First Responders: Much Work Remains to Improve Communications Interoperability
Published: 2007-04-02T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: As the first to respond to natural disasters, domestic terrorism, and other emergencies, public safety agencies rely on timely communications across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions. It is vital to the safety and effectiveness of first responders that their electronic communications systems enable them to communicate with whomever they need to, when they need to, and when they are authorized to do so. GAO was asked to determine, among other things, (1) the extent to which Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding and technical assistance has helped to improve interoperable communications in selected states and (2) the progress that has been made in the development and implementation of interoperable communications standards. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed grant information, documentation of selected states' and localities' interoperability projects, and standards documents.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: According to DHS, $2.15 billion in grant funding was awarded to states and localities from 2003 through 2005 for communications interoperability enhancements. This funding, along with technical assistance, has helped to make improvements on a variety of specific interoperability projects. However, states that GAO reviewed had generally not used strategic plans to guide investments toward broadly improving interoperability. Further, no national plan was in place to coordinate investments across states. To its credit, DHS has required states to implement a statewide plan by the end of 2007, and DHS has recently been required to implement a National Emergency Communications Plan. However, no process has been established for ensuring that states' grant requests are consistent with their statewide plans. Until DHS takes a more strategic approach to improving interoperable communications--such as including in its decision making an assessment of how grant requests align with statewide communications plans--progress by states and localities in improving interoperability is likely to be impeded. Until recently, the private-sector coordinating body responsible for developing Project 25 standards--a suite of national standards intended to enable interoperability among the communications products of different vendors--has made little progress. Although one of the eight major subsets of standards was defined in the project's first 4 years (from 1989 to 1993), from 1993 through 2005, no additional standards were completed that could be used to develop Project 25 products. Specifications for three additional subsets of standards were defined over the past 2 years. However, ambiguities in the published standards have led to incompatibilities among products made by different vendors, and no compliance testing has been conducted to determine if these products are interoperable. Nevertheless, DHS has strongly encouraged state and local agencies to use grant funding to purchase Project 25 radios, which are substantially more expensive than non-Project 25 radios. As a result, states and local agencies have purchased fewer, more expensive radios that still may not be interoperable and thus may provide few added benefits. Until DHS modifies its grant guidance to provide more flexibility in purchasing communications equipment, states and localities are likely to continue to purchase expensive equipment that provides them with minimal additional benefits.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Emergency “first responders”—personnel such as firefighters, police  Emergency “first responders”—personnel such as firefighters, police  officers, and ambulance services who are the first to arrive at the scene of  officers, and ambulance services who are the first to arrive at the scene of  an emergency—are supported by a variety of public safety agencies,  an emergency—are supported by a variety of public safety agencies,  including 911 call center staff and other local, state, and federal  including 911 call center staff and other local, state, and federal  authorities. Timely communications, often via wireless radios, are vital to  authorities. Timely communications, often via wireless radios, are vital to  the effectiveness and safety of first responders and their supporting  the effectiveness and safety of first responders and their supporting  agencies, as well as the safety of the public at large. Communications  agencies, as well as the safety of the public at large. Communications  interoperability—also referred to as compatibility or connectivity—refers  interoperability—also referred to as compatibility or connectivity—refers  to the capability of different electronic communications systems to readily  to the capability of different electronic communications systems to readily  connect with each other and thus enable timely communications.  connect with each other and thus enable timely communications.
Facilitating interoperability has been a policy concern of public safety  Facilitating interoperability has been a policy concern of public safety  officials for many years. Toward that end, two major Department of  officials for many years. Toward that end, two major Department of  Homeland Security (DHS) efforts under way to improve interoperable  Homeland Security (DHS) efforts under way to improve interoperable  public safety communications are: (1) grant funding and technical  public safety communications are: (1) grant funding and technical  assistance provided by the Office of Grants and Training to high-risk  assistance provided by the Office of Grants and Training to high-risk  regions at the state and local level for on-site support as they work to  regions at the state and local level for on-site support as they work to  improve their interoperability and (2) the SAFECOM program, intended to  improve their interoperability and (2) the SAFECOM program, intended to  strengthen interoperable public safety communications at all levels of  strengthen interoperable public safety communications at all levels of  government. The program is intended to provide research, development,  government. The program is intended to provide research, development,  testing and evaluation, guidance, tools, and templates on  testing and evaluation, guidance, tools, and templates on  communications-related issues. In addition, DHS supports Project 25, a  communications-related issues. In addition, DHS supports Project 25, a  joint initiative by government and commercial organizations to develop a  joint initiative by government and commercial organizations to develop a  set of national standards for vendors to use when designing radio  set of national standards for vendors to use when designing radio  communications equipment for first responders.  communications equipment for first responders.
You asked us to assess the extent to which DHS has made progress in  improving interoperable communications for first responders. Specifically,  our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which DHS funding and  technical assistance have helped to improve interoperable  communications in selected states, (2) the progress the SAFECOM  program has made in improving interoperable communications, and (3)  the progress that has been made in the development and implementation  of interoperable communications standards.
To address our objectives, we conducted case studies of four states  (Florida, Kentucky, New York, and Oregon) and 11 selected localities  within those states. We used a number of factors to select states, including  those that had received relatively large amounts of DHS funding, as well as  those that routinely face natural disasters. The localities we selected  included (1) large, high-risk urban areas, referred to as Urban Area  Security Initiative (UASI) regions, which received the most funding from  DHS within our selected states, (2) the non-UASI counties that received  the largest amount of DHS funding within these states, and (3) the  counties and cities where the state capitals are located. To assess each  state’s use of DHS grants and technical assistance to improve  interoperability and to identify common issues among states, we analyzed  documentation obtained from state and local officials, such as grant  allocation information and communications interoperability plans. To  determine the progress SAFECOM has made in improving interoperable  communications, we analyzed program management documentation (such  as program goals, initiatives, and performance measures) and interviewed  state and local officials regarding their use of SAFECOM tools and  guidance. To determine the status of the development and implementation  of interoperable communications standards, we obtained and analyzed  documentation from DHS, the National Institute of Standards and  Technology (NIST), and the four states. We performed our work from  April 2006 to February 2007 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. Further details of our objectives, scope,  and methodology are provided in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Public safety agencies include the nation’s first responders (such as  firefighters, police officers, and ambulance services), 911 call center staff,  and a number of local, state, federal, and regional authorities.  Communications, often through wireless land mobile radios, are vital to  these agencies’ effectiveness and to the safety of their members and the  public. Wireless technology requires radio frequency capacity in order to  function, and existing wireless technology is designed to work within  specified frequency ranges.
Interoperability in the context of public safety communications systems  refers to the ability of first responders to communicate with whomever  they need to (including personnel from a variety of agencies and  jurisdictions), when they need to, and when they are authorized to do so.  It is important to note that the goal of being able to communicate when  necessary and authorized is not the same as being able to communicate  with any other individual at any time—a capability that could overwhelm  the communications infrastructure and would likely impede effective  communication and response time.
Different first responder groups each have different professional practices,  public safety missions, emergency response procedures, communication  protocols, and radio frequencies. These differences have created a variety  of obstacles to effective interoperable communications among first  responders. Thus, facilitating interoperable communications has been a  policy concern of public safety officials for many years.
subsections: section_title: Land Mobile Radio System Technology
paragraphs: Land mobile radio systems are the primary means of communications  among public safety personnel. These systems typically consist of  handheld portable radios, mobile radios, base stations, and repeaters.  Handheld portable radios are typically carried by public safety personnel  and tend to have a limited transmission range. Mobile radios are often  located in vehicles and use the vehicle’s power supply and a larger  antenna, providing a greater transmission range than handheld portable  radios. Base station radios are located in fixed positions, such as public  service access points or dispatch centers, and tend to have the most  powerful transmitters. A network is required to connect the different base  stations to the same communications system. Repeaters are used to  increase the effective communications range of handheld portable radios,  mobile radios, and base station radios by retransmitting received radio  signals. Figure 1 below illustrates the basic components of a land mobile  radio system.
The transmissions between the elements of a land mobile radio system  consist of electromagnetic waves that propagate along designated  frequencies of the radio spectrum. Each communications link uniquely  occupies a specific frequency or set of frequencies for as long as  information is being transmitted. The radio spectrum is a fixed, limited  resource that is shared among government and nongovernment entities for  many uses in addition to public safety communications, such as television  broadcasting, AM/FM radio, and aeronautical radio navigation. Most public  safety agencies use their allocated frequencies for voice communications  but are increasingly using their portion of the spectrum to support more  advanced technologies, such as data, imagery, and video transmissions.  The specific frequency bands allocated to public safety agencies are  shown in figure 2.
Major frequency ranges that are used for public safety communications  include the very high frequency (VHF) range and the ultra high frequency  (UHF) range. VHF signals travel farther than UHF signals and thus are  useful in suburban and rural areas. However, they generally cannot  penetrate building walls very well. In contrast, UHF signals are more  appropriate for denser urban areas as they penetrate buildings more  easily, and it is less critical that the signals be able to propagate for long  distances. The frequencies used by federal agencies are managed by the  National Telecommunications and Information Administration, while the  Federal Communications Commission manages state and local  government frequencies.
Radio systems are classified as either conventional or “trunked.”  Conventional radio systems have dedicated frequencies—also referred to  as channels—assigned to individual groups of users. When a user makes a  call, other members of the group cannot use the channel until the call is  over. In contrast, trunked systems allocate pools of channels for use by  multiple individuals. When a call is made by a user on a trunked system, an  available channel is automatically selected from the pool of channels,  leaving the remaining channels available for others. While trunked systems  are more complex and require more infrastructure than conventional  systems, they allow for more efficient use of communication channels,  reducing congestion.
section_title: Lack of Interoperable Communications Has Long Hindered Emergency Response
paragraphs: In order to effectively respond to emergencies such as natural disasters  and domestic terrorism, public safety agencies need the ability to  communicate with their counterparts in other disciplines and jurisdictions.  However, the wireless communications systems used by many police  officers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and other public  safety agencies do not provide such capability. 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 in trying to communicate with each other. The 9/11  Commission concluded that communications interoperability problems  contributed to the large number of firefighter fatalities that occurred at the  World Trade Center.
Historically, first responder communications interoperability has been  significantly hampered by different and incompatible radio systems.  Different technologies and configurations, including proprietary designs,  by different manufacturers have limited the interoperability of public  safety wireless communications systems. These systems have also  operated on different frequencies of the radio spectrum. In particular,  public safety agencies have been assigned frequencies in new bands over  time as available frequencies became congested, and as new technologies  made higher frequencies available for use. Existing radios are unable to  transmit and receive in all of the public safety frequencies, often making  communications between first responders from different jurisdictions  difficult. Additionally, as we have previously reported, there is a need for  better frequency planning and coordination. Further, public safety  agencies have historically planned and acquired communications systems  without concern for interoperability, often resulting in multiple,  technically incompatible systems in operation throughout any given local  jurisdiction.
A variety of technical approaches have been adopted to help improve  interoperable communications, including the following:    Swapping radios: Agencies maintain a cache of extra radios that they can  distribute during an emergency to other first responders whose radios are  not interoperable with their own. The advantage of this solution is that it  does not require that all existing radios be replaced, an important  consideration when funds to buy new equipment are limited. However,  this approach requires significant logistical support and careful  management to implement successfully.
Patching: Two or more incompatible radio systems are connected to a  central switchboard-like system that translates a signal sent from one  connected system so that it can be received by any of the other connected  systems. The principal advantage of this solution is that agencies can  continue to use existing systems that would otherwise be incompatible. A  major disadvantage is that patching requires twice as much spectrum  because a patched transmission occupies separate channels on each  connected system.
Shared channels or mutual aid channels: Agencies agree to set aside a  specific channel or channels for connecting to other incompatible  systems. This approach provides direct interoperable communications and  only occupies one channel per conversation. However, it can cause  congestion since these channels require dedicated frequencies and thus  have limited capacity.
Shared systems: The use of a single or common radio system—typically a  trunked system—to provide service to most agencies within a region.  Shared systems are the most robust form of interoperability and do not  require dedicated channels. While this approach produces optimal  performance, it can be very expensive, because it generally requires  purchasing all new radios and transmission equipment.  Technologies that can help implement shared systems include the  following:  Internet Protocol based systems: Using the Voice over Internet Protocol,  advanced communications systems can offer the flexibility to transmit  voice conversations over a data network such as the Internet or a private  network.
Software-defined radios: These are intended to allow interoperability  among agencies using different frequency bands, different operational  modes (digital or analog), proprietary systems from different  manufacturers, or different modulations (such as AM or FM). However,  software-defined radios are still being developed and are not yet available  for use by public safety agencies.
However, interoperability cannot be achieved solely by implementing  technical solutions. Coordination among different agencies and  governmental entities is also critical. Response to an emergency may  involve all levels of government and many different disciplines, such as  law enforcement organizations, fire departments, emergency medical  services, transportation, natural resources, and public utility sectors. Each  of these agencies is likely to have its own policies, procedures, and  communications protocols when responding to an incident. A simplistic  example is the word “fire,” which to a firefighter means that something is  burning but to a police officer is a command to shoot a weapon. Resolving  such cultural and procedural differences can be challenging.
Further, the extent to which interoperable communications are needed  among different agencies, disciplines, and levels of government (federal,  state, local, and tribal) varies based on the size, significance, and duration  of an emergency event. Increasing degrees of interoperability may be  needed for (1) routine day-to-day coordination between a few agencies in  a local area, (2) extended operations involving agencies from multiple  jurisdictions working on a larger problem (such as the 2002 sniper attacks  in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area), and (3) a major, large-scale  event that requires response from a range of local, state, and federal  agencies and disciplines (such as major wildfires, hurricanes, or the  terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001).
In 2004, we reported that a fundamental barrier to successfully addressing  interoperable communications problems for public safety was the lack of  effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning.  We recommended that DHS take a number of actions to address this  barrier, such as determining the current status of interoperable  communications across the nation and encouraging states to establish  comprehensive statewide interoperability plans and certify the alignment  of their grant applications with their statewide plans. DHS has taken steps  to address these recommendations. For example, it recently completed a  national survey of first responders to determine the current status of their  interoperability capabilities, and it has required states to develop  statewide communications plans by the end of 2007.
section_title: Programs Aimed at Improving Interoperable Communications
paragraphs: SAFECOM is a DHS program intended to strengthen interoperable public  safety communications at all levels of government. The program provides  research, development, testing and evaluation, guidance, tools, and  templates on communications-related issues. We previously reported that  changes in leadership delayed progress during the initial years of the  SAFECOM program and that the program suffered from a lack of  leadership and focus.
Since 2004, SAFECOM has spent $20.4 million developing several tools  and providing assistance to help guide states and localities as they work to  improve the interoperability of their communication systems. Table 1  outlines several tools and guidance that SAFECOM had developed as of  July 2006. The program continues to develop additional tools.
We previously recommended that in order to enhance the ability of  SAFECOM to improve communications among emergency personnel from  federal, state, local, and tribal agencies, SAFECOM officials should  complete written agreements with the project’s identified stakeholders  (including federal agencies and organizations representing state and local  governments) that define the responsibilities and resource commitments  that each of those organizations will assume and include specific  provisions that measure program performance. Since we made our  recommendation, SAFECOM program officials have established a  governance charter for the program, which outlines the roles,  relationships, and operating guidelines for participating stakeholders.
The Office of Grants and Training, which is scheduled to become part of  the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is a separate entity within  DHS that is responsible for, among other things, providing grants and  technical assistance to states and localities to help them improve their  interoperable communications. Grants and Training provides funding to  states and requires that at least 80 percent of grant funding provided to  states through the Homeland Security Grant Program be passed to  localities. Grants and Training also provides additional funding to address  the unique planning, equipment, training, and exercise needs of UASI  areas.
DHS uses a partly risk-based approach to allocate grant funds. State  agencies submit proposals to DHS which form the basis for its risk-based  decisions. During the most recent grant allocation process in 2006 for the  Homeland Security Grant Program, each state and territory received a  portion of its grant funding through a base allocation. The remainder of  funds was allocated based on an analysis of risk and need. In fiscal year  2006, the UASI funds were allocated based on risk and effectiveness. DHS  estimated the relative risk of successful terrorist attacks on selected urban  areas, considering threat, vulnerability, and consequences for both asset- based and geographic factors. On the basis of this analysis, it ranked the  UASI areas and identified 35 urban areas as eligible to apply for UASI  funding. In addition, the 11 urban areas that received funding previously,  but were not identified as UASI areas in 2006, have been extended  eligibility for funding for one additional year. DHS also used a peer review  process to assess the effectiveness of each of the 35 urban areas’ proposed  investments using the grant funds.
Grants and Training has also established a monitoring program in which  preparedness officers validate that grant funds are being administered  legally and in accordance with the guidance provided to grantees.  Preparedness officers work with the states to help address areas of  concern, needs, and priorities. The monitoring program is also intended to  provide a general assessment of where states and localities are in  protecting their citizens. In addition, in efforts to control the use of  awards, DHS officials have developed an Approved Equipment List that  provides information on allowable equipment expenditures.
Further, Grants and Training established the Interoperable  Communications Technical Assistance Program, which has provided  guidance and technical assistance to the UASI areas. While the program  focuses mostly on providing guidance and assistance to these specific  areas, assistance is also provided to non-UASI areas. Table 2 provides a list  of the assistance and guidance offered by Grants and Training.
Another grant program focused on interoperable communications is the  Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)  Interoperable Communications Grant program. The program awards  technology grants to law enforcement agencies for interoperable  communications and information sharing. While the program used to have  a larger role in providing grant funding to states and localities, its scope  and budget was significantly reduced in 2006 in an effort to eliminate  overlap with DHS’s grant program.
More recently, the 2007 DHS Appropriations Act transferred many  SAFECOM program responsibilities to a new Office of Emergency  Communications (OEC). This new office, which is not yet operational, is  to take over the Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance  Program from Grants and Training and the Integrated Wireless Network  project, which is intended to create a consolidated federal wireless  communications service for federal public safety agencies. This new office  is tasked with improving overall emergency communications for first  responders, as well as improving interoperability. In addition to the OEC,  the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility within the Science and  Technology Directorate will continue to house the remaining elements of  SAFECOM related to research, development, testing and evaluation, and  standards.
section_title: Project 25 Was Established to Address First Responder Interoperability Standards
paragraphs: In 1989, the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, the  National Association of State Telecommunications Directors, and selected  federal agencies established Project 25 to develop open standards for  vendors to use when designing land mobile radio communications  equipment. Project 25 has the following four primary objectives:    enable effective inter- and intra-agency communications,  improve radio spectrum efficiency, focus equipment and capabilities on public safety needs, and leverage an open architecture to promote competition across land mobile  radio vendors.
Project 25 standards are intended to be a suite of national standards,  based upon public safety user requirements, which define operable and  interoperable communications equipment for first responders. When  complete, this suite of standards is intended to allow for specifications to  be written for interfaces between the various components of a land mobile  radio system. The Association of Public Safety Communications Officials,  the National Association of State Telecommunications Directors, and  federal agency representatives, work with the Telecommunications  Industry Association (TIA)—an American National Standards Institute- accredited standards development organization—to develop and  maintain the standards.
section_title: DHS Assistance Has Helped on Specific Interoperability Projects, but a More Strategic Approach Is Needed
paragraphs: According to DHS, $2.15 billion in grant funding was awarded to states and  localities from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005 for  communications interoperability enhancements. This funding, along with  technical assistance, has helped to make improvements on a variety of  specific interoperability projects. However, in the states we reviewed,  strategic planning has generally not been used to guide investments and  provide assistance to improve communications interoperability on a  broader level. Specifically, not all states had plans in place to guide their  investments toward long-term interoperability gains; no national plan was  in place to coordinate investments across states; and while UASI officials  stated that the technical assistance offered to them had been helpful, DHS  curtailed full-scale exercises, limiting their value in measuring progress.  Further, although DHS has required states to implement statewide plans  by the end of 2007, no process has been established for ensuring that  states’ grant requests are consistent with their statewide plans. Until DHS  takes a more strategic approach to improving interoperable  communications—such as including in its decision making an assessment  of how grant requests align with statewide communications plans—and  until more rigorous exercises are conducted, progress by states and  localities in improving interoperability is likely to be impeded.
subsections: section_title: DHS Funding Has Helped Make Improvements on Specific Interoperability Projects in Selected States
paragraphs: One of the main purposes of the DHS grants program is to provide  financial assistance to states and localities to help them fund projects to  develop and implement interoperable communications systems. In  addition, as previously mentioned, the Interoperable Communications  Technical Assistance Program is intended to provide on-site assistance to  UASI areas to, among other things, assist with developing tactical  interoperability plans, planning exercises, assessing communication gaps,  and designing interoperable systems.
The four states we reviewed received assistance from DHS, which helped  make improvements on specific interoperability projects.
Florida: Florida has spent $36.5 million in DHS funds to develop a system  called the Florida Interoperability Network, which establishes network  connections between federal, state, and local dispatch centers across  Florida and provides mutual aid channels throughout the state. As a result,  the level of interoperability across the state has improved significantly.  First responders in 64 of Florida’s 67 counties are now able to have their  communications patched to each other as needed via the network.  Previously, they had no such infrastructure for achieving interoperability.  However, officials from localities in Florida raised questions about the  long-term sustainability of the network. Each connected jurisdiction must  pay the ongoing costs of their connection to the Florida Interoperability  Network, and smaller jurisdictions are likely to find this unaffordable.  Further, Florida officials remarked that training across the state is still  incomplete. Additionally, in the Miami UASI region, a majority of the  Urban Area Security Initiative funding for interoperable communications  has been used to acquire communications equipment, such as radios, and  interoperability solutions, such as devices that interconnect first  responders on disparate radios, to make improvements in Miami City and  in Miami-Dade County. However, limited UASI funding had been dedicated  to making interoperability improvements in other localities in the Miami  UASI, such as Monroe and Broward Counties.
Kentucky: Kentucky used a portion of its DHS funding to expand the use  of mutual aid interoperability radio channels that allow agencies on  different communication systems throughout Kentucky to tune to a  dedicated, shared frequency to communicate. Prior to this initiative, first  responders operating on different frequencies were unable to  communicate. Currently, approximately 34 percent of applicable agencies  have signed a memorandum of understanding to commit to using the  mutual aid channels in accordance to standardized procedures. However,  mutual aid channels have limited capacity, and Kentucky has yet to  implement a long-term solution for a statewide voice communications  system that will allow federal, state, and local first responders to  communicate directly as needed. Kentucky has also used DHS funding to  implement a statewide wireless data communications system. The system  provides functionality such as statewide records management, real-time  crime coverage and data collection, and instant messaging. First  responders use mobile data terminals to communicate with each other  and, in many cases, retrieve information from agency databases.  Kentucky’s mobile data network currently has coverage across  approximately 95 percent of the state’s primary and secondary road  systems. Such capabilities were not available to Kentucky’s first  responders prior to this initiative. In the Louisville UASI, local officials  have utilized DHS funding to implement patching mechanisms to connect  different communication systems throughout the region. However,  according to officials, communications channels are frequently congested  because of the amount of patching that needs to be done to connect  responders.
New York: In New York, DHS funding is generally being utilized by  localities to address local interoperability issues within their counties and  with neighboring counties. For example, Albany County is acquiring a new  interoperable system that connects first responders on many disparate  systems within Albany County and neighboring counties. Prior to this  system, there was no single voice system or network that would allow  incident commanders and first responders to be able to communicate  directly. However, the local solutions do not always incorporate state and  federal systems. For example, the state is using state funds to develop and  implement a separate and incompatible statewide network called the  Statewide Wireless Network, which localities are not required to join.  Albany County, for example, has no immediate plans to connect their new  system to the statewide system because of uncertainties about the  expense and the expected benefits for the county. In the New York City  UASI, local officials have used a portion of DHS funding to implement a  citywide mobile wireless network. This system is intended to provide first  responders throughout the city with high-speed data access to support  large file transfers, including accessing federal and state anticrime and  antiterrorism databases, fingerprints, mug shots, city maps, and full- motion streaming video.
Oregon: Oregon, in accordance with DHS guidance, has dedicated most of  its DHS funding to local projects that improve interoperability in specific  regions. For example, Jackson and Josephine Counties are jointly  implementing an interoperable communications system. Previously, first  responders in these two neighboring counties relied on indirect means for  establishing interoperable communications, such as radio channels,  patching mechanisms, and a mobile command vehicle equipped with a  cache of radios in different frequencies and a patching device that could  be deployed as needed. However, this new system does not include federal  or state first responders. In addition, limited DHS funding has been utilized  for developing plans for the development of the Oregon Wireless  Interoperability Network. This system is intended to replace state  agencies’ deteriorating systems with a new system. It is also intended to  connect local agencies that continue to use their existing systems to other  local agencies that they do not already have interoperability with. To date,  the development of this system has not been initiated. In the Portland  UASI, DHS funding was used to install repeaters in Columbia County to  enhance interoperability with the other four counties in the urban area.  However, while it has improved the interoperability, not all Columbia  County first responders are able to utilize this solution. Therefore, the  UASI funding was also used to purchase a supply of reserve radios— referred to as a cache—that can be shared.
Table 3 shows the amount of DHS funding states and localities have  received and examples of what the money has been used for.
section_title: A Lack of Statewide Plans Has Contributed to Limited Strategic Use of DHS Funding
paragraphs: According to SAFECOM guidance, interoperability cannot be solved by  any one entity alone and, therefore, an effective and interoperable  communications system requires a clear and compelling statewide strategy  focused on increasing public safety effectiveness and coordination across  all related organizations. A statewide interoperability plan is essential for  outlining such a strategy. Such a plan should establish long-term  objectives but also include short-term solutions that help incrementally  achieve sustainable solutions to the long-term objectives. Thus,  establishing long-term plans helps ensure that near-term solutions are  consistent with the end goal.
The narrow and specific use of DHS funding in the states we reviewed can  be traced in part to the lack of statewide plans; interoperability  investments by individual localities have not been coordinated toward  achieving a broader goal for the state. For example, Kentucky, which has  received grant funding totaling approximately $50 million since fiscal year  2003 according to DHS, has not yet developed a statewide  communications plan, although in January 2007, officials stated that they  had begun developing a plan. While Kentucky has recently begun working  to assess how best to address statewide needs, to date, grant reviewers at  the state level who are in charge of disbursing DHS grant money to  localities have had limited means for determining whether funding  requests for equipment and training were compatible with statewide  interoperability goals. For example, evaluators were required to assess  aspects of request proposals such as whether they fully addressed the  measurable objectives expected for a new wireless communication system  and whether they addressed how the applicant agency would  communicate with other public safety and/or public service organizations  at the local, state, and federal levels. However, the available criteria do not  provide the evaluators with an overall statewide strategy that the  evaluators could use to assess whether the localities’ proposal is aligned to  it. As a result, the equipment and activities that localities have purchased  have tended to address short-term voice communication solutions for  local interoperability problems while long-term, statewide solutions have  not been addressed. However, as previously stated, Kentucky has  developed a data communications network to supplement gaps in its voice  communications.
Similarly, New York does not yet have a statewide communications plan  and, therefore, does not utilize DHS grant funding in support of such a  plan. While state officials recommend that localities invest in interoperable  communications, they provide no additional guidance to localities to  ensure that local investments are consistent with statewide goals. As a  result, localities have generally used the funding to address local  interoperability issues within their counties and neighboring counties,  with little regard for state and federal systems. For example, while New  York is currently in the process of deploying the Statewide Wireless  Network for $2 billion, localities are not required to participate, and local  interest in the statewide system has been limited. As a result, localities are  continuing to develop their own interoperability solutions that do not  incorporate the network. Among localities we reviewed, Onondaga County  is implementing its own $33 million interoperable communications system  independently of the network, and Albany County, likewise, is currently  developing a $1.7 million interoperability system that does not incorporate  the Statewide Wireless Network. Officials stated that once the network’s  pilot period is complete they will decide whether to participate in the  network.
In accordance with a previous recommendation, DHS has required grant  recipients to develop and adopt a statewide communications plan by the  end of 2007. Additionally, the 2007 DHS Appropriations Act states that  DHS may restrict funding to a state if it does not submit a statewide  interoperable communication plan. However, despite our other previous  recommendation that DHS should require that states certify that grant  applications be consistent with statewide plans, no process has yet been  established for ensuring that states’ grant requests are consistent with  their statewide plans and long-term objectives for improving  interoperability. Grants and Training officials are considering instituting  such a process but they do not have specific plans to do so.
Because of the lack of coordination, state and local governments are  investing significant resources, including DHS grant funds, in developing  independent interoperability solutions that do not always support each  others’ needs. Until the DHS-mandated statewide communications plans  are in place, and processes have been established for ensuring that each  state’s grant request is consistent with its statewide plan and longer-term  interoperability goals, progress by states and localities in improving  interoperability is likely to be impeded.
section_title: The Lack of a National Plan Has Also Contributed to Limited Strategic Use of DHS Funding
paragraphs: In addition to statewide plans, an overarching national plan is critical to  coordinating interoperability spending, especially where federal first  responders are involved. According to the Public Safety Wireless Advisory  Committee, improving interoperable communications across the nation  will require a national plan that includes all levels of government and  defines operational policies and procedures and the proper use of national  communications resources. In responding to large-scale events—such as  wildfires, hurricanes, or terrorist attacks—state and local government first  responders require interoperable communications with federal agencies.
To date, however, interoperability investments have tended to be isolated  and piecemeal, in part because they have not been guided by a  comprehensive national plan. For example, officials stated that Oregon  and its bordering states—Washington, California, and Idaho—are each  working independently to try to implement and meet federal  communication requirements and improve interoperability.
In a large-scale emergency, where first responders may need to coordinate  with agencies from other states and a variety of federal agencies, the lack  of national-level planning can result in substantial interoperability  problems. During Hurricane Katrina, for example, Florida first responders  spent half a day trying to contact their counterparts in Louisiana and  Mississippi in an effort to share communications equipment. If these states  coordinated prior to the catastrophe, it is likely that less time and energy  would have been wasted.
The lack of a national strategy has also left state officials uncertain about  whether they are taking appropriate steps to plan for interoperability. For  example, Oregon officials indicated they are uncertain whether the  approach they are taking is the best way to solve their interoperability  problems.
The 2007 DHS Appropriations Act requires DHS to develop a National  Emergency Communications Plan by March 2008. Among other things, the  plan is to identify necessary emergency communications capabilities for  first responders and government officials, identify obstacles to  interoperable communications, provide both short-term and long-term  solutions to those obstacles, and establish goals and time frames for the  deployment of emergency communications systems based on new and  existing equipment across the United States.
section_title: Technical Assistance Has Been Helpful, but Exercises Curtailed by DHS Have Had Limited Strategic Value
paragraphs: According to state and local officials, the Interoperable Communications  Technical Assistance Program has been beneficial to each of the four UASI  areas we visited. For example, according to Miami officials, the program  provided extensive support in the development of the tactical  interoperable communications plan for the Miami area. Technical  assistance representatives held meetings with each of the Miami area  public safety agencies to compile a regional communications equipment  inventory. Similarly, according to Louisville officials, the Interoperable  Communications Technical Assistance Program held a 2-day workshop on  developing the tactical interoperable communications plan for the  Louisville area. Officials stated that this workshop represented the first  time that all relevant communications officials and emergency responders  were involved in a collaborative effort.
Guidance for the 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program required each of  the high-risk UASI areas to plan and conduct a full-scale exercise to  validate the effectiveness of their tactical interoperable communications  plans. Full-scale exercises are the most complex type of exercises,  involving multiple agencies and jurisdictions in testing plans, policies, and  procedures. They are intended to be conducted in a real-time, stressful  environment that closely mirrors real events. DHS required the exercises  as a way to measure the progress each UASI has made in improving  interoperability and developed “scorecards” to capture the results of the  exercise.
However, while DHS provided extensive assistance to the urban areas in  developing their tactical interoperability communications plans, it  curtailed the exercises that were intended to validate the robustness and  completeness of each plan. Due to the complexity of these exercises, the  UASI areas were originally allotted 12 months to plan and execute robust,  full-scale exercises; DHS subsequently reduced this to 5 months. DHS  officials indicated that they accelerated the deadline so that they could use  the results as inputs into the interoperability scorecards that they  published in January 2007. To compensate for the reduced time frame,  DHS reduced the requirements of the full-scale exercise, advising the UASI  areas to limit the scope and size of their activities.
In reducing the scope of their exercises, the UASI areas had to reduce the  extent to which they tested the robustness and effectiveness of their  interoperability plans. For example, of the four UASI areas we visited,  Portland, Miami, and New York City each reduced the scope of their  exercise so they could meet DHS’s accelerated deadline. For example,  Portland had to significantly reduce the number of participants from each  of the counties participating in the exercise. According to Portland  officials, their exercise was not realistic for responding to a real-world  incident. Likewise, New York City officials stated that they would have  executed a higher quality exercise if DHS had not reduced the time frame.  Moreover, according to the 2007 grant guidance, the UASI areas are not  required to conduct any additional exercises to further validate their plans.
Without robust exercises to validate tactical interoperability  communications plans, the UASI areas can only have limited confidence in  the plans’ effectiveness, and thus the value of DHS’s efforts may continue  to be limited. Similarly, the constraints placed on the exercises means that  DHS’s scorecards of each of the UASI areas are based on questionable  data.
section_title: SAFECOM Program Has Made Limited Progress in Assisting All Levels of Government to Achieve Interoperability
paragraphs: Although initiated in 2001, the SAFECOM program has made limited  progress in improving communications interoperability at all levels of  government. The program has not addressed state and local  interoperability with federal agencies, a critical element to interoperable  communications that is required by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism  Prevention Act of 2004. Further, while the program has focused on helping  states and localities improve interoperable communications by developing  tools and guidance for their use, SAFECOM’s progress in this area has  been limited in the selected states. Specifically, officials from selected  states and localities often found that the tools and planning assistance  provided by the program were not helpful, or they were unaware of what  assistance the program had to offer. The program’s limited effectiveness  can be linked to poor program management practices, including the lack  of a plan for improving interoperability across all levels of government and  inadequate performance measures that would provide feedback to better  attune tools and assistance with first responder needs. Until SAFECOM  adopts these key management practices, its progress is likely to remain  limited.
subsections: section_title: SAFECOM Was Established to Improve Interoperable Communications at All Levels of Government
paragraphs: When SAFECOM was established in 2001, as one of the Office of  Management and Budget’s 25 electronic government initiatives under the  management of the Department of the Treasury, its goals were to (1)  achieve federal-to-federal interoperability throughout the nation, (2)  achieve federal to state/local interoperability, and (3) achieve state/local  interoperability throughout the nation. Like the other e-government  initiatives, the program was expected to achieve its goals within 18 to 24  months. As we reported in 2004, these are challenging tasks that will take  many years to fully accomplish, and the program had made very limited  progress at the time of our review.
Since 2001, the management and goals of the program have changed  several times. Most recently, in 2003, the SAFECOM program was  transferred to the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility within the  Directorate of Science and Technology in DHS. Its goals included  increasing interoperable communications capacity of local, tribal, and  state public safety agencies, and increasing the number of states that have  initiated or completed statewide plans. Program officials now estimate  that a minimum level of interoperability will not occur until 2008, and it is  unknown when full interoperability will occur.
In addition, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004  required DHS to establish a program to enhance public safety  interoperable communications at all levels of government, including  federal, as well as state and local governments. SAFECOM has been  designated as the program responsible for carrying out this requirement.
section_title: SAFECOM Has Not Taken Action to Address Interoperability with Federal First Responders
paragraphs: While SAFECOM is required to improve interoperable communications at  all levels of government, the objectives that the program has been working  toward do not include improving interoperability between federal agencies  and state and local agencies. For example, when conducting their baseline  national survey of first responders to determine the current level of  interoperability, program officials included state and local officials, but  not federal officials. The survey included an extensive list of questions in  which respondents were asked to rate interoperability (1) with other  disciplines, (2) with other jurisdictions, and (3) between state and local  governments. Respondents were also asked at the end of the survey to list  federal agencies they interoperate with; however, no effort was made to  gauge the level of interoperability with the federal government, as had  been done for other disciplines and jurisdictions and between state and  local governments.
As a result, SAFECOM has not addressed a variety of problems involving  interoperability between federal and state and local agencies. According to  first responders, these difficulties arise when trying to establish  interoperable communication between federal and state and local  agencies:    Uncoordinated interoperability investments. The Departments of Justice,  Homeland Security, and Treasury are developing the Integrated Wireless  Network (IWN) to create a consolidated federal wireless communications  service for federal public safety and law enforcement agencies. The level  of interoperability that state and local first responders will have with  federal first responders on this network is unknown.
Frequency incompatibilities. The National Telecommunications and  Information Administration, which manages frequencies used by federal  agencies, and the Federal Communications Commission, which manages  frequencies used by state and local governments, have established  conflicting time frames for when federal agencies and state and local  agencies need to implement narrowband systems. Further, according to  an Associate Chief of DHS’s Office of Border Patrol, when federal  communications networks are configured to narrowband, federal agencies  could have difficulty interoperating with local wideband systems unless  special radios are procured that can operate both on the wideband and  narrowband systems.
Use of encryption. Federal agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of  Investigation (FBI), use encryption to secure their radio communications.  Encryption can be vitally important in preserving the safety and security of  their officers. However, they have not developed procedures for sharing  the keys to decrypt the communication with state or local first responders  in order to be able to communicate with them.
Unclear coordination procedures. There is uncertainty within the first  responder community regarding the allowable level of coordination and  collaboration between federal agencies and state and local agencies. For  example, while the National Telecommunications and Information  Administration eliminated its requirement that state and local officials  obtain written permission to use federal frequencies in May 2006, FBI  officials that we interviewed were unaware that they were allowed to  share their frequencies without written permission.
In lieu of having communications systems that enable direct  interoperability between federal first responders and state and local first  responders, first responders have resorted to alternative means of  communicating. For example, state or local agencies may loan radios to  federal first responders or physically pair a federal first responder with a  state or local responder so they can share information and relay it back to  their agencies. While approaches such as these may be effective in certain  situations, they reflect a general lack of planning for communications  interoperability. In many cases, using “work-arounds” such as these could  reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of the overall public safety  response to an incident.
SAFECOM officials stated that the program’s focus has been on state and  local agencies because they consider them to be a higher priority. Further,  while they stated that it would be possible for federal agencies to make  use of some of the planning tools being developed primarily for state and  local agencies, SAFECOM has not developed any tools that directly  address interoperability with federal agencies. However, interoperability  with federal first responders remains an important element in achieving  nationwide interoperability and is part of SAFECOM’s tasking under the  Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Until a federal  coordinating entity such as SAFECOM makes a concerted effort to  promote federal interoperability with other governmental entities, overall  progress in improving communications interoperability will remain  limited.
section_title: SAFECOM Tools and Assistance Have Had Limited Impact on State and Local Agencies
paragraphs: In addition to supporting development of the Project 25 suite of  interoperability standards (discussed in a later section of this report),  SAFECOM’s activities have focused primarily on providing planning tools  to state and local governments. However, based on our review of four  states and selected localities, SAFECOM’s progress in achieving its goals  of helping these states and localities improve interoperable  communications has been limited.
Several state and local officials did not find the tools and guidance useful.  For example, of the 10 locations we visited that were aware of the tools  and guidance, 6 had not used the programs’ Statement of Requirements or  its Public Safety Architecture Framework. Additionally, 3 of the 4 states  we reviewed had not used its Statewide Communication Interoperability  Planning Methodology to develop a statewide communication plan.  Further, officials from 4 of the 15 jurisdictions we reviewed were unaware  that the SAFECOM program existed or that it provided interoperability  guidance.
SAFECOM’s Interoperability Continuum was the most widely used and  recognized of its tools. Seven of the 15 states and localities we visited  indicated that they used the continuum to assess their interoperability  status and plan improvements. Another initiative that had a significant  impact was the Regional Communications Interoperability Pilot. Officials  from Kentucky—one of the two states that participated in the pilot— indicated that the pilot was very helpful in facilitating communications  planning by identifying relevant stakeholders and bringing those  stakeholders together for extended discussions about interoperability.  And in Nevada, this program resulted in documentation of suggested near- term and long-term goals for improving interoperability.
However, the SAFECOM tools that were not widely used represent a  significant investment of resources by DHS. For example, program  officials said that they spent $9.2 million developing the Statement of  Requirements and $2.7 million developing the Public Safety Architecture  Framework.
State and local officials provided the following reasons for the limited  utilization of SAFECOM tools:    The tools and guidance are too abstract and do not provide practical  implementation guidance on specific issues. For instance, the Statement of  Requirements focuses on functional requirements based on textbook  definitions of a variety of interoperable communication subjects, such as  public safety communication needs, public safety roles and functions, and  the levels of operability and interoperability for each major public safety  discipline. SAFECOM officials indicated that the Statement of  Requirements was meant to be a forward-looking document unconstrained  by the limitations of current technology. However, states and localities  must work to improve interoperability with technology that is currently  available, and the Statement of Requirements does not describe specific  technologies, infrastructure, or business models that state and local  agencies can refer to when making key decisions regarding improvements  to their communication systems. Additionally, neither the Statement of  Requirements nor the Public Safety Architecture Framework identifies  specific actions a state or local agency can take to make improvements.
The documents are lengthy and hard to use as reference tools. For  example, the two published volumes of the Public Safety Architecture  Framework are approximately 270 pages combined and contain complex  information about topics such as the elements and subelements of  communication systems and their relationships to each other and to the  environment. Officials indicated that they do not have the time to examine  and analyze long reports that they believed contained limited useful  information. According to SAFECOM officials, they plan to address this  concern by publishing a third volume to guide public safety agency  officials through the process of developing a communications system  architecture. However, even with additional guidance, the framework will  remain lengthy and complex.
Awareness of SAFECOM and its tools has not reached all state and local  agencies. Program officials indicated that they take steps to try to reach  out to the broad first responder community, such as by publishing articles  in major police and fire periodicals, presenting at events covering  communications interoperability, and publishing a quarterly newsletter on  interoperability issues called Interoperability Today. However, despite  these efforts, several localities that we visited were completely unfamiliar  with the program and/or the assistance it provides.
Figure 3 identifies which of SAFECOM’s tools, guidance, or other  assistance were used by officials at the locations we visited.
Tools Applicable to All Regions Recently, SAFECOM has focused more on specific implementation issues,  creating tools such as a writing guide for developing memorandums of  understanding that could be used to establish agreements on the sharing  of communication systems across agencies and jurisdictions. Officials  have also developed a guide for writing standard operating procedures,  which could be used to prepare written guidelines for incident response.  Because these tools were still new, we did not receive assessments of  them from state and local officials.
section_title: Lack of Program Plan and Performance Measures Has Contributed to SAFECOM’s Limited Impact
paragraphs: One factor contributing to the limited impact that SAFECOM has had on  improving communications interoperability is that its activities have not  been guided by a program plan. A program plan is a critical tool to ensure  a program meets its goals and responsibilities. Such a tool is used to align  planned activities with program goals and objectives, as well as define  how progress in meeting the goals will be measured, compared, and  validated. For example, a program plan could be a useful tool for ensuring  that key program goals—such as promoting interoperability across all  levels of government including federal responders—are being addressed.  In addition, a program plan would provide the structure to help plan tools  and guidance that would address the greatest needs. Further, a program  plan could be used to delineate performance measures, which are  essential to determining the effectiveness of a program and for identifying  the areas of a program that need additional attention.
Rather than using a program plan to guide their activities, SAFECOM  officials stated that they develop tools and guidance based on a list of  suggestions obtained from first responders. The SAFECOM Executive  Committee—a steering group comprised of public safety officials from  across the country—prioritizes the list of suggestions, but this  prioritization has not been used to develop a plan. Instead, program  officials have made ad hoc decisions regarding which suggestions to  implement based on executive committee input, as well as the difficulty of  implementation. While this approach incorporates a degree of  prioritization from first responders, it does not provide the structure and  traceability of a program plan.
Program officials have established six performance measures to assess  progress, including the percentage of fire, emergency medical services,  and law enforcement organizations that have established informal  interoperability agreements with other public safety organizations; the  percentage of public safety agencies that report using interoperability to  some degree in their operations; the percentage of states that have  completed statewide interoperability plans; the percentage of grant  programs for public safety communications that include SAFECOM  guidance; and the amount of reduction in the cycle time for national  interoperability standards development. However, several key aspects of  the program are not being measured. For example, one of the program’s  goals is to increase the development and adoption of standards. However,  the only associated performance measure is reduction in the cycle time for  national interoperability standards development—not the extent to which  adoption of standards has increased or whether interoperability is being  facilitated. Also, in assessing the growth of interoperable communications  capacity at local, tribal, and state public safety agencies, SAFECOM’s  measures—the percentage of states that have established informal  interoperability agreements with other public safety organizations and the  percentage of public safety agencies that report using interoperability to  some degree in their operations —addresses only two of the five areas that  SAFECOM has defined as key to improving interoperability (it does not  assess improvements made in governance, technology, or training).  Moreover, none of the program’s measures assess the extent to which the  first responder community finds the tools and assistance helpful or the  effectiveness of program outreach initiatives. Consequently, measures of  the effectiveness of the program and areas for improvement are not being  collected and are not driving improvements in the program, contributing  to its limited impact. According to SAFECOM officials, by mid-2007, they  plan to establish a measure to assess customer satisfaction.
Until DHS develops and implements a program plan that includes goals  focusing on improving interoperability among all levels of government,  establishes performances measures that determine if key aspects of the  SAFECOM program are being achieved, and assesses the extent to which  the first responder community finds the tools and assistance helpful, the  impact of its efforts to improve interoperable communications among  federal, state, and local agencies will likely remain limited.
section_title: Recent Progress Has Been Made in Developing Interoperability Standards, but Early Implementation Has Had Unsatisfactory Results
paragraphs: Until recently, little progress had been made in developing Project 25  standards—a suite of national standards that are intended to enable  interoperability among the communications products of different vendors.  Although one of the eight major subsets of standards was defined in the  project’s first 4 years (from 1989 to 1993), from 1993 through 2005, no  additional standards were completed that could be used by a vendor to  develop elements of a Project 25 compliant system. To its credit, over the  past 2 years, the private-sector coordinating body responsible for Project  25 has defined specifications for three additional subsets of standards.  However, ambiguities in the published standards have led to  incompatibilities among products made by different vendors, and no  compliance testing has been conducted to ensure vendors’ products are  interoperable. Nevertheless, DHS has strongly encouraged state and local  agencies to use grant funding to purchase Project 25 radios, which are  substantially more expensive than non-Project 25 radios. As a result, states  and local agencies have purchased fewer, more expensive radios, which  still may not be interoperable and thus may provide them with minimal  additional benefits. Until DHS modifies its grant guidance to provide more  flexibility in purchasing communications equipment, states and localities  that purchase Project 25 equipment cannot be assured that their  investments are likely to result in meaningful gains in interoperability.
subsections: section_title: Until Recently, Progress in Developing Interoperability Standards Had Been Slow
paragraphs: Initial development of Project 25 began over 15 years ago. It took 4 years,  from 1989 to 1993, to develop the standards that comprised the first of  eight interfaces, known as the common air interface. The common air  interface is one of the most critical elements of Project 25, and, therefore,  efforts to develop standards for this interface were initiated first.  However, from 1993 through 2005, no additional standards were developed  that could be used by a vendor to develop additional elements of a Project  25 compliant system.
Concerned about the slow development of Project 25 standards, the  conference committee on the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal  year 2005, encouraged NIST and the Department of Justice to work with  SAFECOM to consider the issuance of interim standards for interoperable  communication systems. According to NIST officials, they, along with their  federal partners, have established a process for developing interim  standards and plan to institute it if progress in the development of Project  25 standards is not sufficiently accelerated. Industry representatives and  public safety practitioners responded to these events by increasing the  pace and scope of their standards development activities. As a result of  their efforts, in the past 2 years, significant progress has been made in  defining three additional critical interfaces: the fixed station subsystem  interface, the console subsystem interface, and the inter-RF subsystem  interface. NIST officials indicated that the focus has been on these  interfaces because they will add significant functionality to the overall set  of Project 25 standards.
Table 4 shows the progress that has been made on each of the eight  Project 25 interfaces as of August 2006. Figure 4 shows the relationships  among these interfaces.
section_title: Implementation of Systems Based on Incomplete Project 25 Standards Has Been Problematic
paragraphs: There are a number of obstacles hindering effective implementation of  first responder communications systems based on Project 25 standards:    Standards are incomplete or not well-defined: NIST officials have stated  that key standards that have been defined for several of the eight  interfaces have not been adequately specified, allowing vendors to develop  products based on inconsistent interpretations. For example, Project 25  manufacturers have determined that the specifications for the  conventional and trunked mode operations of the common air interface— which is considered to be the most mature of the eight interfaces—were  vague and led to inconsistent interpretations. More specifically, between  2003 and 2005, NIST conducted interoperability tests on the conventional  operations mode of six different manufacturers’ radios and found that  none of them passed all aspects of the tests. In addition, according to NIST  officials, in 2005, a manufacturer conducted interoperability tests on the  trunked operations mode of three manufacturers’ radios and also found  that none of them passed the tests. More recently, in 2006, a manufacturer  conducting interoperability tests found improvements in the consistency  of other manufacturers’ interpretations. However, according to NIST  officials, ambiguities still need to be resolved in this interface.  Additionally, many options available on radios are not specified in the  standards, allowing vendors to address these capabilities with unique or  proprietary technologies, which can cause interoperability problems. As a  result, while recent tests have shown improvements, vendors have  developed incompatible, proprietary products rather than interoperable,  standards-based products.
Lack of compliance testing has limited product interoperability:  According to NIST officials, formal peer-review testing is necessary to  ensure compliance with standards and interoperability among products.  We have previously reported that independent testing and evaluation of  commercial products and accreditation of the laboratories that perform  the test and evaluations can give agencies increased assurance that the  products will perform as vendors claim. However, since 1995, Project 25  radios have been marketed to and purchased by federal, state, and local  agencies without any formal compliance testing to validate vendors’  claims of compliance with the Project 25 standards. As a result, recent  testing has shown that products labeled “Project 25 compliant” do not  necessarily interoperate.
State and local agencies do not know how to select Project 25 products:  With no formal compliance testing for Project 25 products, state and local  agencies have limited means to determine if the products they purchase  are compliant with the standards. Therefore, in absence of any other  information, agencies have relied on information provided by vendors.  Further, vendor products have many different levels of functionality, and  agency officials may not understand their specific needs well enough to  purchase equipment tailored to their specific requirements that does not  include costly functionality that they do not need. However, comparative  information about product functionality and typical first responder  requirements is not currently in a centralized location, making it difficult  for officials to be able to judge which products are most appropriate for  their agency’s needs. For example, according to one manufacturer, public  works agencies and schools would likely need radios with less  functionality, while firefighters would likely need a midrange radio with  more features, and a command center or federal law enforcement agency  might need the most expensive radios with the greatest number of  features. Because of the complexity of product options, agencies may not  always be making well-informed decisions on the purchase of radios.
Complete Project 25 systems can be prohibitively expensive: Project 25  radios are significantly more expensive than conventional analog radios,  and while state and local agencies are paying two to three times more for  Project 25 radios, they are not always able to take advantage of the  intended interoperability benefits because they cannot afford to procure  complete systems. Project 25 radios for first responders can range in price  from about $1,000 to about $5,000. Most Project 25 radios used by first  responders cost around $2,500. According to officials, a conventional  analog radio suitable for first responder work generally costs about two to  three times less than Project 25 radios. Benefits of using Project 25 radios,  such as interoperability among multiple vendors’ equipment, cannot be  fully realized until a complete Project 25 system (base stations, repeaters,  and radios) is implemented. Fully replacing an existing radio system with  a Project 25 system is very expensive. For example, Arlington County,  Virginia—a relatively small county—is acquiring and implementing a full  Project 25 environment for $16.8 million. Many localities do not have the  funding to make such a large investment.
Nevertheless, since 2003, DHS has strongly encouraged state and local  agencies to use grant funding from the agency to purchase Project 25  compliant equipment. DHS grant guidance—which was developed by  SAFECOM—states that all new voice system purchases should be  compatible with the Project 25 suite of standards to ensure that equipment  or systems are capable of interoperating with other public safety land  mobile equipment or systems. If a grant applicant is interested in  purchasing non-Project 25 compliant equipment, the applicant must  demonstrate in its application that the system or equipment being  proposed will lead to enhanced interoperability.
While states and localities have purchased Project 25 radios at the  direction of DHS, there is little indication that these radios have enhanced  interoperability. Most jurisdictions we visited were not using the Project  25 capabilities, such as interoperating with different vendors’ radios, since  they had not fully replaced their existing radio communications  infrastructure with a complete Project 25 system. Specifically, of the 11  localities we visited, 8 were buying Project 25 radios and, of these, 7 were  not using the Project 25 capabilities of the radios. Thus, as a result of the  DHS requirement to buy Project 25 equipment, agencies have purchased  fewer, more expensive radios with little or no additional benefit to date.
Table 5 shows a sample of spending by localities on Project 25 radios and  their use of the Project 25 capabilities.
section_title: Efforts Are Under Way to Mitigate Project 25 Problems
paragraphs: To address the lack of well-defined standards, users and manufacturers  have been revising the standards for the conventional and trunked mode  operations of the common air interface to clarify ambiguities. To address  the issue of a lack of formal compliance testing, SAFECOM, NIST, and the  Project 25 steering committee, began developing a peer compliance  assessment program for Project 25 products in April 2005. This  compliance assessment program is to use various vendors’ approved  laboratories to test Project 25 systems through a set of agreed-upon tests  that will validate that the systems from various vendors can successfully  interoperate and meet conformance and performance requirements.  According to NIST, the vendors will be expected to conduct the tests in  compliance with a handbook on general testing procedures and  requirements, which NIST is preparing to publish. The assessment  program is to be implemented in three phases, as described in table 6.
Additionally, SAFECOM has issued guidance to supplement the 2007 DHS  grant guidance stating that, beginning in fiscal year 2007, grant recipients  purchasing Project 25 equipment must obtain documented evidence from  the manufacturer that the equipment has been tested and passed all  available compliance assessment test procedures for performance,  conformance, and interoperability. The guidance also specifies the aspects  of Project 25 equipment that are available for testing and that should be  tested before a public safety agency acquires the equipment. However, as  of January 2007, only limited aspects of the common air interface had been  defined fully enough to conduct interoperability tests. Further, NIST’s  testing procedures handbook was not yet complete and thus vendors were  unable to conduct testing. According to NIST officials, it has not been  determined when the full set of conformance, performance, and  interoperability tests for the common air interface will be available.
NIST and SAFECOM are also working on ways to help agencies make  informed decisions when purchasing Project 25 radios to help them  acquire features that are Project 25 compliant. Specifically, NIST and  SAFECOM have developed a decision tree to help guide officials in  selecting the appropriate Project 25 capabilities. NIST has also helped to  develop a new process for posting test results online so that potential  buyers can have ready access to this information.
While efforts are under way to address several of these issues, others  remain. Specifically, DHS continues to strongly encourage state and local  agencies to purchase Project 25 compliant equipment even though  compliance testing is not yet available. Without flexibility to address their  needs with equipment that is the most effective, economical, and meets  defined interoperability requirements aligned with a statewide plan, states  and localities that purchase Project 25 equipment cannot be assured that  their investments are likely to result in meaningful gains in  interoperability.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: DHS grants, along with its technical assistance, have helped to make  improvements on a variety of specific interoperability projects. However,  in selected states, strategic planning has generally not been used to guide  investments or provide assistance to improve communications  interoperability across all levels of government. Specifically, not all states  had plans in place to guide their investments toward long-term  interoperability gains; no national plan was in place to coordinate  investments across states; and while UASI officials stated that the  technical assistance offered to them had been helpful, DHS curtailed full- scale exercises, limiting their value in measuring progress. Until DHS takes  a more strategic approach to improving interoperable communications,  such as including in its decision making an assessment of how grant  requests align with statewide communications plans, and conducts a  thorough assessment to identify strategies to mitigate obstacles between  federal agencies and state and local agencies, states and localities are  likely to make limited progress in improving interoperability. Additionally,  until DHS plans another round of full-scale exercises that provide UASI  areas with sufficient planning time, the robustness and effectiveness of  UASI plans will be limited.
The SAFECOM program has had a limited impact on improving  communications interoperability among federal, state, and local agencies.  The program’s limited effectiveness can be linked to poor program  management practices, such as the lack of a plan for improving  interoperability across all levels of government, and inadequate  performance measures to fully gauge the effectiveness of its tools and  assistance. The recent establishment of the OEC creates an opportunity  for DHS to improve program management practices among formerly  separate component organizations, including SAFECOM. Without a  program plan for SAFECOM and other OEC interoperability programs that  specifically addresses improvements to interoperable communications  from federal to state and local agencies, and includes measures to assess  the usefulness of its efforts, the effectiveness of the program is likely to  remain limited.
While development of a comprehensive suite of standards such as Project  25 is critical to achieving interoperability among different manufacturers’  products, such a suite is not yet fully developed. Further, ambiguities in  published standards have led to incompatibilities among products made by  different vendors and, to date, no compliance testing has been conducted  to ensure that vendors’ products interoperate. Nevertheless, DHS has  strongly encouraged state and local agencies to use grant funding to  purchase Project 25 compliant equipment. Until DHS modifies its grant  guidance to give states and localities the flexibility to address their  communications equipment needs effectively, economically, and in a way  that meets interoperability requirements as defined in their statewide  plans, states and local agencies are likely to continue to purchase  expensive equipment that provides them with minimal additional benefits.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To better ensure that progress is made in improving interoperable  communications among federal, state, and local first responders, we  recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following  five actions:    assess how states’ grant requests support their statewide communications  plans and include the assessment as a factor in making DHS grant  allocation decisions;   plan for new full-scale exercises for UASI areas that provides local  officials with sufficient time to develop and implement exercises to  validate the robustness and effectiveness of their tactical interoperable  communications plans;    develop and implement a program plan for SAFECOM and other OEC  interoperability programs that includes goals focused on improving  interoperability among all levels of government;  include in the program plan for SAFECOM and other OEC interoperability  programs quantifiable performance measures that can be used to  determine the extent to which each of the goals have been accomplished  and that can be used to assess the effectiveness and usefulness of  SAFECOM tools, assistance, and outreach, and make improvements based  on the feedback; and   modify grant guidance to provide more flexibility in purchasing  communications equipment until standards for completed interfaces have  been fully defined and products have been certified compliant.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We received written comments from the Deputy Secretary of Commerce  and the Director of the DHS liaison office for GAO and the Office of the  Inspector General. Letters from these agencies are reprinted in appendixes  III and IV. Commerce provided updated information and technical  comments to help ensure the information in the report is accurately  perceived. We have incorporated these comments as appropriate.
In its response to our five recommendations, DHS agreed with two, stated  that it would defer commenting on two, and disagreed with one  recommendation.
Regarding our recommendation that DHS develop and implement a  program plan for SAFECOM and other Office of Emergency  Communications (OEC) interoperability programs that includes goals  focused on improving interoperability among all levels of government, the  Director indicated that DHS agrees with the intent of the recommendation  and stated that the department is currently working to develop a program  plan.
However, DHS raised concern about the perceived implication that no  action had been taken. It stated that SAFECOM has always had goals for  improving interoperability among local, state, tribal, and federal  emergency response agencies. Our review showed that while the program  has had broad goals that include federal, as well as state and local  agencies, its specific program goals and activities have not focused on  improving interoperable communications between federal and other  agencies. For example, one of the program’s goals is to increase  interoperable communications capacity of local, tribal, and state public  safety agencies, not federal agencies. Thus, it will be important for DHS to  develop and implement a program plan that includes goals focusing on  improving interoperability among all levels of government.
DHS agreed with our recommendation to include quantifiable  performance measures in the program plan for SAFECOM and other OEC  interoperability programs. DHS indicated that it intends to establish such  measures by the third quarter of 2007.
DHS stated that it is deferring comments on two recommendations: (1)  assess how states’ grant requests support their statewide communications  plans and (2) plan for a new full-scale exercise for UASI areas to validate  their interoperable communications plans.
DHS disagreed with our recommendation that it modify grant guidance to  provide more flexibility in purchasing communications equipment until  standards for completed interfaces have been fully defined and products  have been certified compliant with all aspects of the standards. The  Director stated that the recommendation would require SAFECOM to  amend its interoperability grant guidance until after the entire Project 25  suite of standards is complete and could undermine remaining  negotiations between the public safety community and equipment  manufacturers. We agree that development of a comprehensive suite of  standards such as Project 25 is critical to achieving interoperability among  different manufacturers’ products. We also agree that not all interfaces  need to be fully defined before agencies can begin acquiring Project 25  products; thus we have clarified the recommendation to reflect this.  However, we are not recommending that the public safety community be  prohibited from acquiring Project 25 equipment, and thus we do not  believe negotiations with equipment manufacturers would be undermined.  Until critical interfaces are better defined and products have been certified  compliant, DHS should allow state and local agencies the flexibility to  purchase whatever products they can obtain that offer the best value and  performance for their needs.
DHS also stated that it estimates that the Project 25 standards will be  complete within the next 18 to 24 months, and stated that fiscal year 2007  grant funding will be spent by local public safety agencies not in fiscal year  2007 but in subsequent years. We have modified the discussion of this  issue in the report to reflect this information. However, as previously  stated, much additional work remains to be accomplished.
Additionally, DHS stated that our report should include other major  programs that focus on interoperability among federal responders, such as  the newly created Office of Emergency Communications within DHS, the  Integrated Wireless Network, the Interoperable Communications  Technical Assistance Program, and the Federal Partnership for  Interoperable Communications. However, our report does discuss the first  three of these. The primary purpose of the Federal Partnership for  Interoperable Communications is to serve as a coordinating body to  address technical and operational activities within the federal wireless  community; it has limited applicability to state and local interoperability.
Finally, DHS raised concern with our view that SAFECOM had mistakenly  made local, tribal, and state emergency responders its highest priority.  DHS stated that when SAFECOM was established as one of the electronic  government initiatives, it was placed within the government-to- government portfolio. According to DHS, state and local government  agencies are the primary customers of this portfolio.  However, according  to OMB, the goal of the government-to-government portfolio is to forge  new partnerships among all levels of government, not just state and local.  Additionally, as we have previously stated, when SAFECOM was initially  established, one of its major goals was to achieve federal to state/local  interoperability. However, it is no longer a goal for SAFECOM.  DHS also  stated that since 90 percent of the public safety infrastructure is owned,  operated, and maintained by local jurisdictions, state and local  interoperability is a higher priority. However, our review has shown that in  major incidents such as a terrorist attack, a major hurricane, or wildland  fire, federal, state, and local first responders will need to interoperate in  order to respond effectively to the incident. Therefore, interoperability  with federal first responders should be included as a key element in the  department’s strategy for improving interoperable communications  throughout the nation.
DHS also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as  appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Homeland  Security and Commerce and other interested congressional committees  and subcommittees. We also will make copies available to others upon  request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Should you or your staff have any questions on matters discussed in this  report, please contact me at (202) 512-6240 or by e-mail at  koontzl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which the Department  of Homeland Security (DHS) funding and technical assistance have helped  to improve interoperable communications in selected states, (2) the  progress the SAFECOM program has made in improving interoperable  communications, and (3) the progress that has been made in the  development and implementation of interoperable communications  standards.
To determine the extent to which DHS funding and technical assistance  helped to improve interoperable communication in these states, we  reviewed documentation and interviewed state and local officials from  selected states.
We selected four states as case studies, using the following criteria:    All of the states must have received at least an average amount of funding  from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005.
One of the states must have received over $100 million of grant funding for  interoperable communications from DHS.
One of the states must have received assistance from SAFECOM in  applying the Statewide Communications Interoperability Planning  Methodology.
One of the states must have had an Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)  area involved in DHS’s RapidCom program.
One of the states must border another country.
At least one of the states must be one of the top 10 states that regularly  faces wildland fires.
At least one of the states must be one of the top states that regularly faces  other large natural disasters, such as hurricanes or earthquakes.
We selected localities from each state to visit, which included (1) the UASI  region which received the most funding from DHS, (2) the non-UASI  county that received the largest amount of DHS funding, and (3) the  county and city where the state capital is located. From each of these  states and localities, we obtained and reviewed documentation such as  grant funding amounts, Tactical Interoperability Communication Plans,  exercise reports, and communication system documentation. We also met  with interoperability committee members and first responders.  Additionally, we obtained and analyzed documentation from, and met with  DHS officials who are responsible for monitoring the use of DHS funds in  each of these states.
To determine the progress SAFECOM has made in improving  interoperable communications, we reviewed SAFECOM documentation  such as its Statewide Communication Interoperability Planning  Methodology, Public Safety Architecture Framework, and Statement of  Requirements. We also analyzed program management documentation  (such as program goals, initiatives, and performance measures),  interviewed SAFECOM officials to discuss the progress of the program,  and interviewed state and local officials to determine their use of  SAFECOM tools and guidance. To obtain Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI) information, we relied on interviews conducted by another GAO  team.
To determine progress in developing and implementing interoperable  communications standards, we obtained and reviewed documentation  from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) officials on  standards development such as status updates and recent testimonies.  Additionally, we reviewed documentation from states and localities to  determine the extent to which they are implementing Project 25 products  and spending on Project 25 products. We also met with officials from NIST  and representatives from communications equipment manufactures.
Because our objectives were focused on DHS efforts to improve  interoperable communications, we neither assessed programs in other  agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission or the  National Telecommunications and Information Administration, nor  reviewed issues related to spectrum allocation.
We performed our work in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area;  Tallahassee, Fort Myer, and Miami, Florida; Louisville, Frankfort, and  Mount Sterling, Kentucky; Albany, Syracuse, and Brooklyn, New York; and  Beaverton, Salem, and Medford, Oregon, from April 2006 to February 2007,  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: First Responder Communications Systems within Selected States
paragraphs: There is wide variation in the frequencies (i.e., very high frequency (VHF)  and ultra high frequency (UHF)) and radio technologies (i.e., digital,  analog, conventional, and trunked) that are used among federal, state, and  local agencies within each of the four states we reviewed. A summary of  communications systems and interoperability initiatives in each of these  four states follows.
subsections: section_title: Florida
paragraphs: There are over 150 radio systems in use within the state of Florida. To  improve interoperability among these systems, Florida officials have  developed several centralized solutions that are used throughout the state  at all levels of government. Localities maintain their existing  communications systems, relying on Florida’s statewide systems only  when they need to interoperate with another agency or jurisdiction.  According to DHS, Florida has received approximately $55.7 million in  DHS funding from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005 to improve  interoperable communications.
subsections: section_title: Governance
paragraphs: Florida’s centralized approach entails making funding decisions through a  body (the Domestic Security Oversight Council) supported by a hierarchy  of communications-related committees that includes local representation  from each of the seven regions in the state. According to state officials, for  the statewide interoperability solutions, Florida does not allocate DHS  funding to local agencies; it takes on the responsibility of centrally  purchasing equipment to ensure that all agencies and jurisdictions have  equipment that is compatible. UASI grants are awarded directly to the  UASI areas; therefore, Florida does not centrally manage those funds.
section_title: State Approach
paragraphs: To improve the interoperability among the 150 disparate communications  systems throughout the state, Florida officials have developed the  following several statewide solutions:  In 2003, the Domestic Security Oversight Council and its supporting  communication committees determined that it would not be economically  feasible to replace all existing systems in the state with one new system. It  therefore decided to develop a “backbone” system that could connect with  each of the existing systems. This system, referred to as the Florida  Interoperability Network, establishes network connections between  federal, state, and local dispatch centers across the state (see fig. 5). It  enables dispatchers to connect first responders on disparate radio systems  and frequencies to allow them to directly communicate with one another.  Existing independent systems are maintained. According to state officials,  as of January 2007, first responders in 64 of Florida’s 67 counties are able  to have their communications patched to each other as needed via the  network.
As part of the Florida Interoperability Network, Florida officials are also  working to establish additional mutual aid channels that are intended to  provide radio service to first responders outside the range of their  agency’s local system or when they need to communicate with users not  on their local systems. These channels are intended to expand geographic  coverage to ensure that, wherever they go, Florida’s first responders have  radio communication capability. To this end, officials are adding 428 tower  sites to the existing 93 sites across the state.
Florida also acquired and implemented a radio communications system to  serve law enforcement units of state agencies and to serve local public  safety agencies through a mutual aid channel. The Statewide Law  Enforcement Radio System provides state law enforcement officers with a  shared digital, trunked radio system that serves over 6,500 users with  14,000 radios in patrol cars, boats, motorcycles, and aircraft.
Florida’s first federally funded project was the Emergency Deployable  Interoperable Communications Systems. These are mobile systems that  can be deployed to a specific response area to patch together disparate  communications systems. According to state officials, these systems are  generally used in one of the following situations: (1) to tie different radio  systems together in an area that is not connected to the Florida  Interoperability Network, (2) to connect different radio systems together if  the network becomes inoperable, or (3) to tie disparate radios together  when assisting in an out-of-state incident, such as Hurricane Katrina. Nine  of these systems were purchased and deployed throughout the state.
Florida has seven Mutual Aid Radio Communications units in the state,  and officials are building an additional unit. The units are stand-alone  mobile interoperable communications networks. Unlike Emergency  Deployable Interoperable Communications Systems, Mutual Aid Radio  Communications units include a cache of radios that can be distributed to  first responders, a tower, and a mobile repeater system, so no patching  needs to be done. These units are used when the local communications  systems become inoperable, such as when a hurricane destroys the local  communications infrastructure. The units provide temporary  infrastructure for a response area to maintain communication during an  incident.
section_title: Local Approach
paragraphs: Florida localities vary in their approaches and the level of interoperability  within their regions. They utilize the statewide solutions to supplement  their existing systems. For example, the 35 to 40 different radio systems  throughout the Miami UASI area have limited direct interoperability. The  Miami region relies on patching mechanisms, including the Florida  Interoperability Network, to provide interoperable communications when  needed. In contrast, according to officials, government agencies within  Lee County, with the exception of the school board, utilize the same  communications systems and, therefore, are all directly interoperable. The  level of interoperability with surrounding counties varies. When they need  to communicate with neighboring jurisdictions or state first responders,  they utilize the interoperability network.
section_title: Kentucky
paragraphs: While Kentucky first responders coordinate interoperability primarily by  sharing frequencies and establishing patches, the state is establishing  mutual aid channels to better enable responders on different frequencies  to communicate through patches. According to DHS, from fiscal year 2003  through fiscal year 2005, Kentucky received $50 million from DHS for  interoperable communications.
subsections: section_title: Governance
paragraphs: Kentucky’s governance structure for interoperable communications is  organized centrally at the state level through the Kentucky Wireless  Interoperability Executive Committee. To ensure that the committee has  an awareness of initiatives across the state, all state agencies and local  government entities must present project plans for primary wireless public  safety voice or data communications systems for review and  recommendation by the committee, even if no state or federal funding is  used for the system. While the committee only has the authority to decline  or approve projects funded with state or federal dollars, a large majority of  local projects are financed through state or federal funding.
section_title: State Approach
paragraphs: Kentucky’s strategy to improve interoperable communications in the near  term is to utilize statewide mutual aid channels that allow agencies on  different communication systems to tune into a dedicated frequency  shared among one or more public safety agencies. Kentucky also plans to  implement communications bridges to patch different systems together.
The mutual aid approach requires the deployment of three channels, one  for each frequency band that Kentucky public safety agencies currently  use. Currently, approximately 34 percent of applicable agencies have  signed a memorandum of understanding to commit to using the mutual aid  channels. Other agencies that have not yet signed a memorandum are also  utilizing the channels.
Kentucky officials are also in the process of implementing a  console-to-console bridge solution that will allow dispatchers to patch  users on one frequency to users on another frequency (see fig. 6). For  example, a first responder using a lower frequency who needs to talk to a  first responder using a higher frequency would contact the Kentucky State  Police dispatch center to request a patch. The dispatcher would then use a  patching mechanism to patch the two channels so that the responders  could talk directly to each other. The solution is operational in two of the  three frequency bands and is nearing completion in the third.
To supplement voice communications interoperability, Kentucky has  implemented a wireless data communications interoperability solution as  well. This solution provides functionality such as records management,  real-time crime coverage, real-time data collection, and instant messaging.  The system consists of approximately 165 base stations throughout the  state to supply continuous wireless coverage in most regions. First  responders use mobile data terminals to communicate with each other  and, in many cases, retrieve information from their agency’s database.  Kentucky’s mobile data network currently has coverage across  approximately 95 percent of the state’s primary and secondary road  systems.
In the long term, the state officials intend to build a statewide public safety  communications and interoperability infrastructure. They are in the  process of completing a statewide baseline communications study as an  initial step in the planning phase. No further specific initiatives and  milestones have yet been identified for this project.
section_title: Local Approach
paragraphs: Interoperability is typically coordinated at the city and county levels. In  the jurisdictions we visited, interoperability solutions included planning in  advance to program other frequencies into radios, establishing patches  through disparate communication systems through a dispatch center, and  swapping radios.
In Louisville, Kentucky, both UHF and VHF systems are in use and, when  necessary, connected through patching mechanisms. Many responders  carry both a UHF and VHF radio in their vehicles. For major incidents, a  mobile vehicle with a repeater system can be deployed to connect first  responders. In addition, since 2000, Louisville has been utilizing a wireless  data communications interoperability solution that includes 550 first  responders in the Louisville metropolitan area.
All local agencies within Franklin County use VHF systems; first  responders program each others’ channels into their radios. Frankfort and  Franklin County use mutual aid channels when needed. First responders  have difficulty connecting to the Kentucky State Police, as that agency  recently switched to a digital, trunked communications system. Currently,  to connect to the state police, Frankfort and Franklin police contact a  dispatch center and request a patch to Kentucky State Police.
Montgomery County agencies use both UHF and VHF systems. First  responders within the county and in neighboring counties typically  program each others’ channels into their radios. Communication with  state agencies varies, for example, fire and EMS agencies in Montgomery  County cannot communicate with their state counterparts at present,  whereas local police can communicate with the state police through  mutual aid channels, or in instances in which they have interoperable  radios.
section_title: New York
paragraphs: New York is currently in the process of implementing a statewide system  that will connect all state agencies and offer connection services to local  agencies. This initiative is being funded by the state. Localities continue to  develop and maintain their own communication systems and  interoperability solutions. According to DHS, from fiscal year 2003 through  fiscal year 2005, New York State has received $145.5 million in grant  funding for interoperable communications.
subsections: section_title: Governance
paragraphs: New York has established a Statewide Interoperability Executive  Committee that is currently working to establish a state interoperability  plan. In addition, there are several different groups throughout New York  that are involved with interoperability at the state and local level.  According to state officials, the governance structure limits the state’s  ability to mandate requirements to local governments; therefore,  individual counties and cities determine their own interoperability  requirements and have their own governance structure in place for  interoperable communications. The state, however, determines priority  investments and the localities must spend grant money on these priority  investments. Interoperable communications was a priority investment for  both grants for fiscal year 2006.
section_title: State Approach
paragraphs: The state is currently in the process of deploying a Statewide Wireless  Network intended to provide an integrated mobile radio communications  network that links all state agencies and would be available to connect  participating local agencies (see figure 7). It will be a digital, trunked radio  system with both voice and data capabilities and will be used in day-to-day  operations, as well as large scale emergency situations. The network is to  interconnect radio sites across the state through a “backbone network”  based on Internet Protocol (IP). The network is to operate on the 700 and  800 MHz frequencies, as well as VHF frequencies in geographically  challenging terrain, such as the Adirondack and Catskill Mountains. Users  operating on other frequencies and with less advanced technology can be  connected to the network through a gateway.
State agencies are required to be a part of the Statewide Wireless Network,  but local agencies may join on a volunteer basis. As previously mentioned,  according to state officials, they are limited in their ability to require local  agencies to utilize the network. Local agencies will have the following  three different interoperability options:    Full system partnership: the state will provide the base infrastructure  such as radio towers, and the agency will purchase IP-addressable, digital,  trunked radios, as well as any additional repeaters to operate on the  network.
Interface/gateway partnership: allows local agencies to maintain their  own separate network and provides a connecting gateway between a local  agency’s dispatch console and the network.
Shared communication system infrastructure: states and localities both  use the same towers for their separate systems, but there is no mechanism  for patching communications between the state and local systems.
New York is implementing the Statewide Wireless Network in several  phases and expects full implementation to be completed in September  2010.
Even though joining this state network is free, localities need to buy  digital, trunked, and IP-addressable radios to participate directly, and  additional infrastructure such as repeaters to get complete coverage in  urban areas and buildings.
section_title: Local Approach
paragraphs: Throughout the state of New York, many different communications  systems exist. Each area has developed its own methods aimed at  improving interoperability. Additionally, localities generally do not include  the Statewide Wireless Network as part of their local approach to  improving interoperable communications. As of December 2006, one  agency in New York City and only 7 of the 62 counties in New York have  partnered with the network to be full system users. Twenty-five counties  have agreed to connect through a gateway.
In the New York City UASI area, the police department maintains six  channels for citywide interoperability. Any agency can use these channels  by signing a memorandum of understanding and ensuring that they meet  the necessary technical requirements. Additional interoperability  strategies used by the New York City UASI include using a federal  interoperability channel and utilizing and deploying mobile patching  devices to connect disparate systems at an incident site. In addition, New  York City is working to develop the City-wide Mobile Wireless Network,  which is intended to provide police and fire first responders with  high-speed data access to support large file transfers, including federal and  state anticrime and antiterrorism databases, fingerprints, and maps.  Further, the city has implemented a regional wide-area interoperability  system that is New York City’s primary interoperability network for first  responders in the city. It is currently being expanded to include first  responders in Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties, and parts of  New Jersey.
Agencies in Albany County typically interoperate by programming the  frequencies of other agencies into their radios, including agencies in  neighboring counties. The county also has a patching mechanism that can  connect different radio networks during an emergency. To improve its  interoperability and connect the county to neighboring counties, Albany  County is currently in the process of developing a countywide system.
This system will use gateways to connect existing systems that operate on  different frequency bands and allow all public safety responders within the  county to communicate with any other responder in Albany County  regardless of the radio system or technology used. Albany is also currently  developing a fiber optic system that will connect all 12 Public Safety  Access Points in the county.
Onondaga County relies on dispatchers to connect first responders. All  dispatching for Onondaga County is centralized at the county’s 911 call  center. To improve its interoperability, Onondaga County is currently  working to implement a countywide digital system that will connect all  county agencies.
section_title: Oregon
paragraphs: Oregon is currently in the process of planning a statewide system to  connect all state agencies and provide a means for local agencies to be  patched to users on the statewide system. Localities continue to develop  and maintain their own communication systems and interoperability  solutions. According to DHS, Oregon has received $53.4 million from fiscal  year 2003 through fiscal year 2005 in grant funding to improve  interoperable communications.
subsections: section_title: Governance
paragraphs: Oregon has a State Interoperability Executive Council to centrally manage  Oregon’s interoperable communications. This body is composed of state  and local representatives. This committee requires that each county  prepare a communications plan. Additionally, the committee is in the  process of developing a statewide interoperable communications plan that  incorporates all the county plans.
section_title: State Approach
paragraphs: Most state agencies are currently using VHF and UHF analog, conventional  radio systems, which are in some cases 30 years old and in need of major  repairs and upgrades. Oregon state agencies experience significant  coverage gaps in their existing communications systems due to a lack of  transmission towers. Additionally, these state systems are not always  interoperable with federal or local systems.
In the absence of shared radio systems among federal, state, and local first  responder agencies, Oregon’s state agencies use various alternative  approaches to establish interoperable communications with agencies they  work with on a regular basis, such as using a dispatcher or patching  devices to establish connections between disparate radio systems, and  lending radios to first responders from other agencies.
Due to the deteriorating status of the Oregon’s state agencies’  communication systems, State Interoperability Executive Council officials  have been working with contractors to develop a concept for a new state  system. The Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network is to be a Project  25, trunked, digital radio network that will rely on an IP interface to  interoperate with state agencies’ subsystems. Plans for the interoperability  network are to allow the majority of state agencies to operate on a unified  trunked system while supporting conventional operations where and when  required. These officials plan to issue a contract to a vendor by October  2007 and implement the first phase of the network by October 2009.
The Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network is intended to be the  primary system for state agencies; local agencies will be expected to  maintain their existing systems as their primary systems and use the  network as their secondary system. A patching mechanism would be  established to allow local agencies to be connected to state agencies, as  well as allow them to be connected to other local agencies that they do not  already have interoperability. Figure 8 is a depiction of the interoperability  network concept as currently envisioned.
section_title: Local Approach
paragraphs: Local agencies use a wide range of radio frequencies and communication  technologies and have various strategies and solutions to improving  interoperability. In particular, Marion County uses analog UHF and VHF  systems; and trunked, as well as conventional radios. Officials stated that  they have limited interoperability with state and federal agencies and that  they, therefore, maintain a cache of 30 radios available to share, when  needed. Additionally, they can use a mobile command unit that can be  deployed to any area and contains another cache of radios.
In the Portland UASI, four of the five counties use 800 MHz, analog,  trunked radio systems that provide direct interoperability among those  four counties. The fifth county is on a separate VHF system. They have  installed equipment to improve the interoperability with this fifth county.  Additionally, to provide interoperability with the fifth county and other  agencies outside the UASI area, the officials use mechanisms such as a  mobile trailer to patch calls and loan radios from its cache of radios.
Jackson County agencies generally use conventional, VHF, analog radio  systems. Officials indicated that although two of the cities within the  county are digitally capable, their first responders use the analog mode  due to the fact that many of their neighboring jurisdictions do not have  digital radios. In order to interoperate with jurisdictions on different  systems, they use common radio channels, patching mechanisms, as well  as a mobile command vehicle that is equipped with a cache of radios in  different frequencies and a patching device. In addition, Jackson County  and Josephine County are developing a communications system that  connects the two counties.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, John de Ferrari, Assistant  Director; Neil Doherty; Richard Hung; Tom Mills; Shannin O’Neill; Karen  Talley; Amos Tevelow; and Jayne Wilson made major contributions to this  report.