Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration
Published: 2004-04-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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. 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: As you know, the President has identified the expansion of e–government  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 interoperability  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  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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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  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. In its e–government strategy, published in  February 2002, 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.  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 .
subsections: section_title: Lack of Interoperable Communications Hampers Emergency Response
paragraphs: 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.
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 Interoperability 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 life-cycle funding strategies. 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.
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  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.
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.
section_title: Leadership Changes and Shortcomings in Collaboration Have Hampered SAFECOM’s Progress
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: SAFECOM Has Fulfilled Neither Its Program Goals nor the Overall E– Government Objectives
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Lack of Sustained Leadership Has Hampered SAFECOM’s Progress
paragraphs: As we have identified in previous work, successful organizations foster a  committed leadership team and plan for smooth staff transitions. 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  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 short- term 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, 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.
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  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.
section_title: Inadequate Collaboration Has Also Hampered Progress, Although Recent Actions May Promote Success in the Future
paragraphs: 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, cross- organizational 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.
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  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.   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  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.
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  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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Comments from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: 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 full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web  site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to  e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs