EMERGENCY 

COMMUNICATIONS

Effectiveness of the 

Post-Katrina 

Interagency 

Coordination Group 

Could Be Enhanced

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2016

GAO-16-681

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-681, a report to 

congressional requesters

July 2016

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

Effectiveness of the Post-Katrina Interagency 

Coordination Group Could Be Enhanced

What GAO Found

Implementation of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 

(PKEMRA) provisions related to emergency communications planning and 

federal coordination has enhanced federal support for state and local efforts;

however, federal coordination could be improved. PKEMRA created within the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the Office of Emergency 

Communications, which has taken a number of steps aimed at ensuring that 

state and local agencies have the plans, resources, and training they need to 

support reliable emergency communications. PKEMRA also directed DHS to 

develop the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP). The NECP 

includes goals for improving emergency communications and encourages states

to align their plans with these emergency communications goals. PKEMRA

further established the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center 

(ECPC), comprising 14 member agencies, to improve coordination and 

information sharing among federal emergency communications programs. GAO 

previously identified key features and issues to consider when implementing 

collaborative mechanisms, including interagency groups like the ECPC. GAO 

found that the ECPC’s collaborative efforts were consistent with most of these

features, such as those related to leadership and resources, but were not fully 

consistent with others. For example, one of the key features calls for interagency 

groups to clearly define goals and track progress, yet the ECPC has not done so.

As a result, the ECPC’s member agencies might not understand the ECPC’s 

goals or have a chance to ensure that the goals align with their own agencies’ 

purposes and goals. Furthermore, the ECPC puts forth recommendations that 

could improve emergency communications. But the recommendations are 

implemented at the discretion of the ECPC’s member agencies and are not 

tracked. Without a mechanism to track the ECPC’s recommendations, it is 

unclear the extent to which the recommendations are being implemented and the 

ECPC is missing an opportunity to monitor its progress.

Almost all of the Statewide Interoperability Coordinators (SWIC) responding to 

GAO’s survey reported that to better plan for emergency communications during 

disasters, their states have taken the following steps since PKEMRA: (1) 

developed comprehensive strategic plans for emergency communications that 

align with the NECP; (2) established SWIC positions to support state emergency 

communications initiatives, such as developing high-level policy and coordinating 

training and exercises; and (3) implemented governance structures to manage 

the systems of people, organizations, and technologies that need to collaborate 

to effectively plan for emergencies. GAO did not independently verify state 

responses. In responding to GAO’s survey, most SWICs reported not having a 

comprehensive emergency communications plans in place prior to PKEMRA’s

2006 enactment. In particular, prior to the enactment of PKEMRA, only a few 

states had comprehensive emergency communications plans in place, but now 

all but one have such a plan. Most of the SWICs also reported that their 

statewide plans cover key elements, such as governance, standard operating 

procedures, and training and exercises, which are considered by DHS as the 

essential foundation for achieving the NECP goals.

View GAO-16-681. For more information, 

contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or 

goldsteinm@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

During emergency situations, reliable

communications are critical to ensure a 

rapid and sufficient response.

PKEMRA was enacted in 2006 to 

improve the federal government’s 

preparation for and response to 

disasters, including emergency 

communications. Since that time, 

natural and man-made disasters 

continue to test the nation’s emergency 

communications capabilities. Given 

that states and localities are the first 

line of response following a disaster, 

states’ emergency communications 

planning is very important. 

GAO was asked to review the 

implementation of PKEMRA. This 

report examines (1) federal efforts to 

implement PKEMRA emergency 

communications provisions related to 

planning and federal coordination, and 

(2) how states’ emergency

communications planning has changed 

since PKEMRA. GAO reviewed

relevant reports and documentation 

from DHS and other agencies;

surveyed SWICs from 50 states, the

District of Columbia, and 5 territories,

receiving 52 responses; assessed the 

ECPC’s collaborative efforts; and 

interviewed federal and state officials 

selected for their emergency 

communications experience. GAO 

plans to review the implementation of 

other PKEMRA emergency 

communications provisions in future 

work.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making recommendations to 

DHS aimed at improving the ECPC’s 

collaborative efforts, including defining

its goals and tracking its 

recommendations. DHS concurred with 

the recommendations.
Page i GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

Letter 1

Background 4

Implementation of PKEMRA Provisions Has Enhanced Federal 

Support for State and Local Emergency Communications 

Efforts, but Federal Coordination Could Be Improved 7

State Emergency Communications Planning Has Improved Since 

PKEMRA, but States Face Funding and Other Challenges 16

Conclusions 22

Recommendations for Executive Action 22

Agency Comments 23

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 25

Appendix II Survey of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators 27

Appendix III Comments from Department of Homeland Security 45

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 49

Tables

Table 1: Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act’s 

(PKEMRA) Emergency Communications Requirements 

and Status, as of May 2016 5

Table 2: Key Guidance Developed by the Office of Emergency 

Communications (OEC) for State and Local Entities 9

Table 3: The Emergency Communications Preparedness Center’s 

(ECPC) Collaboration Efforts Compared with Key 

Features and Issues to Consider when Implementing 

Collaborative Mechanisms 12

Table 4: Number of States Reporting That Their Emergency 

Communications Plans Contain SAFECOM Elements 18

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

Abbreviations

Commerce Department of Commerce

DHS Department of Homeland Security

E911 Enhanced 911

ECPC Emergency Communications Preparedness Center

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FirstNet First Responder Network Authority

NECP National Emergency Communications Plan

NTIA National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration

OEC Office of Emergency Communications

OIC Office of Interoperability and Compatibility

PKEMRA Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act

of 2006

SCIP Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan

SWIC Statewide Interoperability Coordinator

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-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

July 14, 2016

Congressional Requesters

For first responders in emergency situations, reliable communications are 

critical to ensuring a rapid and sufficient response. In the aftermath of 

Hurricane Katrina in 2005, gaps were apparent in how federal, state, and 

local entities responded to the catastrophic storm, including that 

emergency communications were not operable, interoperable, and 

continuous. In addition, many available communications assets were not 

fully utilized because of insufficient planning and coordination. Congress 

passed the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 

(PKEMRA) to improve the federal government’s preparation for and 

response to natural and manmade disasters.1 Among the more than 300 

PKEMRA reforms, 10 provisions specifically relate to improving 

emergency communications during disasters. Three of the emergency 

communications provisions focus on planning and federal coordination 

issues that were evident following Hurricane Katrina. These provisions (1) 

established the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) within the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS); (2) directed DHS to develop the 

National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP), a national strategy to 

enhance emergency communications response; and (3) establish the 

Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC), an

interagency group responsible for coordinating federal emergency 

communications programs. In 2008, we reported on actions taken by 

DHS and others to implement the emergency communications provisions 

and found that not all of the provisions had been fully implemented at that 

time.2 Since our prior report, all of PKEMRA’s emergency 

communications provisions have been implemented, but natural 

disasters, such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012; terrorist attacks, such as the 

2013 Boston Marathon bombings; and active shooter incidents continue 

 1

PKEMRA was enacted as Title VI of the Department of Homeland Security 

Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No.109-295, 120 Stat. 1355 (2006). The PKEMRA 

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. 

2

GAO, Actions Taken to Implement the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act 

of 2006, GAO-09-59R (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 21, 2008). 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

to test the nation’s emergency communications capabilities. These 

incidences can stretch across jurisdictional borders, further highlighting 

the need for operable, interoperable, and continuous emergency 

communications. Given that localities are the first line of response 

following a disaster, emergency communications planning at the state 

and local level is very important, and such planning facilitates 

coordination and decision making across all levels of government. DHS’s 

National Response Framework stresses that planning is an inherent 

responsibility of every level of government.3

After Hurricane Sandy severely damaged local infrastructure, you asked 

us to evaluate how the implementation of PKEMRA’s many provisions 

has affected disaster preparedness, response, and recovery in general. In 

this report, we focus on three emergency communications provisions 

related to planning and federal coordination. Specifically, we examined 

(1) federal efforts to implement PKEMRA’s emergency communications 

provisions related to planning and federal coordination, and (2) how 

states’ emergency communications planning has changed since 

PKEMRA and what challenges remain for the states. We plan to review 

PKEMRA’s other emergency communications provisions related to 

disaster response and recovery in future work.

To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant reports, plans, and 

other documentation from DHS and other federal agencies with 

responsibilities related to emergency communications, such as the NECP 

and progress reports on its implementation, biennial reports to Congress 

on emergency communications, and Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) reports on 911 and Enhanced 911 (E911) services.4

We interviewed officials from DHS, FCC, and the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) to determine their efforts to implement the 

PKEMRA emergency communications provisions. We reviewed 

documentation on the establishment of the ECPC, such as its charter and 

plans to understand its mission and purpose, as well as the Annual 

Strategic Assessments prepared for Congress to understand the steps 

 3

DHS, National Response Framework, 2nd Edition (Washington, D.C.: May 2013). 

4

E911 service refers to the capability of commercial carriers to automatically provide and 

public safety answering points to automatically receive an emergency caller’s call-back 

and location information.
Page 3 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

and progress the ECPC has taken to improve federal coordination. We 

also interviewed 5 of 14 ECPC member agencies (DHS, FCC, 

Commerce, the Department of Transportation, and the General Services 

Administration) to understand their roles on the ECPC and how the ECPC 

has supported the coordination of federal emergency communications 

efforts. We selected agencies to interview with a range of emergency 

communications experience, and the views we obtained do not 

necessarily represent the views of all ECPC member agencies. We 

assessed the ECPC’s collaborative efforts against six of seven key 

features and issues to consider when implementing collaborative 

mechanisms that we identified in a September 2012 report.5 Additionally, 

to understand how states’ emergency communications planning has 

changed since PKEMRA and what challenges remain for the states, we 

surveyed the Statewide Interoperability Coordinators (SWIC) in 50 states, 

the District of Columbia, and 5 territories.6 We surveyed SWICs from 

February 2016 to April 2016 and received 52 responses for a 93 percent 

response rate.7 More details about our scope and methodology can be 

found in appendix I and a copy of our survey results in appendix II.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2015 to July 2016 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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.

 5

GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

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

report, we built on our prior work that identified key practices for Congress and others to 

consider when implementing collaborative mechanisms, see GAO, Results-Oriented 

Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal 

Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). We did not assess the ECPC’s 

efforts against one of the key features identified in GAO-12-1022, bridging organizational 

cultures, because this would have included reviewing the organizational cultures of 14 

participating agencies, which was outside our scope.

6

According to DHS, SWICs are responsible for implementing a statewide strategic vision 

for emergency communications interoperability. 

7

One state (Massachusetts) and three territories (American Samoa, the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and Puerto Rico) did not respond to our survey. We did not verify states’

responses. 
Page 4 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established DHS and required the 

agency, among other things, to build a comprehensive national incident 

management system comprising all levels of government and to 

consolidate existing federal government emergency response plans into a 

single, coordinated national response plan.8 DHS developed the National 

Response Framework that identified core capabilities necessary to 

ensure national preparedness, such as operational planning at the federal 

and state level and emergency communications capabilities that enable 

emergency responders to effectively communicate with each other. 

States and localities provide the first response to any disaster and thus 

must plan and coordinate, across state lines, and with federal entities as 

well. States have developed plans and made efforts to coordinate in 

support of emergency communications. For example, state plans, called 

Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans, are intended to define 

the current and future direction for interoperable and emergency 

communications within the state.

In addition to DHS, other federal agencies play a role in supporting 

emergency communications during disasters. Specifically, FCC manages 

the use of spectrum by non-federal entities, including commercial 

enterprises and state and local governments, and administers policies 

related to 911 and E911 services. The Department of Commerce’s 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is 

responsible for managing spectrum used by the federal government and 

can temporarily assign spectrum during an emergency to aid the 

response.9 Along with FCC, NTIA deploys personnel to support disasters 

in response to a mission assignment from DHS. Furthermore, the First 

Responder Network Authority (FirstNet), an independent authority within 

NTIA, is in the process of planning for the deployment of a high-speed, 

 8

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296 § 502, 116 Stat. 2135, 2212 (2002),

codified at 6 U.S.C. § 312. 

9

NTIA is the President’s principal adviser on telecommunications and information policy 

issues, and in this role works with other executive branch agencies to develop and present 

the administration’s position on these issues.

Background
Page 5 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

interoperable nationwide wireless broadband network for use by federal, 

state, tribal, and local public safety personnel.10

Congress passed PKEMRA in 2006 to address issues that arose during 

Hurricane Katrina, including emergency communications issues. 

PKEMRA contains 10 emergency communications provisions that, 

according to our 2008 report and updates we obtained from DHS, have all 

been implemented, as shown in table 1.11 In this report, we focus on the 

first three emergency communications provisions listed in the table, 

requirements that are related to planning and federal coordination.

Table 1: Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act’s (PKEMRA) Emergency Communications Requirements and 

Status, as of May 2016

Emergency communications provision Summary of requirement Status

Office of Emergency Communications 

(OEC) Create OEC and assign duties to the office. 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

created OEC in 2007 and assigned 

duties to the office.

National Emergency Communications 

Plan (NECP)

Develop a national strategy to enhance 

emergency communications response to 

ensure continuous communications during 

emergencies. DHS issued the NECP in 2008 and 2014.

Emergency Communications 

Preparedness Center (ECPC)

Establish the ECPC to serve as the focal point 

for coordination of federal agencies’ emergency 

communications efforts.

In 2009, 12 federal agencies came 

together to establish the ECPC. Today 

there are 14 federal agencies 

represented on the ECPC.

Regional Emergency Communications 

Coordination Working Group 

Establish a Regional Emergency 

Communications Coordination Working Group 

in each of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency’s (FEMA) 10 regional 

offices.

DHS established the working groups in 

each of the FEMA regions.

Grant program guidance

Develop grant guidance to ensure federal 

guidelines for emergency communications 

grant programs are coordinated and consistent 

across all agencies that provide such funding.

DHS developed grant guidance in 2007 

and has updated it annually.

 10FirstNet was created to establish, for public safety use, a nationwide, interoperable, 

wireless broadband network. Pub. L. No. 112-96 title VI, subtitle B, §§ 6204-6213, 156 

Stat. 206-218 (2012). 

11GAO-09-59R.
Page 6 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

Emergency communications provision Summary of requirement Status

Technical assistance for urban and other 

high risk areas

Provide technical guidance, training, and other 

assistance to support the rapid establishment 

of interoperable emergency communications in 

urban and other areas deemed to be 

consistently at a high level of risk from 

disasters.

DHS has provided ongoing technical 

assistance to urban area grant recipients 

since 2007.

DHS has also provided ongoing technical 

assistance to states and territories since 

2007.

Office of Interoperability and 

Compatibility (OIC) 

Identify the responsibilities of the Director of 

OIC in establishing standards, conducting 

research, and other duties.

OIC coordinated with relevant agencies 

on consensus standards, research and 

development, and other directives of this 

provision.

Interoperability research and 

development 

Develop a comprehensive research and 

development program to support the continuity 

and interoperability of emergency 

communications during disasters.

DHS developed research and 

development programs since 2006 and 

continues to conduct research in these 

areas.

Assessments and reports 

Complete a baseline assessment of federal 

and state emergency communications 

capabilities; provide a biennial progress report 

to Congress on emergency communications.

DHS submitted its baseline emergency 

communications assessment report in 

two phases completing both in 2008.

DHS provides biennial progress reports 

to Congress on emergency 

communications and completed reports 

in 2008, 2011, and 2013.a

911 and Enhanced 911 (E911) services 

reportb 

Issue a report to Congress on the status of 

state, local, and tribal government efforts to 

develop plans for rerouting 911 and E911 

services in the event that public safety answer 

points are disabled during disasters.

The Federal Communications 

Commission issued the report in 

September 2007. 

Source: GAO summary of PKEMRA and DHS information. | GAO-16-681

a

According to DHS, the biennial report was not issued in 2015 because DHS updated the NECP in 

2014. DHS intends to issue the next biennial update in November 2016.

b

E911 service refers to the capability of commercial carriers to automatically provide and public safety 

answering points to automatically receive an emergency caller’s call-back and location information. 

Public safety answering points are call centers responsible for 911 and E911 calls.

While all of these PKEMRA provisions have been addressed, DHS 

continues to meet the requirements of some provisions, for example:

• Grant program coordination: DHS, in conjunction with other agencies, 

coordinates grant guidance across the government annually through 
Page 7 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

SAFECOM’s Guidance on Emergency Communications Grants.

12 The 

guidance provides grantees with directions on applying for funds to 

improve emergency communications and the current standards for 

grant award recipients. DHS developed the guidance to align with the 

first NECP and it now reflects the most recent NECP.

• Interoperability research and development: Since PKEMRA, DHS has 

conducted research and development to support emergency 

communications interoperability. Among other things, DHS is 

responsible for establishing research, development, testing, and 

evaluation programs for improving interoperable emergency 

communications.

• Assessments and reports: DHS intends to issues the next biennial 

progress report in November 2016.

 12Department of Homeland Security, Office of Emergency Communications, Fiscal Year 

2016 SAFECOM Guidance on Emergency Communications Grants (2015). SAFECOM 

was formed in 2001 after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to improve public 

safety interoperability. SAFECOM’s mission is to improve emergency response providers’

emergency communications interoperability through collaboration with emergency 

responders across all levels of governments. 

Implementation of 

PKEMRA Provisions 

Has Enhanced 

Federal Support for 

State and Local 

Emergency 

Communications 

Efforts, but Federal 

Coordination Could 

Be Improved
Page 8 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

OEC has enhanced support of state and local planning and other 

emergency communications activities. OEC has taken a number of steps 

aimed at ensuring that federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial agencies 

have the plans, resources, and training they need to support 

interoperable emergency communications.13 After being established in 

2007, OEC focused on enhancing the interoperability and continuity of 

land mobile radio systems.14 However, OEC’s scope has expanded since 

then to include other technologies used to communicate and share 

information during emergencies, including devices that have advanced 

telecommunications capabilities, such as broadband access. OEC has 

developed policy and guidance supporting emergency communications 

across all levels of government and various types of technologies. Table 

2 describes key guidance OEC has provided to state and local entities.

 13DHS defines interoperability as the ability of emergency response providers and relevant 

federal, state, and local government agencies to communicate with each other as 

necessary, through a dedicated public safety network utilizing information technology 

systems and radio communications systems, and to exchange voice, data, and video with 

one another on demand, in real time, as necessary. 

14Land mobile radio systems are the primary means of communications among first 

responders. These systems typically consist of handheld portable radios, mobile radios, 

base stations, and repeaters. 

Enhanced Federal 

Support for State and 

Local Emergency 

Communications Efforts

Office of Emergency 

Communications (OEC)
Page 9 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

Table 2: Key Guidance Developed by the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) for State and Local Entities

Planning document Purpose

Establishing Governance to Achieve Statewide 

Communications: A Guide for Statewide 

Communication Interoperability Plan 

Implementation 

Supports states process to ensure emergency communications coordination at all 

levels of government. This support includes providing information about the role 

and operations of statewide governing bodies that are charged with improving 

communications interoperability across a state.

National Emergency Communications Capabilities 

Assessment Guide

Provides practical guidance for Statewide Interoperability Coordinators and others 

on assessing interoperable communications capabilities. Users may use the guide 

to identify challenges and successes and to build effective strategies for achieving 

and sustaining interoperability. 

Emergency Communications System Lifecycle 

Planning Guide

Serves as a guide for state and local public-safety organizations to plan and 

budget for a public safety system’s implementation. This supports long-term 

system cost planning and budgeting and aligns with goals of the National 

Emergency Communications Plan. 

Source: Department of Homeland Security | GAO-16-681

In addition to developing policy and guidance, OEC has provided 

technical assistance in the form of training, tools, and online and on-site 

assistance for federal, state, local, and tribal emergency responders. 

According to OEC, the technical assistance is designed to support 

interoperable emergency communications by helping states develop and 

implement their statewide plans to enhance emergency communications, 

standard operating procedures, and communications unit training, among 

other things. All states responding to our survey reported receiving 

technical assistance provided by OEC, and almost all of those states 

were satisfied with the support they received from OEC.15 For example in 

response to our survey, one state commented that OEC had provided 

invaluable training for the state’s first responders and assistance to the 

state’s governing authority.

According to DHS, the PKEMRA provision requiring the NECP has 

improved state and local emergency communications activities, including 

governance and planning. The NECP, first issued by DHS in 2008, 

served as the first national strategy aimed at improving emergency 

communications interoperability and provided a road map to improve 

emergency communications capabilities. For example, the 2008 NECP 

encouraged states to have standard operating procedures for specified 

events. To assist the states in this effort, OEC developed a toolkit that 

 15In response to our survey, two states reported being neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 

with the level of support for emergency communications planning from OEC.

National Emergency 

Communications Plan (NECP)
Page 10 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

provides general guidance and tools for state communications planners in 

developing a plan for special events and made a variety of templates 

available online for states to use in developing standard operating 

procedures.

In 2014, DHS released its second NECP, which contains the following 

five goals:

• Governance and leadership: Enhance decision making, coordination, 

and planning for emergency communications through strong 

governance structures and leadership.

• Planning and procedures: Update plans and procedures to improve 

emergency responder communications and readiness in a dynamicoperating environment.

• Training and exercises: Improve responders’ ability to coordinate and 

communicate through training and exercise programs that use all 

available technologies and target gaps in emergency 

communications.

• Operational coordination: Ensure operational effectiveness through 

the coordination of communications capabilities, resources, and 

personnel from across the whole community.

• Research and development: Coordinate research, development, 

testing, and evaluation activities to develop innovative emergency 

communications capabilities that support the needs of emergency 

responders.

DHS has taken various actions to support states’ efforts to address these 

goals. For example, with respect to the first goal, DHS issued The 

Governance Guide for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Emergency 

Communications Officials.

16 This guide identified challenges related to 

emergency communications governance, as well as best practices and 

recommendations to overcome these challenges. In addition, OEC 

completed the 911 Governance and Planning Case Study, which 

examined the governance, planning, and funding challenges that states 

are facing regarding 911 and made a number of recommendations for 

OEC to improve coordination. DHS has taken steps towards addressing 

 16Department of Homeland Security, Emergency Communications Governance Guide for 

State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Officials (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2015). 
Page 11 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

the other NECP goals. For example, related to the planning and 

procedures goal, DHS has coordinated with the Department of 

Transportation to identify risks and mitigation strategies to enhance the 

continuity and operability of emergency communications.17 Among other 

things, DHS has also partnered with FirstNet to conduct an assessment 

of the potential cybersecurity challenges facing the public safety 

broadband network. According to DHS, it will provide information on 

additional progress on meeting the NECP goals in its biennial report to 

Congress scheduled to be completed in November 2016.

The ECPC, the interagency collaborative group established by PKEMRA, 

provides a venue for coordinating federal emergency communications 

efforts. The ECPC works to improve coordination and information sharing 

among federal emergency communications programs. It does this by 

serving as the focal point for emergency communications issues across 

the federal agencies, supporting the coordination of federal programs, 

such as grant programs, and serving as a clearing house for emergency 

communications information, among other responsibilities. There are 14 

member agencies of the ECPC that have staff on an Executive 

Committee responsible for setting the ECPC’s priorities.18 In addition, the 

ECPC has a Steering Committee and focus groups that develop plans to 

address the priorities. Currently, there are three focus groups examining 

issues related to grants, research and development, and 911 issues.19

The focus groups report on their issues at Executive Committee and 

Steering Committee meetings and in the Annual Strategic Assessment.

20

DHS serves as the administrative leader of the ECPC, organizes the 

 17According to DHS, the work done in conjunction with the Department of Transportation 

will result in three cyber threat and risk analysis reports. 

18The ECPC includes the following departments: Departments of Treasury, Defense, 

Justice, the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, 

Homeland Security, State, and Transportation; as well as two agencies: the Federal 

Communications Commission; and the General Services Administration. 

19The ECPC previously had three other focus groups addressing broadband issues, 

support for FirstNet, and emergency communications capabilities mapping. 

20DHS, Emergency Communications Preparedness Center: Annual Strategic Assessment, 

Report to Congress for Calendar Year 2014 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 10, 2015). As 

directed by PKEMRA, the ECPC is required to prepare an annual report to Congress that 

strategically assesses the coordination efforts of the ECPC members.

Although the ECPC 

Follows Most Key 

Features of Collaboration, 

It Could Enhance Its 

Effectiveness
Page 12 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

ECPC quarterly and other meetings, and drafts the Annual Strategic 

Assessment and other documents.

In a 2012 report, we examined interagency collaborative mechanisms, 

such as interagency groups, and identified certain key features and 

issues to consider when implementing these mechanisms.21 We reported 

that following leading collaboration practices can enhance and sustain 

collaboration among federal agencies. For this report, we compared the 

ECPC’s collaboration efforts with six of these key features and issues to 

consider, as shown in table 3.22

Table 3: The Emergency Communications Preparedness Center’s (ECPC) Collaboration Efforts Compared with Key Features 

and Issues to Consider when Implementing Collaborative Mechanisms

Key collaboration features and issues 

to consider ECPC’s collaboration efforts

Outcomes and accountability

• Have short-term and long-term 

outcomes been clearly defined?

• Is there a way to track and monitor 

progress?

According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the ECPC has long-terms goals 

but these goals have not been documented in the ECPC charter, program plan, or Annual 

Strategic Assessment. Furthermore, the ECPC does not track or monitor its 

recommendations.

Leadership

• How will leadership be sustained 

over the long term?

DHS is the administrative leader of the ECPC. DHS coordinates the meetings and drafts 

the Annual Strategic Assessment, while other agencies take lead roles in the ECPC’s 

focus groups and lead interagency study efforts for ECPC topics with their areas of 

expertise. 

Clarity of roles and responsibilities

• Have participating agencies clarified 

roles and responsibilities?

According to the ECPC charter, the role of the ECPC Executive Committee members is to 

represent the priorities and interest of their respective agency. For example, the General 

Services Administration told us its primary role in the ECPC is to support those agencies 

that procure emergency communications devices. However, it is not well documented 

whether all member agencies have defined and agreed upon their respective roles and 

responsibilities.

 21GAO-12-1022. 

22We did not assess the ECPC’s efforts against one of the key features identified in 

GAO-12-1022, bridging organizational cultures, because this would have included 

reviewing the organizational cultures of 14 participating agencies, which was outside our 

scope.
Page 13 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

Participants

• Have all relevant participants been 

included?

• Do they have the ability to commit 

resources for their agency?

According to the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA), 

the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, Commerce, Justice; the Federal 

Communications Commission; and other federal departments and agencies shall jointly 

operate the ECPC. The ECPC program plan notes that the ECPC Executive Committee 

may invite other federal departments and agencies to join or otherwise participate in the 

ECPC. The members required by PKEMRA—as well the Departments of Treasury, the 

Interior, Agriculture, Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, State, and 

Transportation; and the General Services Administration—serve on the ECPC. Four of 

the five member agencies we contacted told us that they do not provide funding for the 

ECPC; rather the agencies assign staff who have expertise in the relevant areas of 

emergency communications to the ECPC.

Resources

• How will the collaborative 

mechanism be funded and staffed?

• Have online collaboration tools been 

developed?

DHS provides resources to support the ECPC and the member agencies use multiple 

online tools. Specifically, DHS provides support for data gathering, product development, 

meeting logistics, and transmitting products to the ECPC for review and approval. In 

addition, the ECPC uses online tools to share documents among the member agencies 

and has developed a collaboration portal specifically for the research and development 

focus group. As noted above, four member agencies we contacted said the agencies 

assign staff who have expertise in the relevant areas of emergency communications to 

the ECPC. 

Written guidance and agreements

• If appropriate, have participating 

agencies documented their 

agreement regarding how they will 

be collaborating?

The ECPC has developed guidance and agreements to direct the group including a 

charter and program plan. The ECPC charter defines the purpose, membership, 

responsibilities, and organization of the ECPC. The ECPC program plan includes the 

ECPC’s mission, organizational structure, responsibilities, partnerships, and program 

functions.

Source: GAO key collaboration features and analysis of ECPC member agency documents and interviews. | GAO-16-681

We found the ECPC’s efforts were consistent with the key features 

related to leadership, participants, resources, and written guidance and 

agreements. However, the ECPC’s efforts were not completely consistent 

with the key features related to (1) outcomes and accountability, and (2) 

clarity of roles and responsibilities, as explained below.

The ECPC has not documented its strategic goals and outcomes. We 

previously reported that establishing shared outcomes and goals that 

resonate with, and are agreed upon by all participants, is essential to 

achieving outcomes in interagency groups, but can also be challenging. 

Participants each bring different views, organizational cultures, missions, 

and ways of operating. Participants may even disagree on the nature of 

the problem or issue being addressed. Furthermore, agency officials 

involved in several of the interagency groups we previously reviewed 

cautioned that if agencies do not have a vested interest in the outcomes, 

Outcomes and Accountability
Page 14 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

and if outcomes are not aligned with agency objectives, participant 

agencies would not invest their limited time and resources.23 However, by 

establishing outcomes and strategic goals based on the group’s shared 

interests, a collaborative group can shape its vision and define its own 

purpose, and when articulated and understood by the group, this shared 

purpose provides a reason to participate. Although DHS identified four 

long-term goals for the ECPC in response to our questions, these goals 

do not appear in the ECPC charter, program plan, or Annual Strategic 

Assessment.

24 In May 2016, DHS officials told us the ECPC’s Executive 

Committee agreed to develop a strategic plan to highlight the ECPC’s 

goals and provide additional guidance for the focus groups. However, the 

DHS officials could not specify a time frame for completion. Without 

clearly defined strategic goals, the member agencies might not 

understand the ECPC’s goals or have a chance to ensure that the goals 

align with their own agencies’ purposes and goals. Furthermore, it 

remains unclear whether all member agencies have agreed on the 

ECPC’s goals and outcomes. In fact, ECPC member agencies we spoke 

with were able to provide a general idea about the ECPC’s purpose but 

could not articulate its specific goals.

Also with respect to outcomes and accountability, the ECPC does not 

track or monitor its recommendations. The ECPC uses its Annual 

Strategic Assessment to: (1) provide information on federal coordination 

efforts, (2) define opportunities for improving federal emergency 

communications, and (3) report on progress implementing some of the 

focus groups’ recommendations. For example, the ECPC grants focus 

group made nine recommendations for federal grant program managers, 

including that the managers should use the ECPC Financial Assistance 

Reference Guide when planning and developing grant documents, and 

should invest in standards-based equipment. According to DHS, the 

grants focus group conducts annual surveys of member agencies to 

 23GAO, Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance 

Collaboration in Interagency Groups, GAO-14-220 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2014). 

24The long-term goals identified by DHS are: (1) increase efficiencies at the federal level 

through joint investment and resource sharing; (2) improve alignment of strategic and 

operational emergency communications planning across levels of government; (3) 

improve alignment of federal investments in state/local/tribal capabilities to ensure focus 

on critical gaps and priorities; and (4) leverage collective resources to drive research and 

development and standards for existing and emerging technologies. 
Page 15 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

assess whether the agencies had implemented any of these 

recommendations. However, recommendations made by the other ECPC 

focus groups are not tracked, and therefore it is unclear the extent to 

which the recommendations have been implemented by ECPC’s member 

agencies. For example, the research and development focus group 

identified five recommendations in 2015 that were aimed at improving 

collaboration and information sharing around research and development 

for emergency communications. Specifically, one recommendation was 

for agencies to share technology profiles to prevent duplicative research. 

However, it is voluntary for member agencies to implement the focus 

group’s recommendations, and it is unknown whether agencies are 

sharing their technology profiles or if duplicative research is being 

conducted. According to DHS officials, the ECPC does not have a 

mechanism to determine whether the focus groups’ recommendations are 

implemented because it is up to the member agencies to decide if they 

will implement recommendations and if so, to track them on an individual 

basis. We have previously reported about the importance of federal 

agencies engaged in collaborative efforts to publicly report performance 

information as a tool for accountability.25 By having a mechanism to track 

the focus groups’ recommendations, the ECPC would have the means to 

monitor progress in achieving them.

The ECPC has not clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of its 

member agencies. We previously reported that clarifying the roles of all 

member agencies will help establish an understanding of who will do what 

in support of the collaborative group.26 In addition, member agencies’

commitment to their defined roles helps the group overcome barriers to 

working in the collaborative group and can facilitate decision making 

within the group. The roles can be described in laws, policies, 

memorandums of understanding, or other documentation. As described in 

the ECPC charter, DHS is the administrator of the ECPC; however, it is 

unclear whether all member agencies have defined and agreed upon their 

respective roles and responsibilities. For example, the Department of 

Labor is a member of the ECPC, but according to DHS, it might not be 

clear to all members why the Department of Labor is a participating 

 25GAO, Managing for Results: Leading Practices Should Guide the continued 

Development of Performance.gov, GAO-13-517 (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2013). 

26GAO-12-1022.

Clarity of Roles and 

Responsibilities
Page 16 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

member. Similarly, officials from the General Services Administration told 

us they do not know the roles of the other ECPC members and could only 

speak to us about their own agency’s role. DHS officials told us it would 

be beneficial to have member agencies’ roles and responsibilities clearly 

defined but expressed concern that some members, who participate 

voluntarily, might not want defined responsibilities if such responsibilities 

would require additional staff time and resources. Nevertheless, lacking 

defined roles and responsibilities may result in member agencies’ not 

knowing their roles and responsibilities or those of other members, which 

may create additional barriers to effectively working together.

States, the District of Columbia, and territories (hereafter, states) 

responding to our survey reported that to better prepare for emergency 

communications during disasters, they have: (1) developed emergency 

communications plans, (2) established the Statewide Interoperability 

Coordinator (SWIC) positions, and (3) implemented governance 

structures to oversee emergency communications planning.27

 27We surveyed SWICs in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 5 territories. We received 

52 responses to the survey; we did not receive a response from one state 

(Massachusetts) and three territories (American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico). Because of skip patterns within our survey, 

not all respondents had the opportunity to answer each question and some respondents 

decided not to respond to particular questions.

State Emergency 

Communications 

Planning Has 

Improved Since 

PKEMRA, but States 

Face Funding and 

Other Challenges

States’ Planning and 

Governance Structures 

have Improved since 

PKEMRA
Page 17 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

States have made progress since PKEMRA in establishing emergency 

communications plans. Based on survey responses, prior to the 

enactment of PKEMRA in 2006, only a few states had emergency 

communications plans in place. In 2007, OEC began requiring states to 

have a Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan (SCIP) to be 

eligible for DHS’s Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant 

Program. These state emergency communications plans are intended to 

be comprehensive strategic plans that outline the current and future 

emergency communications environment in a state. The NECP 

encourages states to align their plans with the emergency 

communications goals in the NECP to establish a link between national 

communications priorities and state emergency communications 

planning. Of the states responding to our survey, 51 reported having a 

SCIP,28 and 36 state plans were implemented after PKEMRA’s 

enactment. In addition to the SCIP, 16 states reported having other 

planning documents that support operational plans for emergency 

communications in addition to the high-level strategic plan the SCIP 

represents. For example, some states reported using tactical documents 

such as the Tactical Interoperability Communications Plan as their 

primary emergency communications planning document.29

The 2014 NECP encouraged states to update their plans and procedures 

to enhance emergency communications during disasters, and 46 states 

responding to our survey reported that they had updated their plans. 

States reported updating their plans for various reasons, including 

reflecting routine review processes, technological advancement, and 

changes in state governance, among others. According to DHS, as of the 

end of fiscal year 2015, OEC worked with 53 states and territories to 

update their SCIPs to align with the 2014 NECP. In response to our 

survey, 50 states reported being satisfied with the level of support for 

emergency communications planning they received from OEC.

 28In response to our survey, one state reported not having a SCIP because the plan was 

more than 6 years old at the time of our review and was not endorsed by the state’s past 

administration. 

29According to DHS, a Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan is a plan providing 

rapid provision of on-scene, incident based mission critical voice communications among 

all first responder agencies (e.g., emergency medical services, fire, and law enforcement), 

as appropriate for the incident, and in support of an incident command system.

States’ Emergency 

Communications Plans
Page 18 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

Further, as shown in table 4, most of the states responding to our survey 

reported that they now have plans that contain the key elements of the 

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum.30 The NECP considers the 

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum as the essential foundation for 

achieving the NECP goals.

Table 4: Number of States Reporting That Their Emergency Communications Plans Contain SAFECOM Elements

SAFECOM element Summary of element

Number of state 

plans with element

Governance

Establishing a governing structure to provide a framework for collaboration and 

decision making that aligns with a common objective. 48

Standard operating 

procedures

Developing formal written guidelines for incident response that enable responders to 

successfully coordinate emergency response. 48

Technology

Implementing data and voice technology that meets the needs of emergency 

responders; successful use of technology is supported by strong governance. 46

Training and 

exercises

Implementing effective programs that allow responders to practice communication 

interoperability. 45

Usage Using interoperable communications technologies. 41

Source: GAO survey of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators and SAFECOM documentation. | GAO-16-681

According to the NECP, first responders’ proficiency with communications 

equipment and their ability to execute policies, plans, and procedures can 

improve with training and exercises. In response to our survey, 40 states 

reported conducting training and exercises based on their emergency 

communications plans. Furthermore, the NECP notes that training and 

exercises helps emergency responders be properly prepared to respond 

to disasters and 43 states reported that they are likely to use their 

emergency communications plans when responding to future disasters.

Since PKEMRA, states have made considerable progress in establishing 

a key coordinator position. The SWIC provides a single point of contact 

for statewide emergency communications activities. The NECP identifies 

 30The SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum is designed to assist emergency response 

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

communications and contains five key elements: governance, standard operating 

procedures, technology, training and exercises, and usage of interoperable 

communications. 

Statewide Interoperability 

Coordinator (SWIC) Position
Page 19 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

the SWIC as a key stakeholder in emergency communications. In 2008, 

DHS noted that the lack of SWICs in each state was a primary obstacle to 

improving emergency communications and recommended that every 

state have a SWIC within 12 months. All but two states responding to our 

survey reported that they now have a SWIC. DHS officials stressed the 

importance of the SWIC position and told us that SWICs can contribute to 

emergency communications initiatives by supporting the development of 

governance structures, standard operating procedures, and high-level 

policy. In addition, SWICs can coordinate grants and other types of 

funding and training and exercises, and support implementation of the 

SCIPs.

Although DHS has stressed the importance of the SWIC position, 

according to our survey, most SWICs now have responsibilities outside 

those of the SWIC role. In December 2009, according to DHS, 44 states 

had a full time SWIC, but most survey respondents reported that their 

SWICs now have other non-SWIC responsibilities. In particular, 37 states 

responding to our survey have SWICs with additional non-SWIC related 

responsibilities. For example, 21 SWICs are also the FirstNet Single Point 

of Contact.31 States funded the SWIC position in part by the Interoperable 

Emergency Communications Grant Program. According to DHS, funds 

were not appropriated for this grant program after 2010. Subsequently, 

funding dedicated to improving interoperability was used for other DHS 

grant programs that supported improving emergency preparedness, 

which included interoperable emergency communications. According to 

our survey results, 26 SWIC positions are funded by federal grants, state 

grants, or a combination of both federal and state grants. In April 2016, 

the House of Representatives acknowledged the importance of the SWIC 

position by passing the Promoting Resilience and Efficiency in Preparing 

for Attacks and Responding to Emergencies Act, which includes a 

provision that would require states to have a SWIC position or delegate 

the responsibilities to other individuals.32

31FirstNet is required to work with the states’ Single Points of Contact who have been 

designated by each state, territory, and Washington, D.C. 47 U.S.C. § 1426(c)(2)(B). 

32H.R. 3583, 114th Cong. (2016). 
Page 20 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

Since PKEMRA, the NECP identified the need for formal governance 

structures to manage the systems of people, organizations, and 

technologies that need to collaborate to effectively plan for emergency 

communications during disasters, and most states responding to our 

survey reported that they have governance structures in place. According 

to DHS, governance structures should include key emergency 

communications stakeholders such as emergency communications 

leaders, multiple agencies, jurisdictions, disciplines, subject matter 

experts, and private sector entities, among others to enhance information 

sharing and ensure emergency communications needs are represented. 

Almost all of states (49) responding to our survey reported having 

governance structures in place that include key stakeholders. For 

example, 48 states reported that their governance bodies include 

emergency responders from local agencies while 33 states reported that 

non-government stakeholders, such as the Red Cross, are included. In 

response to our survey, 24 states reported that their governance bodies 

meet 3 to 7 times a year, and the governance bodies for 16 other states 

meet 8 to 12 times a year while the remaining states with governance 

structures meet less than 3 times a year.

In our survey, we asked states about the challenges that affect their 

ability to ensure operable and continuous emergency communications 

during disasters and states identified a lack of funding as the primary 

challenge. In particular, 48 states responding to our survey indicated that 

a lack of funding sometimes or always affected their state’s ability to 

ensure operable and continuous emergency communications during 

disasters. In written comments, 12 states specifically identified the need

for dedicated funding for emergency communications including funds to 

support the role of the SWIC. For example, one state reported that when 

it no longer received federal funding for emergency communications, the 

state lost its full time SWIC position, support personnel, and governance 

group. In addition, 45 states responding to our survey mentioned that the 

lack of staffing sometimes or always presented a challenge for their 

states. In the written responses, one state indicated that the lack of 

staffing was difficult to address because of the funding issue, while 

another indicated the state was under a hiring freeze. In other written 

responses to our survey, states identified additional challenges. For 

example, six states mentioned issues with technology, such as 

challenges in learning to use different radio systems and understanding 

new and emerging technologies.

Governance Structures

Funding and Other 

Challenges Remain
Page 21 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

We also asked the states if they have experienced interoperability 

difficulties when communicating or attempting to communicate with 

federal partners during disasters. In response, 23 states reported that 

they have experienced difficulties and noted in written comments that the 

issues included a lack of understanding by federal responders about the 

local radio systems, federal radios not configured to the interoperable 

channels or talk groups, and federal responders not using the statewide 

system.33 Furthermore, two states noted a lack of planning between 

federal and state entities prior to emergencies that led to federal 

responders trying to figure out the systems during the emergency.

Some states responding to our survey reported that they have taken 

action to address challenges related to funding, technology, and 

interoperability concerns with federal partners. First, related to funding, 

some states reported pursuing state level funding and grants to continue 

emergency communications governance and planning, including funding 

the SWIC position and building statewide emergency communications 

systems. Second, some states reported addressing technology 

challenges through training and upgrading old communication systems. 

For example, one state reported that his state provides training to 

emergency responders on radio operations and how to effectively use talk 

groups. Another state reported his state is upgrading its 26-year old land 

mobile radio system so that emergency responders can more effectively 

communicate within the state and during emergencies. Lastly, some 

states reported that they are trying to address interoperability issues 

through training and the purchase of interoperable equipment. For 

example, the training can improve coordination with federal and other 

users that can result in improved interoperability during emergencies. In 

addition, by purchasing interoperable equipment, emergency personnel 

could have fewer issues connecting with emergency responders at all 

levels of government. One state indicated that his state provided 

information on interoperable equipment to local entities to promote the 

purchase of such equipment. According to DHS officials, they continue to 

provide training programs to the states to help improve interoperability.

 33Radio users can be connected and structured into talk groups, which allow the users to 

easily share communications and information.
Page 22 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

PKEMRA established the ECPC to improve coordination and information 

sharing among federal emergency communications programs. As a 

collaborative entity, we found that while the ECPC’s efforts were 

consistent with most of the key features for effective collaboration, its 

efforts were not completely consistent with key features related to 

outcomes and accountability and clarity of roles and responsibilities. 

Regarding outcomes and accountability, the ECPC has not documented 

its strategic goals or established a mechanism to track the outcomes of 

the focus group’s recommendations. DHS officials told us the ECPC has 

agreed to develop a strategic plan that would contain goals for the ECPC, 

but there is no firm timetable for such a plan to be completed. Lacking 

clearly defined strategic goals, the ECPC’s member agencies might not 

understand the ECPC’s goals or have a chance to ensure that the goals 

align with their own agencies’ purposes and goals. Furthermore, the 

ECPC’s focus groups have spent time and resources to make 

recommendations for improving emergency communications, but we 

found the focus groups’ recommendations, such as those related to 

federal grant programs and research and development efforts, are 

implemented at the discretion of the member agencies. Without a 

mechanism to track the recommendations, it is unclear the extent to 

which the recommendations are being implemented by the member 

agencies, and the ECPC is missing an opportunity to monitor its efforts.

Regarding clarity of roles and responsibilities, the ECPC has not defined 

the member agencies’ roles and responsibilities, and some member 

agencies do not know the roles and responsibilities of other members, a 

situation that may create barriers to working together effectively. Clearly 

defining the members’ respective roles and responsibilities would help to 

provide an understanding of who will do what to support the ECPC’s 

efforts and facilitate decision making.

To improve the effectiveness, transparency, and accountability of the 

ECPC’s efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security, 

as the administrative leader of the ECPC, take the following actions:

• clearly document the ECPC’s strategic goals;

• establish a mechanism to track progress by the ECPC’s member 

agencies in implementing the ECPC’s recommendations; and

• clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the ECPC’s member 

agencies.

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 23 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

We provided a draft of this report to DHS, Commerce, and FCC for their 

review and comment. In response, DHS provided written comments, 

which are reprinted in appendix III. In written comments, DHS concurred 

with our recommendations and provided an attachment describing the 

actions it would take to implement the recommendations. DHS noted that 

enhancing the communications capabilities for emergency responders is 

one of its top priorities and that DHS will use the recommendations 

provided in our report to enhance a DHS initiative aimed at remediating 

many of the foremost emergency communications challenges facing our 

nation. Separately, DHS, Commerce, and FCC 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 Secretaries of 

Homeland Security and Commerce, the Chairman of FCC, 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 

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

are listed in appendix IV.

Mark L. Goldstein

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Agency Comments
Page 24 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

List of Requesters

The Honorable Ron Johnson

Chairman

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: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 25 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

This report focuses on three Post-Katrina Emergency Management 

Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA) emergency communications provisions 

related to planning and federal coordination: the Office of Emergency 

Communications (OEC), the National Emergency Communications Plan 

(NECP), and the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center 

(ECPC). Specifically, we examined (1) federal efforts to implement these 

PKEMRA emergency communications provisions and (2) how states’

emergency communications planning has changed since PKEMRA and 

what challenges remain for the states.

To determine federal efforts to implement the three PKEMRA emergency 

communications provisions, we reviewed our 2008 report1 and other 

relevant reports and documentation from the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), such as DHS’s biennial reports to Congress on 

emergency communications, and reports from other agencies, such as 

the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 911 and Enhanced 

911 services report. We also reviewed the NECP from 2008 and the 

subsequent reports on the progress meeting its goals, as well as the 2014 

NECP. We interviewed officials from DHS, FCC, and the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) to determine their roles and the progress 

implementing the provisions. We compiled information from the reports 

and interviews to assess how the provisions were implemented and if 

they were fully implemented. To understand the ECPC’s collaborative 

practices, we reviewed the ECPC charter, program plan, and Annual 

Strategic Assessments prepared for Congress, and interviewed ECPC 

member agencies. Specifically, we interviewed 5 of 14 ECPC member 

agencies (DHS, FCC, Commerce, the Department of Transportation, and 

the General Services Administration) to determine their roles on the 

ECPC, their understanding of the ECPC goals, and the member 

agencies’ responsibilities. We selected agencies to interview with a range 

of emergency communications experience, and the views we obtained do 

not necessarily represent the views of all ECPC member agencies. We 

assessed the ECPC’s collaborative efforts against six of seven key 

 1

GAO-09-59R.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 26 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

considerations for implementing collaborative mechanisms that we 

identified in a September 2012 report.2

To understand how state emergency communications planning has 

changed since PKEMRA and the challenges states still face, we surveyed 

Statewide Interoperability Coordinators (SWIC) in 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and 5 territories. The list of SWICs was obtained from DHS 

and confirmed via email. We conducted a web-based survey that 

addressed issues pertaining to state planning, governance, and 

challenges, specifically asking about the Statewide Communications 

Interoperability Plan (SCIP) and other emergency communications plans, 

and the role of the SWIC. To ensure the survey questions were clear and 

logical, we pretested the survey with three states: North Dakota, Texas, 

and Wyoming. These states were selected based on the types of 

disasters facing the states, the number of recent disasters, and 

geographic diversity. We administered our survey from February 2016 to 

April 2016 and received 52 responses for a 93 percent response rate. 

American Samoa, Massachusetts, the Northern Mariana Islands, and 

Puerto Rico did not respond to our survey. In addition, we interviewed 

selected SWICs from Kentucky and Wyoming to understand how the 

SCIPs and other emergency communications plans are used in preparing 

for emergencies. We selected these SWICs to interview based on 

geographic region, an occurrence of a recent disaster in the state, and 

because the Wyoming SWIC was the chair of the National Council of 

Statewide Interoperability Coordinators. We conducted semi-structured 

interviews with each SWIC to understand if they had a SCIP, how they 

used the SCIP, the governance structures the state uses to manage 

emergency communications, and the challenges their states encounter 

with emergency communications during disasters.

 2

GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

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

report, we built on our prior work that identified key practices for Congress and others to 

consider when implementing collaborative mechanisms, see GAO, Results-Oriented 

Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal 

Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). We did not assess the ECPC’s 

efforts against one of the key features identified in GAO-12-1022, bridging organizational 

cultures, because this would have included reviewing the organizational cultures of 14 

participating agencies, which was outside our scope.
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 27 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

The questions we asked in our survey of Statewide Interoperability 

Coordinators and the aggregate results of responses to the closed-ended 

questions are shown below. We do not provide results for the open-ended 

questions. We received 52 completed survey responses.1 However, all 

respondents did not have the opportunity to answer each question 

because of skip patterns, and some respondents decided not to respond 

to particular questions. For a more detailed discussion of our survey 

methodology see appendix I.

State Emergency Communications Plan

1. Does your state have a Statewide Communications Interoperability 

Plan (SCIP)? 

Response Number of responses

Yes 51

No 1

No answer/not checked 0

1a. If no, why doesn’t your state have a SCIP?

(Written responses not included)

1b. Does your state have a primary planning document for ensuring 

operable and interoperable emergency communications during 

disasters in your state? 

Response Number of responses

Yes 0

No 1

No answer/not checked 51

 1

American Samoa, Massachusetts, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico did not 

complete our survey. 

Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 28 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

1c. Is your SCIP your primary plan to ensure operable and 

interoperable emergency communications during disasters in your 

state?

Response Number of responses

Yes 33

No 16

No answer/not checked 3

1d. If no, what, is your primary planning document for ensuring, 

operable, and interoperable emergency communications during 

disasters in your state?

(Written responses not included)

2. What year was the emergency communications plan implemented? 

Response Number of respondents

Prior to 2000 3

2000 2

2001 0

2002 1

2003 1

2004 1

2005 0

2006 2

2007 13

2008 8

2009 5

2010 2

2011 1

2012 2

2013 3

2014 1

2015 1

Not implemented 2

No answer/not checked 4
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 29 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

3. Has your state used the emergency communications plan in response 

to disasters? 

Response Number of responses

Yes – always used 18

Yes – but not always 17

No – never used 5

No – no disasters 2

Don’t know 5

No answer/not checked 5

3a. If the emergency communications plan has never been used in 

response to disasters, why not?

(Written responses not included)

4. Has your state used the emergency communications plan during 

training exercises? 

Response Number of responses

Yes – always used 18

Yes – but not always 22

No – never used 4

No – no exercises performed 0

Don’t know 3

No answer/not checked 5

4a. If the emergency communications plan has never been used 

during training exercises, why not?

(Written responses not included)
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 30 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

5. Are you likely to use the emergency communications plan in response 

to disasters in the future? 

Response Number of responses

Yes 43

No 6

No answer/not checked 3

6. Has the emergency communications plan been updated since it was 

initially implemented? 

Response Number of responses

Yes 46

No 1

No answer/not checked 5

6a. When was the emergency communications plan last updated? 

Response Number of responses

2015 26

2014 11

2013 4

2012 5

No answer/not checked 6

6b. Why was the emergency response plan updated?

(Written responses not included)

6c. Do you think your plan needs to be updated? 

Response Number of responses

Yes 1

No 0

No answer/not checked 51
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 31 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

6d. If yes, why hasn’t the emergency response plan been updated?

(Written responses not included)

Elements of the Emergency Communications Plan

7. Does your emergency communications plan address the following 

elements? 

Response

Number of 

responses

Governance Yes 48

No 3

Not applicable – don’t have a plan 0

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 1

Planning (standard operating 

procedures, protocols)

Yes 48

No 2

Not applicable – don’t have a plan 1

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 1

Technology (data and voice 

elements, common applications,

base sharing, custom applications, 

swapping radios, gateways)

Yes 46

No 4

Not applicable – don’t have a plan 1

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 1

Training and exercises Yes 45

No 6

Not applicable – don’t have a plan 0

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 1

Usage (how often interoperability 

communications are used in planned 

events, localized emergency 

incidents, regional incidents, and 

daily use)

Yes 41

No 10

Not applicable – don’t have a plan 0

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 1
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 32 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

8. Does your emergency communications plan address the following 

types of events? 

Response

Number of 

responses

Significant events (i.e., terrorist attacks, 

major disaster, and other emergencies 

that pose the greatest risk to the state)

Yes 33

No 15

Not applicable – don’t have a 

plan 3

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 1

Routine events (i.e., localized 

emergency incidents, regional 

emergency incidents, special events, 

large public gatherings, state and 

national exercise)

Yes 36

No 12

Not applicable – don’t have a 

plan 3

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 1

Other events Yes 13

No 22

Not applicable – don’t have a 

plan 3

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 14

If “Other standardized elements” is checked, what other elements are 

contained in your operating protocols and procedures?

(Written responses not included)
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 33 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

Planning and Standard Operating Procedures

9. Does your emergency communications plan contain the following 

standardized elements in your operating protocols and procedures? 

Response

Number of 

responses

Common plain language radio practices Yes 40

No 11

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 1

Uniform common channel naming Yes 37

No 13

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 2

Designated interoperability channels Yes 41

No 10

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 1

Other standardized elements that allow 

for information sharing

Yes 24

No 15

Don’t know 4

No answer/not checked 9

If “Other standardized elements” is checked, what other elements are 

contained in your operating protocols and procedures?

(Written responses not included)

Governance

10. Does your state have a Statewide Interoperability Coordinator 

(SWIC)? 

Response Number of responses

Yes 50

No 2

No answer/not checked 0
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 34 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

10a. What best describes the SWIC in your state? 

Response Number of responses

Full-time: SWIC responsibilities only 6

Full-time: SWIC and other responsibilities 37

Other 7

Don’t Know 0

No answer/not checked 2

10b. If “Other” is checked, what describes the SWIC in your state?

(Written responses not included)

10c. How, if at all, have current SWIC responsibilities changed in the 

past 5 years? 

Response Number of responses

SWIC responsibilities only to SWIC and other 

responsibilities 15

SWIC and other responsibilities to SWIC 

responsibilities only 4

Other change 10

No change 13

Don’t Know 7

No answer/not checked 3 

10d. If “Other change” is checked, what other SWIC responsibilities 

have changed in the past 5 years?

(Written responses not included)

10e. Does the SWIC also serve in the role of the FirstNet state Point 

of Contact (SPOC)? 

Response Number of responses

Yes 21

No 29

No answer/not checked 2
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 35 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

10f. How is the SWIC position in your state funded? 

Response Number of responses

Federal grant only 9

State grant only 10

Federal and state grants 7

Don’t know 5

No answer/not checked 21

10g. To what extent have the following factors contributed to your 

state NOT having a SWIC? 

Response Number of responses

Lack of funding Great extent 2

Moderate extent 0

Little extent 0

No extent 0

Not applicable 0

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 50

Lack of qualified candidates Great extent 0

Moderate extent 0

Little extent 0

No extent 2

Not applicable 0

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 50

Federal legislative barriers Great extent 1

Moderate extent 0

Little extent 0

No extent 0

Not applicable 1

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 50

State legislative barriers Great extent 0

Moderate extent 0

Little extent 0

No extent 1
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 36 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

Response Number of responses

Not applicable 1

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 50

Other factor Great extent 0

Moderate extent 0

Little extent 0

No extent 0

Not applicable 1

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 51

If “Other factor” is checked, what other factors contributed to your 

state not having a SWIC?

(Written responses not included)

11. Does your state have a governance body supporting emergency 

communications planning? 

Response Number of responses

Yes 49

No 2

No answer/not checked 1

11a. Generally, how often does the governance body in your state 

meet to discuss planning efforts to ensure emergency 

communications during disasters? 

Response Number of responses

8 to 12 times a year 16

3 to 7 times a year 24

1 to 2 times a year 8

Less than once a year 1

Never 0

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 3
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 37 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

11b. Are public safety representatives from the following categories 

represented in your governance body? 

Response

Number of 

responses

Local Yes 48

No 0

Not applicable 1

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 3

State/ Territory Yes 47

No 0

Not applicable 0

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 5

Federal Yes 30

No 18

Not applicable 0

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 4

Tribal Yes 24

No 7

Not applicable 15

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 6

International (states/territories near 

national boarders)

Yes 5

No 27

Not applicable 12

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 8

Non-Government (i.e., American 

Red Cross, public safety association

groups, etc.)

Yes 33

No 13

Not applicable 1

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 5

Other public safety representatives Yes 40

No 3

Not applicable 2

Don’t know 0
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 38 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

11c. If no, what entities and individuals are responsible for overseeing 

emergency communications in the state?

(Written responses not included)

12. Generally, how involved are the public safety representatives from the 

following categories in the planning and coordinating efforts to ensure 

continuous operable emergency communications in your state? 

Response

Number of 

responses

Local Highly involved 29

Moderately involved 19

Not Involved 1

Not applicable 1

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 2

State/Territory Highly involved 37

Moderately involved 13

Not Involved 0

Not applicable 0

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 2

Federal Highly involved 13

Moderately involved 22

Not Involved 10

Not applicable 2

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 5

Tribal Highly involved 6

Moderately involved 13

Not Involved 10

Not applicable 16

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 7

International (states/territories near 

national boarders)

Highly involved 4

Moderately involved 8

Not Involved 15

Not applicable 18
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 39 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

Response

Number of 

responses

Local Highly involved 29

Moderately involved 19

Not Involved 1

Not applicable 1

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 2

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 7

Non-Government (i.e., American Red 

Cross, public safety association groups, 

etc.)

Highly involved 12

Moderately involved 23

Not Involved 11

Not applicable 2

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 4

Other public safety representatives Highly involved 14

Moderately involved 25

Not Involved 4

Not applicable 3

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 6

Federal Support

13. In developing and/or maintaining your state’s emergency 

communications plan, have you received technical assistance services 

offered by the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) within the 

Department of Homeland Security? 

Response Number of responses

Yes 52

No (requested not received) 0

No (not requested) 0

Don’t know 0

No answer/not checked 0
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 40 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

14. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the level of support 

for emergency communications planning from the OEC? 

Response Number of responses

Very satisfied 43

Moderately satisfied 7

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 2

Moderately dissatisfied 0

Very dissatisfied 0

No answer/not checked 0

15. Have you experienced interoperability difficulties when 

communicating or attempting to communicate with federal partners during 

disasters? 

Response Number of responses

Yes 23

No 20

No answer/not checked 9

15a. If yes, what interoperability difficulties did you experience when 

communicating or attempting to communicate with federal partners?

(Written responses not included)

16. Since 2008, has your state received federal grant funding in support 

of emergency communications? 

Response Number of responses

Yes 45

No 4

No answer/not checked 3
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 41 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

16a. What areas did the grant funding support? 

Response

Number of 

responses

Governance Yes 27

No 12

Don’t know 2

No answer/not checked 11

Planning (standard operating procedures, 

protocols)

Yes 34

No 5

Don’t know 2

No answer/not checked 11

Technology (data and voice elements, 

common applications, base sharing, 

custom applications, swapping radios, 

gateways)

Yes 41

No 2

Don’t know 1

No answer/not checked 8

Training and exercises Yes 39

No 3

Don’t know 2

No answer/not checked 8

Usage (how often interoperability 

communications are used in planned 

events, localized emergency incidents, 

regional incidents, and daily use)

Yes 27

No 9

Don’t know 4

17. How, if at all, has the federal grant funding your state received in 

support of emergency communications changed in the past 5 years? 

Response Number of responses

Increased 5

Decreased 39

No change- (about the same) 1

Don’t know 5

No answer/not checked 2

18. What additional federal efforts, if any, are needed to help ensure 

operable, interoperable, and continuous emergency communications in 

your state during disasters?
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 42 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

(Written responses not included)

Challenges

19. Generally, how often, if at all, do the following challenges affect your 

state’s ability to ensure operable and continuous emergency 

communications during disasters in your state? 

Response

Number of 

responses

Lack of staff

Always or often 24

Sometimes 21

Rarely or never 4

Not applicable 0

Don’t know 3

No answer/not checked 0

Lack of funding

Always or often 32

Sometimes 16

Rarely or never 2

Not applicable 0

Don’t know 2

No answer/not checked 0

State legislative barriers

Always or often 5

Sometimes 22

Rarely or never 16

Not applicable 1

Don’t know 5

No answer/not checked 3

Federal legislative barriers

Always or often 8

Sometimes 17

Rarely or never 15

Not applicable 1

Don’t know 8

No answer/not checked 3

Knowledgeable personnel

Always or often 5
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 43 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

Response

Number of 

responses

Sometimes 22

Rarely or never 22

Not applicable 0

Don’t know 3

No answer/not checked 0

Resistance to change

Always or often 7

Sometimes 27

Rarely or never 14

Not applicable 1

Don’t know 2

No answer/not checked 1

Other challenges

Always or often 8

Sometimes 11

Rarely or never 6

Not applicable 3

Don’t know 2

No answer/not checked 22

If “Other challenge” is checked, what other challenges affect your state’s 

ability to ensure operable and continuous emergency communications 

during disasters?

(Written responses not included)

20. What actions, if any, has your state taken to address the items you 

identified as challenges in question 19?

(Written responses not included)

21. What actions, if any, can the federal government take to address the 

items you identified as challenges in question 19?

(Written responses not included)

22. If you would like to expand upon any of your responses to the 

questions above, or have any other comments about your state’s 
Appendix II: Survey of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators

Page 44 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

planning efforts to ensure operable and interoperable emergency 

communications, please enter them below.

(Written responses not included)
Appendix III: Comments from Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 45 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

Appendix III: Comments from Department of 

Homeland Security
Appendix III: Comments from Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 46 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination
Appendix III: Comments from Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 47 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination
Appendix III: Comments from Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 48 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 49 GAO-16-681 Emergency Communications Planning and Coordination

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

In addition to the individual named above, Sally Moino (Assistant 

Director), Enyinnaya David Aja, Cynae Derose, Eric Hudson, Cheryl 

Peterson, Kelly Rubin, Erik Shive, Andrew Stavisky, and Nancy Zearfoss 

made key contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100185)
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 (http://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 http://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, 

http://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 and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@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

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

Please Print on Recycled Paper.