One of the key provisions of the President’s Management Agenda, released in 2001, is the expansion of electronic government. To implement this provision, OMB sought to identify potential projects that could be implemented to address the issue of multiple federal agencies’ performing similar tasks that could be consolidated through e–government processes and technology. To accomplish this, OMB established a team called the E– Government Task Force, which analyzed the federal bureaucracy and identified areas of significant overlap and redundancy in how federal agencies provide services to the public. The task force noted that multiple agencies were conducting redundant operations within 30 major functions and business lines in the executive branch. For example, the task force found that 10 of the 30 federal agencies it studied had ongoing activities in the National Security and Defense line of business, while 13 of the 30 agencies had ongoing activities related to Disaster Preparation and Response Management. To address such redundancies, the task force evaluated a variety of potential projects, focusing on collaborative opportunities to integrate IT operations and simplify processes within lines of business across agencies and around citizen needs. Twenty-five projects were selected to lead the federal government’s drive toward e–government transformation and enhanced service delivery. In its e–government strategy, published in February 2002, OMB established a portfolio management structure to help oversee and guide the selected initiatives. The five portfolios in this structure are “government to citizen,” “government to business,” “government to government,” “internal efficiency and effectiveness,” and “cross-cutting.” For each initiative, OMB designated a specific agency as the managing partner responsible for leading the initiative, and also assigned other federal agencies as partners in carrying out the initiative. OMB initially approved Project SAFECOM as an e–government initiative in October 2001. SAFECOM falls within the government-to-government portfolio, due to its focus on accelerating the implementation of interoperable public safety communications at all levels of government. As described in its 2002 e–government report, OMB planned for SAFECOM to address critical shortcomings in efforts by public safety agencies to achieve interoperability and eliminate redundant wireless communications networks. OMB also stated that the project was expected to save lives and lead to better-managed disaster response, as well as result in billions of dollars in budget savings from “right-sized” federal communications networks and links to state networks . In order to effectively carry out their normal duties and respond to extraordinary events such as natural disasters and domestic terrorism, public safety agencies need the ability to communicate with those from other disciplines and jurisdictions. However, the wireless communications used today by many police officers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and other public safety agencies do not provide such capability, which hinders their ability to respond. For example, emergency agencies responding to events such as the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City and the attacks of September 11, 2001, experienced difficulties while trying to communicate with each other. Historically, the ability of first responders to communicate with those from other disciplines and jurisdictions has been significantly hampered because they often use different and incompatible radio systems operating on different frequencies of the radio spectrum. In February 2003, the National Task Force on Interoperability estimated the number of emergency response officials in the United States—also called first-responders—at about 2.5 million, working for 50,000 different agencies, such as law enforcement organizations, fire departments, and emergency medical services. Response to an emergency may involve any or all of these disciplines, as well as may additional personnel from the transportation, natural resources, or public utility sectors. A complex array of challenges affects the government’s ability to address the emergency communications interoperability problem. In addition to the vast number of distinct governmental entities involved, the National Task Force on Interoperability identified a variety of additional barriers, including the fragmentation and limited availability of radio communications spectrum for dedicated use by emergency personnel, incompatible and aging communications equipment, limited equipment standards within the public safety community, and the lack of appropriate life-cycle funding strategies. These barriers have been long-standing, and fully overcoming them will not be accomplished easily or quickly. Figure 1 summarizes the challenge of achieving seamlessly interoperable communications among the many personnel and organizations responding to an emergency. In some cases, first responders have resorted to stopgap measures to overcome communications problems. For example, some may swap radios with another agency at the scene of an emergency, others may relay messages through a common communications center, and still others may employ messengers to physically carry information from one group of responders to another. However, these measures have not always been adequate. The National Task Force on Interoperability identified several cases where the inability to communicate across agencies and jurisdictions in emergency situations was a factor in the loss of lives or delayed emergency response. Over the last decade, several federal programs have been established to address various aspects of public safety communications and interoperability. Among these was the Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) program—originally developed as a joint undertaking of the departments of Justice and the Treasury. PSWN’s focus was to promote state and local interoperability by establishing a technical resource center, collecting and analyzing data related to the operational environment of public safety communications, and initiating pilot projects to test and refine interoperable technology. Another similar initiative is the Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement (AGILE) program, which is run by the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice. AGILE was created to coordinate interoperability research within the Department of Justice and with other agencies and levels of government. AGILE has four main activities: (1) supporting research and development, (2) testing and evaluating pilot technologies, (3) developing standards, and (4) educating end users and policymakers. With roughly 100 agencies that use radio communications in law enforcement activities, the federal government also has a need for interoperable communications, both internally among its own departments and agencies and with state and local entities. This need has grown since the attacks of September 11, 2001, which blurred the distinctions between public safety and national security, and has placed federal entities such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Secret Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard into broader public safety roles. As a result, federal public safety personnel have an increased need to be able to communicate directly with one another and with their state and local counterparts. After more than 2 years, Project SAFECOM has made very limited progress in addressing its overall objective of achieving communications interoperability among entities at all levels of government. SAFECOM’s lack of progress has prevented it from achieving the benefits that were expected of it as one of the 25 OMB-sponsored e–government initiatives, including improving government efficiency and realizing budgetary savings. Two factors have contributed significantly to the project’s limited results. First, there has been a lack of sustained executive leadership, as evidenced by multiple shifts in program responsibility and management staff. Second, the project has not achieved the level of collaboration necessary for a complex cross-government initiative of this type. In recent months, the current project team has pursued various near-term activities that are intended to lay the groundwork for future interoperability, including establishing a governance structure that emphasizes collaboration with stakeholders and developing grant guidance for use with awards to public safety agencies that encourage planning for interoperability. However, it has not yet reached written agreements with several of its major stakeholders on their roles in the project or established a stable funding mechanism. Until these weaknesses are addressed, SAFECOM’s ability to achieve its ultimate goal of improving interoperable communications will remain in doubt. When the e–government initiative was launched in 2002, OMB identified achieving public safety interoperability and reducing redundant wireless communications infrastructures as the goal for Project SAFECOM. Specifically, SAFECOM was to achieve federal-to-federal interoperability throughout the nation, achieve federal-to-state/local interoperability throughout the nation, and achieve state/local interoperability throughout the nation. As of March 2004, Project SAFECOM has made very limited progress in addressing its overall objective of achieving communications interoperability among entities at all levels of government. Specifically, project officials could provide no specific examples of cases where interoperability had been achieved as a direct result of SAFECOM activities. Furthermore, program officials now estimate that a minimum level of interoperability will not occur until 2008, and full interoperability will not occur until 15 years later, in 2023. OMB expected SAFECOM’s value to citizens to include saved lives and better managed disaster response; however, because of the program’s limited progress, these benefits have not yet been achieved. OMB also forecasted that a reduction in the number of communications devices and their associated maintenance and training would result in cost savings, including “billions” in federal savings. Project officials are currently conducting a study to estimate potential federal savings, such as savings from reducing equipment purchases. However, according to the program manager, federal savings in the billions of dollars are not likely. He added, however, that state and local agencies could realize significant savings if they could rely on Project SAFECOM to conduct consolidated testing of equipment for compliance with interoperability standards. Finally, on the issue of federal agency efficiency, the project has achieved mixed results. Although SAFECOM absorbed the projects and functions of PSWN, it has not consolidated the functions of Project AGILE, despite the similarities between the two programs’ activities. According to SAFECOM’s manager, the project lacks the authority to consolidate additional programs. As we have identified in previous work, successful organizations foster a committed leadership team and plan for smooth staff transitions. The transition to modern management requires sustained, committed leadership on the part of agency executives and managers. As in the case with well-run commercial entities, strong leadership and sound management are central to the effective implementation of public-sector policies or programs, especially transformational programs such as the OMB-sponsored e–government initiatives. Instead of sustained management attention, SAFECOM has experienced frequent changes in management, which have hampered its progress. OMB originally designated the Department of the Treasury, which was already involved in overseeing PSWN, as the project’s managing partner. As originally conceived, SAFECOM would build on PSWN’s efforts to achieve interoperability among state and local agencies by building an interoperable federal communications network. However, in May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which had an emergency-response mission more closely aligned with SAFECOM’s goals, was designated managing partner. At that time, project staff focused their efforts on securing funding and beginning outreach to stakeholders such as the AGILE program and associations representing local emergency agencies. By September 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency had replaced its SAFECOM management team and shifted its implementation strategy to focus on helping first responders make short- term improvements in interoperability using vehicles such as demonstration projects and research. At that time, development of an interoperable federal first-responder communications system was seen as a long-term goal. Following the establishment of DHS, in May 2003, the project was taken out of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and assigned to the department’s new Science and Technology Directorate because of a perceived need to incorporate more technical expertise. At that time, the project was assigned to a fourth management team. Figure 2 summarizes the major management changes that have occurred throughout Project SAFECOM’s history. This lack of sustained, committed executive leadership hampered SAFECOM’s ability to produce results tied to its overall objective. The changing of project teams approximately every 6 to 9 months has meant that much of the effort spent on the project has been made repeatedly to establish administrative structures, develop program plans, and obtain stakeholder input and support. Additionally, according to the project manager of PSWN, the changes in leadership have led to skepticism among some of the project’s stakeholders that the project’s goals can be met. The ability of Project SAFECOM to meet its overall objective has also been hampered by inadequate collaboration with the project’s stakeholders. As an umbrella program meant to coordinate efforts by various federal, state, and local agencies to achieve interoperability, SAFECOM’s success relies on cross-agency collaboration. As we have previously reported, cross- organizational initiatives such as this require several conditions to be successful, including: (1) a collaborative management structure; (2) clear agreements among participants on purpose, outcomes, and performance measures; (3) shared contribution of resources; and (4) a common set of operating standards. While the project’s current management team has made progress in developing a collaborative management structure, SAFECOM does not yet have other necessary structures or agreements in place. Its previous management teams worked on creating a collaborative management structure by, for example, seeking input from stakeholders and drafting a memorandum of understanding among the departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and the Treasury, but these activities were not completed at the time of the transition to DHS. Since taking control of the project in May 2003, Project SAFECOM has pursued a number of activities that stress collaboration and are intended to lay the groundwork for future interoperability, according to its current manager. Specifically, DHS established a governance structure for the project in November 2003 that includes executive and advisory committees to formalize collaboration with stakeholders and provides a forum for significant input on goals and priorities by federal agencies and state and local representatives. The department has also conducted several planning conferences meant to identify project stakeholders to reach agreements with them on the program’s purpose and intended outcomes. One such conference, in December 2003, provided an opportunity for stakeholders to modify program goals and the tasks planned to address them. The program manager also cited a statement of support by several organizations representing local first responders as evidence that the current structure is achieving effective collaboration. In addition, project officials are working with the Commerce Department to catalog all existing federal agencies that use public safety communications systems and networks. Further, program officials noted that the SAFECOM project developed grant guidance that promotes interoperability by requiring public safety agencies to describe specific plans for achieving improved interoperability when applying for grants that fund communications equipment. This guidance represents a positive step, but it does not provide public safety agencies with complete specifications for achieving interoperability. Specifically, the guidance strongly encourages applicants to ensure that purchased equipment complies with a technical standard for interoperable communications equipment that has not yet been finalized and that, according to program officials, addresses only part of the interoperability problem. This guidance has already been incorporated into grants awarded by the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. However, Project SAFECOM has not yet fulfilled other conditions necessary for successful cross-government collaboration. First, project officials have not signed memorandums of agreement with all of the project’s stakeholders. As shown in table 1, agreements were completed on funding or program participation with five agencies in fiscal year 2003. However, DHS did not reach a 2003 agreement with the Department of the Interior or the Department of Justice, both agencies designated as funding partners. According to the SAFECOM program manager, the Department of the Interior has not fully determined the extent of its expected participation in the program, and the Department of Justice had to delay its agreement until it received approval to reprogram the necessary funds. Justice has reached an agreement with DHS for fiscal year 2004, but as of March 2004, none of the other funding partners have signed agreements covering the current year. In addition, although other federal agencies and the organizations representing state and local stakeholders are represented in SAFECOM’s governing structure and some have expressed support for the program, none has reached an agreement with DHS that commits it to provide nonfinancial assistance to the project. Finally, those agreements that were in place did not address key program parameters, such as specific program outcomes or performance measures. While the program’s stakeholders agreed to a broad set of goals and expected outcomes at the December planning meeting, as of March 2004, there was no agreement on performance measures for them. According to the program manager, new performance measures were under development. Second, while effective collaboration requires the sharing of resources, DHS had not received all of the funding it planned to receive from its federal partners. During fiscal year 2003, SAFECOM received only about $17 million of the $34.9 million in funding OMB allocated to it from these funding partners. About $1.4 million of that $17 million was not received until late September 2003, when only a week remained in the fiscal year. According to program officials, these funding shortfalls and delays resulted in the program’s having to delay some of the tasks it had intended to complete, such as identifying the project’s major milestones. Finally, although DHS has not yet developed a common set of operating standards for SAFECOM, efforts to identify technical standards are underway, according to program officials. For example, program officials from SAFECOM and AGILE plan to accelerate the development of an incomplete standard for interoperable communications equipment that is cited in SAFECOM's grants guidance. Program officials are also developing a document describing the requirements for public safety communications interoperability, which is intended to form the basis for future technical development efforts. SAFECOM also is supporting several demonstration projects and vendor presentations to publicize currently available interoperable systems. The absence of many aspects of successful collaboration could hamper SAFECOM officials’ ability to achieve the program’s goals. For example, the lack of written agreements with some stakeholders raises concerns about the extent to which those agencies are willing to contribute to the program’s success. Also, until performance measures and technical standards are finalized and implemented, it will be difficult to determine the extent of any progress. Should such difficulties continue to hamper the program’s progress in fulfilling its overall goals, solutions to the problems of public safety interoperability will be further delayed. While the lack of rapid progress in improving interoperable communications among first responders may be understandable, considering the complexity of the issues and the number of entities involved, federal efforts to address the issue as an e–government initiative have been unnecessarily delayed by management instability and weaknesses in collaboration. Since taking over management of the project in May 2003, DHS has shown greater executive commitment to the project than had previously been demonstrated. The agency has determined that a long-term, intergovernmental effort will be needed to achieve the program’s overall goal of improving emergency response through broadly interoperable first-responder communications systems, and it has taken steps to lay the groundwork for this by creating a governance structure allowing for significant stakeholder input on program management. However, DHS has made less progress in establishing written agreements with other government agencies on responsibilities and resource commitments. The DHS effort could experience difficulties if it does not reach such agreements, which have proven essential to the success of other similarly complex, cross-agency programs. To enhance the ability of Project SAFECOM to improve communications among emergency personnel from federal, state, local, and tribal agencies, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to complete written agreements with the project’s identified stakeholders, including federal agencies and organizations representing state and local governments. These agreements should define the responsibilities and resource commitments that each of those organizations will assume and include specific provisions that measure program performance. In written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in appendix I, the Department of Homeland Security’s GAO liaison agreed that the lack of interoperable communications hampers emergency response. The official also provided additional information about activities undertaken by the current program management team since May 2003, including the implementation of a management structure that includes state and local stakeholders, the ongoing development of technical standards, and development of a database to track federal interoperability efforts. We discuss these activities in our report. Regarding our draft recommendation, this official indicated that DHS has provided draft agreements to SAFECOM’s federal funding partners, and added that DHS supports the need for further delineation of responsibilities and funding in future MOUs. Until DHS reaches specific agreements with all of SAFECOM’s stakeholders, including nonfunding federal partners and state and local partners, its ability to achieve its objectives will continue to be hindered. The official also stated that DHS agrees that performance measures are essential for adequate program management, and added that SAFECOM had developed a strategic performance management tool. However, DHS did not provide any evidence that SAFECOM had determined the specific performance measures that will be used to assess progress against its goals, or the process for applying them. Until such measures are implemented, program managers will be unable to determine the impact of their efforts. We also made technical corrections, as appropriate, in response to DHS’s comments. We plan to send copies to this report to the Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Government Reform; the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census; and the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations. In addition, we will provide copies to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of OMB. Copies will also be available without charge on GAO’s Web site at www.gao.gov. Should you have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 512-6240 or John de Ferrari, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-6335. We can also be reached by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov and deferrarij@gao.gov, respectively. Other key contributors to this report were Felipe Colón, Jr., Neil Doherty, Michael P. Fruitman, Jamie Pressman, and James R. Sweetman, Jr. The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Summary: One of the five priorities in the President's Management Agenda is the expansion of electronic government (e-government)--the use of Internet applications to enhance access to and delivery of government information and services. Project SAFECOM is one of the 25 initiatives sponsored by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to implement this agenda. Managed by the Department of Homeland Security, the project's goal is to achieve interoperability among emergencyresponse communications at all levels of government, while at the same time realizing cost savings. GAO assessed the government's progress in implementing Project SAFECOM. While its overall objective of achieving communications interoperability among emergency response entities at all levels of government is a challenging task that will take many years to fully accomplish, Project SAFECOM, in its 2-year history, has made very limited progress in addressing this objective. OMB's e-government objectives of improving operating efficiency and achieving budgetary savings within federal programs have also been largely stymied. Two major factors have contributed to the project's limited progress: (1) lack of consistent executive commitment and support, and (2) an inadequate level of interagency collaboration. In its 2 1/2-year history, Project SAFECOM has had four different management teams in three different agencies. In recent months, the current project team has pursued various near-term activities that are intended to lay the groundwork for future interoperability, including establishing a governance structure that emphasizes collaboration with stakeholders and developing guidance for making grants that can be used to encourage public safety agencies to plan for interoperability. However, it has not yet reached written agreements with several of its major stakeholders on their roles in the project or established a stable funding mechanism. Until these shortcomings are addressed, the ability of Project SAFECOM to deliver on its promise of improved interoperability and better response to emergencies will remain in doubt.