Emergency Communications: Office of Emergency Communications Should Take Steps to Help Improve External Communications
Released: 2018-12-12T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Effective communication is vital to first responders’ ability to respond to emergencies and to ensure their safety. For example, first responders use public-safety communications systems to gather information, coordinate a response, and request additional resources and assistance from neighboring jurisdictions and the federal government. OEC has taken a number of steps aimed at supporting and promoting the ability of public-safety officials to communicate in emergencies and work toward operable and interoperable emergency communications nationwide. OEC develops policy and guidance supporting emergency communications across all levels of government and across various types of emerging technologies such as broadband, Wi-Fi, and NextGen 911, among others. OEC also provides technical assistance—including training, tools, and online and on-site assistance—for federal, state, local, and tribal first responders. First responders use different communications systems, such as land mobile radio (LMR), commercial wireless services, and FirstNet’s network.

LMR: These systems are the primary means for first responders to use voice communications to gather and share information while conducting their daily operations and coordinating their emergency response efforts. LMR systems are intended to provide secure, reliable voice communications in a variety of environments, scenarios, and emergencies. Across the nation, there are thousands of separate LMR systems.

Commercial wireless services: Public-safety entities often pay for commercial wireless services to send data transmissions such as location information, images, and video. Some jurisdictions also use commercial wireless services for voice communications.

Nationwide dedicated-broadband network: Consistent with the law, FirstNet is working to establish a nationwide dedicated network for public-safety use that is intended to foster greater interoperability, support important data transmissions, and meet public-safety officials’ reliability needs. In creating FirstNet in 2012, Congress provided it with $7 billion in federal funds for the network’s initial build-out and valuable spectrum for the network to operate on. Unlike current LMR systems, the devices operating on FirstNet’s network will use the same radio frequency band nationwide. It is expected that these devices will be interoperable among first responders using the network because the devices will be built using the same open, non- proprietary, commercially available standards.

Communications systems must work together, or be interoperable, even though the systems or equipment vendors may differ. The interoperability of emergency communications enables first responders and public-safety officials to use their radios and other equipment to communicate with each other across agencies and jurisdictions when needed and as authorized, as shown in figure 1.

OEC is tasked with developing and implementing a comprehensive national approach to advance interoperable communications capabilities. For example, according to OEC, it supports and promotes communications used by emergency responders and government officials and leads the nation’s operable and interoperable public-safety and national security/emergency preparedness communications efforts. OEC notes that it plays a key role in ensuring federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial agencies have the necessary plans, resources, and training needed to support operable and interoperable emergency communications. To help in this effort, OEC instituted a coordination program that established regional coordinators across the nation. According to OEC, its coordinators work to build trusted relationships, enhance collaboration, and stimulate the sharing of best practices and information between all levels of government, critical infrastructure owners and operators, and key non-government organizations.

OEC developed the National Emergency Communications Plan in 2008 and worked with federal, state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to update it in 2014 to reflect an evolving communications environment. The long-term vision of the plan—which OEC views as the nation’s current strategic plan for emergency communications—is to enable the nation’s emergency- response community to communicate and share information across all levels of government, jurisdictions, disciplines, and organizations for all threats and hazards, as needed and when authorized.

To help it accomplish this mission, OEC works with three emergency communications advisory groups: SAFECOM, the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC), and the National Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators (NCSWIC). These organizations promote the interoperability of emergency communications systems by focusing on technologies including, but not limited to, LMR and satellite technology.

SAFECOM: According to the 2018 SAFECOM Strategic Plan, SAFECOM develops products and completes a range of activities each year in support of its vision and mission, including providing a national view of public-safety priorities and challenges, developing resources and tools aligned to the 2014 National Emergency Communications Plan, and collaborating with partner organizations to promote the interoperability of emergency communications. One of the products developed by SAFECOM each year is the Guidance on Emergency Communications Grants. SAFECOM consists of more than 50 members that represent local, tribal, and state governments; federal agencies; state emergency responders; and intergovernmental and national public-safety organizations.

ECPC: The ECPC is an interagency collaborative group that provides a venue for coordinating federal emergency-communications efforts. The ECPC works to improve coordination and information sharing among federal emergency-communications programs. The ECPC does this by serving as the focal point for emergency communications issues across the federal agencies; supporting the coordination of federal programs, such as grant programs; and serving as a clearing house for emergency communications information, among other responsibilities. The ECPC has 14 member agencies that are responsible for setting its priorities.

NCSWIC: This council consists of SWICs and their alternates from 50 states, 5 territories, and the District of Columbia. According to SAFECOM, NCSWIC develops products and services to assist the SWICs with leveraging their relationships, professional knowledge, and experience with public-safety partners involved in interoperable communications at all levels of government.

Additionally, in 2013, FirstNet established the PSAC to provide advice to FirstNet. The committee is composed of members who represent local, tribal, and state public-safety organizations; federal agencies; and national public-safety organizations.

FEMA is responsible for coordinating government-wide disaster response efforts, including on-the-ground emergency communications support and some technical assistance. For example, FEMA’s regional emergency- communications coordinator is responsible for providing emergency communications assistance on an as-needed basis and coordinating FEMA’s tactical communications support during a disaster or emergency. FEMA also provides a range of grant assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial entities, including preparedness grants that can be used for emergency communications.

As noted above, in November 2018, legislation was signed into law that reorganized and renamed NPPD and OEC. Previously, OEC was one of five divisions under the Office of Cyber Security and Communications which in turn was one of five divisions within NPPD. However, NPPD has been renamed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and OEC was renamed the Emergency Communications Division and was elevated to one of three direct reporting divisions within the new agency. See figure 2 for an illustration of changes made to OEC’s organizational placement.

OEC’s and FEMA’s Joint Efforts for Emergency Communications Grants Generally Follow Key Features for Effective Interagency Collaboration

OEC and FEMA have responsibilities for developing and implementing grant guidance for grantees using federal funds for interoperable emergency communications. Specifically, OEC and FEMA officials told us FEMA is responsible for administering the grants, and OEC coordinates emergency communications grant guidance annually through SAFECOM’s Guidance on Emergency Communications Grants. We reviewed OEC’s and FEMA’s collaborative efforts related to grant guidance and found that their efforts generally follow our previously identified leading practices for effective interagency collaboration, as described below.

Written Guidance and Agreements. Agencies that formally document their agreements can strengthen their commitment to working collaboratively. OEC and FEMA formalized their coordination efforts for interoperable emergency communications grants in a memorandum of agreement in 2014. This memorandum assigned OEC and FEMA responsibilities and established a joint working group to develop standard operating procedures, which OEC said were drafted the following year but not formally approved by FEMA, that govern coordination between the agencies. We also reported that written agreements are most effective when the collaborators regularly monitor and update them. When we started our review, OEC and FEMA officials told us that they had not updated the memorandum of agreement, which included the draft standard operating procedures as an appendix. However, the agencies approved an updated memorandum of agreement and standard operating procedures, and OEC provided them to us in July 2018.

Leadership. When buy-in is required from multiple agencies, involving leadership from each can convey the agencies’ support for the collaborative effort. According to OEC and FEMA officials, their grants coordination efforts include high-level leadership. Specifically, senior leaders from both agencies signed the 2014 and 2018 memorandums of agreement. Also, OEC officials told us that their leaders in the grants program office are responsible for overseeing the collaborative effort.

Bridging Organizational Culture. Collaborating agencies should establish ways to operate across agency boundaries and address their different organizational cultures. OEC and FEMA operate across agency boundaries in several ways. First, both agencies told us that they participate in the ECPC Grants Focus Group, whose members coordinate across federal grant programs to support interoperable emergency communications. The group reviews SAFECOM guidance and, according to FEMA officials, meets on a quarterly basis. Second, OEC officials said the agencies foster open lines of direct communication via conference calls, e-mail correspondence, and in-person meetings. OEC and FEMA officials told us their communications include sharing and reviewing language in FEMA’s notices that announce grant opportunities and OEC’s SAFECOM guidance. Third, the agencies said that OEC officials conduct emergency-communications-related trainings and briefings for FEMA at least once a year. According to OEC officials, these trainings have included a discussion on the movement toward broadband and FirstNet. Finally, FEMA officials told us that their program analysts have attended conferences with OEC to speak to the SWICs about grant programs. They said the program analysts explained how the grant money can be leveraged to support projects within the individual states and answered questions about the grants. OEC officials said having FEMA attend conferences to discuss specific grant information is useful for public-safety stakeholders.

Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities. Collaborating agencies can get clarity when they define and agree upon their respective roles and responsibilities. As part of the 2014 and 2018 memorandums of agreement, OEC and FEMA established clear responsibilities for how each agency will support the grants coordination effort. For example, both offices were responsible for assigning experienced program staff and contributing to the development of standard operating procedures by attending meetings and conducting research. Also, the standard operating procedures clarify how OEC and FEMA will share information, solicit input on grants guidance language, and review grant applications.

Participants. Including relevant participants helps ensure individuals with the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities will contribute to the collaborative effort. OEC and FEMA identify points of contact in their memorandums of agreement. According to OEC officials, they did not always work with the correct FEMA staff before the 2014 memorandum was developed. Also, FEMA officials told us that their grants program staff who participate in the coordination effort with OEC perform those specific responsibilities as a collateral duty on an as needed basis. According to OEC officials, OEC’s performance plans outline coordination with FEMA and areas related to the agencies’ memorandum of agreement for the staff who handle grant issues. OEC and FEMA officials said participants’ responsibilities include serving as technical subject matter experts and reviewing language for grants guidance and notices of funding opportunities.

Resources. Collaborating agencies should identify the human, financial, and technological resources they need to initiate or sustain their efforts. OEC and FEMA staff their collaborative effort with employees from their grants offices to address their human resource needs. These employees perform work related to emergency communications grants as outlined in their performance plans or as a collateral duty. The agencies also provide OEC access to FEMA’s non-disaster grants system to share grantee information. According to OEC and FEMA officials, their collaboration efforts do not require either agency to obligate funds or use special technology, such as online information-sharing tools.

Outcomes and Accountability. Collaborating agencies that create a means to monitor and evaluate their efforts can better identify areas for improvement. According to OEC and FEMA documentation, the primary goal of the draft standard operating procedures was to prevent grantees from improperly using federal funds, such as purchasing equipment that is not interoperable. OEC officials said the biggest gap in those standard operating procedures was that they did not include a monitoring program to ensure grantees were compliant with grant guidance, which include requirements for interoperability. OEC’s and FEMA’s July 2018 standard operating procedures established a process to track and monitor grantee compliance. They also identified a process for assessing the information they collect and how it will be shared among OEC and FEMA, and when appropriate, other stakeholders. At the time of our review, OEC and FEMA officials told us they had not implemented the monitoring procedures because the grants for the 2018 grant cycle were not yet awarded. Accordingly, we could not evaluate the effectiveness of the new procedures to monitor and assess grantee compliance, and without conducting such an evaluation, we could not determine whether OEC’s and FEMA’s efforts align with the key practice in this area. Senior officials from both agencies said the monitoring procedures would be updated if they do not work as intended.

OEC Incorporates FirstNet’s Network and Emerging Technologies into Its Plans and Offerings

After being established in 2007, OEC initially focused on enhancing the interoperability and continuity of LMR systems. However, according to OEC officials, its programs, products, and services have adapted and evolved to incorporate new modes of communications and technologies. Additionally, OEC’s technical assistance offerings for emergency communications technology have evolved over time as new technologies have come into use. For example, OEC’s technical assistance catalog contains new or enhanced offerings on topics related to broadband issues such as FirstNet’s network, Next Generation 911, alerts and warnings, and incident management.

In 2014, DHS released its second National Emergency Communications Plan, which identified the need to focus on broadband technologies, including FirstNet’s nationwide public-safety broadband network. One of the plan’s top priorities is “ensuring emergency responders and government officials plan and prepare for the adoption, integration, and use of broadband technologies, including the planning and deployment of the nationwide public-safety broadband network.” To meet this priority, OEC officials told us that they provide stakeholders with a wide range of products and services to help prepare for the adoption, integration, and use of broadband. For instance, officials said that they leverage OEC’s governance groups—SAFECOM, NCSWIC, and ECPC—to develop products and services and to identify specific challenges and requirements regarding broadband. Additionally, OEC officials told us that they coordinate regularly with FirstNet staff and invite FirstNet to meet and brief the stakeholder community on the latest deployment information. However, OEC officials told us that FirstNet’s network is one option available to public-safety and government officials to access broadband communications and information sharing and explained that OEC maintains a neutral position for all technologies and vendors. Accordingly, OEC is not responsible for promoting any vendor solutions, including FirstNet’s network, and there is no requirement for OEC to do so. Additionally, five of six OEC coordinators we interviewed told us that FirstNet’s network is only one of several emergency-communications technology options and that OEC should continue to provide information to public-safety stakeholders regarding other providers. For example, there are commercial carriers that provide wireless broadband services, and we have previously reported that these commercial carriers could choose to compete with FirstNet.

According to OEC officials, prior to the start of each fiscal year, OEC engages with stakeholders to gather feedback on new or revised technical assistance offerings, as well as updates to existing plans and documents. OEC officials told us that they expect an increase in technical assistance requests that focus on issues related to mobile data use, broadband governance, standard operating procedures, and policies and procedures. According to OEC officials, OEC has delivered more than 2,000 technical-assistance-training courses and workshops since 2007, and OEC will continually update its technical assistance offerings to incorporate new modes of communications and technologies into training, exercises, and standard operating procedures for its stakeholders.

The majority (7 of 10) of public-safety organizations that we interviewed told us that OEC sufficiently incorporates information regarding FirstNet’s network into its guidance and offerings. For example, officials from 6 of 10 organizations that we interviewed told us that OEC must strike a balance between FirstNet’s network and other emerging technologies, and that OEC has successfully accomplished this task. Additionally, the majority of SWICs responded to our survey that it is at least moderately important for OEC to incorporate the FirstNet network and emerging technologies into its written guidance, technical assistance offerings, training opportunities, workshops, and grant guidance, Furthermore, in most cases, SWICs responded that OEC has incorporated FirstNet’s network and emerging technologies into these areas, as follows:

FirstNet network. In our survey, the majority of SWICs responded that OEC has incorporated, to a large or moderate extent, FirstNet’s network into its written guidance (65 percent) and technical assistance offerings (59 percent), and half of SWICs said the same for OEC’s workshops. However, fewer SWICs reported that OEC incorporated FirstNet’s network, to a large or moderate extent, into its training opportunities (39 percent) and grant guidance (33 percent).

Emerging technologies. The majority of SWICs reported that OEC has incorporated, to a large or moderate extent, emerging technologies into its written guidance (87 percent); technical assistance offerings (81 percent); training opportunities (74 percent); workshops (78 percent); and grant guidance (56 percent).

See figure 3 for complete survey data regarding SWICs’ views on the extent that OEC has incorporated FirstNet’s network and emerging technologies into its offerings.

In surveying SWICs on the usefulness of OEC’s efforts to incorporate FirstNet’s network and emerging technologies into its offerings, we found the following:

FirstNet network. The majority of SWICs reported that OEC’s efforts to incorporate FirstNet’s network into its written guidance (67 percent), technical assistance offerings (59 percent), and workshops (59 percent) have been very or moderately useful. However, less than a majority of SWICs reported that OEC’s efforts to incorporate FirstNet’s network into its training opportunities (46 percent) and grant guidance (40 percent) have been very or moderately useful.

Emerging technologies. The majority of SWICs reported that OEC’s efforts to incorporate emerging technologies into its written guidance (93 percent), technical assistance offerings (85 percent), training opportunities (74 percent), workshops (85 percent), and grant guidance (72 percent) have been very or moderately useful.

See figure 4 for complete survey data regarding SWICs’ views on the usefulness of OEC’s efforts to incorporate FirstNet’s network and emerging technologies into its offerings.

Even following the implementation of FirstNet, public-safety stakeholders told us they expect OEC will play an important role in ensuring interoperable emergency communications, both regarding the FirstNet network and other technologies. For example, 45 of 54 (83 percent) of SWICs we surveyed reported that OEC will likely have a large or moderate role for ensuring interoperable emergency communications once FirstNet’s network is fully operational. Additionally, nearly all (9 of 10) of public-safety organizations we interviewed said that they believe OEC will continue to play an important role in ensuring interoperable emergency communications after the implementation of FirstNet’s network.

OEC Has Not Assessed Its Methods for Communicating with External Stakeholders

OEC is required to conduct extensive nationwide outreach to support and promote interoperable emergency-communications capabilities by state, regional, local, and tribal governments and public-safety agencies in the event of natural disasters and acts of terrorism and other man-made disasters. According to federal standards for internal control, management should externally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives. This includes communicating with external parties and using the appropriate methods of communication. The federal standards state that management should periodically assess the entity’s methods of communication so that the organization has the appropriate tools to communicate quality information throughout and outside of the entity on a timely basis.

Most public-safety organizations we interviewed told us that OEC communicates with their organization frequently through committee meetings and other means. For example, 9 of the 10 organizations told us that a key form of communication between their organization and OEC is participation in emergency-communications advisory groups such as SAFECOM, NCSWIC, and PSAC. Furthermore, OEC officials reported that OEC’s guidance documents, plans, tools, and technical assistance offerings are formally provided to the public-safety community through the SAFECOM, NCSWIC, and ECPC distribution lists. Governing body representatives then distribute the information to their organizations and stakeholders. These documents are also available on DHS’s website. Furthermore, 4 of the 10 organizations told us that they regularly have direct communications with OEC staff. The large majority of SWICs responded that they are very or moderately satisfied with the communication efforts from both OEC headquarters (81 percent) and OEC coordinators (93 percent).

However, some stakeholders identified communication challenges as well as opportunities for OEC to improve communication. For example, approximately one quarter (26 percent) of SWICs said that OEC does not communicate training well, and these SWICs reported that they are either unaware of OEC training opportunities related to FirstNet’s network and other emerging technologies, or that they mostly learn about OEC training opportunities from other sources. See figure 5 below for additional survey information regarding SWICs’ views on how well OEC communicates training opportunities related to FirstNet’s network and other emerging technologies.

Also with respect to OEC’s communication efforts with stakeholders, four of six OEC coordinators and 3 of 10 public-safety organizations we interviewed, along with 26 of 54 (48 percent) of the SWICs we surveyed, identified the need for OEC to use additional tools or approaches for improving communication with SWICs and the public-safety community. For example, one coordinator said that there are public-safety stakeholders who are unaware of OEC. Similarly, representatives from a public-safety organization we interviewed told us that OEC should help public-safety stakeholders better understand what OEC does. Both the OEC coordinator and public-safety stakeholders in these examples identified the need for OEC to use social media to improve public-safety stakeholders’ understanding of OEC and its offerings. Additionally, an OEC coordinator told us that each region is different, and unless there is an OEC coordinator who is proactive about communicating information to the public-safety community, then important information does not get out to the appropriate people. The coordinator also said that it is difficult to communicate information to all of the needed stakeholders because he is solely responsible for communicating with many public-safety entities and jurisdictions within multiple states. Furthermore, a SWIC reported that other organizations use social media for communicating during disasters and for notifying interested parties about events and trainings, and that OEC should do the same. OEC officials told us that NPPD recently established a Twitter account that OEC has used to increase awareness of programs, products, and services. However, since the establishment of the account in February 2018 through September 2018, only 23 of NPPD’s 280 tweets and retweets (8.2 percent) made mention of OEC, 15 of which occurred in March 2018.

In addition to social media, some public-safety organizations and SWICs identified additional tools or approaches that OEC could use to improve communication with the public-safety community. These tools and approaches include designating an intergovernmental specialist or liaison within OEC to coordinate with public-safety stakeholders, developing additional regional-focused meetings such as conferences and workshops, and creating online or distance-learning opportunities (e.g., online training, webinars, online chat or bulletin board services, etc.).

Although OEC officials told us that they employ mechanisms to understand the effectiveness of OEC’s programs, products, and services, we found OEC has not specifically assessed its methods of communication. For example, OEC analyzes feedback forms provided at meetings and stakeholder engagements, gathers direct input from stakeholders through in-person and phone discussions and e-mail, tracks the open rate of e-mails and website and blog post traffic, and reviews social media analytics for specific event campaigns. At the time of our review, OEC officials told us that they were developing a formal performance-management program to measure the impact of OEC’s programs on the public-safety and national security/emergency preparedness communities. However, these broad efforts aimed at reviewing the overall programs are not designed for the specific purpose of assessing OEC’s methods of communication, and OEC does not have any plans in place for doing so.

Lacking an assessment of its methods of communication, OEC may be missing opportunities to learn which tools and approaches are the most effective and to use those to deliver timely information to public-safety stakeholders. As noted above, this can result in public-safety officials missing trainings or not receiving other helpful information. Furthermore, not using additional methods of communication or tools could contribute to uncertainty among the public-safety community about OEC’s mission and its efforts to improve the interoperability of emergency communications.

Conclusions

OEC has multiple efforts supporting interoperable emergency communications that the public-safety community relies on to better respond to emergency situations. Although public-safety stakeholders we contacted were generally satisfied with OEC’s communications efforts, OEC could be missing opportunities to use additional tools and approaches, such as social media, to improve communication with public- safety officials. Absent an assessment of its methods of communication, OEC cannot ensure it is using the best methods to provide relevant and timely information on training opportunities, workshops, technical assistance offerings, and other emergency-communications information to the public-safety community.

Recommendation for Executive Action

OEC should assess its methods of communication to help ensure it has the appropriate tools and approaches to communicate quality information to public-safety stakeholders, and as appropriate, make adjustments to its communications strategy. (Recommendation 1)

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. In response, DHS provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix III. DHS concurred with our recommendation and provided an attachment describing the actions it would take to implement the recommendation.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines (1) the Office of Emergency Communications’ (OEC) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) collaborative efforts to develop and implement guidance for grantees using federal grants for interoperable emergency communications; (2) how OEC incorporates FirstNet’s nationwide public-safety broadband network and other emerging technologies into its plans and offerings, and stakeholders’ views regarding those efforts; and (3) the extent to which OEC has assessed its methods of communication.

To evaluate OEC’s and FEMA’s collaborative efforts to develop and implement grant guidance, we collected and reviewed documentation relevant to the collaborative effort, including memorandums of agreements, standard operating procedures, and meeting agendas. We assessed OEC’s and FEMA’s actions against the seven key considerations for interagency collaborations. We also interviewed OEC and FEMA Grant Programs Directorate officials who have responsibilities for Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants. We asked them to discuss their approach to interagency collaboration, including the process to jointly develop grant guidance language. We asked agency officials questions that were based on the key considerations for implementing interagency collaborative mechanisms that we identified in a prior report.

To determine how OEC has incorporated FirstNet’s network and other emerging technologies into its plans and offerings, we reviewed relevant OEC documentation, including fact sheets and technical assistance guides. We also reviewed the 2014 National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) and OEC’s March 2017 biennial report to Congress on the progress toward meeting NECP goals. We interviewed OEC headquarters officials about the agency’s efforts to date, including how OEC develops its offerings and workshops and communicates this information to the public-safety community. We also interviewed 6 of 10 OEC coordinators using a semi-structured interview format to get on-the- ground perspectives from OEC staff who serve as points of contact for public-safety stakeholders. We selected OEC coordinators to achieve variety across geography, population density, tribal presence, and territory representation. We interviewed OEC coordinators to obtain their perspectives as subject matter experts, but their views should not be attributed to OEC’s official agency position.

In addition, to obtain stakeholders’ views on OEC’s efforts to incorporate FirstNet’s network and other emerging technologies into plans and offerings, we surveyed all 54 statewide interoperability coordinators (SWIC) from 48 states, five territories, and the District of Columbia. We obtained a list of SWICs from DHS and confirmed additional contact information via e-mail. We conducted a web-based survey to learn SWICs’ perspectives on issues including the importance of incorporating FirstNet’s network and other emerging technologies into OEC’s plans and offerings, OEC’s communication with the public-safety community, and SWICs’ level of satisfaction with OEC’s efforts. To ensure the survey questions were clear and accurately addressed the relevant terms and concepts, we pretested the survey with SWICs from three states: Illinois, Massachusetts, and Texas. These SWICs were selected to get perspectives from officials who have served in the role for at least several years and SWICs who are new to the position. We administered our survey from May 2018 to July 2018 and received 54 responses for a 100 percent response rate.

We also used a semi-structured interview format to obtain views from representatives from 10 public-safety organizations who have expertise in public-safety and federal emergency-communications efforts (see table 1). To identify relevant organizations, we reviewed our prior report that identified 34 organizations that are members of both OEC’s SAFECOM advisory group and FirstNet’s Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC). We researched the members to help determine the extent to which each organization is involved in issues related to our review. We selected 10 public-safety organizations to interview on the basis of: (1) this research, (2) information from DHS, and (3) a literature review. Because one association declined our request for an interview, we contacted and interviewed another relevant organization from the original list of 34 member organizations. The views shared by the representatives we interviewed are not generalizable to all public-safety organizations that interact with OEC; however, we were able to secure the participation of organizations that focus on various public-safety issues across federal, state, local, and tribal jurisdictions and thus believe their views provide a balanced and informed perspective on the topics discussed.

To evaluate the extent that OEC has assessed its methods of communication, we reviewed OEC’s documentation for collecting stakeholders’ feedback. We also reviewed the interview responses from OEC officials and the public-safety organizations listed in table 1 and the SWIC survey data pertaining to OEC’s communications efforts. We assessed OEC’s efforts against federal standards for internal control regarding external communications and periodic evaluation of its methods of communication.

Appendix II: Survey of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators

The questions we asked in our survey of statewide interoperability coordinators (SWIC) and the aggregate results of responses to the closed-ended questions are shown below. We do not provide results for the open-ended questions. We surveyed all SWICs from 48 states, five territories, and the District of Columbia. We administered our survey from May 2018 to July 2018 and received 54 responses for a 100 percent response rate. Due to rounding, the aggregated results for each closed- ended question may not add up to exactly 100 percent. For a more detailed discussion of our survey methodology see appendix I.

Governance

1. What best describes the Statewide Interoperability Coordinator (SWIC) in your state?

1a. If you selected “Other,” please explain. (Written responses not included)

2. Does the SWIC also serve in the role of the FirstNet State Point of Contact (SPOC)?

0% 2a. If no, how often does the SWIC coordinate with the SPOC on FirstNet’s nationwide public safety broadband network?

2b. If you selected “rarely or never,” please explain. (Written responses not included)

OEC Coordination Support - FirstNet’s Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network

The questions in this section ask your opinion about OEC’s efforts to help the public safety community improve interoperable emergency communications capabilities. This section will be about FirstNet’s nationwide public safety broadband network.

3. In your opinion, how important is it for OEC to incorporate FirstNet’s nationwide public safety broadband network into the following areas?

Please specify the other area in the box below. (Written responses not included)

4. To what extent has OEC incorporated FirstNet’s nationwide public safety broadband network into the following areas?

Please specify the other area in the box below. (Written responses not included)

5. In your opinion, how useful have OEC’s efforts to incorporate FirstNet’s nationwide public safety broadband network into the following areas been in helping your state address challenges with its emergency communications?

Please specify the other area in the box below. (Written responses not included) 6. Please provide any additional comments you have on OEC’s efforts to address FirstNet’s nationwide public safety broadband network as part of interoperable emergency communications. (Written responses not included) 7. What, if anything, could OEC do to further address FirstNet’s nationwide public-safety broadband network in its interoperable emergency communications efforts? (Written responses not included)

8. In your opinion, to what extent will OEC have a role for ensuring interoperable emergency communications once FirstNet’s nationwide public-safety broadband network is fully operational?

8a. Please explain your response to question 8 in the box below. (Written responses not included)

OEC Coordination Support - Emerging Technologies

The questions in this section ask your opinion about OEC’s efforts to help the public safety community improve interoperable emergency- communications capabilities. This section will be about other emerging technologies.

9. Should OEC address the following emerging technologies in its interoperable emergency communications efforts?

Wireless Local Area Networks (e.g., Wi-Fi)

9a. If you responded “Yes” to other, please specify in the box below. (Written responses not included)

10. In your opinion, how important is it for OEC to incorporate emerging technologies into the following areas?

Please specify the other area in the box below. (Written responses not included)

11. To what extent has OEC incorporated emerging technologies into the following areas?

Please specify the other area in the box below. (Written responses not included)

12. In your opinion, how useful have OEC’s efforts to incorporate emerging technologies into the following areas been in helping your state address challenges with its emergency communications?

Please specify the other area in the box below. (Written responses not included) 13. Please provide any additional comments you have on the usefulness of OEC’s efforts to incorporate emerging technologies into interoperable emergency communications. (Written responses not included) 14. What, if anything, could OEC do to further incorporate emerging technologies into its interoperable emergency communications efforts? (Written responses not included)

OEC Communication Efforts

The following questions are about OEC’s communication efforts with SWICs and the public safety community.

15. In your opinion, how well does OEC communicate to SWICs training opportunities in the following areas?

Emerging technologies (i.e., Wi-Fi, NextGen 911, etc.)

15a. If you responded to other, please specify in the box below. (Written responses not included)

16. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the communication efforts from the following OEC organizational levels?

16a. If you responded to other, please specify in the box below. (Written responses not included)

17. In your opinion, are there additional tools or approaches that OEC could use to improve communication with SWICs and the public-safety stakeholder community?

17a. Please identify and describe additional tools and approaches in the box below. (Written responses not included)

18. In your opinion, does OEC face any challenges that affect its ability to meet the needs of the public safety community?

18a. Please explain in the box below. (Written responses not included)

SAFECOM Grant Guidance

The following questions ask your opinion about SAFECOM grant guidance for interoperable emergency communications equipment. OEC develops annual SAFECOM guidance in an effort to provide current information on emergency communications policies, eligible costs, best practices, and technical standards for state, local, tribal, and territorial grantees investing federal funds in emergency communications projects.

19. In your opinion, how clear are the following aspects of the SAFECOM grant guidance for interoperable emergency communications equipment?

19a. If you responded to other, please specify in the box below. (Written responses not included)

20. In the past 2 years, has your state developed supplemental statewide guidance to clarify the SAFECOM grant guidance for interoperable emergency communications equipment?

20a. Please explain in the box below, why your state developed supplemental statewide guidance. (Written responses not included)

21. In your opinion, is there a need to improve the SAFECOM grant guidance for interoperable emergency communications equipment?

21a. If yes, please explain in the box below. (Written responses not included)

Closing

22. If you would like to expand upon any of your responses to the questions above, or if you have any other comments about OEC’s interoperable emergency communications efforts, please write them in the box below. (Written responses not included)

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Sally Moino (Assistant Director); Ray Griffith (Analyst in Charge); Josh Ormond; Cheryl Peterson; Kelly Rubin; Andrew Stavisky; Sarah Veale; Michelle Weathers; and Ralanda Winborn made key contributions to this report.