Congress should consider requiring the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Treasury to collaborate on the development and implementation of a joint radio communications solution. Specifically, Congress should consider requiring the departments to establish an effective governance structure that includes a formal process for making decisions and resolving disputes, define and articulate a common outcome for this joint effort, and develop a joint strategy for improving radio communications. Congress should also consider specifying deadlines for completing each of these requirements. We obtained written comments on a draft of this report from DOJ, DHS, and the Treasury, which are reprinted in appendixes II, III, and IV respectively. In comments from DOJ, the Assistant Attorney General for Administration largely disagreed with our findings and conclusions. DOJ stated that we had not recognized that circumstances had changed since the inception of our review and that departmental leaders had agreed on a common approach that would address concerns we have raised. However, we believe that our review accurately characterizes the evolution of circumstances throughout the development of IWN as well as the current status of the program. For example, we noted in our briefing slides that the departments had collaborated productively on the Seattle/Blaine pilot program, which served as a working demonstration and test of the IWN design. We also acknowledged in the slides that the departments had recently established a memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding development of interoperable communications systems in the future. While that step is important, an effective governance structure still needs to be implemented before decisions can be made and procedures established for overcoming the differing missions, priorities, funding structures, and capabilities among the departments. DOJ also commented that the current business environment is not conducive to a single mobile-radio solution, and that such an approach is no longer feasible or cost-effective. In the slides we pointed out that a single, common project or system is not necessarily the best solution, and our conclusions do not advocate such a system as the best solution. We concluded that successful collaboration on a joint solution—whether that solution is IWN or an alternative approach—is necessary to promote efficient use of resources, reduce duplicative efforts, and encourage interoperability. Although a joint solution could be based on a single, nationwide network, such as an extension of the original IWN design, it could also be, for example, a mutually agreed-upon strategy for developing separate but interoperable networks and systems. DOJ stated that it planned to continue pursuing eventual integration and interoperability with DHS and other entities using common standards and guidelines rather than through a single, central solution. We agree that the implementation of common standards and guidelines are important and can help facilitate a joint project such as this. The Seattle/Blaine pilot project, for example, was based on the Project 25 set of standards. However, agreement has not yet been reached on the standards and guidelines that are to shape future collaboration among the departments on a joint approach to radio communications. As reflected in the briefing slides, we believe that success hinges on a means to overcome differences in missions and cultures, a collaborative governance structure through which decisions are made and disputes resolved, and a joint strategy to align activities and resources to achieve a joint solution. DOJ also stated that where the report seemed to suggest that DOJ and other agencies had not collaborated, that in fact the departments had worked together and collaborated extensively. However, as described in the briefing, we disagree with this statement. While DOJ has collaborated with other agencies on the Seattle/Blaine pilot project, the agencies determined that that specific system design could not be implemented on a nationwide scale, and they have not acted collaboratively to identify an alternative approach for a jointly coordinated communication solution. As discussed in the briefing, while the departments recently established an MOU regarding development of interoperable communications systems in the future, no progress had been made in re-establishing the joint governance structure outlined in the agreement, and the departments have been actively working to develop independent communications systems. In effectively abandoning collaboration on a joint solution, the departments risk duplication of effort and inefficient use of resources as they continue to invest significant resources in independent solutions. Further, these stovepipe efforts will not ensure the interoperability needed to serve day-to-day law enforcement operations or a coordinated response to terrorist or other events. As stated above, the adoption of key collaboration practices will be critical to a successful outcome. Finally, the department stated that it understood GAO’s concern that the departments risk duplication of effort and that it had made great progress in minimizing duplication/overlap, as evidenced by the Seattle/Blaine pilot project. However, as discussed above, the pilot project has not been chosen as a basis for a jointly coordinated, nationwide communications solution, nor has any other specific strategy been adopted that would provide assurance that duplication will be minimized in the future. DOJ also agreed that agencies must begin meeting quarterly to improve communications and that they must better document their overall, collective strategy beyond the MOU. Until a joint strategy to align activities and resources is adopted, we believe the potential for duplication and overlap remains. In comments from DHS, the Director of the Departmental Audit Liaison Office discussed the development of the IWN program and noted that issues had been identified with joint governance, the management of priorities and requirements across multiple departments, and addressing user requirements within schedule constraints. In this regard, DHS stated that our report was focused on mandating that the three agencies have one radio communications solution and that it implied that any other option would result in a stovepipe of non-interoperable communications systems. We disagree. As discussed above, in the slides we pointed out that a single, common project or system is not necessarily the best solution, and we do not advocate such a system as the best solution. We concluded that successful collaboration on a joint solution—whether that solution is IWN or an alternative approach—is necessary to promote efficient use of resources, reduce duplicative efforts, and encourage interoperability. Although a joint solution could be based on a single, nationwide network, such as an extension of the original IWN design, it could also be, for example, a mutually agreed-upon strategy for developing separate but interoperable networks and systems. Regarding the breakdown of the original collaborative structure for the IWN program, DHS commented that DHS and DOJ are employing different radio designs funded by Congress that are commensurate with spectrum needs in their environments and that the two departments have different regional priorities, such that a common system will not work on a national level. In the briefing, we recognized that the two departments had different priorities and that those differences led to an inability to resolve conflicts on the original IWN program. However, as discussed above, in effectively abandoning collaboration on a joint solution, the departments risk duplication of effort and inefficient use of resources as they continue to invest significant resources in independent solutions. Given their differences, adoption of key collaboration practices will be critical to ensuring that separate projects in the two departments are successfully coordinated in the future so that radio communications are improved among federal agencies, costs reduced, and duplication eliminated wherever possible. DHS also commented that we had not discussed the departments’ concerns about the projected expense of expanding the Seattle/Blaine pilot project to a national level. While we did not discuss specific cost projections for this option, which is no longer being considered, we recognize that any investment in coordinated future communications between the departments will be substantial. Accordingly, it will be critical to ensure a properly coordinated approach so that duplication and overlap is avoided. Regarding current collaboration with DOJ and Treasury, DHS noted that a memorandum of understanding had been signed in January 2008 and described how decisions are to be made under this agreement. DHS went on to describe internal priorities, such as the need for radio system upgrades in Customs and Border Protection, and stated that any cross- departmental efforts should not result in delays to these priorities. We do not dispute the urgency for upgrading radio systems that DHS cites. However, given that all three departments have differing priorities, as discussed in the slides, it remains critical that key collaboration practices are adopted to ensure successful coordination across departments. Finally, DHS briefly outlined its vision for a “tiered” strategy for achieving effective radio communications in a timely and cost-effective manner. DHS stated that the first goal of the partnership will be to define an outcome and an associated joint strategy. We agree that these elements—along with an effective governance structure that includes a formal process for making decisions and resolving disputes—are key elements for successful collaboration and implementation of a joint radio communications solution. In comments from the Treasury, the Chief Information Officer stated that the department continued to be highly supportive of the overall goals of the IWN program and looked forward to continuing to work with DOJ and DHS to advance law enforcement and emergency services communications. We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees and the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and Secretary of the Treasury. The report also is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6253 or at willemssenj@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. Objective, Scope, and Methodology DOJ, DHS, and Treasury Are No Longer Pursuing a Joint Solution Agency Comments and Our Evaluation The tragic events of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina have highlighted the critical importance of having effective radio communications systems for law enforcement and public safety agencies including federal agencies with such responsibilities. In order to effectively respond to events such as natural disasters, criminal activities, and domestic terrorism, law enforcement and public safety agencies need reliable systems that enable communication with their counterparts in other disciplines and jurisdictions.