United States General Accounting Office 

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittees of the 

Government Reform Committee, 

House of Representatives 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST 

Thursday, November 6, 2003 HOMELAND SECURITY 

Challenges in Achieving 

Interoperable 

Communications for First 

Responders 

Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr. 


Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues 


GAO-04-231T 

Highlights of GAO-04-231T, a report to 

Congressional Requesters, 

Subcommittees of House Government 

Reform Committee 

The inability of first responders— 

police officers, firemen, hazardous 

materials teams, emergency 

medical service personnel, and 

others—to communicate 

effectively with one another as 

needed during an emergency is a 

long-standing and widely 

recognized problem in many areas 

across the country. When first 

responders cannot communicate 

effectively as needed, it can 

literally cost lives—of both 

emergency responders and those 

they are trying to assist. At the 

request of the Chairman of the full 

committee, we are examining the 

barriers to improved 

interoperability and the roles that 

federal, state, and local 

governments can play in improving 

wireless interoperability 

communications. 

Because our work is ongoing, we 

are not yet making 

recommendations. However based 

on our work to date, we identify 

several major challenges federal, 

state, and local governments must 

address. Effectively addressing 

these challenges requires 

collaboration of all first responders 

and all levels of government. 

Failure to do so risks spending 

funds ineffectively and creating 

new problems in our attempt to 

resolve existing ones. 

November 6, 2003 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Challenges in Achieving Interoperable 

Communications for First Responders 

Interoperability problems existed among public safety agencies for many 

years prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Reports on incidents 

have documented a number of problems in public safety wireless 

communications. For over 15 years the Federal Government has been 

concerned about public safety spectrum issues, including communications 

interoperability issues. A variety of federal agencies have been involved in 

defining the problem and identifying potential solutions. In addition, 

Congress has taken several actions over the past two decades to address the 

availability and use of public safety wireless spectrum. The events of 

September 11 have resulted in greater public and governmental focus on the 

role of first responders and their capacity to respond to emergencies, 

including those resulting from terrorist incidents. 

The interoperability issues that the nation faces today did not arise overnight 

and they will not be successfully addressed overnight. Federal, state, and 

local governments face several major challenges in addressing 

interoperability in their wireless communications. 

• 	 The first challenge is to clearly identify and define the problem. For 

example, it is important to recognize that interoperable 

communications is not an end in itself, but it is rather one 

component for achieving an important goal--the ability to respond 

effectively to and mitigate incidents that require the coordinated 

actions of first responders. 

• 	 The second challenge is whether and how to establish national 

interoperability performance goals and standards and balance them 

with the flexibility needed to address differences in state, regional 

and local needs and conditions. 

• 	 The third challenge is defining the roles of federal, state, and local 

governments and other entities in defining the problem, 

implementing any national goals and standards, and assessing 

alternative means of achieving those goals and standards. 

The fundamental barrier to successfully addressing these challenges has 

been the lack of effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary and 

intergovernmental planning. No one first responder group or governmental 

agency can successfully “fix” the interoperability problems that face our 

nation. It will require the partnership, leadership, and coordinated planning 

of everyone involved. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-231T. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact William 

Jenkins, Jr. at (202) 512-8757 or 

jenkinswo@gao.gov. 
Messrs. Chairmen and Members of the Subcommittees: 

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

of wireless interoperable communications for first responders. The 

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

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

communicate effectively with one another as needed during an emergency 

is a long-standing and widely recognized problem in many areas across the 

country. Reports have shown that when first responders cannot 

communicate effectively as needed, it can literally cost lives—of both 

emergency responders and those they are trying to assist. Thus, effective 

interoperable communications between and among wireless 

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

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

protection of life and property. The effective interoperability of these 

wireless systems permits a rapid and coordinated response to an 

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

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

At the request of the Chairman of the full committee, we are examining the 

barriers to improved interoperability and the roles that federal, state, and 

local governments can play in improving wireless interoperability 

communications.1

 Our work is ongoing. To date, we have contacted state 

and local officials in several states, attended professional meetings, and 

opened discussion with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and 

other key federal agencies. We are conducting our work in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. My testimony 

today focuses on the broad and complex nature of the interoperability 

issue and the challenges the nation faces in addressing this issue. 

Background 	 Interoperability problems existed among public safety agencies for many 

years prior to the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and New York 

City. Reports on incidents have documented a number of problems in 

public safety wireless communications. For example, the National Task 

Force on Interoperability (NTFI) documented interoperability problems in 

1

Our work addresses public safety wireless communications interoperability issues. Thus, 

we do not address interoperability problems found in other homeland security functions, 

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

Page 1 GAO-04-231T 
several states - including South Dakota, Indiana, and Minnesota--that had 

developed over a number of years.2 

For over 15 years the federal government has been concerned about public 

safety spectrum issues, including communications interoperability issues. 

A variety of federal agencies have been involved in defining the problem 

and identifying potential solutions. In addition, Congress has taken several 

actions over the past two decades to address the availability and use of the 

public safety wireless spectrum. 

The events of September 11, 2001, have resulted in greater public and 

governmental focus on the role of first responders and their capacity to 

respond to emergencies, including those resulting from terrorist incidents. 

One result has been significantly increased federal funding for state and 

local first responders, including funding to improve interoperable 

communications among federal, state, and local first responders. In fiscal 

year 2003 , Congress appropriated at least $154 million for interoperability 

through a variety of grants administered by the Department of Homeland 

Security, the Department of Justice, and other agencies. 

In addition to appropriating more funds, the executive branch and 

Congress have attempted to consolidate federal efforts and coordinate 

federal grant programs. Within the executive branch, the Office of 

Management and Budget in 2001 created the Wireless Public SAFEty 

Interoperable COMmunications Program, or SAFECOM, 3

 to unify the 

federal government’s efforts to help coordinate the work at the federal, 

state, local and tribal levels, in order to provide reliable public safety 

communications and achieve national wireless communications 

interoperability.4 

2

National Task Force on Interoperability, WHY CAN’T WE TALK? Working Together To 

Bridge the Communications Gap To Save Lives, February, 2003. 

3

SAFECOM is one of the President’s 24 E-GOV initiatives. 

4

The description of SAFECOM’s mission is taken from the Administrator for E-government 

and IT, the Office of Management and Budget letter to the attendees of the SAFECOM, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology and National Institute of Justice Summit on 

Interoperable Communications For Public Safety. 

Page 2 GAO-04-231T 
Summary 

The First Challenge: 

Identifying and 

Defining the 

Interoperability 

Problem 

The interoperability issues that the nation faces today did not arise 

overnight and they will not be successfully addressed overnight. Federal, 

state, and local governments face several major challenges in addressing 

interoperability in their wireless communications. The first challenge is to 

clearly identify and define the problem, recognizing that interoperable 

communications is but a means to an end–the ability to respond effectively 

to any incident that requires the coordinated actions of first responders. 

The second is whether and how to establish national interoperability 

performance goals and standards and to balance them with the flexibility 

needed to address differences in state, regional, and local needs and 

conditions. The third challenge is defining the roles of federal, state, and 

local governments and other entities in identifying the communication 

problem, implementing any national performance goals and standards, and 

assessing alternative means of achieving those goals and standards. The 

fundamental barrier to successfully addressing these challenges has been 

the lack of effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary and intergovernmental 

planning. No one first responder group or governmental agency can 

successfully “fix” the interoperability problems that face our nation. It will 

require the partnership, leadership, and coordinated planning of everyone 

involved . 

In discussing the issue of interoperable communications, it is important to 

recognize that interoperable communications is not merely a technological 

issue or an end in itself. It is rather a key means of achieving a desirable 

objective—the effective response to and mitigation of events or incidents 

that require the coordinated actions of emergency responders. These 

events could encompass a wide range of possibilities, such as multivehicle accidents, major floods or wildfires, or a terrorist attack that 

involved thousands of injuries. 

Interoperable communications is also but one component, although an 

important one, of an effective incident command planning and operations 

structure. As a standard practice, public safety agencies are to establish 

communications capabilities to support command and control of their 

operations at an incident scene. Determining the most appropriate means 

of achieving interoperable communications must flow from an effective 

planning and operations structure that identifies who is in charge and who 

must be able to communicate what information to whom under what 

circumstances. For example, there are likely to be both similarities and 

differences in the interoperable communications capacities, protocols, and 

participants associated with responding to seasonally predictable wildfires 

and terrorist attacks that involve biological agents. 

Page 3 GAO-04-231T 
Defining the range of interoperability capacity needed requires identifying 

the types of events for which interoperable communications would be 

needed, the participants involved in responding to those events—by 

professional discipline and jurisdiction—and an operational definition of 

who is charge and who would need to communicate what types of 

information (e.g., voice, data, or both) with whom under what 

circumstances. These are not easy tasks, and they require both a multidisciplinary and multi-jurisdictional perspective. But these tasks are a 

precursor to assessing the current problems—e.g., operational, technical, 

and fiscal—that exist in meeting interoperable communication needs and 

alternative means of achieving identified interoperable communications 

needs. 

But more importantly, interoperability is not a static issue--it is an issue 

that is affected by changes in technology and the changing events and 

threats for which first responders must be prepared. Thus, there is no 

single, long-term solution; the issue is one that must be periodically 

reassessed as needs and technology change. 

Interoperability Is Not a 

Static Issue 

The Evolving Definition of First 

Responders 

The issues and problems in defining and scoping what is meant by 

“interoperability” are not static. They evolve over time in a fluid and everchanging environment of evolving threats and events for which we need to 

be prepared to respond, new operational requirements, new spectrum 

bands for public safety use, and new technology. 

Public safety officials generally recognize that interoperable 

communications is the ability to talk with whom they want, when they 

want, when authorized, but not the ability to talk with everyone all of the 

time. However, there is no standard definition of communications 

interoperability. Nor is there a “one size fits all” requirement for who 

needs to talk to whom. 

Traditionally, first responders have been considered to be fire, police and 

emergency medical service personnel. However, in a description of public 

safety challenges, a federal official noted that the attacks of September 11, 

2001, have blurred the lines between public safety and national security. 

According to the Commission, effective preparedness for combating 

terrorism at the local level requires a network that includes public health 

departments, hospitals and other medical providers, and offices of 

Page 4 GAO-04-231T 
Reexamining the Jurisdictional 

Boundaries of Interoperability 

Interoperable Needs Are 

Scenario Driven and Change 

Over Time 

emergency management, in addition to the traditional police, fire, and 

emergency medical services first responders.5

 Furthermore, Congress 

recognized the expanded definition of first responder in the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002, which defined “emergency response providers” as 

“Federal, State, and local emergency public safety, law enforcement, 

emergency response, emergency medical (including hospital emergency 

facilities), and related personnel, agencies, and authorities.”6 

The context of the communications also affects the definition of the 

problem. Two key studies in the late 1990s sponsored by the Department 

of Justice (DOJ) and the Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN)7

 program 

provide a nationwide picture of wireless interoperability issues among 

federal, state, and local police, fire, and emergency medical service 

agencies at that time.8 Both studies describe most local public safety 

agencies as interacting with other local agencies on a daily or weekly 

basis. As a result, most local agencies had more confidence in establishing 

radio links with one another than with state agencies, with whom they less 

frequently interact. Local public safety agencies interact with federal 

agencies least of all, with a smaller percentage of local agencies 

expressing confidence in their ability to establish radio links with federal 

agencies. The events of September 11, 2001, have resulted in a 

reexamination of the circumstances in which interoperable 

communications should extend across political jurisdictions and levels of 

government. 

Another issue is the broad range of scenarios in which interoperable 

communications are required. Public safety officials have pointed out that 

interoperability is situation specific, based on whether communications 

are needed for (1) “mutual-aid responses” or routine day-to-day 

5

Third Annual Report to the President and the Congress of the Advisory Panel to Assess 

Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, 

December 15, 2001. 

6

Homeland Security Act, P.L. 107-296, section 2 (6). 

7

The Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury formed the Public Safety 

Wireless Network Program (PSWN) to promote effective public safety communications 

and to foster interoperability among local, state, federal, and tribal communications 

systems. PSWN was incorporated into the new Department of Homeland Security as part of 

the SAFECOM project in 2003. 

8

The DOJ study concentrated on wireless interoperability issues within the state and local 

law enforcement community, while the PSWN study assessed communications 

interoperability issues within the fire and emergency medical services communities. 

Page 5 GAO-04-231T 
coordination between two local agencies; (2) extended task force 

operations involving members of different agencies coming together to 

work on a common problem; or (3) a major event that requires response 

from a variety of local, state, and federal agencies. One official breaks the 

major event category into three separate types of events: 

• 	 planned events, such as the Olympics, for which plans can be made in 

advance; 

• 	 recurring events, such as major wildfires and hurricanes, that can be 

expected every year and for which contingency plans can be prepared 

based on past experience, and 

• unplanned events, such as the September 11th attacks, that can rapidly 

Technological Changes Also 

Affect Interoperability 

overwhelm the ability of local forces to handle the problem. 

As technology changes, it presents new problems and opportunities for 

achieving and maintaining effective interoperable communications. 

According to one official, in the 1980s, a method of voice transmission 

called “trunking” became available that allowed more efficient use of 

spectrum. However, three different and incompatible trunking 

technologies developed, and these systems are not interoperable. This 

official noted that as mobile data communications becomes more 

prevalent and new digital technologies are introduced, standards become 

more important. 

Technical standards for interoperable communications are still under 

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

public safety user community developed what is known as Project 25 (P25) standards. According to the PSWN program office, Project 25 

standards remain the only user-defined set of standards in the United 

States for public safety communications. The Department of Homeland 

Security has recently decided to purchase radios that incorporate the P-25 

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

PSWN believes P-25 is an important step toward achieving 

interoperability, but the standards do not mandate interoperability among 

all manufacturers’ systems. Standards development continues today as 

new technologies emerge that meet changing user needs and new policy 

requirements. 

In addition, new public safety mission requirements for video, imaging, 

and high speed data transfers, new and highly complex digital 

Page 6 GAO-04-231T 
communications systems, and the use of commercial wireless systems, are 

potential sources of new interoperability problems. 

Availability of new spectrum can also result in new technologies and 

require further development of technical standards. For example, the FCC 

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

for public safety uses and sought comments on various issues, including 

licensing and service rules. The FCC provided this additional spectrum to 

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

scene management. The Federal Communications (FCC) in particular 

requested comments on the implementation of technical standards for 

fixed and mobile operations on the band. The National Public Safety 

Telecommunications Council9

 has established a task force that includes 

work on interoperability standards for the 4.9 GHz band. 

When the interoperability problem has been sufficiently defined and 

bounded, the next challenge will be to develop national interoperability 

performance goals and technical standards that balance consistency with 

the need for flexibility in adapting them to state and regional needs and 

circumstances. 

Second Challenge: 

Establishing National 

Goals and 

Requirements 

Lack of National 

Requirements 

One key barrier to development of a national interoperability strategy is 

the lack of a statement of national mission requirements for public 

safety—what set of communications capabilities should be built or 

acquired—and a strategy to get there. The report of the Independent Task 

Force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations on emergency 

responders said national standards of preparedness have not been defined 

and that the lack of a methodology to determine national requirements for 

emergency preparedness constitutes a national crisis.10 The report 

9

Formed May 1, 1977, the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council is a 

federation representing public safety telecommunications. The purpose of NPSTC is to 

follow up on the recommendations of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee 

(PSWAC). In addition, NPSTC acts as a resource and advocate for public safety 

telecommunications issues. 

10Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations; Emergency 

Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared. 

Page 7 GAO-04-231T 
recommended these standards be prepared for federal, state, and local 

emergency responders in such areas as training, interoperable 

communications systems, and response equipment. SAFECOM officials 

have noted that no standard, guidance, or national strategy exists on 

interoperability. DOJ officials told us they are working with SAFECOM to 

develop a statement of requirements that should be ready for release by 

May 1, 2004. 

Need for an 

Interoperability Blueprint 

To guide the creation of interoperable communications, there must be an 

explicit and commonly understood and agreed-to blueprint, or 

architecture, for effectively and efficiently guiding modernization efforts. 

For a decade, GAO has promoted the use of architectures, recognizing 

them as a crucial means to a challenging goal: agency operational 

structures that are optimally defined in both business and technological 

environments. An enterprise architecture provides a clear and 

comprehensive picture of an entity, whether it is an organization (e.g., a 

federal department or agency) or a functional or mission area that cuts 

across more than one organization (e.g., financial management). In August 

2003, DHS released its initial enterprise architecture that it described as 

conceptual in nature.. We are in the process of reviewing this architecture 

at the request of the Chairman, Subcommittee on Technology, Information 

Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, Committee on 

Government Reform. 

Need For Flexibility There is no single “silver bullet” solution to interoperability needs. Our 

ongoing work indicates that communications interoperability problems 

facing any given locality or state tend to be situation specific, with no 

universally applicable solution. For example, the Association of Public 

Safety Communications Officials (APCO) noted in its White Paper on 

Homeland Security that various methods are possible to achieve 

interoperability but planning is an essential first step to choosing a 

solution. APCO noted that interoperability does not involve a single 

product or system approach; rather it is accomplished with a variety of 

solutions with a focus on the first responder. APCO noted that what is an 

appropriate interoperability solution varies with the operation of the 

Page 8 GAO-04-231T 
particular government agencies, their funding, their physical location, and 

other individual circumstances.11 

In addition, the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee’s (PSWAC) 

final report noted that the public safety community has some common 

operational requirements, such as dispatch communications and 

transmission of operational and tactical instructions. However, the 

PSWAC report also describes agencies’ specialized requirements that are 

based on specific missions and operating environments. For example, the 

report notes forestry and state police have long distance requirements 

where foliage can be a problem for higher frequency systems. In contrast, 

a metropolitan police department may need highly reliable in-building 

coverage, which is not a requirement for state police mobile operations. 

Those state and local officials we have interviewed to date have stated that 

they want to retain flexibility when addressing communications issues. 

For example, Virginia state officials noted that geographical locations 

within the state present different interoperability requirements. They said 

interoperability problems differ from locality to locality, and that solutions 

must be developed that fit the specific circumstances of the individual 

geography and situation. 

As noted above, the federal government has a long history in addressing 

federal, state, and local government public safety issues–in particular 

interoperability issues. The Government Reform Committee has also 

recently contributed to the development of policies. In October 2002 the 

Committee issued a report entitled “How Can the Federal Government 

Better Assist State and Local Governments in Preparing for a Biological, 

Chemical, or Nuclear Attack “(Report 107-766). The Committee’s first 

finding was that incompatible communication systems impede 

intergovernmental coordination efforts. The Committee recommended 

that the federal government take a leadership role in resolving the 

communications interoperability problem. 

The federal role in addressing the interoperability of public safety wireless 

communications continues to evolve. Today, a combination of many 

federal agencies, programs, and associations are involved in coordinating 

Third Challenge: Need 

to Define 

Intergovernmental 

Roles 

Federal Efforts to 

Establish A Leadership 

Role 

11The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, The APCO International 

Homeland Security White Paper, August 2002. 

Page 9 GAO-04-231T 
emergency communications. In June 2003, SAFECOM partnered with the 

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

Institute of Justice (NIJ) to hold a summit that brought together over 60 

entities involved with communications interoperability policy setting or 

programs. According to NIST, the summit familiarized key interoperability 

players with work being done by others and provided insight into where 

additional federal resources may be needed. 

The SAFECOM program was initially established within Justice in 2001 

and was transferred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) in 2002 before being brought into DHS in early 2003. The current 

director said his program is responsible for outreach to local, state, and 

federal public safety agencies to assist in interoperability planning and 

implementation. In an August 2003 briefing, SAFECOM stated its role is to 

serve “as the umbrella program within the federal government to 

coordinate the efforts of local, tribal, state and federal public safety 

agencies working to improve public safety response through more 

effective, efficient, interoperable wireless communications.” In the 

briefing, SAFECOM officials said they have begun to implement this 

coordination role by setting objectives to develop a national public safety 

communications strategy, providing supporting standards and guidance; 

developing funding mechanisms and guidance, and creating a national 

training and technical assistance program. 

SAFECOM officials have also stated that SAFECOM has taken several 

other actions to implement its role as the umbrella program to coordinate 

actions of the federal government. For example, in coordination with 

officials of other agencies, it developed guidance for federal grants 

supporting public safety communications and interoperability. The 

guidance is designed to provide an outline of who is eligible for the grants, 

purposes for which grant funds can be used and eligibility specifications 

for applicants. The guidance requires that, at a minimum, applicants must” 

define the objectives of what the applicant is ultimately trying to 

accomplish and how the proposed project would fit into an overall effort 

to increase interoperability, as well as identify potential partnerships for 

agreements.” Additionally, the guidance recommends, but does not 

require, that applicants establish a governance group consisting of local, 

tribal, state, and federal entities from relevant public safety disciplines and 

purchase interoperable equipment that is compliant with phase one of 

Project-25 standards. 

Although SAFECOM is the umbrella program to coordinate actions of the 

federal government, it does not include all major federal efforts aimed at 

Page 10 GAO-04-231T 
promoting wireless interoperability for first responders. Specifically, the 

Justice Department continues to play a major role in interoperability after 

the establishment of DHS. Key Justice programs–the Advanced Generation 

of Interoperability for Law Enforcement (AGILE) and the Community 

Oriented Policing Services–did not transition to the SAFECOM program in 

the new Department of Homeland Security. AGILE is the Department of 

Justice program to assist state and local law enforcement agencies to 

effectively and efficiently communicate with one another across agency 

and jurisdictional boundaries. It is dedicated to studying interoperability 

options and advising state and local law enforcement, fire fighters, and 

emergency technicians. The SAFECOM program director also said most of 

the federal research and development on prototypes is being conducted 

within the AGILE program. The Department of Justice said it is also 

creating a database for all federal grants to provide a single source of 

information for states and localities to access, and to allow federal 

agencies to coordinate federal funding awards to state and local agencies. 

SAFECOM and AGILE officials told us they have an informal, but close 

working relationship today, and that they are negotiating a memorandum 

of understanding between the two programs. Federal officials also told us 

that efforts are also under way by SAFECOM, AGILE, and other federal 

agencies to coordinate work on technical assistance to state and local 

governments and to develop and set interoperability standards. The 

SAFECOM program may continue to face challenges in assuming a 

leadership role for the federal government while these significant Justice 

programs remain outside its domain. 

SAFECOM officials will face complex issues when they address public 

safety spectrum management and coordination. The National Governors’ 

Guide to Emergency Management noted that extensive coordination will 

be required between the FCC and the National Telecomunications and 

Information Agency (NTIA) to provide adequate spectrum and to enhance 

shared local, state, and federal communications. However, the current 

legal framework for domestic spectrum management is divided between 

the NTIA within the Department of Commerce, which regulates federal 

government spectrum use, and the Federal Communications Commission, 

which regulates state, local, and other nonfederal spectrum use. In a 

September 2002 report on spectrum management and coordination, GAO 

found that FCC’s and NTIA’s efforts to manage their respective areas of 

responsibility were not guided by a national spectrum strategy.12 The FCC 

12TELECOMMUNICATIONS; Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability Needed to 

Improve Spectrum Management, GAO-02-906, September, 2002 

Page 11 GAO-04-231T 
State Role in 

Interoperability Issues Is 

Evolving 

and the NTIA have conducted independent spectrum planning efforts and 

have recently taken steps to improve coordination, but they have not yet 

implemented long-standing congressional directives to conduct joint, 

national spectrum planning. We recommended that the FCC and the NTIA 

develop a strategy for establishing a clearly defined national spectrum 

plan and submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees. In a 

January 2003 report, we discussed several barriers to reforming spectrum 

management in the United States.13 

The role that state and local governments will play in public safety 

communications is evolving. This role is being defined by states and local 

governments as they address problems they recognize exist in their 

communications systems and by the FCC and the NTIA. As noted by the 

National Governors Association (NGA), many states are establishing a 

foundation for cooperation and statewide planning through memorandums 

of understanding or similar agreements. 

Several states have or are taking executive and legislative actions to 

address communications planning and interoperability planning. For 

example, the Missouri State Interoperability Executive Committee was 

created by the Missouri Department of Public Safety to enhance 

communications interoperability among public safety entities in Missouri 

by promoting available tools and relationships. The Missouri State 

Interoperability Executive Committee established a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) that instructs public safety agencies within the state 

to use the FCC designated interoperability channels under an Incident 

Command/Incident Management structure. The MOU also attempts to 

diminish operational interoperability barriers by creating common 

operating procedures for the agencies to use on the channels. 

Furthermore, in order to create a comprehensive approach to 

interoperability that addresses new homeland security concerns, the State 

of Missouri enacted the “Missouri Uniform Communications Act for 

Homeland Security”, which established the State’s “Public Safety 

Communications Committee.” This Committee is composed of 

representatives from the Department of Public Safety, Office of Homeland 

Security, Department of Conservation and Department of Transportation. 

The committee reviews all public safety agencies’ plans that request state 

or federal wireless communications funds and relies on the 

13TELECOMMUNICATIONS; Comprehensive Review of U.S. Spectrum Management With 

Broad Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed,GAO-03-277, January, 2003 

Page 12 GAO-04-231T 
recommendations of the Missouri Interoperability Executive Committee to 

ensure that state decisions enhance interoperability. 

Another state that uses the State Interoperability Executive Committee 

structure to enhance communications interoperability is the State of 

Washington, whose committee was established by state legislation 

effective July 1, 2003. The Washington Committee was created under the 

Information Services Board within the Department of Information 

Services. The Committee’s members include representatives from the 

Military, Transportation, Information Services and Natural Resources 

departments; the Washington State Patrol; state and local fire chiefs; 

police chiefs; sheriffs; and state and local emergency managers. 

Washington legislation requires the Committee to submit to the State 

legislature an inventory of all public safety systems within the state and a 

plan to ensure the interoperability of those systems. The Committee was 

given the authority to develop policies and procedures for emergency 

communications systems across the state and to serve as the point of 

contact for the FCC in the allocation, use and licensing of radio spectrum 

for public safety and emergency communication systems. 

Federal actions to support state efforts that address wireless 

interoperability issues are still evolving. On the one hand, the Public Safety 

Wireless Network program has supported state efforts to improve 

multistate and individual statewide planning and coordination through a 

number of projects that emphasize a regional approach. However, two 

agencies of the federal government–the FCC and the NTIA–set rules and 

regulations for state and local governments and federal government 

wireless systems respectively. 

The Regional or Shared 

Approach 

State and local efforts to address interoperability issues are widespread. 

The National Governors Association said in its recent Guide to Emergency 

Management that interoperable equipment, procedures, and standards for 

emergency responders are key to improving the effectiveness of mutual 

aid agreements with other states and other jurisdictions. The NGA guide 

calls for governors and their state homeland security directors to: 

• develop a statewide vision for interoperable communications; 

• ensure adequate wireless spectrum is available to accommodate all users; 

• invest in new communications infrastructure; 

Page 13 GAO-04-231T 
• 	 develop standards for technology and equipment, and partner with 

government and private industry. 

Specifically, states are taking action to facilitate strategic planning and 

interoperability planning that emphasize a shared approach at the 

multistate, state, and local levels. The Public Safety Wireless Network 

report notes that although in the past public safety agencies have 

addressed interoperability on an individual basis, more recently, local, 

state, and federal agencies have come to realize that they cannot do it 

alone. The report also notes that officials at all levels of government are 

now taking action to improve coordination and facilitate multijurisdictional interoperability. We talked to officials from several states 

about their states’ efforts to address interoperability issues on a regional 

basis. For example; 

• 	 State officials from Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan have 

combined efforts to form a Mid-west Consortium to promote interstate 

interoperability. They have taken actions to form an interstate committee 

to develop interoperability plans and solicit support from key players such 

as local public safety agencies. The governors of the states have agreed to 

sign an MOU to signify that each state is willing to be interoperable with 

the other states and will provide communication assistance and resources 

to the other states, to the extent that it does not harm their own state. 

• 	 In Florida, the governor of the state issued an executive order in 2001 to 

establish seven Regional Domestic Security Task Forces that make up the 

entire state. Each of the regional task forces has a committee on 

interoperable communications under Florida’s Executive Interoperable 

Technologies Committee. The Florida legislature supported that effort by 

establishing the Task Forces in law and formally designating the Florida 

Department of Law Enforcement and the Division of Emergency 

Management as the lead agencies. The Task Forces consist of agencies 

from Fire/Rescue, Emergency Management, and public health and 

hospitals, as well as law enforcement. In addition, it includes partnerships 

with education/schools, business and private industry. 

Statewide Interoperability Public safety representatives have stressed the importance of planning in 

Plans 	 addressing communications interoperability issues. The Association of 

Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) has emphasized the 

importance of planning in addressing communications interoperability 

problems. In its Homeland Security white paper, APCO said that a plan for 

responding to terrorist events should include a section on how to address 

interoperability requirements. The creation of state interoperability plans 

Page 14 GAO-04-231T 
could help reduce the current fragmented public safety communications 

planning process. Public safety agencies have historically planned and 

acquired communications systems for their own jurisdictions without 

concern for interoperability. This meant that each local and state agency 

developed communications systems to meet their own requirements, 

without regard to interoperability requirements to talk to adjacent 

jurisdictions. For example, a PSWN anlaysis of Fire and EMS 

communications interoperability found a significant need for coordinated 

approaches, relationship building, and information sharing. However, the 

PSWN program office found that public safety agencies have traditionally 

developed or updated their radio systems independently to meet specific 

mission needs. Each agency developed a sense of “ownership”, leading to 

“turf issues” and resistance to change. 

The SAFECOM program has reached similar conclusions. According to 

SAFECOM, the priorities of local and state public safety communications 

systems are first, to provide reliable agency specific communications; 

second, to provide local interagency communications; and third, to 

provide reliable interagency local/state/federal communications. In a 

August 11, 2003, briefing document, SAFECOM noted that limited and 

fragmented planning and cooperation was one barrier to public safety 

wireless communications. SAFECOM noted a complex environment of 

over 2.5 million public safety first responders within more than 44,000 

agencies and the fragmented command structure–where each Chief of 

Police sees himself as the Chairman of the Joint Staff in his jurisdiction– 

but the Fire Chief disagrees. The briefing also noted that a multitude of 

federal programs provide funding for interoperable communications with 

no coordination of requirements or guidance and that local funding was 

also stove-piped to meet individual agency needs. In a recent statement, 

we identified 10 separate grant programs that could be used for first 

responder equipment, including a number of these that can be used for 

interoperable communications equipment. We stated that the fragmented 

delivery of federal assistance can complicate coordination and integration 

of services and planning at state and local levels.14 

14Homeland Security: Reforming Federal Grants to Better Meet Outstanding Needs, 

GAO-03-1146T, September 3, 2003 

Page 15 GAO-04-231T 
The Fundamental 

Barrier to Success: 

The Absence of 

Effective Coordinated 

Planning and 

Collaboration 

The barriers to successfully addressing the three challenges we have 

outlined are multifaceted. Among the organizations we have contacted or 

whose reports we have reviewed, we found a variety of identified barriers, 

with a number of common barriers. For example, the SAFECOM project 

and a task force of 18 national associations representing state and local 

elected and appointed officials and public safety officials15 identified 

similar barriers: (1) incompatible and aging communications equipment, 

(2) limited and fragmented funding, (3) limited and fragmented planning 

and cooperation, (4) limited and fragmented radio spectrum, and (5) 

limited equipment standards. 

Of all these barriers, perhaps the most fundamental has been limited and 

fragmented planning and cooperation. The regional chairs of the Florida 

State Interoperability Committee have noted that non-technical barriers 

are the most important and difficult to solve. Police and fire departments 

often have different concepts and doctrines on how to operate an incident 

command post and use interoperable communications. Similarly, first 

responders, such as police and fire departments, may use different 

terminology to describe the same thing. Differences in terminology and 

operating procedures can lead to communications problems even where 

the participating public safety agencies share common communications 

equipment and spectrum. 

No one first responder group, jurisdiction, or level of government can 

successfully address the challenges posed by the current state of 

interoperable communications. Effectively addressing these challenges 

requires the partnership, leadership, and collaboration of all first 

responder disciplines, jurisdictions, and levels of government—local, 

state, federal, and tribal. In the absence of that partnership and 

collaboration, we risk spending funds ineffectively and creating new 

problems in our attempt to resolve existing ones. 

15National Task Force on Interoperability, WHY CAN’T WE TALK? Working Together To 

Bridge the Communications Gap To Save Lives, February, 2003. 

Page 16 GAO-04-231T 
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairmen, and I would be pleased to 

answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittees may 

have. 

(440264) Page 17 GAO-04-231T 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

The General Accounting 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 the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

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

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

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: To Report Fraud, 

W Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm aste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 Public Affairs 	 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548