant: Assists state, local, 

tribal, and territorial emergency-management agencies in preparing 

for “all hazards,” and can be used to support all capabilities, including 

communications. Each state and territory and the District of Columbia 

receive a base amount of funding, and the program requires 

recipients to commit matching funds.

According to FEMA’s data, which is reported by recipients, between fiscal 

years 2011 and 2016 more than $700 million in grants were provided to 

support emergency communications, as described in table 1.

Table 1: Approximate Amounts of Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) 

Funding for Emergency Communications Provided by Three Main Grant Programs 

(Fiscal Years 2011–2016), as Reported by Recipients

Grant program Approximate emergency communications funding 

Emergency Management 

Performance Grant

$37 million

State Homeland Security 

Program

$300 million

Urban Area Security Initiative $377 million

Total $714 million

Source: GAO analysis of Federal Emergency Management Agency data. | GAO-18-379

Note: The three grant programs listed comprise the majority of DHS’s funding that was used to 

support operational communications.
Page 20 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

According to FEMA officials, these funding amounts are approximate 

totals because the recipient-reported data have certain limitations. For 

example, the information may be incomplete if the recipient does not 

submit required biannual reports.39 In addition, FEMA officials told us that 

recipients identify which core capability the funding was used to support, 

but the data might not capture all aspects of a project because only one 

core capability may be selected at a time. FEMA officials told us that 

FEMA tracks funds obligated and dispersed at the overall grant level and 

uses the recipient-reported data to have a general understanding of how 

funding supports emergency communications and other capabilities. 

According to FEMA officials, recipient-reported data is sufficient for that 

general purpose. We have a substantial body of work related to DHS’s 

grant program management40 and in 2013 recommended that FEMA 

make improvements in collecting and validating performance data for 

certain grant programs. 41 FEMA implemented these improvements in 

2017. FEMA officials told us they have also initiated a multi-year effort to 

improve the oversight and monitoring of grants and support data analytics 

for improved efficiencies—called the Grant Management Modernization 

program—which is scheduled to be operational in 2020. Given these 

ongoing actions, we did not assess FEMA’s grants management efforts 

as part of this review.

Some state and local stakeholders told us that DHS grants (outlined in 

table 1 above) have allowed them to build and enhance communications 

capabilities that their jurisdictions would otherwise lack funding to 

address. These grants have been used to, among other things, build 

interoperable communications networks and purchase equipment, for 

example:

 39FEMA officials told us that they check whether reports have been submitted and followup with recipients, but they noted some states are persistently late in submitting reports.

40For example, see GAO, Federal Emergency Management Agency: Strengthening 

Regional Coordination Could Enhance Preparedness Efforts, GAO-16-38 (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 4, 2016); National Preparedness: Actions Taken by FEMA to Implement Select 

Provisions of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, 

GAO-14-99R. (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26, 2013); National Preparedness: FEMA has 

Made Progress, but Additional Steps Are Needed to Improve Grant Management and 

Assess Capabilities, GAO-13-637T (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2013).

41GAO, Grants Performance: Justice and FEMA Collect Performance Data for Selected 

Grants, but Action Needed to Validate FEMA Performance Data, GAO-13-552 

(Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2013).
Page 21 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

• Urban Area Security Initiative grant funds were used to enhance a 

regional radio system in the Houston area. According to stakeholders, 

the system helped the region respond to Hurricane Harvey because it 

enhanced interoperability in the Houston area, so that first responders 

from multiple counties and agencies were all using the same system 

to communicate. Urban Area Security Initiative grant funds have also 

been used to help build the LMR component of an interoperable 

communications network in Los Angeles County.42

• Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security Program 

grants funds were used to build a large radio cache in Massachusetts, 

with over 400 multi-band radios that can be quickly deployed into the 

field to support both emergency and planned events across multiple 

jurisdictions. One stakeholder told us that these radios are requested 

on a regular, often weekly, basis.

• Emergency Management Performance grants have been used to 

establish and enhance state and local emergency operations centers 

across the country. These centers are activated during disasters and 

emergencies and provide a single location for leaders to coordinate 

the response effort, including the coordination of communications.

As part of the Post-Katrina Act, Congress established the RECCWGs to 

help address emergency communications issues, such as a lack of 

equipment interoperability. We found the RECCWGs have enhanced 

emergency communications capabilities through relationship building and 

information sharing—with demonstrated benefits. Although these groups 

have had successes, they still face challenges, such as ensuring 

continuous and broad participation and increasing the national visibility of 

the groups. Further, collaboration across these groups is limited. Without 

ways to collaborate across the regions, RECCWG members may be 

missing opportunities to share best practices and leverage the experience 

of their counterparts nationwide.

 42This network, known as the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications 

System, will consist of a radio system as well as a public safety broadband network that 

uses the FirstNet spectrum. 

RECCWGs Have 

Enhanced 

Capabilities in 

Several Ways, but 

Collaboration across 

Regions Is Limited
Page 22 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

The RECCWGs bring together communications stakeholders from 

different levels of government and the private sector, and all of these 

groups have identified relationship building as a major benefit, according 

to our analysis of RECCWG annual reports and interviews with these 

groups’ leaders. Members expand their professional networks and build 

relationships within their regions when they gather for in-person meetings 

and participate in regular conference calls. For example, a leader of one 

RECCWG told us that through these interactions, members learn about 

each other’s areas of expertise and also make connections in the region. 

A leader of another RECCWG told us that his members were more willing 

to call on each other for assistance because of the strong working 

relationships they had developed in the group. The relationships 

established in these groups have facilitated cooperation and resulted in 

more effective emergency response efforts, as described below.

All of the RECCWGs share best practices and lessons learned, according 

to the groups’ annual reports and the leaders of these groups. Information 

sharing takes a variety of forms, including discussing lessons learned

after disasters or other major events, sharing experiences with new 

technologies, and presenting information from federal and private industry 

partners. For example, the Region X group reported in 2016 that 

members shared lessons learned after declared disasters in several 

states. Further, according to the 2016 RECCWG annual report, in Region 

VII, members from Nebraska shared their experiences with expanding 

their statewide LMR system. This expansion helped members in Iowa 

construct their own system in a more timely and cost-effective way. 

RECCWG members share information about communications resources 

within their regions; that information can be deployed when a disaster or 

emergency occurs. For example, nearly all of these groups (9 of 10) 

groups have or are working to compile information about communications 

assets, such as equipment and personnel. Information sharing about 

communications resources has been used to facilitate response efforts, 

as described below. The groups have helped promote awareness of 

developments in federal programs, such as the public safety broadband 

network, according to the 2016 RECCWG annual report. The groups also 

provide a forum for FEMA to understand the regions’ capabilities, needs, 

and vulnerabilities. According to FEMA officials, they use this information 

RECCWGs Facilitate 

Relationship Building and 

Information Sharing, with 

Demonstrated Benefits

Relationship Building

Information Sharing
Page 23 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

to develop regional plans that help FEMA assist the regions more 

effectively during a disaster.43

Improved Response Capability

In several instances, RECCWG members have reported assisting each 

other during disasters and emergencies, drawing on the relationships and 

information sharing fostered by the groups. For example, a member of the 

Region I group, which includes New England, told us that prior to his 

group’s formation, emergency communications stakeholders from 

different levels of government in that region did not meet. However, 

because of the relationships that regional group helped to build, these 

stakeholders now meet regularly to develop communications plans for 

large planned events and have collaborated to provide communications 

support in responding to the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, 

Hurricane Sandy in 2012, and other events both within and outside of the 

region. According to a leader of the Region X group, relationships 

developed in the group were also helpful in responding to wildfires in 

Washington State in 2014 and 2015. In addition, after Hurricane Matthew 

and a major flood in 2016, Region IV group members drew on 

relationships developed in the RECCWG to coordinate support from other 

states in the region to assist South Carolina, according to a leader of that 

group. As discussed earlier, nearly all of these groups (9 of 10) have or 

are working to share information about resources that can be deployed 

during a disaster. At least three regions have consulted these resource 

compilations during recent disasters. For example, according to the 2016 

RECCWG annual report, this information was used during Hurricanes 

Hermine and Matthew in 2016, severe storms and flooding in Minnesota 

and Wisconsin in 2016, and severe winter storms in New England in 

2015.

Technical Solutions

Several RECCWGs have or are working to develop technical solutions to 

enhance interoperability within or bordering their regions, according to the 

groups’ annual reports, the leaders of these groups, and FEMA officials. 

For example, the group in Region V connected disparate statewide radio 

systems in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan, so that responders would 

be able to communicate in the event of a regional disaster or emergency. 

 43These plans are called Regional Emergency Communications Plans. FEMA has also 

worked with state, local, and tribal stakeholders to develop state annexes to these plans. 

Demonstrated Benefits
Page 24 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

The Region VIII group, which includes the border states of Montana and 

North Dakota, is working to develop solutions to enhance interoperability 

among states in the region and with Canada. After the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill in 2010, the Region IV group, which includes the 

southeastern states along the Gulf of Mexico, developed a 

communications network that is still in place and could be used for other 

events affecting the Gulf Coast. In 2011 this network was modified to 

connect to Arkansas and Louisiana’s statewide communications 

networks, and was successfully tested during a multi-state hurricane 

evacuation exercise. The Region IV group is also working to identify 

technology to directly connect emergency operations centers in the 

southeastern states to coordinate assistance and evacuations when other 

communications methods fail, according to the 2016 RECCWG annual 

report.

Policy Concerns Addressed

RECCWGs have addressed or are working to address several policy 

concerns based on joint positions developed within their groups, 

according to the groups’ annual reports, interviews with RECCWG 

leaders, and FEMA officials. For example, RECCWG efforts led to 

changes in the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration manual allowing for state and local use of federal 

interoperability channels, according to FEMA officials.44 In addition, the 

Region I group raised concerns regarding an interoperability challenge 

with Department of Defense (DOD) first responders, resulting in a

nationwide rule change for DOD’s land mobile radios used for domestic 

response activities. After a corporate jet crashed at Hanscom Air Force 

Base in Massachusetts in 2014, local first responders could not 

communicate with the Hanscom Fire Department because the base’s 

radio programming policies did not permit the use of interoperable radio 

channels. The RECCWG subsequently collaborated with DOD and other 

federal agencies on an initiative to program DOD radios with national 

 44The National Telecommunications and Information Administration has designated 

specific radio frequencies, known as federal interoperability channels, which are used 

among federal agencies and in situations when federal agencies require interoperability 

with non-federal entities.
Page 25 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

interoperability channels.45 In addition, during a Region VI group meeting, 

members learned that multiple states were experiencing a common 

problem with the use of national interoperability channels. They found that 

in multiple areas, local entities were using these channels for day-to-day 

operations, meaning they could not be reliably used during disaster and 

emergency situations because first responders experienced interference 

on these interoperability channels. In February 2017, the Region VI group 

raised its concerns to the Federal Communications Commission, which 

had licensed these channels to local entities for use on a secondary 

basis, and the group continues to work on addressing this issue. FEMA 

officials told us that the participation and involvement of federal agencies 

in the RECCWGs has been critical in addressing policy changes.

Although the RECCWGs have cited several achievements, they have 

ongoing challenges, such as ensuring broad, continuous participation and 

establishing national visibility for the groups, according to their annual 

reports and interviews with group leaders and other selected group 

members. Various factors can make participation in these groups difficult. 

Participation is on a volunteer basis, in addition to members’ regular work 

responsibilities, and some groups cover large geographic areas. Leaders 

or members from four RECCWGs told us their groups have had turnover 

in membership, such as when individuals move to other positions or 

retire. FEMA officials told us that this turnover is a challenge shared 

across the RECCWGs. In the 2016 RECCWG annual report, many of 

these groups reported progress in broadening and diversifying their 

membership. For example, 7 of 10 groups added state and local 911 

representatives to their membership, and nearly all saw an increase in 

participation from cellular providers. However, four of the groups identified 

challenges with tribal participation in 2016, and all 10 groups reported that 

they have continued outreach to tribal nations in their respective regions. 

A representative from a tribal emergency-management organization told 

us that time and resource demands can affect the level of engagement 

from tribal members, because emergency response personnel for tribal 

nations often have many other primary responsibilities.

 45The Federal Communications Commission has designated other specific radio 

frequencies as national interoperability channels, for use by the public safety community 

at the state and local levels. These channels are reserved for different agencies or 

jurisdictions to coordinate and resolve initial interoperability issues when responding to an 

incident.

RECCWGs Face Other 

Ongoing Challenges
Page 26 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

The activity level and achievements also vary across the 10 RECCWGs, 

according to our analysis of the groups’ reports, as well as interviews with 

group leaders, selected group members, FEMA officials, and other 

stakeholders. As noted earlier, each group determines its own activities. 

Stakeholders we interviewed told us that some regions have very active 

groups with many achievements, while other RECCWGs meet less 

frequently and have had fewer achievements. For example, stakeholders 

from Region I told us that they meet on a monthly basis and collaborate 

frequently outside of formal meetings. On the other hand, a leader from 

another region said that his group has not been very active in recent 

years. According to the 2016 RECCWG annual report, that group did not 

have any formal meetings in 2016, and instead stakeholders worked 

together through other coordination groups in the members’ states and 

territories. We also found that the emergency communications 

stakeholders’ awareness of the activities of the RECCWGs can vary. For 

example, two stakeholders told us they are interested in regional 

collaboration but were not aware that these groups existed. In addition, 

four other stakeholders we interviewed knew about the groups in their 

respective regions, but they told us the groups’ activities were limited or 

they were not aware of what the group had done.

The RECCWGs have identified other issue areas they are working to 

address. For example, almost all of these groups (9 of 10) are working to 

improve the information that states, private sector partners, and others 

share about communications resources that can be deployed during 

disasters or emergencies, according to the 2016 RECCWG annual report. 

In addition, a member of one RECCWG told us it can be challenging to 

address policy concerns when federal agencies they contact are not 

aware of the groups or their purpose. This stakeholder said that it was 

important to increase the national visibility of the groups in order to 

improve their effectiveness. Increasing national collaboration, as 

discussed below, could be one way to address this concern.

OEC’s National Emergency Communications Plan—which OEC views as 

the nation’s strategic plan for this area—established a vision of enabling 

the nation’s emergency response community to communicate and share 

information across all levels of government, disciplines, and jurisdictions. 

This plan has prioritized enhancing coordination among stakeholders, 

processes, and planning activities across the emergency response 

community. In addition, our previous work has found that collaboration 

Collaboration across 

RECCWGs Has Been 

Limited
Page 27 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

can be used to address a range of purposes, including information 

sharing and communication. 46 In this work, we identified key 

considerations for implementing interagency collaborative mechanisms, 

such as ensuring that all relevant participants have been included. 

Federal internal control standards also speak broadly to the importance of 

communicating to achieve an entity’s objectives.47

FEMA has taken some steps to encourage collaboration among 

RECCWG leaders, but broader collaboration across regions remains 

limited. RECCWGs have periodically shared information with their 

counterparts in other regions, but according to our analysis of the groups’

annual reports and interviews with group leaders, these exchanges 

primarily involve one region working with another on an ad-hoc basis. For 

example, according to one group member in Region VI, members of other 

RECCWGs reached out to him to learn more about communications 

successes and challenges during Hurricane Harvey. FEMA has taken 

some steps to encourage information sharing and collaboration among 

the RECCWGs. Specifically, FEMA encouraged the establishment of a 

monthly conference call for RECCWG co-chairs in 2015, and its Disaster 

Emergency Communications division distributes a biweekly newsletter to 

RECCWG members, according to FEMA officials. However, there is not 

an ongoing mechanism for communication across all of the regions so 

that the full membership can effectively share information with each other 

and collaborate. While the co-chair conference calls are intended to 

enhance collaboration across the regions, the meetings do not involve the 

broader membership of the groups.

Most RECCWG leaders (15 of 20), as well as 9 other stakeholders, told 

us that more collaboration across the groups was needed. For example, 

four stakeholders explained to us that if a RECCWG in another part of the 

country has identified best practices it would be useful to share the 

information more broadly. Three other stakeholders who said their groups 

were less active told us it would still be helpful to receive information 

about what other groups are doing to enhance emergency 

communications. Stakeholders suggested several possible methods, 

such as an in-person conference or a national-level working group that 

functions using virtual or other means.

 46GAO-12-1022.

47GAO-14-704G. 
Page 28 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

FEMA officials have considered ways to enhance collaboration but they 

face certain limitations. Specifically, FEMA officials told us they had 

considered an in-person national conference, but FEMA’s budget for the 

groups was limited and a national conference would be too resourceintensive. FEMA officials also explained that they facilitate the groups, but 

the groups are run by their members. According to FEMA officials, they 

have tried some ways to enhance collaboration across the RECCWGs, 

such as by encouraging the groups to extend meeting invitations to other 

regions and use online portals for collaboration. Developing and 

implementing an appropriate ongoing mechanism for collaboration may 

be a worthwhile investment because it could further enhance the 

RECCWGs’ efforts to improve emergency communications. Reaching a 

consensus with RECCWG members may help FEMA determine options 

that are both useful for the membership and feasible, given FEMA’s 

resource constraints. In the role as a facilitator for RECCWGs FEMA is 

well positioned to lead this effort.

Without ways for all members of the RECCWGs, not just the groups’

leaders, to collaborate across regions, members may be missing 

opportunities to share best practices and leverage the knowledge and 

experience of their counterparts throughout the nation. For example, 

lessons learned from Hurricane Harvey and other natural disasters in 

2017—such as how first responders used interoperability channels 

effectively—may not be shared across all of the regions without additional 

methods for collaboration. Further, several of these groups are working to 

address similar challenges and priorities, as discussed above. For 

example, nearly all of the groups want to improve the way information 

about emergency communications resources is shared in their regions, so 

that these resources can be better leveraged during disasters and 

emergencies. Some of the RECCWGs have explored ways to better 

leverage these resources, but in the absence of methods to exchange 

information more broadly, RECCWGs may not be able to easily share 

what has been successful for their regions.

When disasters strike or emergencies arise, they can span multiple 

jurisdictions, making coordination and collaboration critically important for 

effective emergency response. The RECCWGs established by the PostKatrina Act have enhanced emergency communications within their 

regions. While the relationship building and information sharing within 

these groups have contributed to benefits at the regional level, nationwide 

collaboration among the groups has been more limited. Such 

collaboration could help the groups address common challenges by 

Conclusions
Page 29 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

providing a way to improve the sharing of best practices and lessons 

learned and to allow members to leverage the knowledge and experience 

of their counterparts to improve emergency communications capabilities 

in their regions and nationwide. Therefore, it could benefit FEMA to work 

with these groups to reach consensus on and to implement a mechanism 

for accomplishing cross-regional collaboration. A concerted effort 

focusing on these groups’ collaboration needs, while also considering 

FEMA’s resource constraints, could help FEMA and regional stakeholders 

determine an appropriate mechanism for collaboration moving forward.

The Administrator of FEMA should work with RECCWG members to 

reach consensus on and implement an ongoing mechanism to encourage 

nationwide collaboration across these groups, considering the costs of 

one or more suitable methods, such as a national-level working group 

that uses virtual or other means of coordination, as appropriate. 

(Recommendation 1)

We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. DHS 

provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix I. In written 

comments, DHS concurred with our recommendation and provided an 

attachment describing the actions it would take to implement the 

recommendation. DHS noted that FEMA is committed to increased 

collaboration among RECCWGs to coordinate multi-state efforts and 

measure progress on and improving survivability, sustainability, and 

interoperability of communication at the regional level and nationwide. 

Separately FEMA provided technical comments that we incorporated as 

appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of 

Homeland Security and appropriate congressional committees. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or members of your staff have any questions about this report, 

please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments
Page 30 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

be found on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report 

are listed in appendix II.

Mark L. Goldstein 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 31 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

List of Requesters

The Honorable Ron Johnson

Chairman

The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Michael McCaul

Chairman

The Honorable Bennie Thompson

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security

House of Representatives

The Honorable Daniel M. Donovan, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr.

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and

 Communications

Committee on Homeland Security

House of Representatives

The Honorable Susan Brooks

House of Representatives

The Honorable Martha McSally

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 32 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

Appendix I: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 33 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 34 GAO-18-379 Emergency Communications

Mark Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, David Sausville (Assistant 

Director); Aaron Kaminsky (Analyst in Charge); Melissa Bodeau; Josh 

Ormond; Kate Perl; Cheryl Peterson; and Kelly Rubin made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(101295)
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 website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

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

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

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

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.