a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2004 PROJECT SAFECOM

Key Cross-Agency 

Emergency 

Communications 

Effort Requires 

Stronger 

Collaboration

GAO-04-494
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-494.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Linda D. 

Koontz at (202) 512-6240 or 

koontzl@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-494, a report to 

congressional requesters 

April 2004

PROJECT SAFECOM

Key Cross-Agency Emergency 

Communications Effort Requires 

Stronger Collaboration 

While its overall objective of achieving communications interoperability 

among emergency response entities at all levels of government is a 

challenging task that will take many years to fully accomplish, Project 

SAFECOM, in its 2-year history, has made very limited progress in 

addressing this objective. OMB’s e–government objectives of improving 

operating efficiency and achieving budgetary savings within federal 

programs have also been largely stymied. 

Two major factors have contributed to the project’s limited progress: (1) 

lack of consistent executive commitment and support, and (2) an inadequate 

level of interagency collaboration. In its 2 1/2-year history, Project 

SAFECOM has had four different management teams in three different 

agencies (see figure). In recent months, the current project team has 

pursued various near-term activities that are intended to lay the groundwork 

for future interoperability, including establishing a governance structure that 

emphasizes collaboration with stakeholders and developing guidance for 

making grants that can be used to encourage public safety agencies to plan 

for interoperability. However, it has not yet reached written agreements with 

several of its major stakeholders on their roles in the project or established a 

stable funding mechanism. Until these shortcomings are addressed, the 

ability of Project SAFECOM to deliver on its promise of improved 

interoperability and better response to emergencies will remain in doubt. 

Time Line of Major Project SAFECOM Management Changes 

One of the five priorities in the 

President’s Management Agenda is 

the expansion of electronic 

government (e–government)—the 

use of Internet applications to 

enhance access to and delivery of 

government information and 

services. Project SAFECOM is one 

of the 25 initiatives sponsored by 

the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) to implement this 

agenda. Managed by the 

Department of Homeland Security, 

the project’s goal is to achieve 

interoperability among emergencyresponse communications at all 

levels of government, while at the 

same time realizing cost savings. 

GAO assessed the government’s 

progress in implementing Project 

SAFECOM. 

To enhance the ability of Project 

SAFECOM to improve 

communications among first 

responders at all levels of 

government, GAO recommends 

that the Secretary of Homeland 

Security direct the Under Secretary 

for Science and Technology to 

complete agreements with the 

project’s federal and nonfederal 

stakeholders that define how they 

will contribute to SAFECOM and 

measure program progress. 

Commenting on a draft of this 

report, the department provided 

information about the project’s 

recent activities and noted that 

draft agreements had been sent to 

all of the project’s federal funding 

partners. 
Page i GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

Leadership Changes and Shortcomings in Collaboration Have 

Hampered SAFECOM’s Progress 9

Conclusions 15

Recommendation for Executive Action 16

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 16

Appendix

Appendix I: Comments from the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security 18

Table Table 1: Status of Agreements Reached between Federal Agencies 

and Project SAFECOM in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004 14

Figures Figure 1: Achieving Seamlessly Interoperable Communications 

among Emergency Response Officials Is Challenging 7

Figure 2: Time Line of Major Project SAFECOM Management 

Changes 11

Abbreviations

AGILE Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement

DHS Department of Homeland Security

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GAO General Accounting Office

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PSWN Public Safety Wireless Network

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.
Page 1 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

April 16, 2004 Letr

The Honorable Tom Davis

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Adam H. Putnam

Chairman, Subcommittee on Technology,

 Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations

 and the Census

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Christopher Shays

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security,

 Emerging Threats and International Relations

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

As you know, the President has identified the expansion of e–government1

as one of five priorities in his management agenda; accordingly, the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has sponsored 25 initiatives to 

implement this agenda. This report specifically reviews the progress made 

to date on one of these initiatives, Project SAFECOM, which has an overall 

objective of achieving national wireless communications interoperability2

among first responders and public safety systems at all levels of 

government. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently the 

federal managing partner for this project.

The 25 e–government initiatives sponsored by OMB, including Project 

SAFECOM, were originally chosen on the basis of their (1) likelihood of 

being deployed within 18 to 24 months, (2) value to citizens, and (3) 

potential to improve federal agency efficiency. By achieving interoperable 

public safety communications systems at all levels of government, Project 

1

E–government (electronic government) refers to the use of information technology (IT), 

particularly Web-based Internet applications, to enhance the access to and delivery of 

government information and service to citizens, business partners, and employees and 

among agencies at all levels of government.

2

Interoperability is the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange 

information and to use the information that has been exchanged.
Page 2 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

SAFECOM was intended to not only improve public services in 

emergencies but also to realize cost savings.

Achieving communications interoperability among emergency personnel is 

a complex and challenging task involving many different governmental and 

nongovernmental entities and a range of inter-related technical issues, such 

as how the communications spectrum is managed and how local 

governments buy and upgrade equipment.3

 Given the importance of 

addressing this challenge, you requested that we assess the progress of the 

federal government in implementing Project SAFECOM. To achieve this 

objective, we reviewed documents outlining the program’s goals, plans, and 

achievements; its management structure and objectives; its collaboration 

and funding strategy; and its selection as one of the 25 OMB-sponsored 

electronic government initiatives. We identified documented activities and 

achievements directly associated with Project SAFECOM and assessed the 

extent to which they contributed to fulfillment of the project’s original 

objectives. We also discussed the program’s management with current and 

former program managers. Our work was conducted at DHS in Washington, 

D.C., from December 2003 through March 2004, in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief After more than 2 years, Project SAFECOM has made very limited progress 

in addressing its overall objective of achieving communications 

interoperability among entities at all levels of government. In addition, 

although the project was originally expected to realize billions of dollars in 

federal budgetary savings by improving agency efficiency, program officials 

no longer expect it to produce such savings.

Two major factors have contributed to the project’s limited progress. First, 

Project SAFECOM has not received consistent executive commitment and 

support, as evidenced by the fact that it has been assigned to three different 

agencies and has had four management teams in its 2 1/2-year history. 

Second, the project has not achieved the level of collaboration necessary 

for a complex cross-government initiative of this type. In recent months, 

the current project team has pursued various near-term activities that are 

3

For a more detailed discussion of the challenges in achieving communications 

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

Achieving Interoperable Communications for First Responders, GAO-04-231T

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2003).
Page 3 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

intended to lay the groundwork for future interoperability, including 

establishing a governance structure that emphasizes collaboration with 

stakeholders and developing grant guidance for use with awards to public 

safety agencies that encourage planning for interoperability. However, it 

has not yet reached written agreements with several of its major 

stakeholders on their roles in the project or established a stable funding 

mechanism. Until these shortcomings are addressed, the ability of Project 

SAFECOM to deliver on its promise of improved interoperability and better 

response to emergencies will remain in question.

To enhance the ability of DHS to effectively collaborate with other agencies 

involved with SAFECOM, and to better ensure that the project receives 

stable funding, we are recommending that the Secretary of Homeland 

Security take steps to complete written participation and funding 

agreements with organizations representing all of the project’s 

stakeholders. Commenting on a draft of this report, DHS’s GAO liaison 

provided additional information about SAFECOM’s activities since May 

2003. The DHS official also noted activities under way that could partially 

address our recommendation. However, until DHS reaches agreements 

with all of SAFECOM’s stakeholders, including nonfunding federal partners 

and state and local partners, its ability to achieve its objectives will 

continue to be hampered.

Background One of the key provisions of the President’s Management Agenda, released 

in 2001, is the expansion of electronic government. To implement this 

provision, OMB sought to identify potential projects that could be 

implemented to address the issue of multiple federal agencies’ performing 

similar tasks that could be consolidated through e–government processes 

and technology. To accomplish this, OMB established a team called the E–

Government Task Force, which analyzed the federal bureaucracy and 

identified areas of significant overlap and redundancy in how federal 

agencies provide services to the public. The task force noted that multiple 

agencies were conducting redundant operations within 30 major functions 

and business lines in the executive branch. For example, the task force 

found that 10 of the 30 federal agencies it studied had ongoing activities in 

the National Security and Defense line of business, while 13 of the 30 

agencies had ongoing activities related to Disaster Preparation and 

Response Management.

To address such redundancies, the task force evaluated a variety of 

potential projects, focusing on collaborative opportunities to integrate IT 
Page 4 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

operations and simplify processes within lines of business across agencies 

and around citizen needs. Twenty-five projects were selected to lead the 

federal government’s drive toward e–government transformation and 

enhanced service delivery.4

 In its e–government strategy, published in 

February 2002,5 OMB established a portfolio management structure to help 

oversee and guide the selected initiatives. The five portfolios in this 

structure are “government to citizen,” “government to business,” 

“government to government,” “internal efficiency and effectiveness,” and 

“cross-cutting.” For each initiative, OMB designated a specific agency as 

the managing partner responsible for leading the initiative, and also 

assigned other federal agencies as partners in carrying out the initiative.6

OMB initially approved Project SAFECOM as an e–government initiative in 

October 2001. SAFECOM falls within the government-to-government 

portfolio, due to its focus on accelerating the implementation of 

interoperable public safety communications at all levels of government.

As described in its 2002 e–government report, OMB planned for SAFECOM 

to address critical shortcomings in efforts by public safety agencies to 

achieve interoperability and eliminate redundant wireless communications 

networks. OMB also stated that the project was expected to save lives and 

lead to better-managed disaster response, as well as result in billions of 

dollars in budget savings from “right-sized” federal communications 

networks and links to state networks .

7

4

For a detailed assessment of the selection process, see U.S. General Accounting Office, 

Electronic Government: Selection and Implementation of the Office of Management and 

Budget’s 24 Initiatives, GAO-03-229 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002). In 2002, a decision 

was made to separate one initiative into two individual projects, resulting in the current 

count of 25 projects.

5

Office of Management and Budget, E-Government Strategy (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 

2002).

6

Federal agencies that OMB assigned as partners in the Project SAFECOM initiative include 

the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, 

Justice, and the Treasury.

7

For an assessment of the overall management and oversight of the initiatives, see U.S. 

General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Success of the Office of Management 

and Budget’s 25 Initiatives Depends on Effective Management and Oversight, GAO-03-

495T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13, 2003).
Page 5 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

Lack of Interoperable 

Communications Hampers 

Emergency Response

In order to effectively carry out their normal duties and respond to 

extraordinary events such as natural disasters and domestic terrorism, 

public safety agencies need the ability to communicate with those from 

other disciplines and jurisdictions. However, the wireless communications 

used today by many police officers, firefighters, emergency medical 

personnel, and other public safety agencies do not provide such capability, 

which hinders their ability to respond. For example, emergency agencies 

responding to events such as the bombing of the federal building in 

Oklahoma City and the attacks of September 11, 2001, experienced 

difficulties while trying to communicate with each other.8

Historically, the ability of first responders to communicate with those from 

other disciplines and jurisdictions has been significantly hampered because 

they often use different and incompatible radio systems operating on 

different frequencies of the radio spectrum. In February 2003, the National 

Task Force on Interoperability9

 estimated the number of emergency 

response officials in the United States—also called first-responders—at 

about 2.5 million, working for 50,000 different agencies, such as law 

enforcement organizations, fire departments, and emergency medical 

services. Response to an emergency may involve any or all of these 

disciplines, as well as may additional personnel from the transportation, 

natural resources, or public utility sectors.

A complex array of challenges affects the government’s ability to address 

the emergency communications interoperability problem. In addition to the 

vast number of distinct governmental entities involved, the National Task 

Force on Interoperability identified a variety of additional barriers, 

including the fragmentation and limited availability of radio 

communications spectrum for dedicated use by emergency personnel, 

incompatible and aging communications equipment, limited equipment 

standards within the public safety community, and the lack of appropriate

8

See, for example, the testimony presented at a joint hearing of two Subcommittees of the 

House Committee on Government Reform (National Security, Emerging Threats and 

International Relations and Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations 

and the Census) held on November 6, 2003.

9

The National Task Force on Interoperability—made up of state and local officials, public 

safety officials, and members from 18 national associations—met several times in 2002 to 

discuss emergency communications interoperability.
Page 6 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

life-cycle funding strategies.10 These barriers have been long-standing, and 

fully overcoming them will not be accomplished easily or quickly. Figure 1 

summarizes the challenge of achieving seamlessly interoperable 

communications among the many personnel and organizations responding 

to an emergency.

10The findings of the National Task Force on Interoperability are summarized in Department 

of Homeland Security, Current Status of Government’s Response to Interoperability 

Efforts and SAFECOM Program: A Report to the Committee on Appropriations of the 

United States House of Representatives (Washington, D.C.: February 2004).
Page 7 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

Figure 1: Achieving Seamlessly Interoperable Communications among Emergency 

Response Officials Is Challenging

In some cases, first responders have resorted to stopgap measures to 

overcome communications problems. For example, some may swap radios 

with another agency at the scene of an emergency, others may relay 

messages through a common communications center, and still others may 

employ messengers to physically carry information from one group of 

responders to another. However, these measures have not always been 

adequate. The National Task Force on Interoperability identified several 

cases where the inability to communicate across agencies and jurisdictions 
Page 8 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

in emergency situations was a factor in the loss of lives or delayed 

emergency response.

Over the last decade, several federal programs have been established to 

address various aspects of public safety communications and 

interoperability. Among these was the Public Safety Wireless Network 

(PSWN) program—originally developed as a joint undertaking of the 

departments of Justice and the Treasury. PSWN’s focus was to promote 

state and local interoperability by establishing a technical resource center, 

collecting and analyzing data related to the operational environment of 

public safety communications, and initiating pilot projects to test and 

refine interoperable technology. Another similar initiative is the Advanced 

Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement (AGILE) program, 

which is run by the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice. 

AGILE was created to coordinate interoperability research within the 

Department of Justice and with other agencies and levels of government. 

AGILE has four main activities: (1) supporting research and development, 

(2) testing and evaluating pilot technologies, (3) developing standards, and 

(4) educating end users and policymakers.11

With roughly 100 agencies that use radio communications in law 

enforcement activities, the federal government also has a need for 

interoperable communications, both internally among its own departments 

and agencies and with state and local entities. This need has grown since 

the attacks of September 11, 2001, which blurred the distinctions between 

public safety and national security, and has placed federal entities such as 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Secret Service, and the U.S. 

Coast Guard into broader public safety roles. As a result, federal public 

safety personnel have an increased need to be able to communicate 

directly with one another and with their state and local counterparts.

11In August 2003, PSWN was merged into the SAFECOM project. AGILE continues to 

operate as a program of the Department of Justice.
Page 9 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

Leadership Changes 

and Shortcomings in 

Collaboration Have 

Hampered SAFECOM’s 

Progress

After more than 2 years, Project SAFECOM has made very limited progress 

in addressing its overall objective of achieving communications 

interoperability among entities at all levels of government. SAFECOM’s 

lack of progress has prevented it from achieving the benefits that were 

expected of it as one of the 25 OMB-sponsored e–government initiatives, 

including improving government efficiency and realizing budgetary 

savings. Two factors have contributed significantly to the project’s limited 

results. First, there has been a lack of sustained executive leadership, as 

evidenced by multiple shifts in program responsibility and management 

staff. Second, the project has not achieved the level of collaboration 

necessary for a complex cross-government initiative of this type. In recent 

months, the current project team has pursued various near-term activities 

that are intended to lay the groundwork for future interoperability, 

including establishing a governance structure that emphasizes 

collaboration with stakeholders and developing grant guidance for use with 

awards to public safety agencies that encourage planning for 

interoperability. However, it has not yet reached written agreements with 

several of its major stakeholders on their roles in the project or established 

a stable funding mechanism. Until these weaknesses are addressed, 

SAFECOM’s ability to achieve its ultimate goal of improving interoperable 

communications will remain in doubt.

SAFECOM Has Fulfilled 

Neither Its Program Goals 

nor the Overall E–

Government Objectives 

When the e–government initiative was launched in 2002, OMB identified 

achieving public safety interoperability and reducing redundant wireless 

communications infrastructures as the goal for Project SAFECOM. 

Specifically, SAFECOM was to

• achieve federal-to-federal interoperability throughout the nation,

• achieve federal-to-state/local interoperability throughout the nation, and

• achieve state/local interoperability throughout the nation.

As of March 2004, Project SAFECOM has made very limited progress in 

addressing its overall objective of achieving communications 

interoperability among entities at all levels of government. Specifically, 

project officials could provide no specific examples of cases where 

interoperability had been achieved as a direct result of SAFECOM 

activities. Furthermore, program officials now estimate that a minimum 
Page 10 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

level of interoperability will not occur until 2008, and full interoperability 

will not occur until 15 years later, in 2023.

OMB expected SAFECOM’s value to citizens to include saved lives and 

better managed disaster response; however, because of the program’s 

limited progress, these benefits have not yet been achieved. OMB also 

forecasted that a reduction in the number of communications devices and 

their associated maintenance and training would result in cost savings, 

including “billions” in federal savings. Project officials are currently 

conducting a study to estimate potential federal savings, such as savings 

from reducing equipment purchases. However, according to the program 

manager, federal savings in the billions of dollars are not likely. He added, 

however, that state and local agencies could realize significant savings if 

they could rely on Project SAFECOM to conduct consolidated testing of 

equipment for compliance with interoperability standards. Finally, on the 

issue of federal agency efficiency, the project has achieved mixed results. 

Although SAFECOM absorbed the projects and functions of PSWN, it has 

not consolidated the functions of Project AGILE, despite the similarities 

between the two programs’ activities. According to SAFECOM’s manager, 

the project lacks the authority to consolidate additional programs. 

Lack of Sustained 

Leadership Has Hampered 

SAFECOM’s Progress 

As we have identified in previous work, successful organizations foster a 

committed leadership team and plan for smooth staff transitions.12 The 

transition to modern management requires sustained, committed 

leadership on the part of agency executives and managers. As in the case 

with well-run commercial entities, strong leadership and sound 

management are central to the effective implementation of public-sector 

policies or programs, especially transformational programs such as the 

OMB-sponsored e–government initiatives.

Instead of sustained management attention, SAFECOM has experienced 

frequent changes in management, which have hampered its progress. OMB 

originally designated the Department of the Treasury, which was already 

involved in overseeing PSWN, as the project’s managing partner. As 

originally conceived, SAFECOM would build on PSWN’s efforts to achieve 

interoperability among state and local agencies by building an 

interoperable federal communications network. However, in May 2002, the 

12See U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Potential Exists for 

Enhancing Collaboration on Four Initiatives, GAO-04-6 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 10, 2003).
Page 11 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which had an 

emergency-response mission more closely aligned with SAFECOM’s goals, 

was designated managing partner. At that time, project staff focused their 

efforts on securing funding and beginning outreach to stakeholders such as 

the AGILE program and associations representing local emergency 

agencies. By September 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

had replaced its SAFECOM management team and shifted its 

implementation strategy to focus on helping first responders make shortterm improvements in interoperability using vehicles such as 

demonstration projects and research. At that time, development of an 

interoperable federal first-responder communications system was seen as a 

long-term goal.

Following the establishment of DHS,13 in May 2003, the project was taken 

out of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and assigned to the 

department’s new Science and Technology Directorate because of a 

perceived need to incorporate more technical expertise. At that time, the 

project was assigned to a fourth management team. Figure 2 summarizes 

the major management changes that have occurred throughout Project 

SAFECOM’s history.

Figure 2: Time Line of Major Project SAFECOM Management Changes

This lack of sustained, committed executive leadership hampered 

SAFECOM’s ability to produce results tied to its overall objective. The 

changing of project teams approximately every 6 to 9 months has meant 

13The Federal Emergency Management Agency became part of the Department of Homeland 

Security in March 2003.
Page 12 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

that much of the effort spent on the project has been made repeatedly to 

establish administrative structures, develop program plans, and obtain 

stakeholder input and support. Additionally, according to the project 

manager of PSWN, the changes in leadership have led to skepticism among 

some of the project’s stakeholders that the project’s goals can be met.

Inadequate Collaboration 

Has Also Hampered 

Progress, Although Recent 

Actions May Promote 

Success in the Future

The ability of Project SAFECOM to meet its overall objective has also been 

hampered by inadequate collaboration with the project’s stakeholders. As 

an umbrella program meant to coordinate efforts by various federal, state, 

and local agencies to achieve interoperability, SAFECOM’s success relies 

on cross-agency collaboration. As we have previously reported, crossorganizational initiatives such as this require several conditions to be 

successful, including: (1) a collaborative management structure; (2) clear 

agreements among participants on purpose, outcomes, and performance 

measures; (3) shared contribution of resources; and (4) a common set of 

operating standards.14

While the project’s current management team has made progress in 

developing a collaborative management structure, SAFECOM does not yet 

have other necessary structures or agreements in place. Its previous 

management teams worked on creating a collaborative management 

structure by, for example, seeking input from stakeholders and drafting a 

memorandum of understanding among the departments of Homeland 

Security, Justice, and the Treasury, but these activities were not completed 

at the time of the transition to DHS.

Since taking control of the project in May 2003, Project SAFECOM has 

pursued a number of activities that stress collaboration and are intended to 

lay the groundwork for future interoperability, according to its current 

manager. Specifically, DHS established a governance structure for the 

project in November 2003 that includes executive and advisory committees 

to formalize collaboration with stakeholders and provides a forum for 

significant input on goals and priorities by federal agencies and state and 

local representatives. The department has also conducted several planning 

conferences meant to identify project stakeholders to reach agreements 

with them on the program’s purpose and intended outcomes. One such 

conference, in December 2003, provided an opportunity for stakeholders to 

14GAO-04-6.
Page 13 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

modify program goals and the tasks planned to address them. The program 

manager also cited a statement of support by several organizations 

representing local first responders as evidence that the current structure is 

achieving effective collaboration. In addition, project officials are working 

with the Commerce Department to catalog all existing federal agencies that 

use public safety communications systems and networks.

Further, program officials noted that the SAFECOM project developed 

grant guidance that promotes interoperability by requiring public safety 

agencies to describe specific plans for achieving improved interoperability 

when applying for grants that fund communications equipment. This 

guidance represents a positive step, but it does not provide public safety 

agencies with complete specifications for achieving interoperability. 

Specifically, the guidance strongly encourages applicants to ensure that 

purchased equipment complies with a technical standard for interoperable 

communications equipment that has not yet been finalized and that, 

according to program officials, addresses only part of the interoperability 

problem. This guidance has already been incorporated into grants awarded 

by the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

However, Project SAFECOM has not yet fulfilled other conditions 

necessary for successful cross-government collaboration. First, project 

officials have not signed memorandums of agreement with all of the 

project’s stakeholders. As shown in table 1, agreements were completed on 

funding or program participation with five agencies in fiscal year 2003.15 

However, DHS did not reach a 2003 agreement with the Department of the 

Interior or the Department of Justice, both agencies designated as funding 

partners. According to the SAFECOM program manager, the Department of 

the Interior has not fully determined the extent of its expected 

participation in the program, and the Department of Justice had to delay its 

agreement until it received approval to reprogram the necessary funds. 

Justice has reached an agreement with DHS for fiscal year 2004, but as of 

March 2004, none of the other funding partners have signed agreements 

covering the current year. In addition, although other federal agencies and 

the organizations representing state and local stakeholders are represented 

15Participation agreements between DHS and the funding partners describe the 

responsibilities of each party. For example, the funding partners agreed to attend meetings, 

provide funding, and coordinate SAFECOM activities with their component agencies, while 

DHS agreed to provide periodic reports and exchange information with OMB.
Page 14 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

in SAFECOM’s governing structure and some have expressed support for 

the program, none has reached an agreement with DHS that commits it to 

provide nonfinancial assistance to the project. Finally, those agreements 

that were in place did not address key program parameters, such as 

specific program outcomes or performance measures. While the program’s 

stakeholders agreed to a broad set of goals and expected outcomes at the 

December planning meeting, as of March 2004, there was no agreement on 

performance measures for them. According to the program manager, new 

performance measures were under development.

Table 1: Status of Agreements Reached between Federal Agencies and Project 

SAFECOM in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004

Source: DHS.

Second, while effective collaboration requires the sharing of resources, 

DHS had not received all of the funding it planned to receive from its 

federal partners. During fiscal year 2003, SAFECOM received only about 

$17 million of the $34.9 million in funding OMB allocated to it from these 

funding partners. About $1.4 million of that $17 million was not received 

until late September 2003, when only a week remained in the fiscal year. 

According to program officials, these funding shortfalls and delays resulted 

in the program’s having to delay some of the tasks it had intended to 

complete, such as identifying the project’s major milestones.

Finally, although DHS has not yet developed a common set of operating 

standards for SAFECOM, efforts to identify technical standards are 

underway, according to program officials. For example, program officials 

from SAFECOM and AGILE plan to accelerate the development of an 

Agency Type of agreement Period of agreement

Department of Agriculture Funding and

program participation

Fiscal year 2003 

Department of Defense Funding and

program participation

Fiscal year 2003

Department of Energy Funding only Fiscal year 2003 

Department of Health and Human 

Services

Funding and

program participation

Fiscal year 2003 

Department of Justice Funding and program 

participation

Fiscal year 2004

Department of the Interior None completed

Department of the Treasury Funding only Fiscal year 2003 
Page 15 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

incomplete standard for interoperable communications equipment that is 

cited in SAFECOM's grants guidance. Program officials are also developing 

a document describing the requirements for public safety communications 

interoperability, which is intended to form the basis for future technical 

development efforts. SAFECOM also is supporting several demonstration 

projects and vendor presentations to publicize currently available 

interoperable systems.

The absence of many aspects of successful collaboration could hamper 

SAFECOM officials’ ability to achieve the program’s goals. For example, 

the lack of written agreements with some stakeholders raises concerns 

about the extent to which those agencies are willing to contribute to the 

program’s success. Also, until performance measures and technical 

standards are finalized and implemented, it will be difficult to determine 

the extent of any progress. Should such difficulties continue to hamper the 

program’s progress in fulfilling its overall goals, solutions to the problems 

of public safety interoperability will be further delayed.

Conclusions While the lack of rapid progress in improving interoperable 

communications among first responders may be understandable, 

considering the complexity of the issues and the number of entities 

involved, federal efforts to address the issue as an e–government initiative 

have been unnecessarily delayed by management instability and 

weaknesses in collaboration. Since taking over management of the project 

in May 2003, DHS has shown greater executive commitment to the project 

than had previously been demonstrated. The agency has determined that a 

long-term, intergovernmental effort will be needed to achieve the 

program’s overall goal of improving emergency response through broadly 

interoperable first-responder communications systems, and it has taken 

steps to lay the groundwork for this by creating a governance structure 

allowing for significant stakeholder input on program management. 

However, DHS has made less progress in establishing written agreements 

with other government agencies on responsibilities and resource 

commitments. The DHS effort could experience difficulties if it does not 

reach such agreements, which have proven essential to the success of 

other similarly complex, cross-agency programs.
Page 16 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

To enhance the ability of Project SAFECOM to improve communications 

among emergency personnel from federal, state, local, and tribal agencies, 

we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Under 

Secretary for Science and Technology to complete written agreements with 

the project’s identified stakeholders, including federal agencies and 

organizations representing state and local governments. These agreements 

should define the responsibilities and resource commitments that each of 

those organizations will assume and include specific provisions that 

measure program performance. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in 

appendix I, the Department of Homeland Security’s GAO liaison agreed 

that the lack of interoperable communications hampers emergency 

response. The official also provided additional information about activities 

undertaken by the current program management team since May 2003, 

including the implementation of a management structure that includes 

state and local stakeholders, the ongoing development of technical 

standards, and development of a database to track federal interoperability 

efforts. We discuss these activities in our report.

Regarding our draft recommendation, this official indicated that DHS has 

provided draft agreements to SAFECOM’s federal funding partners, and 

added that DHS supports the need for further delineation of responsibilities 

and funding in future MOUs. Until DHS reaches specific agreements with 

all of SAFECOM’s stakeholders, including nonfunding federal partners and 

state and local partners, its ability to achieve its objectives will continue to 

be hindered.

The official also stated that DHS agrees that performance measures are 

essential for adequate program management, and added that SAFECOM 

had developed a strategic performance management tool. However, DHS 

did not provide any evidence that SAFECOM had determined the specific 

performance measures that will be used to assess progress against its 

goals, or the process for applying them. Until such measures are 

implemented, program managers will be unable to determine the impact of 

their efforts. We also made technical corrections, as appropriate, in 

response to DHS’s comments.
Page 17 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

We plan to send copies to this report to the Ranking Minority Member, 

House Committee on Government Reform; the Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental 

Relations and the Census; and the Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International 

Relations. In addition, we will provide copies to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security and the Director of OMB. Copies will also be available without 

charge on GAO’s Web site at www.gao.gov.

Should you have any questions concerning this report, please call me at 

(202) 512-6240 or John de Ferrari, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-6335. We 

can also be reached by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov and deferrarij@gao.gov, 

respectively. Other key contributors to this report were Felipe Colón, Jr., 

Neil Doherty, Michael P. Fruitman, Jamie Pressman, and James R. 

Sweetman, Jr.

Linda D. Koontz

Director, Information Management Issues
Page 18 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM

Appendix I

Comments from the U.S. Department of Apendxies

Homeland Security ApendxiI
Appendix I

Comments from the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 19 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM
Appendix I

Comments from the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 20 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM
Appendix I

Comments from the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 21 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM
Appendix I

Comments from the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security

(310398) Page 22 GAO-04-494 Project SAFECOM
GAO’s Mission 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 email this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

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:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs 
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00