Homeland Security
Federal Leadership Needed to Facilitate Interoperable Communications Between First Responders Gao ID: GAO-04-1057T September 8, 2004Lives of first responders and those whom they are trying to assist can be lost when first responders cannot communicate effectively as needed. This testimony addresses issues of determining the status of interoperable wireless communications across the nation, the potential roles that federal, state, and local governments can play in improving these communications, and the need to structure grant programs so that they better support public sector efforts to improve these communications.
The current wireless interoperable communications capabilities of first responders nationwide have not been determined. To assess these capabilities, a set of requirements is needed that can be used to assess "what is" compared to "what should be." The Office of Management Budget (OMB) has established the Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program, SAFECOM, within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as the focal point for coordinating federal efforts to improve interoperable communication. In April 2004, SAFECOM issued a document designed to serve as a set of baseline requirements and is working to develop a baseline of current capabilities by July 2005. This is a difficult task, and the details of SAFECOM's baseline study have yet to be finalized. The federal government can take a leadership role and provide support for developing (1) a national database of interoperable communication frequencies, (2) a common nomenclature for those frequencies, (3) a national architecture that identifies communications requirements and technical standards, and (4) statewide interoperable communications plans. SAFECOM has limited authority and ability to oversee and coordinate federal and state efforts as it is dependent upon other agencies for funding and their willingness to cooperate. DHS, where SAFECOM now resides, has recently announced it is establishing an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility to coordinate the federal response to the problems of interoperability. The exact structure and funding for this office, which will include SAFECOM, are still being developed. State and local governments can play a large role in developing and implementing plans to improve public safety agencies' interoperable communications. State and local governments own most of the physical infrastructure of public safety communications systems, and states play a central role in managing emergency communications. States, with broad input from local governments, are a logical choice to serve as a foundation for interoperability planning because incidents of any level of severity originate at the local level with states as the primary source of support. However, states are not required to develop interoperability plans, and there is no clear guidance on what should be included in such plans. The federal funding assistance programs to state and local governments do not fully support regional planning for communications interoperability. Federal grants that support interoperability have different requirements to tie funding to interoperable communications plans. In addition, uncoordinated federal and state level reviews limit the government's ability to ensure that federal funds are used to effectively support improved regional and statewide communications systems.
GAO-04-1057T, Homeland Security: Federal Leadership Needed to Facilitate Interoperable Communications Between First Responders
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-1057T
entitled 'Homeland Security: Federal Leadership Needed to Facilitate
Interoperable Communications Between First Responders' which was
released on September 08, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST:
Wednesday, September 8, 2004:
Homeland Security:
Federal Leadership Needed to Facilitate Interoperable Communications
Between First Responders:
Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director, Homeland Security and
Justice Issues:
GAO-04-1057T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-1057T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the
Census, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Lives of first responders and those whom they are trying to assist can
be lost when first responders cannot communicate effectively as needed.
This testimony addresses issues of determining the status of
interoperable wireless communications across the nation, the potential
roles that federal, state, and local governments can play in improving
these communications, and the need to structure grant programs so that
they better support public sector efforts to improve these
communications.
What GAO Found:
In a recent report on interoperable communications, we recommended
that the Secretary of DHS (1) continue to develop a nationwide
database and common terminology for public safety interoperability
communications channels; (2) help states assess interoperability in
specific locations against defined requirements; (3) through federal
grant awards, encourage state action to establish and support a
statewide body to develop and implement detailed improvement plans;
and (4) require that grant applications be in compliance with statewide
interoperability plans, once they are developed. GAO also recommends
that the Director of OMB work with DHS to review SAFECOM‘s functions
and establish a long-term program with appropriate authority and
funding to coordinate interoperability efforts across the federal
government.
What GAO Recommends:
The current wireless interoperable communications capabilities of first
responders nationwide have not been determined. To assess these
capabilities, a set of requirements is needed that can be used to
assess ’what is“ compared to ’what should be.“ The Office of Management
Budget (OMB) has established the Wireless Public Safety Interoperable
Communications Program, SAFECOM, within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) as the focal point for coordinating federal efforts to
improve interoperable communication. In April 2004, SAFECOM issued a
document designed to serve as a set of baseline requirements and is
working to develop a baseline of current capabilities by July 2005.
This is a difficult task, and the details of SAFECOM‘s baseline study
have yet to be finalized.
The federal government can take a leadership role and provide support
for developing (1) a national database of interoperable communication
frequencies, (2) a common nomenclature for those frequencies, (3) a
national architecture that identifies communications requirements and
technical standards, and (4) statewide interoperable communications
plans. SAFECOM has limited authority and ability to oversee and
coordinate federal and state efforts as it is dependent upon other
agencies for funding and their willingness to cooperate. DHS, where
SAFECOM now resides, has recently announced it is establishing an
Office for Interoperability and Compatibility to coordinate the federal
response to the problems of interoperability. The exact structure and
funding for this office, which will include SAFECOM, are still being
developed.
State and local governments can play a large role in developing and
implementing plans to improve public safety agencies‘ interoperable
communications. State and local governments own most of the physical
infrastructure of public safety communications systems, and states play
a central role in managing emergency communications. States, with broad
input from local governments, are a logical choice to serve as a
foundation for interoperability planning because incidents of any level
of severity originate at the local level with states as the primary
source of support. However, states are not required to develop
interoperability plans, and there is no clear guidance on what should
be included in such plans.
The federal funding assistance programs to state and local governments
do not fully support regional planning for communications
interoperability. Federal grants that support interoperability have
different requirements to tie funding to interoperable communications
plans. In addition, uncoordinated federal and state level reviews limit
the government‘s ability to ensure that federal funds are used to
effectively support improved regional and statewide communications
systems.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-1057T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact William O. Jenkins, Jr.
at (202) 512-8777 or jenkinsjrw@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the critical
issue of wireless interoperable communications for first
responders.[Footnote 1] In a recent report, we addressed the importance
of determining the status of interoperable wireless communications
across the nation and defining the potential roles that federal, state,
and local governments can play in improving these
communications.[Footnote 2] The inability of first responders--police
officers, fire fighters, emergency medical service personnel, public
health officials, and others--to communicate effectively over wireless
systems with one another as needed during an emergency is a long-
standing and widely recognized problem in many areas across the
country. Lives of first responders and those whom they are trying to
assist can be lost when first responders cannot communicate effectively
as needed.
Public safety officials generally recognize that effective
"interoperable" communications is the ability to talk with whom they
want, when they want, when authorized, but not the ability to talk with
everyone all of the time. The effective interoperability of wireless
systems permits a rapid and coordinated response to an emergency
incident, whether that incident is a "routine" spill from an overturned
tanker truck or railcar, a natural disaster, or a terrorist attack. In
this statement, we (1) discuss the current status of interoperable
wireless communication between first responders across the nation, (2)
identify areas in which the federal government can take a leadership
role, (3) highlight the critical role that state and local governments
can play in the emergency communications planning process, and (4)
discuss the need to structure grant programs so that they better
support long-term, ongoing, and sustainable public sector efforts to
improve security.
In doing our work, we met with federal, state, and local
officials,[Footnote 3] obtained and reviewed appropriate
documentation, attended several meetings of public safety
communications officials, and met with staff of the National Governors
Association. We conducted our work from July 2003 through August 2004
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Summary:
* The current wireless interoperable communications capabilities of
first responders nationwide has not been determined. To assess these
capabilities, a set of requirements is needed that can be used to
assess "what is" compared to "what should be." The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has designated the Wireless Public Safety
Interoperable Communications Program (SAFECOM), within the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), as the focal point for coordinating federal
efforts to improve interoperable communications. In April 2004, SAFECOM
issued a document designed to serve as a set of baseline requirements
and is working to develop a baseline of current capabilities by July
2005. This is a difficult task, and the details of SAFECOM's baseline
study are still being worked out.
* The federal government can provide the leadership, long-term
commitment, and focus to help state and local governments meet
interoperability goals. For example, the federal government can provide
the leadership and support for developing (1) a national database of
interoperable communications frequencies, (2) a common nomenclature for
those frequencies, (3) a national architecture that identifies
communications requirements and technical standards, and (4) statewide
interoperable communications plans.
* DHS has recently created the Office of Interoperability and
Compatibility to coordinate the federal response to the problems of
interoperability in several functions, including wireless
communications. DHS expects the office to be fully established by
November 2004. As of August 2004, the exact structure and funding for
the office, including SAFECOM's role within the office, were still
being developed.
* With input from local governments and first responders, states can
serve as focal points for statewide planning to improve interoperable
communications. States can play a key role in improving interoperable
communications by establishing a management structure that includes
local participation and input to analyze and identify interoperability
gaps between "what is" and "what should be," developing comprehensive
local, state, and regional plans to address such gaps, and funding
implementation of these plans.
* The fragmented federal grant structure for first responders does not
support statewide interoperability planning. SAFECOM has developed
grant guidance for interoperability, but cannot require that consistent
guidance be incorporated in all federal first responder grants. The
structure of some federal grants does not support long-term planning
efforts because, for example, they did not require a communications
plan prior to receiving grant funds and required a 1-or 2-year
performance period. The federal and state governments lack a
coordinated grant review process to ensure that funds allocated to
local governments are used for communication projects that complement
each other and add to overall statewide and national interoperability
capacity.
Background:
Interoperable communications is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a
necessary means for achieving an important goal--the ability to respond
effectively to and mitigate incidents that require the coordinated
actions of first responders, such as multi-vehicle accidents, natural
disasters, or terrorist attacks. Interoperable communications are but
one component, although a key one, of an effective incident command
planning and operations structure. As shown in figure 1, determining
the most appropriate means of achieving interoperable communications
must flow from a comprehensive incident command and operations plan
that includes developing an operational definition of who is in charge
for different types of events and what types of information would need
to be communicated (voice, data, or both) to whom under what
circumstances. Other steps include:
* defining the range of interoperable communications capabilities
needed for specific types of events;
* assessing the current capabilities to meet these communications
needs;
* identifying the gap between current capabilities and defined
requirements;
* assessing alternative means of achieving defined interoperable
communications requirements; and:
* developing and implementing a comprehensive plan--including, for
example, mutual aid agreements, technology and equipment
specifications, and training--for closing the gap between current
capabilities and identified requirements.
Interoperable communications requirements are not static, but change
over time with changing circumstances (e.g., new threats) and
technology (e.g., new equipment) and additional available broadcast
spectrum. Consequently, both a short-and long-term "feedback loop" that
incorporates regular assessments of current capabilities and needed
changes is important.
Figure 1: A Planning Process for Interoperable Communications:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In addition, the first responder community is extensive and extremely
diverse in size and the types of equipment in their communications
systems. According to SAFECOM officials, there are over 2.5 million
public safety first responders within more than 50,000 public safety
organizations in the United States. Local and state agencies own over
90 percent of the existing public safety communications infrastructure.
This intricate public safety communications infrastructure
incorporates a wide variety of technologies, equipment types, and
spectrum bands.[Footnote 4] In addition to the difficulty that this
complex environment poses for federal, state, and local coordination,
85 percent of fire personnel, and nearly as many emergency management
technicians, are volunteers with elected leadership. Many of these
agencies are small and do not have technical expertise; only the
largest of the agencies have engineers and technicians.
In the past, a stovepiped, single jurisdiction, or agency-specific
communication systems development approach prevailed--resulting in
none or less than desired interoperable communications systems. Public
safety agencies have historically planned and acquired communications
systems for their own jurisdictions without concern for
interoperability. This meant that each state and local agency developed
communications systems to meet their own requirements, without regard
to interoperability requirements to talk to adjacent jurisdictions.
For over 15 years, the federal government has been concerned with
public safety spectrum issues, including communications
interoperability issues.[Footnote 5] A variety of federal departments
and agencies have been involved in efforts to define the problem and to
identify potential solutions, such as DHS, the Department of Justice
(DOJ), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) within the
Department of Commerce (DOC), among others. Today, a combination of
federal agencies, programs, and associations are involved in
coordinating emergency communications.
DHS has several agencies and programs involved with addressing first
responder interoperable communication barriers, including the SAFECOM
program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Office
for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). As one of its 24 E-Gov initiatives,
OMB in 2001 created SAFECOM to unify the federal government's efforts
to help coordinate the work at the federal, state, local, and tribal
levels to establish reliable public safety communications and achieve
national wireless communications interoperability. The SAFECOM program
was brought into DHS in early 2003. In June 2003, SAFECOM partnered
with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to hold a summit that brought
together over 60 entities involved with communications interoperability
policy setting or programs.
Several technical factors specifically limit interoperability of public
safety wireless communications systems. First, public safety agencies
have been assigned frequencies in new bands over time as available
frequencies become congested and as new technology made other
frequencies available for use. As a result, public safety agencies now
operate over multiple frequency bands--operating on these different
bands required different radios because technology was not available to
include all bands in one radio. Thus, the new bands provided additional
capabilities but fragmented the public safety radio frequency spectrum,
making communications among different jurisdictions difficult. Another
technical factor inhibiting interoperability is the different
technologies or different applications of the same technology by
manufacturers of public safety radio equipment. One manufacturer may
design equipment with proprietary technology that will not work with
equipment produced by another manufacturer.
Current Status of Wireless Communications Interoperability Nationwide
Is Unknown:
The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the
nation--including the current interoperable communications
capabilities of first responders and the scope and severity of the
problems that may exist--has not been determined. Although various
reports have documented the lack of interoperability of public safety
first responders wireless communications in specific locations,
complete and current data do not exist documenting the scope and
severity of the problem at the local, state, interstate, or federal
levels across the nation. Accumulating this data may be difficult,
however, because several problems inhibit efforts to identify and
define current interoperable communications capabilities and future
requirements.
First, current capabilities must be measured against a set of
requirements for interoperable communications, and these requirements
vary according to the characteristics of specific incidents at specific
locations. Who needs to talk to whom, when they need to talk, and what
set of communications capabilities should be built or acquired to
satisfy these requirements depends upon whether interoperable
communications are needed for day-to-day mutual aid, task force
operations that occur when members of different agencies come together
to work on a common problem such as the National Capitol Region sniper
investigation, or major events such as a terrorist attack. Requirements
for interoperable communications also may change with the expanding
definition of first responders--from the traditional police, fire, and
emergency medical providers to include such professions as health care
providers and other professions--and the evolution of new technology.
Establishing a national baseline for public safety wireless
communications interoperability will be difficult because the
definition of whom to include as a first responder is evolving, and
interoperability problems and solutions are situation specific and
change over time to reflect new technologies and operational
requirements. SAFECOM has embarked on an effort to establish a national
baseline of interoperable communications capabilities by July 2005, but
SAFECOM is still working out the details of the study that would be
used to develop the baseline. At the time of our review, SAFECOM
officials acknowledged that establishing a baseline will be difficult
and said they are working out the details of their baseline study but
still expect to complete it by July 2005.
Second, technical standards for interoperable communications are still
under development. Beginning in 1989, a partnership between industry
and the public safety user community developed what is known as Project
25 (P-25) standards. According to the Public Safety Wireless Network
(PSWN)[Footnote 6] program office, Project 25 standards remain the only
user-defined set of standards in the United States for public safety
communications. DHS purchased radios that incorporate the P-25
standards for each of the nation's 28 urban search and rescue teams.
PSWN believes P-25 is an important step toward achieving
interoperability, but the standards do not mandate interoperability
among all manufacturers' systems. Standards development continues today
as new technologies emerge that meet changing user needs and new policy
requirements.
Third, new public safety mission requirements for video, imaging, and
high-speed data transfers, new and highly complex digital
communications systems, and the use of commercial wireless systems are
potential sources of new interoperability problems. Availability of new
spectrum can also encourage the development of new technologies and
require further development of technical standards. For example, the
FCC recently designated a new band of spectrum, the 4.9 Gigahertz (GHz)
band, for use and support of public safety. The FCC provided this
additional spectrum to public safety users to support new broadband
applications such as high-speed digital technologies and wireless local
area networks for incident scene management. In providing the
additional spectrum, the FCC requested comments on the implementation
of technical standards for fixed and mobile operations on the band.
Federal Leadership Could Facilitate Interoperable Wireless
Communications:
The federal government, states, and local governments have important
roles to play in assessing interoperability needs, identifying gaps in
meeting those needs, and developing comprehensive plans for closing
those gaps. The federal government can provide the leadership, long-
term commitment, and focus to help state and local governments meet
these goals. For example, currently national requirements for
interoperable communications are incomplete and no national
architecture exists, there is no standard database to coordinate
frequencies, and no common nomenclature or terminology exists for
interoperability channels. States alone cannot develop the requirements
or a national architecture, compile the nationwide frequency database,
or develop a common nationwide nomenclature. Moreover, the federal
government alone can allocate communications spectrum for public safety
use.
National Requirements and a National Architecture Are Needed:
One key barrier to the development of a national interoperability
strategy has been the lack of a statement of national mission
requirements for public safety--what set of communications capabilities
should be built or acquired--and a strategy to get there. A key
initiative in the SAFECOM program plan for the year 2005 is to complete
a comprehensive Public Safety Statement of Requirements. The Statement
is to provide functional requirements that define how, when, and where
public safety practitioners communicate. On April 26, 2004, DHS
announced the release of the first comprehensive Statement of
Requirements defining future communication requirements and outlining
future technology needed to meet these requirements. According to DHS,
the Statement provides a shared vision and an architectural framework
for future interoperable public safety communications. DHS describes
the Statement of Requirements as a living document that will define
future communications services as they change or become new
requirements for public safety agencies in carrying out their missions.
SAFECOM officials said additional versions of the Statement will
incorporate whatever is needed to meet future needs but did not provide
specific details.
A national architecture has not yet been prepared to guide the creation
of interoperable communications. An explicit, commonly understood, and
agreed-to blueprint, or architecture, is required to effectively and
efficiently guide modernization efforts. SAFECOM officials said they
are responsible for development of a national communications
architecture and that will take time because SAFECOM must first assist
state and local governments to establish their communications
architectures. They said SAFECOM will then collect the state and local
architectures and fit them into a national architecture that links
federal communications into the state and local infrastructure.
Standard Databases and Common Nomenclature Have Not Been Established:
Technology solutions by themselves are not sufficient to fully address
communication interoperability problems in a given local government,
state, or multi-state region. State and local officials consider a
standard database of interoperable communications frequencies to be
essential to frequency planning and coordination for interoperability
frequencies and for general public safety purposes. Police and fire
departments often have different concepts and doctrines on how to
operate an incident command post and use interoperable communications.
Similarly, first responders, such as police and fire departments, may
use different terminology to describe the same thing. Differences in
terminology and operating procedures can lead to communications
problems even where the participating public safety agencies share
common communications equipment and spectrum. State and local officials
have drawn specific attention to problems caused by the lack of common
terminology in naming the same interoperability frequency.
The Public Safety National Communications Council (NCC) was appointed
by the FCC to make recommendations for public safety use of the 700 MHz
communications spectrum. The NCC recommended that the FCC mandate (1)
Regional Planning Committee[Footnote 7] use of a standard database to
coordinate frequencies during license applications and (2) designation
of specific names for each interoperability channel on all pubic safety
bands. The NCC said that both were essential to achieve
interoperability because public safety officials needed to know what
interoperability channels were available and what they were called. In
January 2001, the FCC rejected both recommendations. It said that the
first recommendation was premature because the database had not been
fully developed and tested. The FCC directed the NCC to revisit the
issue of mandating the database once the database was developed and had
begun operation. The FCC rejected the common nomenclature
recommendation because it said that it would have to change the rules
each time the public safety community wished to revise a channel label.
In its final report of July 25, 2003, the NCC renewed both
recommendations. It noted that the FCC had received a demonstration of
a newly developed and purportedly operational database, the Computer
Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and Database System (CAPRAD), and
that its recommendations were consistent with previous FCC actions,
such as the FCC's designating medical communications channels for the
specific purpose of uniform usage.
SAFECOM's Functions Are Critical for a Long-Term Program:
In 2001, OMB established SAFECOM to unify the federal government's
efforts to help coordinate work at the federal, state, local, and
tribal levels in order to provide reliable public safety communications
and achieve national wireless communications interoperability.
However, SAFECOM was established as an OMB E-Gov initiative with a goal
of improving interoperable communications within 18-24 months--a
timeline too short for addressing the complex, long-term nature of the
interoperability problem.[Footnote 8] In addition, the roles and
responsibilities of various federal agencies within and outside DHS
involved in communications interoperability have not been fully
defined, and SAFECOM's authority to oversee and coordinate federal and
state efforts has been limited in part because it has been dependent
upon other federal agencies for cooperation and funding and has
operated without signed memorandums of understanding negotiated with
various agencies.
DHS, where SAFECOM now resides, announced in May 2004 that it had
created an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility within the
Science and Technology Directorate, to coordinate the federal response
to the problems of wireless and other functional interoperability and
compatibility. The new office is responsible for coordinating DHS
efforts to address interoperability and compatibility of first
responder equipment, to include both communications equipment and
equipment such as personal protective equipment used by police and fire
from multiple jurisdictions. The plan as approved by the Secretary of
DHS states that by November 2004 the new office will be fully
established and that action plans and a strategy will be prepared for
each portfolio (type or class of equipment). The plan presents a budget
estimate for creation of the office through November 2004 but does not
include costs to implement each portfolio's strategy. The plans for the
new office do not clarify the roles of various federal agencies or
specify what oversight authority the new office will have over federal
agency communications programs. As of August 2004, the exact structure
and funding for the office, including SAFECOM's role within the office,
were still being developed.
Multiple Federal Agencies Have Roles And Responsibilities For
Interoperability:
DHS has not defined how it will convert the current short-term program
and funding structures to a permanent program office structure. When it
does, DHS must carefully define the SAFECOM mission and roles in
relation to other agencies within DHS and in other federal agencies
that have missions that may be related to the OMB-assigned mission for
SAFECOM. SAFECOM must coordinate with multiple federal agencies,
including ODP within DHS, the Advanced Generation of Interoperability
for Law Enforcement (AGILE)[Footnote 9] program and the Office for
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)[Footnote 10] in DOJ, the
Department of Defense, the FCC, NTIA within the Department of Commerce,
and other agencies. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 assigns the DHS
Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) primary responsibility within
the executive branch for preparing the United States for acts of
terrorism, including coordinating or, as appropriate, consolidating
communications and systems of communications relating to homeland
security at all levels of government. An ODP official said the Homeland
Security Act granted authority to ODP to serve as the primary agency
for preparedness against acts of terrorism, to specifically include
communications issues. He said ODP is working with states and local
jurisdictions to institutionalize a strategic planning process that
assesses and funds their requirements. ODP also plans to develop tools
to link these assessments to detailed interoperable communications
plans.
SAFECOM officials also will face a complex issue when they address
public safety spectrum management and coordination. NTIA is responsible
for federal government spectrum use, and the FCC is responsible for
state, local, and other nonfederal spectrum use. The National
Governors' Guide to Emergency Management noted that extensive
coordination will be required between the FCC and the NTIA to provide
adequate spectrum and to enhance shared local, state, and federal
communications. In September 2002, GAO reported that FCC and NTIA
efforts to manage their respective areas of responsibility were not
guided by a national spectrum strategy, and the agencies had not
implemented long-standing congressional directives to conduct joint,
national spectrum planning.[Footnote 11] The FCC and the NTIA generally
agreed with our recommendation that they develop a strategy for
establishing a clearly defined national spectrum plan and submit a
report to the appropriate congressional committees. In a separate
report, we also discussed several barriers to reforming spectrum
management in the United States.[Footnote 12] On June 24, 2004, the
Department of Commerce released two reports entitled Spectrum Policy
for the 21st Century--The President's Spectrum Policy Initiative, the
second of which contained recommendations for assessing and managing
public safety spectrum.[Footnote 13]
SAFECOM's Authority to Coordinate Federal and State Efforts Is Limited:
SAFECOM has limited authority to coordinate federal efforts to assess
and improve interoperable communications. Although SAFECOM has
developed guidance for use in federal first responder grants, SAFECOM
does not have authority to require federal agencies to coordinate their
grant award information. SAFECOM is currently engaged in an effort with
DOJ to create a "collaborative clearinghouse" that could facilitate
federal oversight of interoperable communications funding to
jurisdictions and allow states access to this information for planning
purposes. The database is intended to decrease duplication of funding
and evaluation efforts, de-conflict the application process, maximize
efficiency of limited federal funding, and serve as a data collection
tool for lessons learned that would be accessible to state and locals.
However, SAFECOM officials said that the challenge to implementing the
coordinated project is getting federal agency collaboration and
compliance. As of February 2004, the database contained award
information from the 2003 COPS and FEMA interoperability communications
equipment grants, but no others within or outside DHS.
SAFECOM's oversight authority and responsibilities are dependant upon
its overall mission. OMB officials told us that they are currently in
the process of refocusing the mission of the SAFECOM program into three
specific parts: (1) coordination of federal activities through several
initiatives, including participation in the Federal Interagency
Coordination Council (FICC)[Footnote 14] and establishment of a process
for federal agencies to report and coordinate with SAFECOM on federal
activities and investments in interoperability; (2) developing
standards; and (3) developing a national architecture for addressing
communications interoperability problems. They said identification of
all current and planned federal agency communications programs
affecting federal, state, and local wireless interoperability is
difficult. According to these officials, OMB is developing a strategy
to best utilize the SAFECOM program and examining options to enforce
the new coordination and reporting process. SAFECOM officials said they
are working to formalize the new reporting and coordination process by
developing written agreements with other federal agencies and by
obtaining concurrence of major state and local associations to the
SAFECOM governance structure. SAFECOM officials noted that this newly
refocused SAFECOM role does not include providing technical assistance
or conducting operational testing of equipment. They said that their
authority to conduct such activities would come from DHS enabling
directives. SAFECOM officials also said that they have no enforcement
authority to require other agencies to use the SAFECOM grant guidance
in their funding decisions or to require agencies to provide grant
program information to them for use in their database.
State and Local Governments Can Play a Central Role:
States, with broad input from local governments, can serve as focal
points for statewide planning to improve interoperable communications.
The FCC has recognized the important role of states. In its rules and
procedures, the FCC concluded that because states play a central role
in managing emergency communications and are usually in control at
large scale-events and disasters, states should administer the
interoperability channels within the 700 MHz band of communications
spectrum. States can play a key role in improving interoperable
communications by establishing a management structure that includes
local participation and input to analyze and identify interoperability
gaps between "what is" and "what should be," developing comprehensive
local, state, and regional plans to address such gaps, and funding
implementation of these plans. The states we visited or contacted--
California, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Washington and a five-state
Midwest consortium--were in various stages of formulating these
management structures.
States are not required to establish a statewide management structure
or to develop interoperability plans, and there is no clear guidance on
what should be included in such plans. In addition, no requirement
exists that interoperability of federal communications systems be
coordinated with state and local government communications systems. The
use of a standard database on communications frequencies by public
safety agencies within the state and common terminology for these
frequencies in preparation and implementation of these statewide
interoperable plans are essential but are also not required. Without
planning, coordination, and applicable standards, the communications
systems developed between and among locations and levels of government
might not be interoperable.
States are key players in responding to normal all-hazards emergencies
and to terrorist threats. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8
notes that awards to states are the primary mechanism for delivery of
federal preparedness assistance for these missions. State and local
officials also believe that states, with broad local and regional
participation, have a key role to play in coordinating interoperable
communications supporting these missions. The Public Safety Wireless
Network (PSWN), in its report on the role of the state in providing
interoperable communications, agreed. According to the PSWN report,
state leadership in public safety communications is key to outreach
efforts that emphasize development of common approaches to regional and
statewide interoperability. The report said that state officials have a
vested interest in establishing and protecting statewide wireless
infrastructures because public safety communications often must cross
more than one local jurisdictional boundary.[Footnote 15]
However, states are not required to establish a statewide capability to
(1) integrate statewide and regional interoperability planning and (2)
prepare statewide interoperability plans that maximize use of spectrum
to meet interoperability requirements of day-to-day operations, joint
task force operations, and operations in major events. Federal, state,
and local officials are not required to coordinate federal, state, and
local interoperability spectrum resources that, if successfully
addressed, have significant potential to improve public safety wireless
communications interoperability. As a result, states may not prepare
comprehensive and integrated statewide plans that address the specific
interoperability issues present in each state across first responder
disciplines and levels of government.
Federal interoperability with state and local wireless communications
systems is hindered because NTIA and FCC control different frequencies
in the VHF and UHF bands. To enhance interoperability, NTIA has
identified 40 federal government frequencies that can be used by state
and local public safety agencies for joint law enforcement and incident
response purposes.[Footnote 16] FCC, however, designated different
frequencies for interoperability in the VHF band and in the UHF band
from spectrum it controls for use by state and local public safety
agencies.
Federal Grant Structure Does Not Support Statewide Planning:
DHS recently estimated that reaching an accelerated goal of
communications interoperability will require a major investment of
several billion dollars within the next 5 to 10 years. As a result of
these extraordinary costs, federal funding is but one of several
resources state and local agencies must use in order to address these
costs. Furthermore, given the high costs, the development of an
interoperable communications plan is vital to useful, non-duplicative
spending. However, the federal funding assistance programs to state and
local governments do not fully support regional planning for
communications interoperability. Federal grants that support
interoperability have different requirements to tie funding to
interoperable communications plans. In addition, uncoordinated federal
and state level grant reviews limit the government's ability to ensure
that federal funds are used to effectively support improved regional
and statewide communications systems.
States and Local Governments Are Not Required to Provide Interoperable
Communications Plans:
Local, state and federal officials agree that regional communications
plans should be developed to guide decisions on how to use federal
funds for interoperable communications; however, the current funding
requirements do not support this planning process. Although recent
grant requirements have encouraged jurisdictions to take a regional
approach to planning, current federal first responder grants differ in
their requirements to tie funding to interoperable communications
plans. State and local jurisdictions are not required to provide an
interoperable communications plan as a prerequisite to receiving some
federal grant funds. As a result, there is no assurance that federal
funds are being used to support a well-developed strategy for improving
interoperability. For example, the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security
Grants and Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grants require new
grantees to conduct a needs assessment and submit a Homeland Security
Strategy to ODP, and continuation grantees to allocate funds according
to their existing Homeland Security Strategies. However, the required
strategies are high-level and broad in nature. They do not require that
project narratives or a detailed communications plan be submitted by
grantees prior to receiving grant funds.
In another example, fiscal year 2003 funding provided by COPS and FEMA
for the Interoperable Communications Equipment Grants did not require
that a communications plan be completed prior to receiving grant funds.
However, grantees were required to provide documentation that they were
actively engaged in a planning process and a multi-jurisdictional and
multidisciplinary project narrative was required. In addition to
variations in requirements to create communications interoperability
plans, federal grants also lack consistency in defining what "regional"
body should conduct planning.
Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also Present
Challenges to Short-and Long-Term Planning:
State and local officials also said that the short grant application
deadlines for recent first responder grants limited their ability to
develop cohesive communications plans or perform a coordinated review
of local requests. Federal officials acknowledged that the limited
submission timeframes present barriers to first responders for
developing plans prior to receiving funds. For example, several federal
grant programs--the Homeland Security Grants, UASI grants, COPS and
FEMA interoperable communication equipment grants, and Assistance to
Firefighters Grants--allow states only 30 or 60 days from the date of
grant announcement to submit a grant proposal. These time frames are
sometimes driven by appropriations language or by the timing of the
appropriations enactment. Furthermore, many grants have been awarded to
state and locals for communications interoperability that have 1 or 2
year performance periods, and according to state and local officials,
do not support long-term solutions. For example, Assistance to Fire
Fighters Grants, COPS/ FEMA's interoperable communications equipment
grants, and National Urban Search and Rescue grants all have 1-year
performance periods.[Footnote 17] UASI, the Homeland Security Grants
program, and DOJ's Local Law Enforcement Block Grants have 2-year
performance periods.
No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure Funds are
Used to Improve Regional or Statewide Communications Interoperability:
The federal and state governments lack a coordinated grant review
process to ensure that funds allocated to local governments are used
for communication projects that complement each other and add to
overall statewide and national interoperability. Federal and state
officials said that each agency reviews its own set of applications and
projects, without coordination with other agencies. As a result, grants
could be given to bordering jurisdictions that propose conflicting
interoperability solutions. In fiscal year 2003, federal officials from
COPS and FEMA attempted to eliminate awarding funds to conflicting
communication systems within bordering jurisdictions by coordinating
their review of interoperable communications equipment grant proposals.
However, COPS and FEMA are only two of several federal sources of funds
for communications interoperability.
In an attempt to address this challenge, in 2003, SAFECOM coordinated
with other agencies to create the document, Recommended Federal Grant
Guidance, Public Safety Communications and Interoperability Grants,
which lays out standard grant requirements for planning, building, and
training for interoperable communications systems. The guidance is
designed to advise federal agencies on who is eligible for the first
responder interoperable communications grants, the purposes for which
grant funds can be used, and eligibility specifications for
applicants.[Footnote 18] The guidance recommends standard minimum
requirements, such as requirements to "—define the objectives of what
the applicant is ultimately trying to accomplish and how the proposed
project would fit into an overall effort to increase interoperability,
as well as identify potential partnerships for agreements."
Additionally, the guidance recommends, but does not require, that
applicants establish a governance group consisting of local, tribal,
state, and federal entities from relevant public safety disciplines and
purchase interoperable equipment that is compliant with phase one of
Project-25 standards.
Conclusions:
A fundamental barrier to successfully addressing interoperable
communications problems for public safety has been the lack of
effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental
planning. Jurisdictional boundaries and unique public safety agency
missions have often fostered barriers that hinder cooperation and
collaboration. No one first responder agency, jurisdiction, or level of
government can "fix" the nation's interoperability problems, which vary
across the nation and often cross first responder agency and
jurisdictional boundaries. Changes in spectrum available to federal,
state and local public safety agencies--primarily a federal
responsibility conducted through the FCC and NTIA--changes in
technology, and the evolving missions and responsibilities of public
safety agencies in an age of terrorism all highlight the ever-changing
environment in which interoperable communications needs and solutions
must be addressed and effective federal leadership provided.
Interdisciplinary, intergovernmental, and multi-jurisdictional
partnership and collaboration are essential for effectively addressing
interoperability shortcomings.
Recommendations:
In our July 2004 report,[Footnote 19] we made recommendations to DHS
and OMB to improve the assessment and coordination of interoperable
communications efforts. We recommended that the Secretary of DHS:
* in coordination with the FCC and NTIA, continue to develop a
nationwide database of public safety frequency channels and a standard
nationwide nomenclature for these channels, with clear target dates for
completing both efforts;
* establish requirements for interoperable communications and assist
states in assessing interoperability in their states against those
requirements;
* through DHS grant guidance encourage states to establish a single,
statewide body to assess interoperability and develop a comprehensive
statewide interoperability plan for federal, state, and local
communications systems in all frequency bands; and:
* at the appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that
federal grant funding for communications equipment be approved only
upon certification by the statewide body responsible for interoperable
communications that grant applications for equipment purchases conform
with statewide interoperability plans.
We also recommended that the Director of OMB, in conjunction with DHS,
review the interoperability mission and functions now assigned to
SAFECOM and establish those functions as a long-term program with
adequate authority and funding.
In commenting on our July 2004 report, the Department of Homeland
Security discussed actions the department is taking that are generally
consistent with the intent of our recommendations but did not directly
address specific steps detailed in our recommendations with respect to
establishment of statewide bodies responsible for interoperable
communications within the state, the development of comprehensive
statewide interoperability plans, and tying federal funds for
communications equipment directly to those statewide interoperable
plans. OMB did not provide written comments on the draft report.
This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may
have at this time.
GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For future contacts regarding this testimony, please call William O.
Jenkins, Jr., Homeland Security and Justice Issues, at (202) 512-8777.
Other individuals who made key contributions to this testimony include
Katherine Davis, Sally Gilley, Robert Hadley, Latesha Love, Gary
Malavenda, and Thomas James.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Our work addressed issues of public safety wireless communications
interoperability--i.e., communications that use radio frequency waves
instead of telephone wires for transmitting voice and data. We did not
address interoperability problems that may be found in other homeland
security functions, such as fire equipment, chem-bio equipment, and
information technology.
[2] U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Federal
Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First
Responder Interoperable Communications, GAO-04-740 (Washington, D.C.:
July 2004).
[3] To examine potential roles that state and local governments can
play in improving interoperability of first responder wireless
communications, we interviewed state and local officials in California,
Florida, Georgia, and Washington.
[4] Spectrum bands are the useable radio frequencies in the
electromagnetic distribution. Specific frequencies have been allocated
to the public safety community.
[5] The radiofrequency spectrum is the medium that enables wireless
communications of all kinds. Although the radio spectrum spans the
range from 3 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz, 90 percent of its use is
concentrated in the 1 percent of frequencies that lie below 3.1
gigahertz, because these frequencies have properties that make this
portion of the spectrum well suited for many important wireless
technologies. Radio waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation that
propagate in space as the result of particle oscillations. The number
of oscillations per second is called "frequency," which is measured in
units of hertz. The term "kilohertz" refers to thousands of hertz and
"gigahertz" to billions of hertz.
[6] DOJ and the Department of the Treasury formed PSWN to promote
effective public safety communications and to foster interoperability
among local, state, federal, and tribal communications systems. PSWN
was incorporated into DHS as part of the SAFECOM project in 2003.
[7] In 1987, the FCC developed a National Plan for Public Safety Radio
Services that set national guidelines for use of the 800 MHz spectrum
while allowing regional public safety planning committees to develop
regional plans tailored to their areas own particular communications
needs. A large portion of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum,
approximately 53 percent (12.5 MHz), is designated for general use by
local, regional, and state users. A regional planning process was
adopted to govern management of this public safety spectrum. It is a
process similar to that used in the 821-824 MHz and 866-869 MHz bands.
Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) are allowed maximum flexibility to
meet state and local needs, encourage innovative use of the spectrum,
and accommodate new and as yet unanticipated developments in technology
equipment. They are responsible for creating and managing regional
plans.
[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency
Emergency Communications Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration,
GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004).
[9] AGILE was the DOJ program to assist state and local law enforcement
agencies to communicate effectively and efficiently with one another
across agency and jurisdictional boundaries. DOJ's National Institute
of Justice (NIJ) has announced it is bringing the AGILE program to a
close and initiating a new program called Communications Technology, or
CommTech.
[10] Congress authorized COPS within DOJ to administer the
Interoperable Communications Technology Program in 2003. The program
awarded 14 grants totaling more than $66 million to first responders
for interoperable communications and provides technical assistance to
grantees.
[11] U.S. General Accounting Office, Telecommunications: Better
Coordination and Enhanced Accountability Needed to Improve Spectrum
Management, GAO-02-906 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2002).
[12] U.S. General Accounting Office, Telecommunications: Comprehensive
Review Of U.S. Spectrum Management With Broad Stakeholder Involvement
Is Needed, GAO-03-277 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003).
[13] U.S. Department of Commerce, Spectrum Policy For the 21st Century-
-The President's Spectrum Policy Initiative: Report 1, Recommendations
Of The Federal Government Spectrum Task Force and Report 2,
Recommendations From State and Local Governments And Private Sector
Responders (Washington, D.C.: June 2004).
[14] FICC is an informal council consisting of federal agencies, whose
mission is to help local, tribal, state, and federal public safety
agencies improve public safety response through more effective and
efficient interoperable wireless communications by reducing
duplication in programs and activities, identifying and promoting best
practices, and coordinating federal grants, technical assistance,
training, and standards. Proposed FICC members are federal agencies
within DOJ, DHS, Defense, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and
Commerce.
[15] See The Role of The States in Public Safety Wireless
Interoperability, PSWN (2002).
[16] NTIA states that these frequencies may not be used to meet day-to-
day communications needs of non-federal public safety agencies.
[17] COPS officials said that although the performance period for the
FY 2003 Interoperable Communications Technology Equipment and the COPS
Interoperable Communications Technology Program was one year, no-cost
extensions of time were available to grantees on a case-by-case basis
to accommodate unavoidable delays.
[18] DHS officials said that, in addition to outlining the eligibility
for grant dollars and the purposes for which federal dollars can be
used, the SAFECOM grant guidance provides consensus guidelines for
implementing a wireless communications system. DHS said this guidance
is useful in directing all agencies towards interoperability goals,
even if they are not specifically applying for federal funding.
[19] U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Federal
Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First
Responder Interoperable Communications, GAO-04-740 (Washington, D.C.:
July 2004).
