Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable Communications for First Responders
Published: 2003-11-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The inability of first responders--police officers, firemen, hazardous materials teams, emergency medical service personnel, and others--to communicate effectively with one another as needed during an emergency is a long-standing and widely recognized problem in many areas across the country. When first responders cannot communicate effectively as needed, it can literally cost lives--of both emergency responders and those they are trying to assist. At the request of the Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, we are examining the barriers to improved interoperability and the roles that federal, state, and local governments can play in improving wireless interoperability communications.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Interoperability problems existed among public safety agencies for many years prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Reports on incidents have documented a number of problems in public safety wireless communications. For over 15 years the Federal Government has been concerned about public safety spectrum issues, including communications interoperability issues. A variety of federal agencies have been involved in defining the problem and identifying potential solutions. In addition, Congress has taken several actions over the past two decades to address the availability and use of public safety wireless spectrum. The events of September 11 have resulted in greater public and governmental focus on the role of first responders and their capacity to respond to emergencies, including those resulting from terrorist incidents. The interoperability issues that the nation faces today did not arise overnight and they will not be successfully addressed overnight. Federal, state, and local governments face several major challenges in addressing interoperability in their wireless communications. The first challenge is to clearly identify and define the problem. For example, it is important to recognize that interoperable communications is not an end in itself, but it is rather one component for achieving an important goal--the ability to respond effectively to and mitigate incidents that require the coordinated actions of first responders. The second challenge is whether and how to establish national interoperability performance goals and standards and balance them with the flexibility needed to address differences in state, regional and local needs and conditions. The third challenge is defining the roles of federal, state, and local governments and other entities in defining the problem, implementing any national goals and standards, and assessing alternative means of achieving those goals and standards. The fundamental barrier to successfully addressing these challenges has been the lack of effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary and intergovernmental planning. No one first responder group or governmental agency can successfully "fix" the interoperability problems that face our nation. It will require the partnership, leadership, and coordinated planning of everyone involved.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the critical issue  of wireless interoperable communications for first responders. The  inability of first responders—police officers, fire fighters, emergency  medical service personnel, public health officials, and others—to  communicate effectively with one another as needed during an emergency  is a long-standing and widely recognized problem in many areas across the  country. Reports have shown that when first responders cannot  communicate effectively as needed, it can literally cost lives—of both  emergency responders and those they are trying to assist. Thus, effective  interoperable communications between and among wireless  communications systems used by federal, state, and local public safety  agencies is generally accepted as not only desirable but essential for the  protection of life and property. The effective interoperability of these  wireless systems permits a rapid and coordinated response to an  emergency incident, whether that incident is a “routine” spill from an  overturned tanker truck or railcar, a natural disaster, or a terrorist attack.
At the request of the Chairman of the full committee, we are examining the  barriers to improved interoperability and the roles that federal, state, and  local governments can play in improving wireless interoperability  communications. Our work is ongoing. To date, we have contacted state  and local officials in several states, attended professional meetings, and  opened discussion with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and  other key federal agencies. We are conducting our work in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. My testimony  today focuses on the broad and complex nature of the interoperability  issue and the challenges the nation faces in addressing this issue.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Interoperability problems existed among public safety agencies for many  years prior to the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and New York  City. Reports on incidents have documented a number of problems in  public safety wireless communications. For example, the National Task  Force on Interoperability (NTFI) documented interoperability problems in  several states - including South Dakota, Indiana, and Minnesota--that had  developed over a number of years.
For over 15 years the federal government has been concerned about public  safety spectrum issues, including communications interoperability issues.  A variety of federal agencies have been involved in defining the problem  and identifying potential solutions. In addition, Congress has taken several  actions over the past two decades to address the availability and use of the  public safety wireless spectrum.
The events of September 11, 2001, have resulted in greater public and  governmental focus on the role of first responders and their capacity to  respond to emergencies, including those resulting from terrorist incidents.  One result has been significantly increased federal funding for state and  local first responders, including funding to improve interoperable  communications among federal, state, and local first responders. In fiscal  year 2003 , Congress appropriated at least $154 million for interoperability  through a variety of grants administered by the Department of Homeland  Security, the Department of Justice, and other agencies.
In addition to appropriating more funds, the executive branch and  Congress have attempted to consolidate federal efforts and coordinate  federal grant programs. Within the executive branch, the Office of  Management and Budget in 2001 created the Wireless Public SAFEty  Interoperable COMmunications Program, or SAFECOM,  to unify the  federal government’s efforts to help coordinate the work at the federal,  state, local and tribal levels, in order to provide reliable public safety  communications and achieve national wireless communications  interoperability.
section_title: The First Challenge: Identifying and Defining the Interoperability Problem
paragraphs: In discussing the issue of interoperable communications, it is important to  recognize that interoperable communications is not merely a technological  issue or an end in itself. It is rather a key means of achieving a desirable  objective—the effective response to and mitigation of events or incidents  that require the coordinated actions of emergency responders. These  events could encompass a wide range of possibilities, such as multi- vehicle accidents, major floods or wildfires, or a terrorist attack that  involved thousands of injuries.
Interoperable communications is also but one component, although an  important one, of an effective incident command planning and operations  structure. As a standard practice, public safety agencies are to establish  communications capabilities to support command and control of their  operations at an incident scene. Determining the most appropriate means  of achieving interoperable communications must flow from an effective  planning and operations structure that identifies who is in charge and who  must be able to communicate what information to whom under what  circumstances. For example, there are likely to be both similarities and  differences in the interoperable communications capacities, protocols, and  participants associated with responding to seasonally predictable wildfires  and terrorist attacks that involve biological agents.
Defining the range of interoperability capacity needed requires identifying  the types of events for which interoperable communications would be  needed, the participants involved in responding to those events—by  professional discipline and jurisdiction—and an operational definition of  who is charge and who would need to communicate what types of  information (e.g., voice, data, or both) with whom under what  circumstances. These are not easy tasks, and they require both a multi- disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional perspective. But these tasks are a  precursor to assessing the current problems—e.g., operational, technical,  and fiscal—that exist in meeting interoperable communication needs and  alternative means of achieving identified interoperable communications  needs.
But more importantly, interoperability is not a static issue--it is an issue  that is affected by changes in technology and the changing events and  threats for which first responders must be prepared. Thus, there is no  single, long-term solution; the issue is one that must be periodically  reassessed as needs and technology change.
subsections: section_title: Interoperability Is Not a Static Issue
paragraphs: The issues and problems in defining and scoping what is meant by  “interoperability” are not static. They evolve over time in a fluid and ever- changing environment of evolving threats and events for which we need to  be prepared to respond, new operational requirements, new spectrum  bands for public safety use, and new technology.
subsections: section_title: The Evolving Definition of First Responders
paragraphs: Public safety officials generally recognize that interoperable  communications is the ability to talk with whom they want, when they  want, when authorized, but not the ability to talk with everyone all of the  time. However, there is no standard definition of communications  interoperability. Nor is there a “one size fits all” requirement for who  needs to talk to whom.
Traditionally, first responders have been considered to be fire, police and  emergency medical service personnel. However, in a description of public  safety challenges, a federal official noted that the attacks of September 11,  2001, have blurred the lines between public safety and national security.  According to the Commission, effective preparedness for combating  terrorism at the local level requires a network that includes public health  departments, hospitals and other medical providers, and offices of  emergency management, in addition to the traditional police, fire, and  emergency medical services first responders. Furthermore, Congress  recognized the expanded definition of first responder in the Homeland  Security Act of 2002, which defined “emergency response providers” as  “Federal, State, and local emergency public safety, law enforcement,  emergency response, emergency medical (including hospital emergency  facilities), and related personnel, agencies, and authorities.”
section_title: Reexamining the Jurisdictional Boundaries of Interoperability
paragraphs: The context of the communications also affects the definition of the  problem. Two key studies in the late 1990s sponsored by the Department  of Justice (DOJ) and the Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) program  provide a nationwide picture of wireless interoperability issues among  federal, state, and local police, fire, and emergency medical service  agencies at that time. Both studies describe most local public safety  agencies as interacting with other local agencies on a daily or weekly  basis. As a result, most local agencies had more confidence in establishing  radio links with one another than with state agencies, with whom they less  frequently interact. Local public safety agencies interact with federal  agencies least of all, with a smaller percentage of local agencies  expressing confidence in their ability to establish radio links with federal  agencies. The events of September 11, 2001, have resulted in a  reexamination of the circumstances in which interoperable  communications should extend across political jurisdictions and levels of  government.
section_title: Interoperable Needs Are Scenario Driven and Change Over Time
paragraphs: Another issue is the broad range of scenarios in which interoperable  communications are required. Public safety officials have pointed out that  interoperability is situation specific, based on whether communications  are needed for (1) “mutual-aid responses” or routine day-to-day  coordination between two local agencies; (2) extended task force  operations involving members of different agencies coming together to  work on a common problem; or (3) a major event that requires response  from a variety of local, state, and federal agencies. One official breaks the  major event category into three separate types of events: planned events, such as the Olympics, for which plans can be made in recurring events, such as major wildfires and hurricanes, that can be  expected every year and for which contingency plans can be prepared  based on past experience, and unplanned events, such as the September 11th attacks, that can rapidly  overwhelm the ability of local forces to handle the problem.
section_title: Technological Changes Also Affect Interoperability
paragraphs: As technology changes, it presents new problems and opportunities for  achieving and maintaining effective interoperable communications.  According to one official, in the 1980s, a method of voice transmission  called “trunking” became available that allowed more efficient use of  spectrum. However, three different and incompatible trunking  technologies developed, and these systems are not interoperable. This  official noted that as mobile data communications becomes more  prevalent and new digital technologies are introduced, standards become  more important.
Technical standards for interoperable communications are still under  development. Beginning in 1989, a partnership between industry and the  public safety user community developed what is known as Project 25 (P- 25) standards. According to the PSWN program office, Project 25  standards remain the only user-defined set of standards in the United  States for public safety communications. The Department of Homeland  Security has recently decided to purchase radios that incorporate the P-25  standards for the each of the nation’s 28 urban search and rescue teams.  PSWN believes P-25 is an important step toward achieving  interoperability, but the standards do not mandate interoperability among  all manufacturers’ systems. Standards development continues today as  new technologies emerge that meet changing user needs and new policy  requirements.
In addition, new public safety mission requirements for video, imaging,  and high speed data transfers, new and highly complex digital  communications systems, and the use of commercial wireless systems, are  potential sources of new interoperability problems.
Availability of new spectrum can also result in new technologies and  require further development of technical standards. For example, the FCC  recently designated a new band of spectrum, the 4.9 Gigahertz (GHz) band,  for public safety uses and sought comments on various issues, including  licensing and service rules. The FCC provided this additional spectrum to  public safety users to support new broadband applications, such as high- speed digital technologies and wireless local area networks for incident  scene management. The Federal Communications (FCC) in particular  requested comments on the implementation of technical standards for  fixed and mobile operations on the band. The National Public Safety  Telecommunications Council has established a task force that includes  work on interoperability standards for the 4.9 GHz band.
section_title: Second Challenge: Establishing National Goals and Requirements
paragraphs: When the interoperability problem has been sufficiently defined and  bounded, the next challenge will be to develop national interoperability  performance goals and technical standards that balance consistency with  the need for flexibility in adapting them to state and regional needs and  circumstances.
subsections: section_title: Lack of National Requirements
paragraphs: One key barrier to development of a national interoperability strategy is  the lack of a statement of national mission requirements for public  safety—what set of communications capabilities should be built or  acquired—and a strategy to get there. The report of the Independent Task  Force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations on emergency  responders said national standards of preparedness have not been defined  and that the lack of a methodology to determine national requirements for  emergency preparedness constitutes a national crisis. The report  recommended these standards be prepared for federal, state, and local  emergency responders in such areas as training, interoperable  communications systems, and response equipment. SAFECOM officials  have noted that no standard, guidance, or national strategy exists on  interoperability. DOJ officials told us they are working with SAFECOM to  develop a statement of requirements that should be ready for release by  May 1, 2004.
section_title: Need for an Interoperability Blueprint
paragraphs: To guide the creation of interoperable communications, there must be an  explicit and commonly understood and agreed-to blueprint, or  architecture, for effectively and efficiently guiding modernization efforts.  For a decade, GAO has promoted the use of architectures, recognizing  them as a crucial means to a challenging goal: agency operational  structures that are optimally defined in both business and technological  environments. An enterprise architecture provides a clear and  comprehensive picture of an entity, whether it is an organization (e.g., a  federal department or agency) or a functional or mission area that cuts  across more than one organization (e.g., financial management). In August  2003, DHS released its initial enterprise architecture that it described as  conceptual in nature.. We are in the process of reviewing this architecture  at the request of the Chairman, Subcommittee on Technology, Information  Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, Committee on  Government Reform.
section_title: Need For Flexibility
paragraphs: There is no single “silver bullet” solution to interoperability needs. Our  ongoing work indicates that communications interoperability problems  facing any given locality or state tend to be situation specific, with no  universally applicable solution. For example, the Association of Public  Safety Communications Officials (APCO) noted in its White Paper on  Homeland Security that various methods are possible to achieve  interoperability but planning is an essential first step to choosing a  solution. APCO noted that interoperability does not involve a single  product or system approach; rather it is accomplished with a variety of  solutions with a focus on the first responder. APCO noted that what is an  appropriate interoperability solution varies with the operation of the  particular government agencies, their funding, their physical location, and  other individual circumstances.
In addition, the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee’s (PSWAC)  final report noted that the public safety community has some common  operational requirements, such as dispatch communications and  transmission of operational and tactical instructions. However, the  PSWAC report also describes agencies’ specialized requirements that are  based on specific missions and operating environments. For example, the  report notes forestry and state police have long distance requirements  where foliage can be a problem for higher frequency systems. In contrast,  a metropolitan police department may need highly reliable in-building  coverage, which is not a requirement for state police mobile operations.  Those state and local officials we have interviewed to date have stated that  they want to retain flexibility when addressing communications issues.  For example, Virginia state officials noted that geographical locations  within the state present different interoperability requirements. They said  interoperability problems differ from locality to locality, and that solutions  must be developed that fit the specific circumstances of the individual  geography and situation.
section_title: Third Challenge: Need to Define Intergovernmental Roles
paragraphs: As noted above, the federal government has a long history in addressing  federal, state, and local government public safety issues–in particular  interoperability issues. The Government Reform Committee has also  recently contributed to the development of policies. In October 2002 the  Committee issued a report entitled “How Can the Federal Government  Better Assist State and Local Governments in Preparing for a Biological,  Chemical, or Nuclear Attack “(Report 107-766). The Committee’s first  finding was that incompatible communication systems impede  intergovernmental coordination efforts. The Committee recommended  that the federal government take a leadership role in resolving the  communications interoperability problem.
subsections: section_title: Federal Efforts to Establish A Leadership Role
paragraphs: The federal role in addressing the interoperability of public safety wireless  communications continues to evolve. Today, a combination of many  federal agencies, programs, and associations are involved in coordinating  emergency communications. In June 2003, SAFECOM partnered with the  National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National  Institute of Justice (NIJ) to hold a summit that brought together over 60  entities involved with communications interoperability policy setting or  programs. According to NIST, the summit familiarized key interoperability  players with work being done by others and provided insight into where  additional federal resources may be needed.
The SAFECOM program was initially established within Justice in 2001  and was transferred to  the Federal Emergency Management Agency  (FEMA) in 2002 before being brought into DHS in early 2003. The current  director said his program is responsible for outreach to local, state, and  federal public safety agencies to assist in interoperability planning and  implementation. In an August 2003 briefing, SAFECOM stated its role is to  serve “as the umbrella program within the federal government to  coordinate the efforts of local, tribal, state and federal public safety  agencies working to improve public safety response through more  effective, efficient, interoperable wireless communications.” In the  briefing, SAFECOM officials said they have begun to implement this  coordination role by setting objectives to develop a national public safety  communications strategy, providing supporting standards and guidance;  developing funding mechanisms and guidance, and creating a national  training and technical assistance program.
SAFECOM officials have also stated that SAFECOM has taken several  other actions to implement its role as the umbrella program to coordinate  actions of the federal government. For example, in coordination with  officials of other agencies, it developed guidance for federal grants  supporting public safety communications and interoperability. The  guidance is designed to provide an outline of who is eligible for the grants,  purposes for which grant funds can be used and eligibility specifications  for applicants. The guidance requires that, at a minimum, applicants must”  define the objectives of what the applicant is ultimately trying to  accomplish and how the proposed project would fit into an overall effort  to increase interoperability, as well as identify potential partnerships for  agreements.” Additionally, the guidance recommends, but does not  require, that applicants establish a governance group consisting of local,  tribal, state, and federal entities from relevant public safety disciplines and  purchase interoperable equipment that is compliant with phase one of  Project-25 standards.
Although SAFECOM is the umbrella program to coordinate actions of the  federal government, it does not include all major federal efforts aimed at  promoting wireless interoperability for first responders. Specifically, the  Justice Department continues to play a major role in interoperability after  the establishment of DHS. Key Justice programs–the Advanced Generation  of Interoperability for Law Enforcement (AGILE) and the Community  Oriented Policing Services–did not transition to the SAFECOM program in  the new Department of Homeland Security. AGILE is the Department of  Justice program to assist state and local law enforcement agencies to  effectively and efficiently communicate with one another across agency  and jurisdictional boundaries. It is dedicated to studying interoperability  options and advising state and local law enforcement, fire fighters, and  emergency technicians. The SAFECOM program director also said most of  the federal research and development on prototypes is being conducted  within the AGILE program. The Department of Justice said it is also  creating a database for all federal grants to provide a single source of  information for states and localities to access, and to allow federal  agencies to coordinate federal funding awards to state and local agencies.  SAFECOM and AGILE officials told us they have an informal, but close  working relationship today, and that they are negotiating a memorandum  of understanding between the two programs. Federal officials also told us  that efforts are also under way by SAFECOM, AGILE, and other federal  agencies to coordinate work on technical assistance to state and local  governments and to develop and set interoperability standards. The  SAFECOM program may continue to face challenges in assuming a  leadership role for the federal government while these significant Justice  programs remain outside its domain.
SAFECOM officials will face complex issues when they address public  safety spectrum management and coordination. The National Governors’  Guide to Emergency Management noted that extensive coordination will  be required between the FCC and the National Telecomunications and  Information Agency (NTIA) to provide adequate spectrum and to enhance  shared local, state, and federal communications. However, the current  legal framework for domestic spectrum management is divided between  the NTIA within the Department of Commerce, which regulates federal  government spectrum use, and the Federal Communications Commission,  which regulates state, local, and other nonfederal spectrum use. In a  September 2002 report on spectrum management and coordination, GAO  found that FCC’s and NTIA’s efforts to manage their respective areas of  responsibility were not guided by a national spectrum strategy. The FCC  and the NTIA have conducted independent spectrum planning efforts and  have recently taken steps to improve coordination, but they have not yet  implemented long-standing congressional directives to conduct joint,  national spectrum planning. We recommended that the FCC and the NTIA  develop a strategy for establishing a clearly defined national spectrum  plan and submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees. In a  January 2003 report, we discussed several barriers to reforming spectrum  management in the United States.
section_title: State Role in Interoperability Issues Is Evolving
paragraphs: The role that state and local governments will play in public safety  communications is evolving. This role is being defined by states and local  governments as they address problems they recognize exist in their  communications systems and by the FCC and the NTIA. As noted by the  National Governors Association (NGA), many states are establishing a  foundation for cooperation and statewide planning through memorandums  of understanding or similar agreements.
Several states have or are taking executive and legislative actions to  address communications planning and interoperability planning. For  example, the Missouri State Interoperability Executive Committee was  created by the Missouri Department of Public Safety to enhance  communications interoperability among public safety entities in Missouri  by promoting available tools and relationships. The Missouri State  Interoperability Executive Committee established a Memorandum of  Understanding (MOU) that instructs public safety agencies within the state  to use the FCC designated interoperability channels under an Incident  Command/Incident Management structure. The MOU also attempts to  diminish operational interoperability barriers by creating common  operating procedures for the agencies to use on the channels.  Furthermore, in order to create a comprehensive approach to  interoperability that addresses new homeland security concerns, the State  of Missouri enacted the “Missouri Uniform Communications Act for  Homeland Security”, which established the State’s “Public Safety  Communications Committee.” This Committee is composed of  representatives from the Department of Public Safety, Office of Homeland  Security, Department of Conservation and Department of Transportation.  The committee reviews all public safety agencies’ plans that request state  or federal wireless communications funds and relies on the  recommendations of the Missouri Interoperability Executive Committee to  ensure that state decisions enhance interoperability.
Another state that uses the State Interoperability Executive Committee  structure to enhance communications interoperability is the State of  Washington, whose committee was established by state legislation  effective July 1, 2003. The Washington Committee was created under the  Information Services Board within the Department of Information  Services. The Committee’s members include representatives from the  Military, Transportation, Information Services and Natural Resources  departments; the Washington State Patrol; state and local fire chiefs;  police chiefs; sheriffs; and state and local emergency managers.  Washington legislation requires the Committee to submit to the State  legislature an inventory of all public safety systems within the state and a  plan to ensure the interoperability of those systems. The Committee was  given the authority to develop policies and procedures for emergency  communications systems across the state and to serve as the point of  contact for the FCC in the allocation, use and licensing of radio spectrum  for public safety and emergency communication systems.
Federal actions to support state efforts that address wireless  interoperability issues are still evolving. On the one hand, the Public Safety  Wireless Network program has supported state efforts to improve  multistate and individual statewide planning and coordination through a  number of projects that emphasize a regional approach. However, two  agencies of the federal government–the FCC and the NTIA–set rules and  regulations for state and local governments and federal government  wireless systems respectively.
section_title: The Regional or Shared Approach
paragraphs: State and local efforts to address interoperability issues are widespread.  The National Governors Association said in its recent Guide to Emergency  Management that interoperable equipment, procedures, and standards for  emergency responders are key to improving the effectiveness of mutual  aid agreements with other states and other jurisdictions. The NGA guide  calls for governors and their state homeland security directors to: develop a statewide vision for interoperable communications; ensure adequate wireless spectrum is available to accommodate all users;  invest in new communications infrastructure; develop standards for technology and equipment, and partner with  government and private industry.
Specifically, states are taking action to facilitate strategic planning and  interoperability planning that emphasize a shared approach at the  multistate, state, and local levels. The Public Safety Wireless Network  report notes that although in the past public safety agencies have  addressed interoperability on an individual basis, more recently, local,  state, and federal agencies have come to realize that they cannot do it  alone. The report also notes that officials at all levels of government are  now taking action to improve coordination and facilitate multi- jurisdictional interoperability. We talked to officials from several states  about their states’ efforts to address interoperability issues on a regional  basis. For example;
State officials from Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan have  combined efforts to form a Mid-west Consortium to promote interstate  interoperability. They have taken actions to form an interstate committee  to develop interoperability plans and solicit support from key players such  as local public safety agencies. The governors of the states have agreed to  sign an MOU to signify that each state is willing to be interoperable with  the other states and will provide communication assistance and resources  to the other states, to the extent that it does not harm their own state.
In Florida, the governor of the state issued an executive order in 2001 to  establish seven Regional Domestic Security Task Forces that make up the  entire state. Each of the regional task forces has a committee on  interoperable communications under Florida’s Executive Interoperable  Technologies Committee. The Florida legislature supported that effort by  establishing the Task Forces in law and formally designating the Florida  Department of Law Enforcement and the Division of Emergency  Management as the lead agencies. The Task Forces consist of agencies  from Fire/Rescue, Emergency Management, and public health and  hospitals, as well as law enforcement. In addition, it includes partnerships  with education/schools, business and private industry.
section_title: Statewide Interoperability Plans
paragraphs: Public safety representatives have stressed the importance of planning in  addressing communications interoperability issues. The Association of  Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) has emphasized the  importance of planning in addressing communications interoperability  problems. In its Homeland Security white paper, APCO said that a plan for  responding to terrorist events should include a section on how to address  interoperability requirements. The creation of state interoperability plans  could help reduce the current fragmented public safety communications  planning process. Public safety agencies have historically planned and  acquired communications systems for their own jurisdictions without  concern for interoperability. This meant that each local and state agency  developed communications systems to meet their own requirements,  without regard to interoperability requirements to talk to adjacent  jurisdictions. For example, a PSWN anlaysis of Fire and EMS  communications interoperability found a significant need for coordinated  approaches, relationship building, and information sharing. However, the  PSWN program office found that public safety agencies have traditionally  developed or updated their radio systems independently to meet specific  mission needs. Each agency developed a sense of “ownership”, leading to  “turf issues” and resistance to change.
The SAFECOM program has reached similar conclusions. According to  SAFECOM, the priorities of local and state public safety communications  systems are first, to provide reliable agency specific communications;  second, to provide local interagency communications; and third, to  provide reliable interagency local/state/federal communications. In a  August 11, 2003, briefing document, SAFECOM noted that limited and  fragmented planning and cooperation was one barrier to public safety  wireless communications. SAFECOM noted a complex environment of  over 2.5 million public safety first responders within more than 44,000  agencies and the fragmented command structure–where each Chief of  Police sees himself as the Chairman of the Joint Staff in his jurisdiction–  but the Fire Chief disagrees. The briefing also noted that a multitude of  federal programs provide funding for interoperable communications with  no coordination of requirements or guidance and that local funding was  also stove-piped to meet individual agency needs. In a recent statement,  we identified 10 separate grant programs that could be used for first  responder equipment, including a number of these that can be used for  interoperable communications equipment. We stated that the fragmented  delivery of federal assistance can complicate coordination and integration  of services and planning at state and local levels.
section_title: The Fundamental Barrier to Success: The Absence of Effective Coordinated Planning and Collaboration
paragraphs: The barriers to successfully addressing the three challenges we have  outlined are multifaceted. Among the organizations we have contacted or  whose reports we have reviewed, we found a variety of identified barriers,  with a number of common barriers. For example, the SAFECOM project  and a task force of 18 national associations representing state and local  elected and appointed officials and public safety officials identified  similar barriers: (1) incompatible and aging communications equipment,  (2) limited and fragmented funding, (3) limited and fragmented planning  and cooperation, (4) limited and fragmented radio spectrum, and (5)  limited equipment standards.
Of all these barriers, perhaps the most fundamental has been limited and  fragmented planning and cooperation. The regional chairs of the Florida  State Interoperability Committee have noted that non-technical barriers  are the most important and difficult to solve. Police and fire departments  often have different concepts and doctrines on how to operate an incident  command post and use interoperable communications. Similarly, first  responders, such as police and fire departments, may use different  terminology to describe the same thing. Differences in terminology and  operating procedures can lead to communications problems even where  the participating public safety agencies share common communications  equipment and spectrum.
No one first responder group, jurisdiction, or level of government can  successfully address the challenges posed by the current state of  interoperable communications. Effectively addressing these challenges  requires the partnership, leadership, and collaboration of all first  responder disciplines, jurisdictions, and levels of government—local,  state, federal, and tribal. In the absence of that partnership and  collaboration, we risk spending funds ineffectively and creating new  problems in our attempt to resolve existing ones.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairmen, and I would be pleased to  answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittees may  have.
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.