Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications
Published: 2004-07-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Lives of first responders and those whom they are trying to assist can be lost when first responders cannot communicate effectively as needed. This report addresses issues of determining the status of interoperable wireless communications across the nation, and the potential roles that federal state, local governments can play in improving these communications.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In a November 6, 2003, testimony, GAO said that no one group or level of government could "fix" the nation's interoperable communications problems. Success would require effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary and intergovernmental planning. The present extent and scope nationwide of public safety wireless communication systems' ability to talk among themselves as necessary and authorized has not been determined. Data on current conditions compared to needs are necessary to develop plans for improvement and measure progress over time. However, the nationwide data needed to do this are not currently available. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intends to obtain this information by the year 2005 by means of a nationwide survey. However, at the time of our review, DHS had not yet developed its detailed plans for conducting this survey and reporting its results. The federal government can take a leadership role in support of efforts to improve interoperability by developing national requirements and a national architecture, developing nationwide databases, and providing technical and financial support for state and local efforts to improve interoperability. In 2001, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established the federal government's Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program, SAFECOM, to unify efforts to achieve national wireless communications interoperability. However, SAFECOM's authority and ability to oversee and coordinate federal and state efforts has been limited by its dependence upon other agencies for funding and their willingness to cooperate. OMB is currently examining alternative methods to implement SAFECOM's mission. In addition, DHS, where SAFECOM now resides, has recently announced it is establishing an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility to coordinate the federal response to the problems of interoperability in several functions, including wireless communications. The exact structure and funding for this office, which will include SAFECOM, are still being developed. State and local governments can play a large role in developing and implementing plans to improve public safety agencies' interoperable communications. State and local governments own most of the physical infrastructure of public safety communications systems, and states play a central role in managing emergency communications. The Federal Communications Commission recognized the central role of states in concluding that states should manage the public safety interoperability channels in the 700 MHz communications spectrum. States, with broad input from local governments, are a logical choice to serve as a foundation for interoperability planning because incidents of any level of severity originate at the local level with states as the primary source of support. However, states are not required to develop interoperability plans, and there is no clear guidance on what should be included in such plans.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the critical issue  of wireless interoperable communications for first responders. In  testimony last November before this subcommittee, we pointed out that  the inability of first responders—police officers, fire fighters, emergency  medical service personnel, public health officials, and others—to  communicate effectively over wireless systems with one another as  needed during an emergency is a 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 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. Public safety officials generally recognize  that effective “interoperable” communications is the ability to talk with  whom they want, when they want, when authorized, but not the ability to  talk with everyone all of the time. The effective interoperability of wireless  systems permits a rapid and coordinated response to an emergency  incident, whether that incident is a “routine” spill from an overturned  tanker truck or railcar, a natural disaster, or a terrorist attack.
In this statement and in the report we are releasing today, we examine   (1) issues in determining the current interoperable communications  capabilities of first responders nationwide, including the scope and  severity of interoperable wireless communications problems across the  nation; (2) the potential roles that federal, state, and local governments  can play in improving these communications, and (3) how the variety of  federal grants for state and local first responders may encourage or inhibit  the assessment of interoperable problems and the development of  comprehensive plans to address those problems.
In doing our work, we met with federal, state, and local officials, obtained  and reviewed appropriate documentation, attended several meetings of  public safety communications officials, and met with staff of the National  Governors Association. We conducted our work from July 2003 through  June 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Interoperable communications is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a  necessary means for achieving an important goal—the ability to respond  effectively to and mitigate incidents that require the coordinated actions of  first responders, such as multi-vehicle accidents, natural disasters, or  terrorist attacks. Public safety officials have pointed out that needed  interoperable communications capabilities are based on whether  communications are needed for (1) “mutual-aid responses” or routine day- to-day coordination between two local agencies; (2) extended task force  operations involving members of different agencies coming together to  work on a common problem, such as the 2002 sniper attacks in the  Washington, D.C. metropolitan area; or (3) a major event that requires  response from a variety of local, state, and federal agencies, such as major  wildfires, hurricanes, or the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. A  California State official with long experience in public safety  communications breaks the major event category into three separate types  of events: (1) planned events, such as the Olympics, for which plans can be  made in advance; (2) recurring events, such as major wildfires and other  weather events, that can be expected every year and for which  contingency plans can be prepared based on past experience; and   (3) unplanned events, such as the September 11th attacks, that can rapidly  overwhelm the ability of local forces to handle the problem.
Interoperable communications are but one component, although a key  one, of an effective incident command planning and operations structure.  As shown in figure 1, determining the most appropriate means of  achieving interoperable communications must flow from an  comprehensive incident command and operations plan that includes  developing an operational definition of who is in charge for different types  of events and what types of information would need to be communicated  (voice, data, or both) to whom under what circumstances. Other steps  include:    defining the range of interoperable communications capabilities needed  for specific types of events;   assessing the current capabilities to meet these communications needs;  identifying the gap between current capabilities and defined requirements;   assessing alternative means of achieving defined interoperable    developing a comprehensive plan—including, for example, mutual aid  agreements, technology and equipment specifications, and training—for  closing the gap between current capabilities and identified requirements.
Interoperable communications requirements are not static, but change  over time with changing circumstances (e.g., new threats) and technology  (e.g., new equipment), and additional available broadcast spectrum.  Consequently, both a short- and long-term “feedback loop” that  incorporates regular assessments of current capabilities and needed  changes is important.
In addition, the first responder community is extensive and extremely  diverse in size and the types of equipment in their communications  systems. According to SAFECOM officials, there are over 2.5 million  public safety first responders within more than 50,000 public safety  organizations in the United States. Local and state agencies own over   90 percent of the existing public safety communications infrastructure.  This intricate public safety communications infrastructure incorporates a  wide variety of technologies, equipment types, and spectrum bands. In  addition to the difficulty that this complex environment poses for federal,  state, and local coordination, 85 percent of fire personnel, and nearly as  many emergency management technicians, are volunteers with elected  leadership. Many of these agencies are small and do not have technical  expertise; only the largest of the agencies have engineers and technicians.
In the past, a stovepiped, single jurisdiction, or agency-specific  communication systems development approach prevailed—resulting in  none or less than desired interoperable communications systems. Public  safety agencies have historically planned and acquired communications  systems for their own jurisdictions without concern for interoperability.  This meant that each state and local agency developed communications  systems to meet their own requirements, without regard to interoperability  requirements to talk to adjacent jurisdictions.
For over 15 years, the federal government has been concerned with public  safety spectrum issues, including communications interoperability issues.  A variety of federal departments and agencies have been involved in  efforts to define the problem and to identify potential solutions, such as  the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice  (DOJ), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National  Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) within the  Department of Commerce (DOC), among others. Today, a combination of  federal agencies, programs, and associations are involved in coordinating  emergency communications.
DHS has several agencies and programs involved with addressing first  responder interoperable communication barriers, including the SAFECOM  program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the  Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). As one of its 24 E-Gov  initiatives, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2001 created  SAFECOM to unify the federal government’s efforts to help coordinate the  work at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels to establish reliable  public safety communications and achieve national wireless  communications interoperability. The SAFECOM program was brought  into DHS in early 2003. In June 2003, SAFECOM partnered with the  National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National  Institute of Justice (NIJ) to hold a summit that brought together over   60 entities involved with communications interoperability policy setting or  programs.
Several technical factors specifically limit interoperability of public safety  wireless communications systems. First, public safety agencies have been  assigned frequencies in new bands over time as available frequencies  become congested and as new technology made other frequencies  available for use. As a result, public safety agencies now operate over  multiple frequency bands—operating on these different bands required  different radios because technology was not available to include all bands  in one radio. Thus, the new bands provided additional capabilities but  fragmented the public safety radio frequency spectrum, making  communications among different jurisdictions difficult. Another technical  factor inhibiting interoperability is the different technologies or different  applications of the same technology by manufacturers of public safety  radio equipment. One manufacturer may design equipment with  proprietary technology that will not work with equipment produced by  another manufacturer.
section_title: Nature and Scope of Interoperable Communication Problems Nationwide Are Unknown
paragraphs: The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the  nation—including the current interoperable communications capabilities  of first responders and the scope and severity of the problems that may  exist—has not been determined. Although various reports have  documented the lack of interoperability of public safety first responders  wireless communications in specific locations, complete and current data  do not exist documenting the scope and severity of the problem at the  local, state, interstate, or federal levels across the nation. Accumulating  this data may be difficult, however, because several problems inhibit  efforts to identify and define current interoperable communications  capabilities and future requirements.
First, current capabilities must be measured against a set of requirements  for interoperable communications, and these requirements vary according  to the characteristics of specific incidents at specific locations. Who needs  to talk to whom, when they need to talk, and what set of communications  capabilities should be built or acquired to satisfy these requirements  depends upon whether interoperable communications are needed for day- to-day mutual aid, task force operations that occur when members of  different agencies come together to work on a common problem such as  the National Capitol Region sniper investigation, or major events such as a  terrorist attack. Requirements for interoperable communications also may  change with the expanding definition of first responders—from the  traditional police, fire, and emergency medical providers to include such  professions as health care providers and other professions—and the  evolution of new technology.
Establishing a national baseline for public safety wireless communications  interoperability will be difficult because the definition of who to include as  a first responder is evolving, and interoperability problems and solutions  are situation specific and change over time to reflect new technologies and  operational requirements. In a joint SAFECOM/AGILE program planning  meeting in December 2003, participants agreed that a national baseline is  necessary to know what the nation’s interoperability status really is, to set  goals, and to measure progress. However, at the meeting, participants said  they did not know how they were going to define interoperability, how  they could measure interoperability, or how to select their sample of  representative jurisdictions; this was all to be determined at a later date.  SAFECOM has embarked on an effort to establish a national baseline of  interoperable communications capabilities by July 2005, but SAFECOM is  still working out the details of the study that would be used to develop the  baseline. At the time of our review, SAFECOM officials acknowledged that  establishing a baseline will be difficult and said they are working out the  details of their baseline study but still expect to complete it by July 2005.
DHS also has other work under way that may provide a tool for such self- assessments by public safety officials. An ODP official in the Border and  Transportation Security Directorate of DHS said ODP is supporting the  development of a communications and interoperability needs assessment  for 118 jurisdictions that make up the Kansas City region. The official said  the assessment will provide an inventory of communications equipment  and identify how the equipment is used. He also said the results of this  prototype effort will be placed on a CD-Rom and distributed to states and  localities to provide a tool to conduct their own self assessments.  SAFECOM officials said they will review ODP’s assessment tool as part of  a coordinated effort and use this tool if it meets the interoperability  requirements of first responders.
Second, technical standards for interoperable communications are still  under development. Beginning in 1989, a partnership between industry and  the public safety user community developed what is known as Project 25  (P- 25) standards. According to the Public Safety Wireless Network  (PSWN) program office, Project 25 standards remain the only user- defined set of standards in the United States for public safety  communications. DHS purchased radios that incorporate the P-25  standards for each of the nation’s 28 urban search and rescue teams.  PSWN believes P-25 is an important step toward achieving  interoperability, but the standards do not mandate interoperability among  all manufacturers’ systems. Standards development continues today as  new technologies emerge that meet changing user needs and new policy  requirements.
Third, new public safety mission requirements for video, imaging, and  high-speed data transfers, new and highly complex digital communications  systems, and the use of commercial wireless systems are potential sources  of new interoperability problems. Availability of new spectrum can also  encourage the development of new technologies and require further  development of technical standards. For example, the FCC recently  designated a new band of spectrum, the 4.9 Gigahertz (GHz) band, for use  and support of public safety. The FCC provided this additional spectrum  to public safety users to support new broadband applications such as high- speed digital technologies and wireless local area networks for incident  scene management. The FCC requested in particular comments on the  implementation of technical standards for fixed and mobile operations on  the band. NPSTC has established a task force that includes work on  interoperability standards for the 4.9 GHz band.
section_title: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Is Needed
paragraphs: The federal government, states, and local governments have important  roles to play in assessing interoperability needs, identifying gaps in  meeting those needs, and developing comprehensive plans for closing  those gaps. The federal government can provide the leadership, long-term  commitment, and focus to help state and local governments meet these  goals. For example, currently national requirements for interoperable  communications are incomplete and no national architecture exists, there  is no standard database to coordinate frequencies, and no common  nomenclature or terminology exists for interoperability channels. States  alone cannot develop the requirements or a national architecture, compile  the nationwide frequency database, or develop a common nationwide  nomenclature. Moreover, the federal government alone can allocate  communications spectrum for public safety use.
subsections: section_title: Need to Establish National Requirements and a National Architecture
paragraphs: One key barrier to the development of a national interoperability strategy  has been the lack of a statement of national mission requirements for  public safety—what set of communications capabilities should be built or  acquired—and a strategy to get there. A key initiative in the SAFECOM  program plan for the year 2005 is to complete a comprehensive Public  Safety Statement of Requirements. The Statement is to provide functional  requirements that define how, when, and where public safety practitioners  communicate. On April 26, 2004, DHS announced the release of the first  comprehensive Statement of Requirements defining future communication  requirements and outlining future technology needed to meet these  requirements. According to DHS, the Statement provides a shared vision  and an architectural framework for future interoperable public safety  communications. DHS describes the Statement of Requirements as a living  document that will define future communications services as they change  or become new requirements for public safety agencies in carrying out  their missions. SAFECOM officials said additional versions of the  Statement will incorporate whatever is needed to meet future needs but  did not provide specific details.
A national architecture has not yet been prepared to guide the creation of  interoperable communications. An explicit, commonly understood, and  agreed-to blueprint, or enterprise architecture, is required to effectively  and efficiently guide modernization efforts. For a decade, GAO has  promoted the use of enterprise architectures, recognizing them as a  crucial means to a challenging goal—agency operational structures that  are optimally defined in both business and technological environments.  SAFECOM officials said development of a national architecture will take  time because SAFECOM must first assist state and local governments to  establish their communications architectures. They said SAFECOM will  then collect the state and local architectures and fit them into a national  architecture that links federal communications into the state and local  infrastructure.
section_title: Standard Databases and Common Nomenclature Not Yet Established
paragraphs: Technology solutions by themselves are not sufficient to fully address  communication interoperability problems in a given local government,  state, or multi-state region. State and local officials consider a standard  database of interoperable communications frequencies to be essential to  frequency planning and coordination for interoperability frequencies and  for general public safety purposes. Police and fire departments often have  different concepts and doctrines on how to operate an incident command  post and use interoperable communications. Similarly, first responders,  such as police and fire departments, may use different terminology to  describe the same thing. Differences in terminology and operating  procedures can lead to communications problems even where the  participating public safety agencies share common communications  equipment and spectrum. State and local officials have drawn specific  attention to problems caused by the lack of common terminology in  naming the same interoperability frequency.
The Public Safety National Communications Council (NCC), appointed by  the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was to make  recommendations for public safety use of the 700 MHz communications  spectrum. The NCC recommended that the FCC mandate (1) Regional  Planning Committee use of a standard database to coordinate frequencies  during license applications and (2) specific names be designated for each  interoperability channel on all pubic safety bands. The NCC said that both  were essential to achieve interoperability because public safety officials  needed to know what interoperability channels were available and what  they were called. In January 2001, the FCC rejected both  recommendations. It said that the first recommendation was premature  because the database had not been fully developed and tested. The FCC  directed the NCC to revisit the issue of mandating the database once the  database was developed and had begun operation. The FCC rejected the  common nomenclature recommendation because it said that it would have  to change the rules each time the public safety community wished to  revise a channel label. In its final report of July 25, 2003, the NCC renewed  both recommendations. It noted that the FCC had received a  demonstration of a newly developed and purportedly operational  database, the Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and Database  System (CAPRAD), and that its recommendations were consistent with  previous FCC actions, such as the FCC’s designating medical  communications channels for the specifc purpose of uniform useage.
section_title: Converting SAFECOM’s Functions To A Long-Term Program
paragraphs: In 2001, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established  SAFECOM to unify the federal government’s efforts to help coordinate  work at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels in order to provide  reliable public safety communications and achieve national wireless  communications interoperability. However, SAFECOM was established as  an OMB E-Gov initiative with a goal of improving interoperable  communications within 18-24 months—a timeline too short for addressing  the complex, long-term nature of the interoperability problem. In  addition, the roles and responsibilities of various federal agencies within  and outside DHS involved in communications interoperability have not  been fully defined, and SAFECOM’s authority to oversee and coordinate  federal and state efforts has been limited in part because it has been  dependent upon other federal agencies for cooperation and funding and  has operated without signed memorandums of understanding negotiated  with various agencies.
DHS, where SAFECOM now resides, announced in May 2004 that it had  created an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility within the Science  and Technology Directorate, to coordinate the federal response to the  problems of wireless and other functional interoperability and  compatibility. The new office is responsible for coordinating DHS efforts  to address interoperability and compatibility of first responder equipment,  to include both communications equipment and equipment such as  personal protective equipment used by police and fire from multiple  jurisdictions. The plan as approved by the Secretary of DHS states that by  November 2004 the new office will be fully established and that action  plans and a strategy will be prepared for each portfolio (type or class of  equipment). The plan presents a budget estimate for creation of the office  through November 2004 but does not include costs to implement each  portfolio’s strategy. The plans for the new office do not clarify the roles of  various federal agencies or specify what oversight authority the new office  will have over federal agency communications programs. As of June 2004,  the exact structure and funding for the office, including SAFECOM’s role  within the office, were still being developed.
section_title: Multiple Federal Agencies Have Roles And Responsibilities For Interoperability
paragraphs: DHS has not defined how it will convert the current short-term program  and funding structures to a permanent program office structure. When it  does, DHS must carefully define the SAFECOM mission and roles in  relation to other agencies within DHS and in other federal agencies that  have missions that may be related to the OMB-assigned mission for  SAFECOM. SAFECOM must coordinate with multiple federal agencies,  including ODP within DHS, AGILE and the Office for Community Oriented  Policing Services (COPS) in DOJ, the Department of Defense, the FCC,  the National Telecommunications and Information Administration within  the Department of Commerce, and other agencies. For example, AGILE is  the DOJ program to assist state and local law enforcement agencies to  effectively and efficiently communicate with one another across agency  and jurisdictional boundaries. The Homeland Security Act assigns the DHS  Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) primary responsibility within the  executive branch for preparing the United States for acts of terrorism,  including coordinating or, as appropriate, consolidating communications  and systems of communications relating to homeland security at all levels  of government. An ODP official said the Homeland Security Act granted  authority to ODP to serve as the primary agency for preparedness against  acts of terrorism, to specifically include communications issues. He said  ODP is working with states and local jurisdictions to institutionalize a  strategic planning process that assesses and funds their requirements.  ODP also plans to develop tools to link these assessments to detailed  interoperable communications plans.
SAFECOM officials also will face a complex issue when they address  public safety spectrum management and coordination. The National  Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) within the  Department of Commerce is responsible for federal government spectrum  use and the FCC is responsible for state, local, and other nonfederal  spectrum use. The National Governors’ Guide to Emergency Management  noted that extensive coordination will be required between the FCC and  the NTIA to provide adequate spectrum and to enhance shared local, state,  and federal communications. In September 2002, GAO reported that FCC  and NTIA’s efforts to manage their respective areas of responsibility were  not guided by a national spectrum strategy and had not implemented long- standing congressional directives to conduct joint, national spectrum  planning. The FCC and the NTIA generally agreed with our  recommendation that they develop a strategy for establishing a clearly  defined national spectrum plan and submit a report to the appropriate  congressional committees. In a separate report, we also discussed several  barriers to reforming spectrum management in the United States. On  June 24, 2004, the Department of Commerce released two reports entitled  Spectrum Policy for the 21st Century, the second of which contained  recommendations for assessing and managing public safety spectrum.
section_title: SAFECOM’s Authority To Coordinate Federal And State Efforts Is Limited
paragraphs: SAFECOM has limited authority to coordinate federal efforts to assess and  improve interoperable communications. Although SAFECOM has  developed guidance for use in federal first responder grants, SAFECOM  does not have authority to require federal agencies to coordinate their  grant award information. SAFECOM is currently engaged in an effort with  DOJ to create a “collaborative clearinghouse” that could facilitate federal  oversight of interoperable communications funding to jurisdictions and  allow states access to this information for planning purposes. The  database is intended to decrease duplication of funding and evaluation  efforts, de-conflict the application process, maximize efficiency of limited  federal funding, and serve as a data collection tool for lessons learned that  would be accessible to state and locals. However, SAFECOM officials said  that the challenge to implementing the coordinated project is getting  federal agency collaboration and compliance. As of February 2004, the  database contained award information from the 2003 COPS and FEMA  interoperability communications equipment grants, but no others within or  outside DHS.
SAFECOM’s oversight authority and responsibilities are dependant upon  its overall mission. OMB officials told us that they are currently in the  process of refocusing the mission of the SAFECOM program into three  specific parts: (1) coordination of federal activities through several  initiatives, including participation in the Federal Interagency Coordination  Council and establishment of a process for federal agencies to report and  coordinate with SAFECOM on federal activities and investments in  interoperability; (2) developing standards; and (3) developing a national  architecture for addressing communications interoperability problems.  They said identification of all current and planned federal agency  communications programs affecting federal, state, and local wireless  interoperability is difficult. According to these officials, OMB is developing  a strategy to best utilize the SAFECOM program and examining options to  enforce the new coordination and reporting process. SAFECOM officials  said they are working to formalize the new reporting and coordination  process by developing written agreements with other federal agencies and  by obtaining concurrence of major state and local associations to the  SAFECOM governance structure. SAFECOM officials noted that this newly  refocused SAFECOM role does not include providing technical assistance  or conducting operational testing of equipment. They said that their  authority to conduct such activities will come from DHS enabling  directives. SAFECOM officials also said that they have no enforcement  authority to require other agencies to use the SAFECOM grant guidance in  their funding decisions or to require agencies to provide grant program  information to them for use in their database.
section_title: State and Local Governments Can Play a Central Role
paragraphs: States, with broad input from local governments, can serve as focal points  for statewide planning to improve interoperable communications. The  FCC has recognized the important role of states. In its rules and  procedures, the FCC concluded that because states play a central role in  managing emergency communications and are usually in control at large  scale-events and disasters, states should administer the interoperability  channels within the 700 MHz band of communications spectrum. States  can play a key role in improving interoperable communications by  establishing a management structure that includes local participation and  input to analyze and identify interoperability gaps between “what is” and  “what should be,” developing comprehensive local, state, and regional  plans to address such gaps, and funding these plans. The states we visited  or contacted—California, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Washington and a  five state Midwest consortium—were in various stages of formulating  these management structures. However, states are not required to  establish a statewide management structure or to develop interoperability  plans, and there is no clear guidance on what should be included in such  plans. In addition, no requirement exists that interoperability of federal  communications systems be coordinated with state and local government  communications systems. The use of a standard database on  communications frequencies by public safety agencies within the state and  common terminology for these frequencies in preparation and  implementation of these statewide interoperable plans are essential but  are also not required. Without planning, coordination, and applicable  standards—in other words, without a commonly understood and accepted  blueprint or national architecture—the communications systems  developed between and among locations and levels of government may  not be interoperable.
States are key players in responding to normal all-hazards emergencies  and to terrorist threats. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 notes  that awards to states are the primary mechanism for delivery of federal  preparedness assistance for these missions. State and local officials also  believe that states, with broad local and regional participation, have a key  role to play in coordinating interoperable communications supporting  these missions. The Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN), in its report  on the role of the state in providing interoperable communications,  agreed. According to the PSWN report, state leadership in public safety  communications is key to outreach efforts that emphasize development of  common approaches to regional and statewide interoperability. The report  said that state officials have a vested interest in establishing and  protecting statewide wireless infrastructures because public safety  communications often must cross more than one local jurisdictional  boundary.
However, states are not required to establish a statewide capability to   (1) integrate statewide and regional interoperability planning and   (2) prepare statewide interoperability plans that maximize use of spectrum  to meet interoperability requirements of day-to-day operations, joint task  force operations, and operations in major events. Federal, state, and local  officials are not required to coordinate federal, state, and local  interoperability spectrum resources that, if successfully addressed, have  significant potential to improve public safety wireless communications  interoperability. As a result, states may not prepare comprehensive and  integrated statewide plans that address the specific interoperability issues  present in each state across first responder disciplines and levels of  government.
Several state and local agencies that we talked with emphasized that they  are taking steps to address the need for statewide communications  planning. State officials also told us that statewide interoperability is not  enough because incidents first responders face could cross state  boundaries. Thus, some states are also taking actions to address interstate  interoperability problems. For example, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,  Michigan, and Ohio officials said that their states have combined efforts to  form the Midwest Public Safety Communications Consortium to promote  interstate interoperability. According to these officials, they also have  taken actions to form an interstate committee to develop interoperability  plans and solicit support from key players, such as local public safety  agencies.
section_title: Statewide Interoperable Communications Committees Offer Potential for Coordinated Statewide Planning
paragraphs: FCC recognized a strong state interest in planning and administering  interoperability channels for public safety wireless communications when  it adopted various technical and operational rules and polices for the   700 MHz band. In these rules and policies, FCC concluded that  administration of the 2.6 MHz of interoperability channels in that band  (approximately 10 percent) should occur at the state-level in a State  Interoperability Executive Committee (SIEC). FCC said that states play a  central role in managing emergency communications and that state-level  organizations are usually in control at large-scale events and disasters or  multi-agency incidents. FCC also found that states are usually in the best  position to coordinate with federal government emergency agencies. FCC  said that SIEC administrative activities could include holding licenses,  resolving licensing issues, and developing a statewide interoperability plan  for the 700 MHz band. Other SIEC responsibilities could include the  creation and oversight of incident response protocols and the creation of  chains of command for incident response and reporting. Available data  indicate that 12 to 15 states did not create SIECs but have relied on  Regional Planning Committees or similar planning bodies.
section_title: Content and Scope of Statewide Interoperability Plans Not Established
paragraphs: A comprehensive statewide interoperable plan can provide the guiding  framework for achieving defined goals for interoperability within a state  and for regions within and across states (such as Kansas City, Mo and  Kansas City, Kans.). NCC recommended that all SIECs prepare an  interoperability plan that is filed with FCC and updated when substantive  changes are made or at least every three years. NCC also recommended to  FCC that SIECs, for Homeland Security reasons, should administer all  interoperability channels in a state, not merely those in the 700 MHz band.  According to NCC, each state should have a central point identified for  information on a state’s interoperability capability.
None of the four states we visited had finished preparation and funding of  their state interoperability plans. Washington and Florida were preparing  statewide interoperability plans at the time we visited. Georgia officials  said they have a state interoperability plan but that it is not funded.  However, one other state we contacted, Missouri, has extended SIEC  responsibility for interoperability channels beyond the 700 MHz band.  The Missouri SIEC has also designated standard operational and technical  guidelines as conditions for the use of these bands. SIEC requires  applicants to sign a MOU agreeing to these conditions in order to use these  channels in the state of Missouri. The Missouri SIEC Chairman said the  state developed its operational and technical guidelines because FCC had  not established its own guidelines for these interoperability channels in  the VHF and UHF bands. The chairman said Missouri borders on eight  other states and expressed concern that these states will develop different  guidelines that are incompatible with the Missouri guidelines. He said FCC  was notified of Missouri’s actions but has not taken action to date. In  another example, California intends to prepare a statewide interoperability  plan. California’s SIEC is re-examining California’s previous stove piped  programs of communications interoperability (separate systems for law  enforcement, fire, etc.) in light of the need to maintain tactical channels  within disciplines while promoting cross-discipline interoperability.
section_title: Coordination of Federal and State Interoperable Frequencies in Statewide Plans
paragraphs: FCC designated frequency coordinators told FCC that planning for  interoperability channels should include federal spectrum designated for  interoperability with state and local governments. We found several  examples in our field work that support inclusion of federal agencies in  future state and local planning for interoperable communications. For  example, a Washington State official told us that regional systems within  the state do not have links to federal communications systems and assets.  In another example, according to an emergency preparedness official in  Seattle, a study of radio interoperable communications in a medical center  also found that federal agencies such as FBI are not integrated into  hospital or health communications systems, and other federal agencies  have no radio infrastructure to support and participate in a health  emergency such as a bio-terrorism event. He told us that he has no idea  what the federal communications plan is in the event of a disaster; he said  he does not know how to talk to federal health officials responding to an  incident or what the federal government needs when they arrive.
The federal government is developing a system that could improve  interoperable communications on a limited basis between state and  federal government agencies. The Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) is a  radio system that is intended to replace the existing radio systems for the  DOJ, Treasury, and DHS. IWN is an exclusive federal law enforcement  communications system that is intended to interact and interface with  state and local systems as needed but will not replace these systems.  According to DOJ officials, IWN is intended to improve federal to state/  local interoperability but will not address interoperability of state and  local systems.
However, federal interoperability with state and local wireless  communications systems is hindered because NTIA and FCC control  different frequencies in the VHF and UHF bands. To enhance  interoperability, NTIA has identified 40 federal government frequencies  that can be used by state and local public safety agencies for joint law  enforcement and incident response purposes. FCC, however, designated  different frequencies for interoperability in the VHF band and in the UHF  band from spectrum it controls for use by state and local public safety  agencies.
section_title: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Support Statewide Planning
paragraphs: Total one-time replacement of the nation’s communications systems is  very unlikely, due to the costs involved. A 1998 study cited the  replacement value of the existing public safety communication  infrastructure nationwide at $18.3 billion. DHS officials said this estimate  is much higher when infrastructure and training costs are taken into  account. Furthermore, DHS recently estimated that reaching an  accelerated goal of communications interoperability will require a major  investment of several billion dollars within the next 5 to 10 years. As a  result of these extraordinary costs, federal funding is but one of several  resources state and local agencies must use in order to address these  costs. Furthermore, given the high costs, the development of an  interoperable communications plan is vital to useful, non-duplicative  spending. However, the federal funding assistance programs to state and  local governments do not fully support regional planning for  communications interoperability. Federal grants that support  interoperability have inconsistent requirements to tie funding to  interoperable communications plans. In addition, uncoordinated federal  and state level grant reviews limit the government’s ability to ensure that  federal funds are used to effectively support improved regional and  statewide communications systems.
Local, state and federal officials agree that regional communications plans  should be developed to guide decisions on how to use federal funds for  interoperable communications; however, the current funding requirements  do not support this planning process. Although recent grant requirements  have encouraged jurisdictions to take a regional approach to planning,  current federal first responder grants are inconsistent in their  requirements to tie funding to interoperable communications plans. States  and locals are not required to provide an interoperable communications  plan as a prerequisite to receiving some federal grant funds. As a result,  there is no assurance that federal funds are being used to support a well- developed strategy for improving interoperability. For example, the fiscal  year 2004 Homeland Security Grant (HSG) and Urban Areas Security  Initiative (UASI) grants require states or selected jurisdictions to conduct  a needs assessment and submit a Homeland Security Strategy to ODP.  However, the required strategies are high-level and broad in nature. They  do not require that project narratives or a detailed communications plan  be submitted by grantees prior to receiving grant funds.
In another example, fiscal year 2003 funding provided by COPS and FEMA  for the Interoperable Communications Equipment Grants did not require  that a communications plan be completed prior to receiving grant funds.  However, grantees were required to provide documentation that they were  actively engaged in a planning process and a multi-jurisdictional and  multidisciplinary project narrative was required. In addition to variations  in requirements to create communications interoperability plans, federal  grants also lack consistency in defining what “regional” body should  conduct planning.
subsections: section_title: Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also Present Challenges to Short- and Long-Term Planning
paragraphs: State and local officials also said that the short grant application deadlines  for recent first responder grants limited their ability to develop cohesive  communications plans or perform a coordinated review of local requests.  Federal officials acknowledged that the limited submission timeframes  presents barriers to first responders for developing plans prior to receiving  funds. For example, several federal grant programs—the Homeland  Security Grant, UASI grant, COPs and FEMA communication equipment  grants, Assistance to Firefighters Grant—allow states only 30 or 60 days  from the date of grant announcement to submit a grant proposal. These  time frames are sometimes driven by appropriations language or by the  timing of the appropriations enactment. Furthermore, many grants have  been awarded to state and locals for communications interoperability that  have 1- or 2-year performance periods, and according to state and local  officials, do not support long-term solutions. For example, Assistance to  Fire Fighters Grants, COPS/ FEMA’s Interoperable Communications  Equipment Grants, and National Urban Search and Rescue grants all have  1-year performance periods. UASI, HSG program, and Local Law  Enforcement Block Grants have 2-year performance periods.
section_title: No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure Funds are Used to Improve Regional or Statewide Communications Interoperability
paragraphs: The federal and state governments lack a coordinated grant review  process to ensure that funds allocated to local governments are used for  communication projects that complement each other and add to overall  statewide and national interoperability. Federal and state officials said that  each agency reviews its own set of applications and projects, without  coordination with other agencies. As a result, grants could be given to  bordering jurisdictions that propose conflicting interoperability solutions.  In fiscal year 2003, federal officials from COPS and FEMA attempted to  eliminate awarding funds to conflicting communication systems within  bordering jurisdictions by coordinating their review of interoperable  communications equipment grant proposals. However, COPS and FEMA  are only two of several federal sources of funds for communications  interoperability.
In an attempt to address this challenge, in 2003 SAFECOM coordinated  with other agencies to create the document Recommended Federal Grant  Guidance, Public Safety Communications and Interoperability Grants,  which lays out standard grant requirements for planning, building, and  training for interoperable communications systems. The guidance is  designed to advise federal agencies on who is eligible for the first  responder interoperable communications grants, the purposes for which  grant funds can be used, and eligibility specifications for applicants. The  guidance recommends standard minimum requirements, such as  requirements to “…define the objectives of what the applicant is ultimately  trying to accomplish and how the proposed project would fit into an  overall effort to increase interoperability, as well as identify potential  partnerships for agreements.” Additionally, the guidance recommends, but  does not require, that applicants establish a governance group consisting  of local, tribal, state, and federal entities from relevant public safety  disciplines and purchase interoperable equipment that is compliant with  phase one of Project-25 standards.
The House Committee on Appropriations report for the DHS FY 2004  appropriation states that the Committee is aware of numerous federal  programs addressing communications interoperability through planning,  building, upgrading, and maintaining public safety communication  systems, among other purposes. The Committee directed that all DHS  grant programs issuing grants for the above purposes incorporate the  SAFECOM guidance and coordinate with the SAFECOM program when  awarding funding. To better coordinate the government’s efforts, the  Committee also encouraged all other federal programs issuing grants for  the above purposes to use the guidelines outlined by SAFECOM in their  grant programs. However, SAFECOM officials said that they have no  enforcement authority to require other agencies to use this guidance in  their funding decisions or to require agencies to provide grant program  information to them for use in their database.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: A fundamental barrier to successfully addressing interoperable  communications problems for public safety has been the lack of effective,  collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning.  Jurisdictional boundaries and unique public safety agency missions have  often fostered barriers that hinder cooperation and collaboration. No one  first responder agency, jurisdiction, or level of government can “fix” the  nation’s interoperability problems, which vary across the nation and often  cross first responder agency and jurisdictional boundaries. Changes in  spectrum available to federal, state and local public safety agencies— primarily a federal responsibility conducted through the FCC and NTIA— changes in technology, and the evolving missions and responsibilities of  public safety agencies in an age of terrorism all highlight the ever-changing  environment in which interoperable communications needs and solutions  must be addressed. Interdisciplinary, intergovernmental, and multi- jurisdictional partnership and collaboration are essential for effectively  addressing interoperability shortcomings.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: We are making recommendations to DHS and OMB to improve the  assessment and coordination of interoperable communications efforts. We  recommend that the Secretary of DHS:  in coordination with the FCC and National Telecommunications and  Information Administration, continue to develop a nationwide database of  public safety frequency channels and a standard nationwide nomenclature  for these channels, with clear target dates for completing both efforts;   establish requirements for interoperable communications and assist states  in assessing interoperability in their states against those requirements;  through DHS grant guidance encourage states to establish a single,  statewide body to assess interoperability and develop a comprehensive  statewide interoperability plan for federal, state, and local  communications systems in all frequency bands; and   at the appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that federal  grant funding for communications equipment shall be approved only upon  certification by the statewide body responsible for interoperable  communications that grant applications for equipment purchases conform  with statewide interoperability plans.
We also recommend that the Director of OMB, in conjunction with DHS,  review the interoperability mission and functions now assigned to  SAFECOM and establish those functions as a long-term program with  adequate authority and funding.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Homeland  Security discusses actions the department is taking that are generally  consistent with the intent of our recommendations but do not directly  address specific steps detailed in our recommendations with respect to  establishment of statewide bodies responsible for interoperable  communications within the state, the development of comprehensive  statewide interoperability plans and tying federal funds for  communications equipment directly to those statewide interoperable  plans. OMB did not provide written comments on the draft report.
This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be  pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the  Subcommittee my have at this time.
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.